Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World
 [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 04-19-2015, 03:09 PM
SE9
 
Location: London | Atlanta
219 posts, read 345,124 times
Reputation: 281

Advertisements

I only countered the falsities spewed by NOLA.

London has overtaken its peak 1939 population, although NOLA insists otherwise for whatever reason. London is currently booming, although NOLA insists that it's in decline (lol). Meh.

My simple line of argument in this thread is that vibrancy is a marriage of pedestrianism, density and amenity provision. Public transportation encourages pedestrianism and is an enabler of densification, both of which contribute to the vibrancy of a city. Hence, improving public transportation would be a positive step with respect to increasing a city's vibrancy, especially for auto-dependent cities like Atlanta.

It's no coincidence that the great cities around the world are seeking to improve PT provision, thereby decreasing dependence on the car. It's no coincidence that, in tandem, the pedestrian experience in urban centres is constantly being improved, which in turn improves its vibrancy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-19-2015, 03:14 PM
 
10,275 posts, read 10,237,717 times
Reputation: 10644
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hightower72 View Post
It would help if you don't misrepresent what other people say.
The primary claim was that London was prosperous because of town squares and trains, and Atlanta wasn't prosperous because of highways and sprawl. Secondary claims included allegations that London was faster growing now than during the Victorian era, that Atlanta was only adding 4,000 people a decade, and that anyone desiring a suburban home was automatically selfish.

So, no, I didn't misrepresent anything. The whole premise of this thread is complete nonsense, because the implication is that sprawl harms growth, yet the fastest growing cities in the developed world are almost all sprawling, and the slowest growing cities in the developed world are some of the least sprawly.

If this thread's claims made even a hint of sense, than Houston would be abandoned instead of a giant boomtown, and Naples would be richer than NYC or London instead of an economic disaster. You can't get sprawlier than Houston, and you can't get denser than Naples, at least not in the Western context.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2015, 03:21 PM
 
Location: Leeds, UK
22,139 posts, read 29,447,925 times
Reputation: 8819
I guess another argument people make is that a more pedestrian-friendly city will also be more visibly buzzing, with more people on the streets, creating the impression of a thriving city. Berlin, for example - it's quite poor, but when you go there, you don't get that impression.

Nothing to do with economics mind you, but it's still an argument I've heard.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2015, 03:37 PM
 
1,889 posts, read 1,315,225 times
Reputation: 957
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
The primary claim was that London was prosperous because of town squares and trains, and Atlanta wasn't prosperous because of highways and sprawl. Secondary claims included allegations that London was faster growing now than during the Victorian era, that Atlanta was only adding 4,000 people a decade, and that anyone desiring a suburban home was automatically selfish.

So, no, I didn't misrepresent anything. The whole premise of this thread is complete nonsense, because the implication is that sprawl harms growth, yet the fastest growing cities in the developed world are almost all sprawling, and the slowest growing cities in the developed world are some of the least sprawly.

If this thread's claims made even a hint of sense, than Houston would be abandoned instead of a giant boomtown, and Naples would be richer than NYC or London instead of an economic disaster. You can't get sprawlier than Houston, and you can't get denser than Naples, at least not in the Western context.
Let's take just one example (your first example) here to see how I read SE9's claims and to note how we differ:

I read: "London's public transport was an important factor in making it prosperous."
You read: "London is prosperous because of public transport." (Making it seem that transport was the only factor of note that led to London's prosperity).

You're not doing it deliberately, but you seem to have trouble at times using context to distinguish between literal meaning and intended meaning.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2015, 03:40 PM
 
Location: London, UK
9,980 posts, read 12,319,863 times
Reputation: 3473
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
The primary claim was that London was prosperous because of town squares and trains, and Atlanta wasn't prosperous because of highways and sprawl. Secondary claims included allegations that London was faster growing now than during the Victorian era, that Atlanta was only adding 4,000 people a decade, and that anyone desiring a suburban home was automatically selfish.

So, no, I didn't misrepresent anything. The whole premise of this thread is complete nonsense, because the implication is that sprawl harms growth, yet the fastest growing cities in the developed world are almost all sprawling, and the slowest growing cities in the developed world are some of the least sprawly.

If this thread's claims made even a hint of sense, than Houston would be abandoned instead of a giant boomtown, and Naples would be richer than NYC or London instead of an economic disaster. You can't get sprawlier than Houston, and you can't get denser than Naples, at least not in the Western context.
You are aware Sprawl is not sustainable, right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2015, 07:17 PM
 
2,639 posts, read 1,977,718 times
Reputation: 1988
Quote:
Originally Posted by iNviNciBL3 View Post
This is happening on a pretty small scale, yes.... but just because you are making somewhere more pedestrian friendly doesn't mean you are making it "European"

Europe is not special in that area, there are walkable places all over the world.... not just Europe.

American suburbs are still booming and they stick to the same model they have been using, spread out single family homes... because that is what people like here. they don't want to live in a "European like city" which is why people aren't building them on a big scale (as in as much as what they are doing in the suburbs)
As for U.S. cities, I don't believe that we wil see another City Beautiful movement. Conceivably, some cities might be retrofitted to create small slivers or pockets of urbanity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2015, 12:02 PM
 
Location: M I N N E S O T A
14,848 posts, read 21,378,897 times
Reputation: 9263
Quote:
Originally Posted by SE9 View Post
Travelling by car is not as efficient as public transport modes (bus, cycle hire, light rail, heavy rail etc).
Cars take up more room... yes. but they go more places, and for the most part they get you their faster than a bus, street car, light rail and bicycle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SE9 View Post
As has been stated earlier, public transport is an enabler of densification and encourages pedestrianism. Vibrancy. It allows far more people to move around a city in a more efficient manner:
Cool, so put them in the cities and leave the suburbs alone.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2015, 01:36 PM
 
1,007 posts, read 1,501,096 times
Reputation: 922
[quote=iNviNciBL3;39295133]Cars take up more room... yes. but they go more places, and for the most part they get you their faster than a bus, street car, light rail and bicycle.


A bike or motorcycle can take you just as far as a car. People just want full comfort in their ride and so its understandable why they prefer cars.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2015, 09:05 PM
 
Location: Gatineau, Québec
26,758 posts, read 37,652,675 times
Reputation: 11527
I think the emerging trend in urbanism in the western world is about having your cake and eating it too.

In Europe they have the vibrant central city thing down pat but a lot of people are wanting the single-family home lifestyle or at least a lifestyle that's not a cramped apartment in a building. Very few cities are hollowing out at the centre but if you look at where most of the growth is taking place it's on the outskirts in more auto-dependent styles (if not quite as auto-dependent as in the US).

And in the US people are wanting more and more to have European-style walkable areas in their cities. In some cases this comes with densification projects and condo developments, but equally strong is the trend of trying to find a way to make single-family housing (or at least non-apartment housing with yards) coexist with a more dense, vibrant urban form.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2015, 02:25 AM
SE9
 
Location: London | Atlanta
219 posts, read 345,124 times
Reputation: 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by iNviNciBL3 View Post
Cars take up more room... yes. but they go more places, and for the most part they get you their faster than a bus, street car, light rail and bicycle.

Cool, so put them in the cities and leave the suburbs alone.
A fundamental difference in mentality. People in European suburbs ask/campaign/beg for better transport links. Yourself and some others here based permanently in the Unites States don't want it in their back yard.
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 > World Forums > World

All times are GMT -6.

¬© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top