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.
It seems to me that you're the one obsessing. Why come to the Urban Planning forum when all you're going to do is rip on urbanism?
I want to talk about urbanism but everyone here is obsessed with sprawl for some reason.
We live in a huge country where there is a huge choice of urban/walkable areas and sprawl areas to choose from. many people choose to live in sprawled out communities because that is what they like so stick to improving your urban and walkable areas.
Irvine is 66 square miles and is a completely different place than Davis. Irvine is a center for offices in OC. I can assure you, the many square miles of office parks are entirely car-centric. UC Irvine will promote lots of bicyclists due to its high student population, but again, most commuters to/from Irvine drive. UC Irvine is also considered a commuter school where most of the population doesn't live on campus but instead drives there from nearby cities.
I want to talk about urbanism but everyone here is obsessed with sprawl for some reason.
We live in a huge country where there is a huge choice of urban/walkable areas and sprawl areas to choose from. many people choose to live in sprawled out communities because that is what they like so stick to improving your urban and walkable areas.
I think the choice of urban & walkable areas are rather limited.
If you'd like to talk about some particular aspect of urbanism, perhaps you could start your own thread.
What is your definition of urbanism? Everyone who lives in a city or the suburbs is living in an urban environment.
Everyone on this forum thinks urbanism only exists when you walk/bike/bus/subway your way through your city to accomplish everyday tasks. They think that if there's not wall-to-wall buildings, it's no longer a city. Everyone on this forum wants the most menial of tasks to become more tedious and inconvenient because, well, living a pedestrian life is cool! All the people in the movies that take place in NYC do it. It must be how we're meant to live life.
Now if you're a woman who wants to avoid getting harassed by men on the bus/subway, or if you have babies to take care of, or if you're disabled or elderly... well, just stay put in your apartment. We don't care about you. Cities exist solely for young men who want to have the option to bar crawl right outside their doorway.
The pinnacle of human civilization cities are, oh yeah, sure.
Sure, the term urbanism can encompass less dense areas, which includes cities and suburbs. I'm fine with that.
People do like dense, pedestrian-oriented settlements. I don't believe they like it just because it's in the movies. That's silly.
Cities do not exist for men only. There are many women that enjoy living in cities. If you are a woman who is afraid of a dense urban environment, by all means you should live in a more suburban, less dense area.
^^Some people like dense, pedestrian-oriented "settlements". (Strange word, IMO, to describe a city in 2013.)
I posted a thread from another forum about women being more concerned about their physical safety than men, as many of the young guys on this forum don't believe that.
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.
Neither would anyone if planning departments didn't require it...
Right. Developers would build malls with no parking and then laugh about how no one shopped there
You would be surprised what business owners think. The latest complaint we've had from a couple is that customers are parking in front of their stores, leaving no parking for the owners.
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.
