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.
Narberth wasn't "rural" then and it isn't now. Ever have a chance to do a Google Street View of its downtown?
We didn't need "urbanists" before the crowd that gave us the anti-urban landscape took over the shaping of the expanding urban one.
Generally don't need urbanists at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarketStEl
I didn't mean that as an endorsement of the covenant per se.
Not sure what that means. Restrictive covenants are an abomination that should have gone out with feudalism. At a minimum there should be some time period within which they expire.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarketStEl
But what you call 'freedom' is also part of a "plan" - a set of rules that were drawn up by a bunch of people with a goal of reshaping the built environment.
More like a very few people that wanted to control everyone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarketStEl
The only difference is: The people in question didn't all belong to a single cohort.
The largest cohort was the "highway engineers."
One of the besetting sins of the engineering profession is that they tend to view everything through their particular pipe. They're not taught to view the problems they were brought in to solve in a way that takes into account impacts on other systems or the general environment. The Army Corps of Engineers builds a dam? Yay, downstream flooding problem solved. Oops, there goes the topsoil that made the floodplain so fertile.
The highway engineers, at least for about the 30 years that coincided with the build-out of the Interstates, saw every transportation problem as one of getting more cars through an area quickly. Their solutions had the side effect of making getting around an area by any means other than a motor vehicle unpleasant at best and nearly impossible at worst.
Highways and interstates are for cars, trucks, etc. not bicycles and not walkers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarketStEl
Abetting them were a group of people who had a slightly different goal: ensuring that They (insert your choice of Them here) could never possibly live in their jurisdiction. These people wrote zoning ordinances that mandated huge minimum lot sizes for any new construction for their communities. This practice, which got the label "snob zoning," was made illegal in most states.
Where are minimum lot sizes illegal?
The anti-growthers (or anti-change) would rather prevent growth anywhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarketStEl
But we still have to live with the residue of both. Those were the products of interventions.
I guess the thing is, since the subdivision of land is itself subject to some government action, we will never have a land market where "the government doesn't get involved." And since much of our current landscape is the product of people who had an agenda, I'm not sure that simply walking away and saying "Okay, you all sort it out from here." will undo the ill effects of that agenda. Narberth was built before the assumptions of the postwar years were baked into its zoning code. From what I've seen, people seem to prefer living in places that look like Narberth than in places that look like the highway junction on the outskirts of town.
BTW, did you ever go back and read that link I provided you?
Not yet.
Last edited by IC_deLight; 08-12-2018 at 06:24 PM..
Highways and interstates are for cars, trucks, etc. not bicycles and not walkers.
Interstates, true. Highways, not true.
Highways have always been legally open to all users - they have to be; they predated motor vehicles and they follow local streets through towns and cities.
This remains the case for all-weather paved highways maintained by state highway departments.
At least one state's driver's license manual I know of - Massachusetts' - makes the legal primacy clear:
"The pedestrian has a natural right to use the road. You merely have a legal right to use it."
And by the way, the first organization that fought for paved all-weather highways did so starting in the 1890s. Back then, it was known as the League of American Wheelmen; today we call it the League of American Bicyclists.
Based on what you just said, your historical knowledge of American transportation is lacking, and you may well be one of the reasons why we have "urbanists."
Quote:
Where are minimum lot sizes illegal?
The anti-growthers (or anti-change) would rather prevent growth anywhere.
I said "huge minimum lot sizes." I forget what the exact number was, but there were ordinances being enacted that mandated minimum lot sizes of two or more acres. This not only eliminated any actual towns being built but most conventional subdivisions as well.
Now, go read that link already. It also seems to me that you have some more reading to do, but don't know it. I can't recommend sources besides perhaps state motor vehicle codes and traffic laws, none of which I know regard pedestrians walking in a highway where no sidewalks are provided as a violation on its face. And even where sidewalks exist, if a pedestrian and a motorist end up in a conflict, the motorist is at fault unless the pedestrian is clearly ignoring a traffic control device aimed at them as well. (The rule of the road for pedestrians using highways in rural settings where no sidewalks exist is: Walk on the left side of the highway, facing oncoming traffic.)
Highways have always been legally open to all users - they have to be; they predated motor vehicles and they follow local streets through towns and cities.
This remains the case for all-weather paved highways maintained by state highway departments.
