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.
The "anchor stores" go belly up. A local mall lost two anchor stores and then things just went downhill. It is mostly empty. I suspect that the popularity of internet shopping has severely cut into the popularity of the mall. We had an evolution of sorts from smallish strip malls to larger outdoor malls to indoor destination and entertainment malls and back to larger parking-lot strip malls. Even the notion of a department store seems to be fading away except in large urban cities.
Suburban office buildings are at an obvious disadvantage in places served by rail transit focused on a central city
But even in places where everyone must drive they are not optimal. As one office manager says, "if we locate in the West suburb, employees from the East suburbs complain about the long drive, and vice versa.
Yes maybe. I see it happening know in American big city edge cities.
Ie, Newark and Bridgeport to NYC, Haverhill and Worcester to Boston.
Mostly due to cost and access to things other than just city.
Newark and Bridgeport are not what the author meant by edge city. Those old mfg cities are satellites. At the time Garreau was making the case that big new suburban concentrations like Tysons in Virginia were eclipsing traditional cities. He was not at all concerned with car dependency—this was 30 years ago when no one was worried about climate change. One thing that makes Garreau’s book seem antique is the regeneration of traditions downtown and the revival of so many old urban neighborhoods because ppl are no longer in love with having to drive everywhere.
Your claims about suburban kids suggest you don't know what you're talking about. Suburban "neighbors" like city "neighbors" live in proximity ... the same block and/or a few nearby blocks. Mass transit is irrelevant in these situations. Children who have friends who live in other neighborhoods that require them to cross busy streets might be able to use mass transit but overprotective parents aren't likely to let them ride mass transit any more than they are to allow their kids to cross busy streets.
As for children's services being called for students walking to school, I'm skeptical that that's true. Calls to police for unattended toddlers wandering the streets or young children being out in the middle of the night are fairly commonplace. Children walking to or from school during the day? Not very likely unless the callers have ulterior motives.
Driving expense is a valid argument for expanding mass transit even into outer ring suburbs which are now much more densely populated than they were even 20 years ago, and the idea is gaining traction in metros around the country.
A couple years ago some parents were taken to court in a DC suburb because they let the children ( 6 & 10 I think) go to the community park without direct supervision. Child services took the position that if the children were not in eyesight of a responsible adult when outside their home the parents were endangering a minor. They were cited several times and then arrested. I don't remember the final outcome but I believe it was appealed at least once.
I had several coworkers who would not let their kids go anywhere but an approved list of friends. Even then they would either deliver the kids to the door of the friend or at least stand on their front step and watch as the child went several houses down the block and the door opened and the other parent waved up the street at them acknowledging they knew the kid was there. They didn't think it was funny when I asked one day 'You mean you don't get a signed hand receipt acknowledging they have assumed responsibility?'
As for children's services being called for students walking to school, I'm skeptical that that's true. Calls to police for unattended toddlers wandering the streets or young children being out in the middle of the night are fairly commonplace. Children walking to or from school during the day? Not very likely unless the callers have ulterior motives.
I couldn't find the specific case I thought of, since many other results appear when I search.
About 30 years ago, Joel Garreau wrote "Edge City," about suburban commercial developments. They had many flaws, such as car dependence, bad traffic and being convenient only in one direction from Center City. They are now mostly abandoned as young people don't want to drive that far and many prefer urban living. But fear of contagion could bring some of them back. Your thoughts?
A lot of young people only prefer urban living until the babies come. A family home is extremely expensive in an urban core in many places.
My guess is that most of the anti-car advocates are single males who have never attempted to take a couple of preschoolers to an appointment or, better yet, shopping via mass transit.
Not sure this is a gender thing. The vast majority of countries around the world, including highly developed ones, manage with far lower car use than the US has.
Car culture is dangerous for kids, too. Those "20 is plenty" signs are around for a reason.
To address some of the nonsense in this entire thread, school buses are frequently employed to haul kids that live more than a certain distance from the school to and from the school. Kids inside that threshold can walk, bike, or be hauled in by parents, etc. to get to school. Those buses are only used for school transportation here. It's nonsensical to try to use "for the children" to promote anti-car, high density, mixed use, and all this urbanophile agenda as some reason that the folks that don't live in that environment should change to that environment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheTimidBlueBars
Not sure this is a gender thing. The vast majority of countries around the world, including highly developed ones, manage with far lower car use than the US has.
Car culture is dangerous for kids, too. Those "20 is plenty" signs are around for a reason.
Why should people strive to be public transit dependent?
To address some of the nonsense in this entire thread, school buses are frequently employed to haul kids that live more than a certain distance from the school to and from the school. Kids inside that threshold can walk, bike, or be hauled in by parents, etc. to get to school. Those buses are only used for school transportation here. It's nonsensical to try to use "for the children" to promote anti-car, high density, mixed use, and all this urbanophile agenda as some reason that the folks that don't live in that environment should change to that environment.
Why should people strive to be public transit dependent?
Because I, for one, have way less stress when someone else is driving. And it's healthier for the environment.
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.
