U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-01-2014, 04:42 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 17 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,992 posts, read 102,568,112 times
Reputation: 33059

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by AJNEOA View Post
As far as I can tell, your sarcasm was intended to make it sound ridiculous for someone to buy a car to "let it sit"...and I disagree with that assertion, as I have now pointed out multiple times where that's reasonable and real.

And as far as comprehension, please explain.
Here's my post that started this particular, er, discussion:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Ha, ha! Cheap new car. The cheapest sold in the US this year is close to $13K. Now I'm sure lots of people have that sitting in a shoebox under the bed to spend on something they don't really need.
The 10 Cheapest Cars Sold in America for 2014

I know some people don't use their cars for work, or every day, but if you have a car you have it to drive it. I'll repeat, it's disingenuous to blame the suburbanites for all the traffic in Boston.
To which you replied:

Quote:
Originally Posted by AJNEOA View Post
That's exactly the point. You may be sure, but that doesn't mean anything. And you conveniently skipped the other scenarios. I believe it's been repeated on here by many of the "urbanists" that they have a car and just don't drive it every day. In fact, I'm one of them!
Yes, I already took you and yours into account. The point is still that it is disingenuous to blame the Boston traffic solely on suburbanites, especially when Boston isn't even on the list of the 50 cities with the lowest car ownership.

NO ONE takes on car ownership if they have zero intent of driving. People may not drive every day, they may not drive to work, but you can be dang sure they drive some or they wouldn't own a flippin' car!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-01-2014, 07:36 PM
 
Location: Mt. Airy
5,311 posts, read 5,329,932 times
Reputation: 3562
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Here's my post that started this particular, er, discussion:



To which you replied:



Yes, I already took you and yours into account. The point is still that it is disingenuous to blame the Boston traffic solely on suburbanites, especially when Boston isn't even on the list of the 50 cities with the lowest car ownership.

NO ONE takes on car ownership if they have zero intent of driving. People may not drive every day, they may not drive to work, but you can be dang sure they drive some or they wouldn't own a flippin' car!
Your comprehension is the one that's lacking. I never blamed Boston's traffic on suburbanites, that was another poster (go back and re-read). My only point has been that just because someone owns a car, it doesn't mean they drive it consistently...especially when they live in an urban area. Here it is again for you:

Quote:
It doesn't mean those that have a car drive them much. In many cases of dense city living, people will park their car and drive it only occasionally if they live in an area that meets their needs. So, even if each household owns one car, it doesn't mean they're responsible for contributing to traffic on a daily basis....in fact, that's the joy of living in an area where you have either option.
Hmmm...nothing about blaming traffic solely on suburbanites...right? Also, nothing about driving zero, right? Take it for what it is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2014, 08:16 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 17 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,992 posts, read 102,568,112 times
Reputation: 33059
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJNEOA View Post
Your comprehension is the one that's lacking. I never blamed Boston's traffic on suburbanites, that was another poster (go back and re-read). My only point has been that just because someone owns a car, it doesn't mean they drive it consistently...especially when they live in an urban area. Here it is again for you:



Hmmm...nothing about blaming traffic solely on suburbanites...right? Also, nothing about driving zero, right? Take it for what it is.
I never said YOU specifically said that Boston's traffic problems are caused by suburbanites. I give up!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2014, 09:14 PM
 
2,941 posts, read 3,858,066 times
Reputation: 1439
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJNEOA View Post
It doesn't mean those that have a car drive them much. In many cases of dense city living, people will park their car and drive it only occasionally if they live in an area that meets their needs. So, even if each household owns one car, it doesn't mean they're responsible for contributing to traffic on a daily basis....in fact, that's the joy of living in an area where you have either option.
Bad assumption for any city. Lots of people have lots of places to go in an city that may or may not be well served by transit. They also have lots of needs that don't neatly fit into transit. I know someone who drives daily to the loop because as part of her job she needs the ability to be mobile and to quickly get to different locations which is something public transit is bad at. There are jobs outside of the CBD of any city and the transit may or may not be well geared towards getting there. In Chicago the only time public transit has any chance to beat an automobile is rush hour on the EL and to the loop. Change any part of that statement such as on the bus, or to Hyde park from Lincoln park or before/after rush then the automobile will be an better idea.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2014, 09:17 PM
 
2,941 posts, read 3,858,066 times
Reputation: 1439
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJNEOA View Post
Some people buy a used car or a cheap new car and only use it when they want (to leave town or run errands). Some people may have needed a car for a reverse commute out of the city (or for a certain type of job) and now they no longer work that job. Some people move to the city with a car that they needed in the suburbs and decide to keep it on hand for certain things. The latter is probably a pretty common scenario for people who are moving into more dense urban areas.
And some people actually live in an City and use their cars to get to work in the same City. Shocking,I know.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2014, 10:40 PM
 
Location: Mt. Airy
5,311 posts, read 5,329,932 times
Reputation: 3562
Quote:
Originally Posted by chirack View Post
And some people actually live in an City and use their cars to get to work in the same City. Shocking,I know.
Why would that be shocking?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2014, 10:50 PM
 
