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.
To reach parts of the metropolitan area that are miles away.
I think that a good bus system is worthwhile.
Why do you need to visit parts of the metropolitan area when you can walk to grocery store around the corner? Oh....your job...right...Well move closer to your job.
dunno about Philadelphia, the NYC subway isn't much of an escape from the heat; the platforms are usually 10°F+ hotter than the surface.
In high-density cities, it's fairly difficult to park exactly near your destination. So you'll end up walking a bit. To me, 5 or 10 minutes outside in the worst weather is still better than never being outside at all. Appears I'm in the minority here, but my point was that not everyone views "you can escape the weather" as a positive.
RE Philly: When platforms are below ground, they are often cooler. They can get hot, but so does a car sitting in the heat (or even a garage). Philly's subway has huge fans that keep things good until the train comes (6 mins at the most during rush hour). The worst case scenario is sitting waiting for a low frequency bus in the heat, but GPS-enabled vehicles and apps are making that much better. I don't have to do this fortunately.
Yes, it can be difficult to find parking right in front of your house/building. However, there are tons of parking garages in Philly and other places where parking is more difficult. People find a way to do it predictably after a few times. The worst scenario is evening parking in a dense neighborhood.
I pulled this from the article. Many areas within our cities you can move to mixed use places. Where I live a developer knocked down a bunch of old store fronts and built three story buildings on them. First floor is store fronts with the upper floors apartments or condos. Another development has stores on first, offices on second, living areas on the upper floors.
While it is true the developments that I am bringing up are not in the same neighborhoods as homes, the idea is that we do not allow that type of development in America. In Los Angeles former high rise commercial buildings have been changed to mixed use with apartments and condos along with retail and commercial space.
while the article is exaggerating (most of it is), the mixed use places are generally in generally limited sections. European zoning laws often don't even a residential-only zoning
n Germany, the “small-scale residential” and “exclusively residential” zones—the lowest-density residential designations possible—actually allow a range of retail and other uses as of right. The general principle is that businesses that serve everyday neighborhood needs, like small bank branches, corner stores, or medical offices, ought to be allowed within walking distance of people’s homes. Bigger uses that might attract more regional traffic are separated out. And in Sweden, although amendments (or what we might call “variances”) are needed to place a shop or other commercial use in a residential district, such amendments are regularly granted.
I get the impression the author's perception is skewed by the Atlanta area, which except for a few pockets near downtown is one of the least dense of large metros and has among the fewest urban aspects the author looks for. Boston could be a better fit:
Well, in Boston—where neighborhoods in the three most urban categories made up over half of all housing—83 percent of people with strong preferences for urban neighborhoods lived in one of these three urban zones. In Atlanta—where the same top three urban categories make up barely over 10 percent of all housing—just 48 percent of people with strong preferences for urban neighborhoods lived in an urban zone.
"American zoning law (in all but its oldest cities) forecloses on the possibility of mixed-use development. This means traditional design patterns like shops and offices on the first floor with apartments above are impossible. Residences are constructed in special areas zoned for residential construction, while shopping and work take place in altogether different areas zoned for commercial development."[/quote]
Because we all can't live next to the zoo, art museum, and stadium?
I happen to live a short walk from the Woodland Park Zoo. On the other hand, I have on occasion taken the bus (which stops about 1.5 blocks from my apartment) into downtown Seattle, which is a pain in the butt to drive through. There are places where you can pay to park, but those aren't located near the art museum.
So, depending on destination, the bus may actually be more convenient than driving.
I happen to live a short walk from the Woodland Park Zoo. On the other hand, I have on occasion taken the bus (which stops about 1.5 blocks from my apartment) into downtown Seattle, which is a pain in the butt to drive through. There are places where you can pay to park, but those aren't located near the art museum.
So, depending on destination, the bus may actually be more convenient than driving.
Where is the "market" in transit? Public transit is a government creation subsidized tremendously by taxpayers. Your "market" consists of i) people that have no choice (i.e., transit dependent) and ii) people that have choices. For the most part the pro-transit folks spend their energy trying to make people transit dependent so that the transit system has a monopoly with a dependent captive population. Why are pro transit folks so interested in eliminating independence?
If your environment were so "walkable" (as that term is frequently used in this forum) then what do you need transit for?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Randal Walker
To reach parts of the metropolitan area that are miles away.
I think that a good bus system is worthwhile.
I think that, too, Tim. However, many people on this forum seem to think that walkable means within walking distance of a transit stop. For getting around "the city" walking/transit is fine. But don't these people ever want to get out of town, on their own schedule?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Randal Walker
He also over emphasized cul-de-sacs. The first batch of suburbs that appeared after WWII typically used a grid of streets. This makes these particular places walkable.
Chippewa Township is a very old suburb in my home area, from the 1950s. Not a lot of cul-de-sacs, but lots of dead-end streets coming off a main road. Big Beaver, too, though it's a bit newer, more from the 60s. My family's homestead farm was in Chippewa/Big Beaver. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ch...!4d-80.3769999
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.
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.