At least one state's driver's license manual I know of - Massachusetts' - makes the legal primacy clear:
"The pedestrian has a natural right to use the road. You merely have a legal right to use it."
Not clear how a pedestrian "natural right" attaches to something that wasn't "natural" to begin with. Regardless, the laws of physics trump the laws of man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarketStEl
And by the way, the first organization that fought for paved all-weather highways did so starting in the 1890s. Back then, it was known as the League of American Wheelmen; today we call it the League of American Bicyclists.
...for recreation and sport. There's a much larger number of people that use roads for transportation, commerce, etc. via vehicular traffic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarketStEl
Based on what you just said, your historical knowledge of American transportation is lacking, and you may well be one of the reasons why we have "urbanists."
Nope I'm not the cause of urbanists. There's always been a few people that want to dictate how everyone else needs to live or to dictate what others can do with their property.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarketStEl
I said "huge minimum lot sizes." I forget what the exact number was, but there were ordinances being enacted that mandated minimum lot sizes of two or more acres. This not only eliminated any actual towns being built but most conventional subdivisions as well.
Well "huge" to an urbanist could mean anything since even small numbers are greater than zero.
Not aware of that being "illegal" although it's a bit offensive for a city to impose an overall ordinance as such. In this state counties aren't allowed to impose zoning nor minimum lot sizes. The cities can only zone within their boundaries (relying upon urban planners of course). Cities can zone based on industry, trade, or residential use. The code SF1 here means residential and minimum 1 acre and there is plenty of land with that categorization. Of course it will be justified by pretexts such as water quality, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarketStEl
Now, go read that link already. It also seems to me that you have some more reading to do, but don't know it. I can't recommend sources besides perhaps state motor vehicle codes and traffic laws, none of which I know regard pedestrians walking in a highway where no sidewalks are provided as a violation on its face. And even where sidewalks exist, if a pedestrian and a motorist end up in a conflict, the motorist is at fault unless the pedestrian is clearly ignoring a traffic control device aimed at them as well. (The rule of the road for pedestrians using highways in rural settings where no sidewalks exist is: Walk on the left side of the highway, facing oncoming traffic.)
Oh I'll get to it after a few other things. I'm not arguing whether pedestrians can be on a highway because of a law in a particular state - only that a highway is no place for them. You can try to punish the motorist but if the motorist asks for a jury there are going to be plenty of people that will find fault with the pedestrian in many cases not the motorist. I'm absolutely disgusted that for each new subdivision that goes in here there is apparently some mandate to manufacture a "bike lane". So out of thin air a striped bike lane appears on the road in front of the subdivision only. The lane consists of all of the protection of painted lines on the road. That's just inviting a disaster particularly when the road is a 60-70 mph road and the bike lane appears where cars/trucks must cross over it to turn into the subdivision. Fault me for not wanting any bicyclists or other pedestrians to be in that area. They should wipe out the bike lane instead of encouraging pedestrians in that zone.
Bike lanes:
The narrow lane that originates from nowhere (far right) as dotted lines on the right and transitions to solid lines all the way to the intersection is some planner's idea of a bike lane. Picture was broken into two parts to comply with limitations on width. The second image is a continuation on the left of the first image.
Nope I'm not the cause of urbanists. There's always been a few people that want to dictate how everyone else needs to live or to dictate what others can do with their property.
This is your definition of "urbanist"?
I would have thought an urbanist is someone who prefers/promotes urban environments and lifestyles. Until recently, urban environments happened organically. It wasn't until "suburbanists" came along, who prevented the natural formation of urban environments with the use of zoning, that other people became urbanists.
I would have thought an urbanist is someone who prefers/promotes urban environments and lifestyles. Until recently, urban environments happened organically. It wasn't until "suburbanists" came along, who prevented the natural formation of urban environments with the use of zoning, that other people became urbanists.
Puhlease. The term "suburban" is just offensive and a put-down to the areas you deem "suburban" because they are always being measured with respect to something you inexplicably deem superior. Your city did not start out as a city. It started out as something that you would deem "suburban". Over time commerce and more population developed. "Suburbanists" (not the relative term but rather describing what they built) were here first because places didn't just start as high density cities. It's the "urbanists" that have attempted to force a single herd and deprive other areas from independently existing. The same urbanists that impose more and more restrictions on property use. There's nothing "natural" about zoning. It's an artificial restriction imposed on geographic territory to benefit a few. Current infestation of urbanists want zoning by prior infestation of urbanists to lighten up a bit on restrictions.