Location: Mt. Airy
5,311 posts, read 5,329,932 times
Reputation: 3562
Quote:
Originally Posted by chirack View Post
Bad assumption for any city. Lots of people have lots of places to go in an city that may or may not be well served by transit. They also have lots of needs that don't neatly fit into transit. I know someone who drives daily to the loop because as part of her job she needs the ability to be mobile and to quickly get to different locations which is something public transit is bad at. There are jobs outside of the CBD of any city and the transit may or may not be well geared towards getting there. In Chicago the only time public transit has any chance to beat an automobile is rush hour on the EL and to the loop. Change any part of that statement such as on the bus, or to Hyde park from Lincoln park or before/after rush then the automobile will be an better idea.
It wasn't an assumption that people don't drive when they live in the city. It was a note that just because someone owns a car, it doesn't mean they drive it a lot. In a dense city like Boston, there is potential that people could be taking transit and not their car every day for everything. No worries though, I'm not saying that car owners don't drive at all or that there aren't people who drive their cars in circles all day for a living. Just that maybe, just possibly, with all that transit ridership on Boston's trains and buses, people could be driving the cars they own a tiny bit less than a city with less transit ridership but similar car ownership. You think that's a fair consideration?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-02-2014, 04:12 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 17 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,992 posts, read 102,568,112 times
Reputation: 33059
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJNEOA View Post
It wasn't an assumption that people don't drive when they live in the city. It was a note that just because someone owns a car, it doesn't mean they drive it a lot. In a dense city like Boston, there is potential that people could be taking transit and not their car every day for everything. No worries though, I'm not saying that car owners don't drive at all or that there aren't people who drive their cars in circles all day for a living. Just that maybe, just possibly, with all that transit ridership on Boston's trains and buses, people could be driving the cars they own a tiny bit less than a city with less transit ridership but similar car ownership. You think that's a fair consideration?
Tiny bit less? According to one of the area's finest, the Bostonians don't drive at all:

Quote:
Originally Posted by semiurbanite View Post
Yes Boston certainly does. Most of this traffic is people from the suburbs coming into the city. It's one of the reason's people who live in the city don't bother driving.
Which brings us full circle.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2014, 09:35 AM
 
358 posts, read 359,810 times
Reputation: 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
I suppose I should post a link to he new house we are (if the inspection goes okay) moving to with our two kids. Rowhouse dwellers no more! Feel like a bit of a sellout, but as I said, we couldn't afford the more "urban" styled houses in the city that would fit our family. For the same price (what we agreed to is slightly less than the list price here) we would have only gained like an extra half bathroom in the most walkable parts of the city.
Nice house! I find Pittsburgh fascinating - The difference between the development east and west of Stanton Avenue is so drastic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2014, 09:56 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,416 posts, read 11,920,328 times
Reputation: 10536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete. View Post
Nice house! I find Pittsburgh fascinating - The difference between the development east and west of Stanton Avenue is so drastic.
Talking about Pittsburgh's development patterns would take up a whole thread by itself. But I'll try to briefly summarize.

Pittsburgh was originally built out as a rowhouse city. However, the city shifted away from rowhouses relatively early compared to say Philadelphia or Baltimore - roughly around 1900. Thus the neighborhoods built out in the 19th century tend to be rowhouse based, but the neighborhoods built in the early 20th century tend to be mostly detached. Thus even though my current house was built in 1892, and the new house built somewhere between 1905 and 1908 (still nailing down the exact year), there's a huge difference in typology.

In that general area of the city, Lower and Central Lawrenceville tend to be brick rowhouse neighborhoods. Upper Lawrenceville and Bloomfield are frame-dominated rowhouse neighborhoods. Nearby Garfield is semi-blighted, but was more frame and a bit more detached. Then there's a large arc of mostly "grand" detached brick houses in Friendship, East Liberty, and Highland Park (East Liberty used to be the major passenger rail nexus of the city, the major shopping district, and a center of wealth. It kinda became a ghetto in the mid 20th century and was horribly urban renewed, but is on its way back.

My new neighborhood, Morningisde, is long and narrow (built around an old streetcar line) and basically has three portions. The lower portion, where I am buying, is mostly "grand" houses. The middle portion has much smaller houses built a bit later - mostly the Pittsburgh variant of Craftsmen bungalows. The upper portion near the (mostly dead) business district is early 20th century but more urban in feel, with a fair amount of later-period rowhouses and detached houses on very small lots.

Going up Stanton between Morningside and Lawrenceville, you pass through Stanton Heights. This was the last portion of the city to be built out, and is very suburban and autocentric. Most of the area north of Stanton was built out in the 30s and 40s. Most of the area south of Stanton was built out in the 1950s - mostly as part of one giant development. There's a fair number of semi-detached houses up here - most everything was built in a "bunker colonial" or "bunker Tudor" style, but there are some ranches mixed in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top