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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-18-2015, 04:34 PM
 
138 posts, read 82,158 times
Reputation: 46

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by iNviNciBL3 View Post
No its not.

Traveling by car in a car dependent city is just as efficient as traveling by foot or train in a walkable city.

They are just two different set ups / modes of transportation.

The Orlando area and Las Vegas area are doing just fine being car dependent cities and being some of the most visited cities in the country at the same time.

Great cities around the world already have a urban/dense set up so it would make sense to improve their urban set up by bringing in more public transportation and building up the density.

The suburbs don't want that, they like their space and shopping at big box stores... don't see why it bothers people so much... its how THEY live.... i live in a very car centric area and people like it here, if they wanted to live a car free lifestyle they could easily move to Chicago if they wanted... however its mostly people from Chicago moving here than vice versa.
No its really not lol. The drivers in that city are absolutely horrendous, constantly changing lanes for no reason and don't even indicate to get in, then we have the issue of them pushing by traffic lights and oh my god don't even sit for more than 1 second at the traffic light or you will get 10,000 horns beeping at you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-18-2015, 04:34 PM
SE9
 
Location: London | Atlanta
219 posts, read 211,216 times
Reputation: 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by iNviNciBL3 View Post
No its not.

Traveling by car in a car dependent city is just as efficient as traveling by foot or train in a walkable city.
Travelling by car is not as efficient as public transport modes (bus, cycle hire, light rail, heavy rail etc).

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:

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2015, 10:50 PM
 
8,985 posts, read 5,216,130 times
Reputation: 8715
Quote:
Originally Posted by SE9 View Post
A few falsities here.
LOL. You mean that you wish to inject utter nonsense into this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SE9 View Post
London eclipsed its 1939 peak population in January 2015.
Not true. London's current population is less than the 1939 figure. London still has a smaller population than nearly a century ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SE9 View Post
London's population is growing faster than Atlanta,
Also not true. Atlanta has far, far greater growth, so much so that it isn't even a reasonable comparison. Atlanta essentially doubles in population every few decades, while London hasn't even reached its prewar population.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SE9 View Post
and attracts more cross-border investment than any other city worldwide.
Completely irrelevent, and total logical reasoning fail. London doesn't have a domestic market of any consequence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SE9 View Post
London isn't auto dependent. You can traverse the entire city and beyond with public transport.
Also completely irrelevent, and yet another logical reasoning fail. You're not getting a basic stats undersatnding of correlation vs. causation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SE9 View Post
Urban vibrancy is a marriage of pedestrianism, density and amenity provision. Good public transport provision is an enabler of densification and encourages pedestrianism. Hence the likes of pedestrian oriented Barcelona are more vibrant than auto Los Angeles.
Wow, yet another irrelevant logical reasoning fail. Again, you still don't understand the difference between correlation and causation. I guess I'll have to explain.

LA is 100x more vibrant than Zurich, yet Zurich has vastly better pedestiranism, density and amenity provision, so there goes that theory of yours. Mexico City is one of the most vibrant cities on earth, yet doesn't have any of your three factors. Athens has all your factors, yet is a disaster. Houston is richer than London and the fastest growing major city in the developed world, yet has none of your factors.

Speaking generally, Mediterranean Europe has better urbanity than Northern Europe. Cities are generally denser, older, with narrower streets, a better pedestrian feel, and fewer large roads. Living is generally in large apartment buildings, not small suburban-style homes or urban-renewal buildings in the parking. The street is much more culturally relevant to Italian or Spanish or Portugese or Greek culture than it is in Sweden, Germany, Netherlands or the UK.

Yet the poorest, most troubled, least desirable part of Western Europe is exactly the part that has the characteristics you assert lead to wealth, prosperity and desirability. Now granted, I am not declaring that the issues are related. I understand that correlation isn't causation. But just as these factors don't create poverty, nor do they create wealth. They are largely irrelevant to such economic questions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SE9 View Post
If Atlanta were to reduce its car dependency (increasing its PT provision), it would become a more desirable city.
What is this claim based on, outside of your personal biases? How did you ascertain that cities grow by reducing auto dependency?

