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)
 
Old 10-18-2014, 11:14 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,991 posts, read 42,018,377 times
Reputation: 14810

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Arg yourself. I'm not responding just to you, as you should be able to tell by the use of the plural urbanistS. You are, however, the mod. And yes, I think you don't like what this study showed. But three years of discussing it should be enough.
You were responding to my post, usually that means it's about me, you were commenting why you thought I didn't like it "because of some urbanists didn't like it". As to the bolded, you should support that. If it was about a city like Boston or similar, I might actually care more about the results.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-18-2014, 11:17 AM
 
8,328 posts, read 14,572,548 times
Reputation: 4048
Early commuting methods like ferry, railroad and streetcar suburbs allowed greater distances between home and workplace, but not to nearly the same extent, and they were still based on a fixed path (the rails or river.) They stretched the distance to work--highways and the automobile shattered it. Fixed rail transit generally operates from a single hub like spokes from a wheel--it can't offer equal service to any two points in the overall area, while the automobile and paved roads can--at the cost of higher energy and land use. Like most things (including walkability) it's a matter of degree, not a binary either/or choice.

Walkable neighborhoods are inherently more interesting to the pedestrian, because of the mixture of uses present. It has nothing to do with hired jugglers and clowns on the sidewalk--people are entertained by the natural activities of the street. When you're a pedestrian among other pedestrian, you are both the performer and the audience. Boys sitting on the corner watch the girls walking down the street--girls walking down the street watch the boys on the corner. An old man feeding pigeons on a park bench is being entertained by his environment. No punchinellos necessary.

The neighborhood bar is just one example of a "third space" where people congregate and socialize outside of work or home, which tend to be prevalent in walkable places. There is no need for hipsters to be involved (it applies just as well to places for working-class joes in plaid shirts and jeans drinking Pabst as for middle-class hipsters in plaid shirts and jeans drinking Pabst), and they're just one type--coffee shops are another (again, no hipsters need be involved, this works as well for places with Folger's and hotcakes as lattes and biscotti), or beauty salons, or even Laundromats. Some stores can become third spaces for specific subcultures--record stores, hobby shops, gun stores--as places where strangers and friends can gather in neutral ground and have some sense of common interest or activity. Third spaces can also be sources of passive entertainment when they are visible from the sidewalk, via a storefront, patio, or when they are open spaces like a public park.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2014, 11:27 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,991 posts, read 42,018,377 times
Reputation: 14810
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
Early commuting methods like ferry, railroad and streetcar suburbs allowed greater distances between home and workplace, but not to nearly the same extent, and they were still based on a fixed path (the rails or river.) They stretched the distance to work--highways and the automobile shattered it. Fixed rail transit generally operates from a single hub like spokes from a wheel--it can't offer equal service to any two points in the overall area, while the automobile and paved roads can--at the cost of higher energy and land use. Like most things (including walkability) it's a matter of degree, not a binary either/or choice.
I agree with the rest, but I'm not sure why the bolded is true. Commuter rail to downtown commutes can be rather long distance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2014, 12:25 PM
 
8,328 posts, read 14,572,548 times
Reputation: 4048
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
I agree with the rest, but I'm not sure why the bolded is true. Commuter rail to downtown commutes can be rather long distance.
It's not the distance, it's the disconnect. Using a commuter rail or streetcar system, you can live and work along two points that are both within a short distance of the transit line, but using an automobile, you can live and work on any two points of the map, which generally doesn't happen using commuter networks: prior to the automobile, development took on a star-shaped pattern along transit lines, like spokes on a wheel, with wider gaps between the spokes the farther you were from the hub. Land prices were lower in between the spokes. Once paved roads became commonplace, a homeowner could buy one of those cheaper lots and drive their car past their neighbor on the more expensive transit-adjacent lot waiting for their train on the way to work. Obviously this became less of an advantage when traffic jams became a major problem for US cities, as early as the 1920s in some places, when the cars on those new roads met in the city center, where their advantage of mobility was countered by the existing density and limitations of pre-20th century roads and parking networks.

Things like superhighways, leveling downtowns for parking and emptying their populations, were means of accommodating that transition, but it was often a lot easier for employers to simply locate outside of the downtown "hub." This meant that many workers never had to go downtown for any reason, if they had a car, and workers who didn't have a car could not work at the new non-transit-adjacent employment areas, or live in the new non-transit-adjacent suburbs. Instead of living and working along the "spokes" of the wheel, workplace, residence, school, church etc. could be on any two points of the map, regardless of transit convenience, access or even its presence.