Last edited by IC_deLight; 08-13-2018 at 06:51 PM..
Progressives love to be corralled, and controlled. It is easier if put into urban areas, and big cities. You don't have to rely on your self as much, nor think for yourself as much. Thank the decades of brainwashing by Education.
Puhlease. The term "suburban" is just offensive and a put-down to the areas you deem "suburban" because they are always being measured with respect to something you inexplicably deem superior. Your city did not start out as a city. It started out as something that you would deem "suburban". Over time commerce and more population developed. "Suburbanists" (not the relative term but rather describing what they built) were here first because places didn't just start as high density cities. It's the "urbanists" that have attempted to force a single herd and deprive other areas from independently existing. The same urbanists that impose more and more restrictions on property use. There's nothing "natural" about zoning. It's an artificial restriction imposed on geographic territory to benefit a few. Current infestation of urbanists want zoning by prior infestation of urbanists to lighten up a bit on restrictions.
My city started out as a small settlement in the wilderness. Then, it became a village. Then a small town. Then a larger town. Then a small city. Then a medium city. It has since become a small city again. Since most of its development and growth happened during the streetcar era, it is primarily "streetcar suburban".
Not clear how a pedestrian "natural right" attaches to something that wasn't "natural" to begin with. Regardless, the laws of physics trump the laws of man.
Well, since the first roads were footpaths forged through forest and grassland by various native peoples, they are by definition "man-made," but "natural" here means "inherent in the existence of the thing," in this case the person traveling on foot. That person need cite no law to justify being on the road. Regardless the laws of physics, if a law says cars cannot be on a road, they can't.
I can find examples both of a footpath that eventually became a highway and a road from which cars are banned in the part of Philadelphia where I live. Germantown Avenue - the "Great Road," as the Germans who settled this part of what is now the city in 1683 called it - was a Lenape dirt trail through the woods. The German settlers built their houses along it. In the 19th century, a company improved it with a smooth graded surface, then macadam; that road was a turnpike from the early 1800s until 1911, when the tolls were removed. (Yes, there were tolls on a local street lined with houses and businesses. This was quite common in the 19th century; our modern "turnpikes" take their name from these roads, where you would have to pay a toll every so often where a pike blocked the road. The toll house keeper then turned the pike to allow you to pass. Hence the term.)
The road from which cars are banned is called Forbidden Drive for that reason. It parallels the Wissahickon Creek through Northwest Philadelphia and is popular with hikers, bikers and horseback riders (it's very wide and can accommodate all these uses).
It's because of the laws of physics that we have the rules of the road governing pedestrian use of highways with no sidewalks. They still have the inherent (that better than "natural"?) right to use the road.
Quote:
...for recreation and sport. There's a much larger number of people that use roads for transportation, commerce, etc. via vehicular traffic.
Don't forget that there are bicyclists who do use their vehicles as basic transportation. Those too are vehicles that are legally allowed to use the roads. I've run across too many motor vehicle chauvinists who seem to hold the view that bicycles are only recreational vehicles that have no business on city streets or rural highways. A few are as insulting as any urbanist you may have run across: one I used to argue with referred to bikes as "toys" constantly.
By the way, ever heard of a philosophy called "vehicular cycling"? This small segment of the cycling community actually opposes bike lanes on the grounds that they infantilize the bicyclist and give motorists the false idea that the segment of the road they use belongs to them exclusively. They argue for "taking the lane" - that is, riding in general traffic lanes in such a way that faster cars may pass them but must deal with their presence - and for proper hand signaling techniques (which I'm not sure are well taught).
Quote:
Well "huge" to an urbanist could mean anything since even small numbers are greater than zero.
Not aware of that being "illegal" although it's a bit offensive for a city to impose an overall ordinance as such. In this state counties aren't allowed to impose zoning nor minimum lot sizes. The cities can only zone within their boundaries (relying upon urban planners of course). Cities can zone based on industry, trade, or residential use. The code SF1 here means residential and minimum 1 acre and there is plenty of land with that categorization. Of course it will be justified by pretexts such as water quality, etc.