Atlanta is one of the fastest growing cities in the developed world. It also is almost entirely auto dependent. It would be very hard to argue that one of the fastest growing cities on the planet is doing something wrong, and should radically reshape its built form, when it is wildly successful, and when Atlanta is richer than 99% of places on earth with better PT.

Naples has fantastic pedestrianism density and amenity provision. It also has fantastic PT. Yet Naples is far poorer than every American city, and Atlanta is so far ahead of Naples in desirability its a nonsense comparison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SE9 View Post
Hence its not surprising that the most fêted large cities in North America are those with a higher culture of pedestrianism and lower car dependency.
What is this based on? The only U.S. city with such characteristics is NYC. The fastest growing U.S. cities are Houston, Dallas and Atlanta, and none have such characteristics. The fastest growing city over the last century is LA, which also doesn't have such characteristics.

Probably the most "feted" North American cities are NYC, LA, Miami and Las Vegas. Only NYC is transit-oriented. The three biggest cities in North America are NYC, LA and DF. Only NYC is built around transit. It isn't clear, at all, that good public transit is a necessary precondition for growth and prosperity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SE9 View Post
Active sidewalks, streetside stores, al fresco dining, public squares (and so on) are generally considered more desirable than highways, strip malls and endless gated communities.
According to you, but not according to the larger global population. If people valued such things so highly, then cities without these characteristics wouldn't be so rich and fast growing. Everyone would be clamoring to live in Palermo and San Sebastian, rather than Houston and Dallas.

People want a good job. They want a nice home for their family. They want reasonable taxes, decent services, nice neighbors, good schools and the like. The average person worldwide doesn't give a crap about "al fresco dining and public squares". That's why God made Venice, Brugge and long holidays. Generally only someone incredibly narcissistic would value such things over providing for their loved ones.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2015, 11:09 PM
 
Location: Windsor, Ontario, Canada
11,269 posts, read 11,129,733 times
Reputation: 13348
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
LOL. You mean that you wish to inject utter nonsense into this thread.

Not true. London's current population is less than the 1939 figure. London still has a smaller population than nearly a century ago.

London's population has overtaken its 1939 peak | Metro News


Someone should update Wikipedia. lol
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2015, 11:28 PM
 
8,985 posts, read 5,216,130 times
Reputation: 8715
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnatomicflux View Post
No, it still hasn't reached the 1939 population. That is an imputed estimate, not a Census count.

And you're totally, completely missing the point. If London has the same population now as 100 years ago, and Atlanta has 10 times the population of 100 years ago, then the claimed argument that an Atlanta-style urban framework is somehow automatically harmful to metropolitan growth is quite absurd.

If Atlanta's auto orientation were a hinderance, then Atlanta wouldn't be booming non-stop.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2015, 11:47 PM
 
Location: Windsor, Ontario, Canada
11,269 posts, read 11,129,733 times
Reputation: 13348
Well, the last Census count in London was in 2011, and since it's taken every 10 years, I guess you'll be right for a while. lol


I'm not missing any point. That was the only thing I wanted to comment on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2015, 11:55 PM
 
Location: Toronto
11,118 posts, read 8,537,538 times
Reputation: 3228
Quote:
Originally Posted by magnatomicflux View Post
well, the last census count in london was in 2011, and since it's taken every 10 years, i guess you'll be right for a while. Lol


i'm not missing any point. That was the only thing i wanted to comment on.
lol..... hilarious

btw - how dare you cite imputed estimates... wait until 2021 before you have anything more to say.. That's an order!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2015, 12:08 AM
 
Location: Windsor, Ontario, Canada
11,269 posts, read 11,129,733 times
Reputation: 13348
Yes, Sir.


lol
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2015, 12:47 AM
 
Location: Brisbane
3,124 posts, read 4,640,921 times
Reputation: 2520
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enigma777 View Post
Personally, I agree with you. I think European towns have a much better quality of life. The reason that will not work in the US is that Americans (1) are much more materialistic and love suburbia and their malls (2) love their cars and cannot fathom why anyone would walk or use public transportation and (3) are not socially oriented as those in Europe are. They don't want to gather in squares or sit at cafes and pass the time. They see that as being lazy and unproductive. They want to go to work and park in their own personal parking space, work out in gyms, drag their kids to activity after activity and go shopping.
Can't speak for the USA, but for me that is the main attractions of Suburban Malls in Australia, that and the fact that the bigger ones also have good public libraries.