I suppose it's more pronounced in the western United States where cities had room to grow horizontally, and many suburbs never had any kind of rail transit, steam, cable or electric, other than a token bus line generally characterized by long waits, poor service and frequent rerouting, seen as the transportation of last resort.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2014, 01:24 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 24 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,016 posts, read 102,663,662 times
Reputation: 33083
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
Early commuting methods like ferry, railroad and streetcar suburbs allowed greater distances between home and workplace, but not to nearly the same extent, and they were still based on a fixed path (the rails or river.) They stretched the distance to work--highways and the automobile shattered it. Fixed rail transit generally operates from a single hub like spokes from a wheel--it can't offer equal service to any two points in the overall area, while the automobile and paved roads can--at the cost of higher energy and land use. Like most things (including walkability) it's a matter of degree, not a binary either/or choice.

Walkable neighborhoods are inherently more interesting to the pedestrian, because of the mixture of uses present. It has nothing to do with hired jugglers and clowns on the sidewalk--people are entertained by the natural activities of the street. When you're a pedestrian among other pedestrian, you are both the performer and the audience. Boys sitting on the corner watch the girls walking down the street--girls walking down the street watch the boys on the corner. An old man feeding pigeons on a park bench is being entertained by his environment. No punchinellos necessary.

The neighborhood bar is just one example of a "third space" where people congregate and socialize outside of work or home, which tend to be prevalent in walkable places. There is no need for hipsters to be involved (it applies just as well to places for working-class joes in plaid shirts and jeans drinking Pabst as for middle-class hipsters in plaid shirts and jeans drinking Pabst), and they're just one type--coffee shops are another (again, no hipsters need be involved, this works as well for places with Folger's and hotcakes as lattes and biscotti), or beauty salons, or even Laundromats. Some stores can become third spaces for specific subcultures--record stores, hobby shops, gun stores--as places where strangers and friends can gather in neutral ground and have some sense of common interest or activity. Third spaces can also be sources of passive entertainment when they are visible from the sidewalk, via a storefront, patio, or when they are open spaces like a public park.
What nei said. Good grief, my father took the train from Beaver Falls, PA to Pittsburgh a couple of nights a week to go to college, back in the 1930s! That was a distance of 30 miles.

And really, as I said, I used to walk to work, every day, to be at work at 3 PM, mid-day if you don't get my drift. Mostly I saw, well, nothing, no one on the streets and this was in 1971. Certainly there were no girls watching boys or boys watching girls or old men feeding pigeons or anything of that nature. There was a "family-style" restaurant on a corner of a main road, and sometimes I'd see people going in and out of there. I might see a squirrel or two on the way. That was the extent of it, other than houses and apartments, and this was in one of those highly vaunted college student neighborhoods.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
It's not the distance, it's the disconnect. Using a commuter rail or streetcar system, you can live and work along two points that are both within a short distance of the transit line, but using an automobile, you can live and work on any two points of the map, which generally doesn't happen using commuter networks: prior to the automobile, development took on a star-shaped pattern along transit lines, like spokes on a wheel, with wider gaps between the spokes the farther you were from the hub. Land prices were lower in between the spokes. Once paved roads became commonplace, a homeowner could buy one of those cheaper lots and drive their car past their neighbor on the more expensive transit-adjacent lot waiting for their train on the way to work. Obviously this became less of an advantage when traffic jams became a major problem for US cities, as early as the 1920s in some places, when the cars on those new roads met in the city center, where their advantage of mobility was countered by the existing density and limitations of pre-20th century roads and parking networks.

Things like superhighways, leveling downtowns for parking and emptying their populations, were means of accommodating that transition, but it was often a lot easier for employers to simply locate outside of the downtown "hub." This meant that many workers never had to go downtown for any reason, if they had a car, and workers who didn't have a car could not work at the new non-transit-adjacent employment areas, or live in the new non-transit-adjacent suburbs. Instead of living and working along the "spokes" of the wheel, workplace, residence, school, church etc. could be on any two points of the map, regardless of transit convenience, access or even its presence.

I suppose it's more pronounced in the western United States where cities had room to grow horizontally, and many suburbs never had any kind of rail transit, steam, cable or electric, other than a token bus line generally characterized by long waits, poor service and frequent rerouting, seen as the transportation of last resort.
1. Paved roads have been with us since at least the time of the ancient Romans. I've posted many links about this.

2. For the rest of this post to the last para, I'd like to see some links. I mean, this is not the inspired word of God. Show some links about these lower land prices, "leveling" downtowns for parking, and the like.