Zoning is everywhere a municipal function. The ordinances were usually implemented at the behest of residents of said municipalities who argued that they would preserve the place's "quality of life" or "property values."
A common source of bemusement among us pro-urban types is the phenomenon of people moving to a rural, largely undeveloped area, building houses, then moving to keep anyone after them from doing the same thing. Now, if they do it by having their municipality or some private conservation group buy up undeveloped land for preservation as open space, more power to them! But this also takes the form of fights with developers that buy unprotected open space in order to build houses on it often enough. There's one of these going on right now involving a farm near the Brandywine Battlefield that opponents of the development plan say actually saw action early on the morning of the 1777 battle.
Quote:
Oh I'll get to it after a few other things. I'm not arguing whether pedestrians can be on a highway because of a law in a particular state - only that a highway is no place for them. You can try to punish the motorist but if the motorist asks for a jury there are going to be plenty of people that will find fault with the pedestrian in many cases not the motorist. I'm absolutely disgusted that for each new subdivision that goes in here there is apparently some mandate to manufacture a "bike lane". So out of thin air a striped bike lane appears on the road in front of the subdivision only. The lane consists of all of the protection of painted lines on the road. That's just inviting a disaster particularly when the road is a 60-70 mph road and the bike lane appears where cars/trucks must cross over it to turn into the subdivision. Fault me for not wanting any bicyclists or other pedestrians to be in that area. They should wipe out the bike lane instead of encouraging pedestrians in that zone.
Those are pretty awful examples of bike lanes, I'll grant.
But my question back to you would be: What is anyone doing allowing an at-grade intersection on a highway with 70 mph traffic?
I would hope that there is an alternate route through the area where traffic doesn't travel as fast that pedestrians could use. But if there isn't, guess what? They have the inherent right to be there, and the laws of physics won't make the motorist correct if one gets hit.
You obviously have not been to Tysons (Corner), Va., nor have you followed current developments in King of Prussia, Pa.
Tysons is the ur-Edge City. It now has a Washington Metro line running right through it.
The business improvement district in King of Prussia, as well as the owner of its huge shopping mall (still the region's dominant luxury retail destination) and one of the region's largest commercial landlords, are all pushing for a spur of a nearby light metro line to be built out to the district.
Both Tysons and KoP are promoting mixed-use live/work/play development (and redevelopment) within their boundaries. Those edge cities that will continue to thrive will adopt this model. The Woodlands outside Houston also has these elements, just minus the rail transit. (And KofP doesn't have it yet, but the train definitely has momentum.)
Well, since the first roads were footpaths forged through forest and grassland by various native peoples, they are by definition "man-made," but "natural" here means "inherent in the existence of the thing," in this case the person traveling on foot. That person need cite no law to justify being on the road. Regardless the laws of physics, if a law says cars cannot be on a road, they can't.
Except we aren't talking about places a "law" says cars cannot be. The problem arises from pedestrians intermingling with cars on a pathway clearly made for cars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarketStEl
I can find examples both of a footpath that eventually became a highway and a road from which cars are banned in the part of Philadelphia where I live. Germantown Avenue - the "Great Road," as the Germans who settled this part of what is now the city in 1683 called it - was a Lenape dirt trail through the woods. The German settlers built their houses along it. In the 19th century, a company improved it with a smooth graded surface, then macadam; that road was a turnpike from the early 1800s until 1911, when the tolls were removed. (Yes, there were tolls on a local street lined with houses and businesses. This was quite common in the 19th century; our modern "turnpikes" take their name from these roads, where you would have to pay a toll every so often where a pike blocked the road. The toll house keeper then turned the pike to allow you to pass. Hence the term.)
The road from which cars are banned is called Forbidden Drive for that reason. It parallels the Wissahickon Creek through Northwest Philadelphia and is popular with hikers, bikers and horseback riders (it's very wide and can accommodate all these uses).
So how is that relevant to pedestrians being where cars are?
You had a road existing before cars came around and someone is trying to preserve a historical use (not addressing the merits of that position). What does that have to do with pedestrians intermingling with vehicular traffic on roads that were clearly put in place for vehicular traffic?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarketStEl
It's because of the laws of physics that we have the rules of the road governing pedestrian use of highways with no sidewalks. They still have the inherent (that better than "natural"?) right to use the road.
