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.
All this talk about people riding bikes or walking is so centered on young males. Go ahead and have a mother with 3 young babies go to the grocery store without a car. How about your elderly grandparents.
I swear, most of what you read on this forum sounds like it comes from the minds of 10 year-old boys who are describing what THEY think would be "cool" to have in cities. I'm sure the boys in this forum would also love public video game stalls installed on every street.
Obviously, the demographics of this forum are dominated by young males.
I understand your point, and for both your neighbor and your mother I can see why they would prefer to live somewhere with more transportation options. However using an example of someone who has restricted mobility due to a DUI/DWI is a poor example because that is due to a really stupid decision which could be easily avoided by simply being responsible enough not to drink and drive.
If you live in a car dependent neighborhood how someone losses access to a car is immaterial.
Whether it is a medical problem, legal problem, financial problem or mechanical problem, the result is the same.
If you live somewhere that a car is required and you loss your car, you have few options.
All this talk about people riding bikes or walking is so centered on young males. Go ahead and have a mother with 3 young babies go to the grocery store without a car. How about your elderly grandparents.
I swear, most of what you read on this forum sounds like it comes from the minds of 10 year-old boys who are describing what THEY think would be "cool" to have in cities. I'm sure the boys in this forum would also love public video game stalls installed on every street.
Obviously, the demographics of this forum are dominated by young males.
Great post! It's like they don't see how life is in the real world, with people who have kids, who have to haul "stuff" around almost everywhere they need to go, and who often need or want to travel somewhere outside of their little 10 block radius.
All this talk about people riding bikes or walking is so centered on young males. Go ahead and have a mother with 3 young babies go to the grocery store without a car. How about your elderly grandparents.
I swear, most of what you read on this forum sounds like it comes from the minds of 10 year-old boys who are describing what THEY think would be "cool" to have in cities. I'm sure the boys in this forum would also love public video game stalls installed on every street.
Obviously, the demographics of this forum are dominated by young males.
Amen, brother! I've said this many times over. We only have a few females, who, despite what the guys sometimes say ARE of necessity more concerned about their personal safety than these young guys, and a few parents, for whom it is harder to just hop on a bike and take off, posting regularly.
All this talk about people riding bikes or walking is so centered on young males. Go ahead and have a mother with 3 young babies go to the grocery store without a car. How about your elderly grandparents.
I swear, most of what you read on this forum sounds like it comes from the minds of 10 year-old boys who are describing what THEY think would be "cool" to have in cities. I'm sure the boys in this forum would also love public video game stalls installed on every street.
Obviously, the demographics of this forum are dominated by young males.
I think what is being discussed here is our built environment providing us with options.
Think of it as picking the right tool for the job. One person picking up a loaf of bread should not REQUIRE
a 3,000 pound fossil burner. A mother with 3 babies getting a weeks worth of groceries is a different job and therefore possibly a different tool. My elderly grandparents were fortune enough to live a block from a small grocery store for small purchases and to have plenty of grandkids nearby for bigger trips. They had options.
I don't know the ages or even the genders of some of the regular posters, but having options is good for both genders and all ages. BTW I am a 62 year old male and I look forward to many more years of walking and biking. YMMV
All this talk about people riding bikes or walking is so centered on young males. Go ahead and have a mother with 3 young babies go to the grocery store without a car. How about your elderly grandparents.
I swear, most of what you read on this forum sounds like it comes from the minds of 10 year-old boys who are describing what THEY think would be "cool" to have in cities. I'm sure the boys in this forum would also love public video game stalls installed on every street.
Obviously, the demographics of this forum are dominated by young males.
Agreed completely and I am a single, 24 year old male (who loves and is planning my move to suburbia in the next 3-5 years).
Quote:
Originally Posted by iNviNciBL3
Why can't urbanist just improve their own neighborhoods instead of trying to take over neighborhoods they don't even live in?
Thank you! And it's not so much improve, but rather seeking to completely change the character and built form oftentimes. When I look at suburban neighborhoods to live in, having sidewalks is definitely a plus (though not a dealbreaker) and certain suburbs could use things like sidewalks or other improvements. It's instances where you have a SFH subdivision with apartments and storefronts mixed in for the purpose of being "mixed use"...no thanks, I avoid these areas like these.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddyline
If you live in a car dependent neighborhood how someone losses access to a car is immaterial.
Whether it is a medical problem, legal problem, financial problem or mechanical problem, the result is the same.
If you live somewhere that a car is required and you loss your car, you have few options.
No it isn't immaterial. If you lose your license due to being an ***hole and drinking and driving, it's not a poor reflection on a places transportation options, it's a matter of people needing to be responsible. And that being said, I do not consider this being a negative against these areas whatsoever, because anyone who is drinking and driving should be taken off the roads and SHOULD lose their ability to get around, it's not a negative on the type of community.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddyline
One person picking up a loaf of bread should not REQUIRE
a 3,000 pound fossil burner. A mother with 3 babies getting a weeks worth of groceries is a different job and therefore possibly a different tool.
Yeah, no thanks I think people will choose what they feel is required or desired when they choose to live somewhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddyline
I don't know the ages or even the genders of some of the regular posters, but having options is good for both genders and all ages. BTW I am a 62 year old male and I look forward to many more years of walking and biking. YMMV
Good for you, I'm glad you found a lifestyle that fits. I'm a 24 year old male and I look forward to many more years of driving to work, the store, my house and wherever else I want, as well as riding my bike or walking around the neighborhood when I'm in the mood.
Why can't urbanist just improve their own neighborhoods instead of trying to take over neighborhoods they don't even live in?
Simply put, urbanists haven't imposed "their" will on the country anywhere near as much as suburbanists have been at the wheel. Your argument doesn't make sense in historical context. Urbanists wouldn't build freeways through their neighborhoods so that suburban dwellers could more easily pass through between home and work. Urbanists wouldn't build shopping malls surrounded by a sea of parking and a ring of expressways. Urbanists wouldn't build rural-style houses close to the city core.
And, mainstream urbanist ideas tend to benefit everyone. Better (not just more, but more useful and effective) transit. More walkable and bike-able cities. Place people want to spend time at.
"Historic" downtown areas--the places in the SF bay area that are highly popular hang-outs, such as the downtowns of Campbell, Mountain View, Saratoga, Los Gatos, Willow Glen, Pleasanton, Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and Belmont--tend to exemplify urban ideals of preference for pedestrians, mixed uses, and compactness, even when these areas may be only 1-2 stories in height.
It's instances where you have a SFH subdivision with apartments and storefronts mixed in for the purpose of being "mixed use"...no thanks, I avoid these areas like these.
That's not urbanist mixed use. That's a politician trying to score brownie points for "mixed use" while completely ignoring the appropriateness of that built form for that context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KeepRightPassLeft
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddyline
One person picking up a loaf of bread should not REQUIRE
a 3,000 pound fossil burner.
Yeah, no thanks I think people will choose what they feel is required or desired when they choose to live somewhere.
I don't understand your disagreement. Eddyline wasn't talking about choice, but lack thereof. For all practical purposes, living in the suburbs often requires a car, even for quick tasks such as picking up a loaf of bread. Put another way, it can be entirely impractical to complete that task, much less a string of small tasks, without a car.
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.