3. That last paragraph is a crock of compost. Denver had an inter-urban railway and streetcars going way back. Everyone likes to dump on western cities. Gimme a break!
Forgotten Denver: The Train to Golden DenverUrbanism Blog
**In 1890, the Denver, Lakewood and Golden Railroad was inaugurated.**
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2014, 02:20 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,991 posts, read 42,018,377 times
Reputation: 14810
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
And really, as I said, I used to walk to work, every day, to be at work at 3 PM, mid-day if you don't get my drift. Mostly I saw, well, nothing, no one on the streets and this was in 1971.
I don't now what streets you were on, but it suggests an area where most didn't walk to get around if it was that empty.

Quote:
1. Paved roads have been with us since at least the time of the ancient Romans. I've posted many links about this.
That doesn't mean they were commonplace.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2014, 02:27 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,991 posts, read 42,018,377 times
Reputation: 14810
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
It's not the distance, it's the disconnect.
However, you were discussing distance in your previous posts. It's hard to respond if you change your main point.

Quote:
I suppose it's more pronounced in the western United States where cities had room to grow horizontally, and many suburbs never had any kind of rail transit, steam, cable or electric, other than a token bus line generally characterized by long waits, poor service and frequent rerouting, seen as the transportation of last resort.
It might be the reverse. The western cities were rather small pre-automobile, and not that dense, so most accommodated the car rather easily. The difference in densities from streetcar-era neighborhoods and automobile-era ones are rather small in many western cities. With all the discussion of downtown leveling, while downtown Los Angeles lost residences to urban renewal, the immediate core grew at a rather fast rate something few other urban cores did anywhere else in the US at the time. In contrast, many Great Lakes / Midwestern cities suffered more severe declines in the core, with the most of the rail transit dismantled.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2014, 02:32 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 24 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,016 posts, read 102,663,662 times
Reputation: 33083
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
I don't now what streets you were on, but it suggests an area where most didn't walk to get around if it was that empty.



That doesn't mean they were commonplace.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ca...2c99a72f917731

I worked in that hospital. The breast cancer place south of University wasn't there at the time. I don't remember what was there. I lived in the apartment complex on Griggs St. I think Orchard St. went up all the way to University Ave. at the time. That's how I remember walking to work.

Well, it says here that
"Wheeled-transport created the need for better roads. Generally natural materials cannot be both soft enough to form well-graded surfaces and strong enough to bear wheeled vehicles, especially when wet, and stay intact. In urban areas it began to be worthwhile to build stone-paved streets and, in fact, the first paved streets appear to have been built in Ur in 4000 BC. Corduroy roads were built in Glastonbury, England in 3300 BC[8] and brick-paved roads were built in the Indus Valley Civilization on the Indian subcontinent from around the same time. Improvements in metallurgy meant that by 2000 BC stone-cutting tools were generally available in the Middle East and Greece allowing local streets to be paved.[9] Notably, in about 2000 BC, the Minoans built a 50 km paved road from Knossos in north Crete through the mountains to Gortyn and Lebena, a port on the south coast of the island, which had side drains, a 200 mm thick pavement of sandstone blocks bound with clay-gypsum mortar, covered by a layer of basaltic flagstones and had separate shoulders. This road could be considered superior to any Roman road.[10]

In 500 BC, Darius I the Great started an extensive road system for Persia (Iran), including the famous Royal Road which was one of the finest highways of its time. The road was used even after the Roman times. Because of the road's superior quality, mail couriers could travel 2,699 kilometres (1,677 mi) in seven days.
"
History of road transport - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So we could have a three year argument about "commonplace", but I posit that paved roads were not uncommon by the time of Christ.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2014, 02:58 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,072 posts, read 16,098,416 times
Reputation: 12647
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
I agree with the rest, but I'm not sure why the bolded is true. Commuter rail to downtown commutes can be rather long distance.
Indeed. Rail easily shatters the distance that cars enable for realistic commuting. Commuters in Spain regular travel well over 100 miles one-way, a distance that most drivers would struggle to justify. But rail is good, cars are bad.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2014, 03:03 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,991 posts, read 42,018,377 times
Reputation: 14810
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Indeed. Rail easily shatters the distance that cars enable for realistic commuting. Commuters in Spain regular travel well over 100 miles one-way, a distance that most drivers would struggle to justify. But rail is good, cars are bad.
I've seen that posted before, but how common actually is that? I assumed that would be a rather minor share.
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