Last edited by danielsa1775; 04-19-2015 at 01:02 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2015, 02:08 AM
 
833 posts, read 485,105 times
Reputation: 572
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
LOL. You mean that you wish to inject utter nonsense into this thread.

Not true. London's current population is less than the 1939 figure. London still has a smaller population than nearly a century ago.

Also not true. Atlanta has far, far greater growth, so much so that it isn't even a reasonable comparison. Atlanta essentially doubles in population every few decades, while London hasn't even reached its prewar population.

Completely irrelevent, and total logical reasoning fail. London doesn't have a domestic market of any consequence.

Also completely irrelevent, and yet another logical reasoning fail. You're not getting a basic stats undersatnding of correlation vs. causation.

Wow, yet another irrelevant logical reasoning fail. Again, you still don't understand the difference between correlation and causation. I guess I'll have to explain.

LA is 100x more vibrant than Zurich, yet Zurich has vastly better pedestiranism, density and amenity provision, so there goes that theory of yours. Mexico City is one of the most vibrant cities on earth, yet doesn't have any of your three factors. Athens has all your factors, yet is a disaster. Houston is richer than London and the fastest growing major city in the developed world, yet has none of your factors.

Speaking generally, Mediterranean Europe has better urbanity than Northern Europe. Cities are generally denser, older, with narrower streets, a better pedestrian feel, and fewer large roads. Living is generally in large apartment buildings, not small suburban-style homes or urban-renewal buildings in the parking. The street is much more culturally relevant to Italian or Spanish or Portugese or Greek culture than it is in Sweden, Germany, Netherlands or the UK.

Yet the poorest, most troubled, least desirable part of Western Europe is exactly the part that has the characteristics you assert lead to wealth, prosperity and desirability. Now granted, I am not declaring that the issues are related. I understand that correlation isn't causation. But just as these factors don't create poverty, nor do they create wealth. They are largely irrelevant to such economic questions.

What is this claim based on, outside of your personal biases? How did you ascertain that cities grow by reducing auto dependency?

Atlanta is one of the fastest growing cities in the developed world. It also is almost entirely auto dependent. It would be very hard to argue that one of the fastest growing cities on the planet is doing something wrong, and should radically reshape its built form, when it is wildly successful, and when Atlanta is richer than 99% of places on earth with better PT.

Naples has fantastic pedestrianism density and amenity provision. It also has fantastic PT. Yet Naples is far poorer than every American city, and Atlanta is so far ahead of Naples in desirability its a nonsense comparison.

What is this based on? The only U.S. city with such characteristics is NYC. The fastest growing U.S. cities are Houston, Dallas and Atlanta, and none have such characteristics. The fastest growing city over the last century is LA, which also doesn't have such characteristics.

Probably the most "feted" North American cities are NYC, LA, Miami and Las Vegas. Only NYC is transit-oriented. The three biggest cities in North America are NYC, LA and DF. Only NYC is built around transit. It isn't clear, at all, that good public transit is a necessary precondition for growth and prosperity.


According to you, but not according to the larger global population. If people valued such things so highly, then cities without these characteristics wouldn't be so rich and fast growing. Everyone would be clamoring to live in Palermo and San Sebastian, rather than Houston and Dallas.

People want a good job. They want a nice home for their family. They want reasonable taxes, decent services, nice neighbors, good schools and the like. The average person worldwide doesn't give a crap about "al fresco dining and public squares". That's why God made Venice, Brugge and long holidays. Generally only someone incredibly narcissistic would value such things over providing for their loved ones.
No one has said that transit infrastructure is the only variable that affects vibrancy, but that it is an important factor.

LA has 10 times the population of Zurich and likely far greater tourist volume, meaning, despite the shortcomings of poor transit infrastructure, there is a greater population pool to fill the amenity hubs. Despite these merits, LA's lack of public transit obviously serves as a limiting factor to its street level vibrancy.
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

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. The time now is 02:17 PM.

© 2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

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 - Top