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 02-22-2014, 04:03 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,509,053 times
Reputation: 7830

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person View Post
No, it takes municipal governments and towns with defined retail core. You know, the "small towns" so many, especially the new urbanists, treat with disdain. Those small towns will not necessarily have public transit or many things that so many say are "required".

What everybody seems to forget is that the suburbs were demand driven. All the talk about subsidies, and governmental policy and all those other conspiracy pieces are just retroactive bull****. Governments running private transit out of business is in the same category, governments got into the mass transit business because the private companies were going bankrupt. They had to cover the cost of service through fares and couldn't, hence government takeover and the system we have today where transit systems are subsidized to the tune of around 70%. A subsidy paid for by the hated car drivers through their gas taxes.
I think you might be confused, new urbanists and urbanists in general look to classic small towns as the model for how we should be building new urban and suburban neighborhoods.

I have been to many small towns that have functioned very well for the people that lived there, I have also been to cities that had neighborhoods that functioned like small towns. I think that is great for cities because it creates healthy walkable communities.

Actually it is a known fact that our suburbs were government subsidied. Sure everyone has to live somewhere, but the soldiers coming back from WW2 had a GI Bill that was good for new housing and wasn't something that could be used for renovation of older housing. Combine that with the car being more affordable and car companies buying up transit systems and making them useless made it easier for the suburbs to be built and expanded the way they were rather than past streetcar suburbs.

Also it is proven that the gas taxes doesn't even cover the cost of the roads for cars so all forms of transportation receive subsidies. Also, I for one don't hate people who drive, I own a car myself, I do however dislike it when people think driving should be the only usable method and that we shouldn't even be buildings neighborhoods to be walkable with things that are easy to walk to.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-22-2014, 04:06 PM
 
Location: North Beach, MD on the Chesapeake
33,881 posts, read 42,096,122 times
Reputation: 43291
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
I think you might be confused, new urbanists and urbanists in general look to classic small towns as the model for how we should be building new urban and suburban neighborhoods.

I have been to many small towns that have functioned very well for the people that lived there, I have also been to cities that had neighborhoods that functioned like small towns. I think that is great for cities because it creates healthy walkable communities.

Actually it is a known fact that our suburbs were government subsidied. Sure everyone has to live somewhere, but the soldiers coming back from WW2 had a GI Bill that was good for new housing and wasn't something that could be used for renovation of older housing. Combine that with the car being more affordable and car companies buying up transit systems and making them useless made it easier for the suburbs to be built and expanded the way they were rather than past streetcar suburbs.

Also it is proven that the gas taxes doesn't even cover the cost of the roads for cars so all forms of transportation receive subsidies. Also, I for one don't hate people who drive, I own a car myself, I do however dislike it when people think driving should be the only usable method and that we shouldn't even be buildings neighborhoods to be walkable with things that are easy to walk to.

The GI Bill could have been used for existing housing but there was a major and significant shortage of it. As I said, demand driven.

As far as the canard that gas taxes don't cover costs I can also show "known" facts that it would if it wasn't siphoned to other uses such as transfer to the General Fund.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2014, 04:18 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,509,053 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person View Post
The GI Bill could have been used for existing housing but there was a major and significant shortage of it. As I said, demand driven.

As far as the canard that gas taxes don't cover costs I can also show "known" facts that it would if it wasn't siphoned to other uses such as transfer to the General Fund.
Well you are welcome to show those facts.

I get there was a shortage of housing, new houses were needed, unfortunately planning wasn't a part of that and we ended up letting many cities expand further put than they should. There were a number of factors that were in play that created poorly planned auto dependent suburbs that are found in the country today.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2014, 04:29 PM
 
9,520 posts, read 14,819,994 times
Reputation: 9769
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Well you are welcome to show those facts.

I get there was a shortage of housing, new houses were needed, unfortunately planning wasn't a part of that and we ended up letting many cities expand further put than they should.
Here in the northeast, cities did not expand; most of them have not changed their borders significantly since the early 20th century, many earlier than that. Instead, new towns were built, or small towns outside the city borders were expanded.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2014, 04:39 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,509,053 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler View Post
Here in the northeast, cities did not expand; most of them have not changed their borders significantly since the early 20th century, many earlier than that. Instead, new towns were built, or small towns outside the city borders were expanded.
That is the problem, much of the suburban developments happened on county land and was done so with little to no planning which is why states like Connecticut and New Jersey are nothing but sprawling suburbs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2014, 06:58 PM
 
Location: World
3,648 posts, read 3,518,281 times
Reputation: 2477
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbradleyc View Post
Urban sprawl is a myth. It is an attempt by some people to control other people. It means "you cannot live there. You must live here.

You cannot drive wherever you want whenever. You cannot drive at all. You may ride a bicycle, but if you want to go far you must ride a train packed with all the other people.

You want to see the Grand Canyon? Fine. Get on the tour bus. We will provide you with binoculars.

Wal-Mart? How dare you! You will buy your things from this little local store that only has a few things, but they are all you need.

Because we say so. We know better than you."


You know it's true.
What if someone cannot afford to buy a car? He cannot ride a train or a bus??? He cannot go to a grocery store to buy food because one needs a car to go to Walmart? Is it necessary to take huge debt and fill the coffers of Gas Company, Car Company, Insurance Company and buy a Car to buy a piece of bread?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2014, 07:40 PM
 
9,520 posts, read 14,819,994 times
Reputation: 9769
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
That is the problem, much of the suburban developments happened on county land and was done so with little to no planning which is why states like Connecticut and New Jersey are nothing but sprawling suburbs.
So you don't want the cities to expand in extent, and you don't want development outside the cities... so you want more and more people packed into the same space.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2014, 08:30 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,509,053 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler View Post
So you don't want the cities to expand in extent, and you don't want development outside the cities... so you want more and more people packed into the same space.
So you think there is no middle between your statement? That's odd.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2014, 12:11 AM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,061 posts, read 16,070,870 times
Reputation: 12636
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
That is the problem, much of the suburban developments happened on county land and was done so with little to no planning which is why states like Connecticut and New Jersey are nothing but sprawling suburbs.
Funny.

I coulda sworn Hoboken, Union City, and West New York, etc, etc were pretty dense.

But the good thing is we now know that the threshold for sprawl is higher than 50,000 per square mile for you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2014, 12:17 AM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,061 posts, read 16,070,870 times
Reputation: 12636
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Well you are welcome to show those facts.

I get there was a shortage of housing, new houses were needed, unfortunately planning wasn't a part of that and we ended up letting many cities expand further put than they should. There were a number of factors that were in play that created poorly planned auto dependent suburbs that are found in the country today.
Telling.

So much for all those fancy posts about choice and all that. People should be allowed to choose as long as their choices are sufficiently limited to densities of over 60,000. Got it.
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
Similar Threads
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