Do they have the inherent right to walk on bridges that have no sidewalk? Do they have the inherent right to walk on railroad tracks?
Only pointed it out for the purpose that there's a heck of a lot of people that use roads for commerce and work and that society probably values those uses above recreational use - particularly if one use interferes with the other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarketStEl
Don't forget that there are bicyclists who do use their vehicles as basic transportation.
Bicycles are not vehicles in this state at least as far as statutes go. I doubt many bicyclists are riding more than a few miles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarketStEl
Those too are vehicles that are legally allowed to use the roads.
Probably depends on what state you are in. They are not "vehicles" here. Bicyclists are considered "pedestrians".
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarketStEl
I've run across too many motor vehicle chauvinists who seem to hold the view that bicycles are only recreational vehicles that have no business on city streets or rural highways. A few are as insulting as any urbanist you may have run across: one I used to argue with referred to bikes as "toys" constantly.
Impose a law requiring the bicyclist to yield the lane to backed up traffic. When you have bicyclists holding up traffic on their leisurely tours it's only reasonable to expect tempers are going to flare in the backed up traffic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarketStEl
By the way, ever heard of a philosophy called "vehicular cycling"? This small segment of the cycling community actually opposes bike lanes on the grounds that they infantilize the bicyclist and give motorists the false idea that the segment of the road they use belongs to them exclusively. They argue for "taking the lane" - that is, riding in general traffic lanes in such a way that faster cars may pass them but must deal with their presence - and for proper hand signaling techniques (which I'm not sure are well taught).
1. ... and it doesn't give the bicyclists the impression that the bike lane is for the bicyclist exclusively?
2. The bike lanes I provided as example are terrible, terrible designs. They provide no protection for bicyclists and cars must cross the lane in order to turn. At present there are no bicyclists (probably because the road is 60-70 mph) which begs the question as to whose idiotic idea it was to stripe "bike lanes" there in the first place.
3. 3500lb and up vehicles are going to do a lot more than hurt some bicyclists' pride. Some of these bicycling idiots actually try toting infants/toddlers along in those tot-totes - which don't do well in the proximity of semis traveling 70 mph a few feet away. The trucker is going somewhere on a road built for him to do so. It is the bicyclist that has no business being anywhere near that or placing their kids in danger in such fashion. The "rules of the road" are rarely enforced against bicyclists and some of them seem to think the laws of physics aren't going to apply to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarketStEl
A common source of bemusement among us pro-urban types is the phenomenon of people moving to a rural, largely undeveloped area, building houses, then moving to keep anyone after them from doing the same thing.
Happens everywhere. They are called NIMBYs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarketStEl
Now, if they do it by having their municipality or some private conservation group buy up undeveloped land for preservation as open space, more power to them!
I'm vehemently opposed to "conservation easements". It's a restrictive covenant intended to devalue the land. If the local government wants to buy the land, fine. One way to discourage the practice is to tax the land irrespective of the restrictive covenant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarketStEl
But this also takes the form of fights with developers that buy unprotected open space in order to build houses on it often enough. There's one of these going on right now involving a farm near the Brandywine Battlefield that opponents of the development plan say actually saw action early on the morning of the 1777 battle.
It was over 200 years ago. If the land is somehow sacred to them then maybe they can collectively buy it up - but the idea that their faux nostalgia should somehow be the basis for stopping other owners from using the land is nuts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarketStEl
Those are pretty awful examples of bike lanes, I'll grant.
But my question back to you would be: What is anyone doing allowing an at-grade intersection on a highway with 70 mph traffic?
As opposed to an even more expensive and land consuming option such as "exit ramps"? Those don't occur until much higher traffic volumes. There is a traffic control signal at the intersection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarketStEl
I would hope that there is an alternate route through the area where traffic doesn't travel as fast that pedestrians could use. But if there isn't, guess what? They have the inherent right to be there, and the laws of physics won't make the motorist correct if one gets hit.
Pedestrians (including bicyclists) must cross the road to get to the other side like anyone else. There is not an "inherent right" to be there. There are limitations on where, when, and how they are permitted to cross. There are also limitations on where, when, and how they are permitted to occupy a portion of the roadway they are traveling along - at least in this state.
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.
