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.
^^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.
Many people like dense, pedestrian-oriented settlements.
I purposely used the term "settlement" because I know that you and some others get caught up on using the city/suburb terminology. That's not meant to be a cut, but just as a way to be clear that I'm not concerned with boundary lines, only with development patterns.
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.
Obviously, you have some leaning against urban areas. Even if your leaning is out of step with reality--cities aren't built for men, the disabled and elderly prefer urban areas because suburban areas cause mobility issues, not every woman on PT is harassed--if you don't like urban areas, and you can afford the suburbs, you should (and do) have the freedom to act on that preference.
If you want to talk about simple tasks becoming problematically difficult, let's talk about having to drive to a dozen different locations to perform a dozen different simple tasks because 60 years of auto-centric design has made short distances unwalkable and spread our destinations over a wide area. Want to pick up some milk? Get in the car. Want to go to your bank? Get in the car. Want to pick up some Tylenol? Get in the car.
Yes, it's inflammatory, and yes it's a generalization. Before anyone catches on fire, take that in to account.
But, the central idea of urbanism is that people, not cars, are the most important user around which to design and build cities. And the result of that thinking tends to be thinner streets, shorter setbacks, and more compact construction.
Last edited by darkeconomist; 08-23-2013 at 02:13 PM..
If you want to talk about simple tasks becoming problematically difficult, let's talk about having to drive to a dozen different locations to perform a dozen different simple tasks because 60 years of auto-centric design has made short distances unwalkable and spread our destinations over a wide area. Want to pick up some milk? Get in the car. Want to go to your bank? Get in the car. Want to pick up some Tylenol? Get in the car.
How is this different from having to walk to each of those different locations to perform a the simple tasks? It's not just autocentric design that's scattered destinations across wide swatch of the city; economic factors also weigh in. For instance, my credit union moved from downtown Cincinnati to a commercial/industrial neighborhood near downtown for cheap rent. If I lived downtown, I'd have to make a special trip via bus to get to the credit union. Doesn't matter if it's via bus or car, it's still a special trip. I couldn't stop for milk and Tylenol on the way.
Oh, and you can pick up milk and Tylenol in the same location in the 'burbs thanks to those big ol' sprawling supermarkets; my bank even has a branch at my favorite grocery store. So that's just one trip ... which I make on my way home from work, when the car's already up and running.
How is this different from having to walk to each of those different locations to perform a the simple tasks? It's not just autocentric design that's scattered destinations across wide swatch of the city; economic factors also weigh in. For instance, my credit union moved from downtown Cincinnati to a commercial/industrial neighborhood near downtown for cheap rent. If I lived downtown, I'd have to make a special trip via bus to get to the credit union. Doesn't matter if it's via bus or car, it's still a special trip. I couldn't stop for milk and Tylenol on the way.
Oh, and you can pick up milk and Tylenol in the same location in the 'burbs thanks to those big ol' sprawling supermarkets; my bank even has a branch at my favorite grocery store. So that's just one trip ... which I make on my way home from work, when the car's already up and running.
My guess is your credit union moved to a commercial/industrial area for cheaper rent because it has a drive thru window. Drive thru windows take up lots of real estate which is more expensive downtown. See post below. Remember when banks and restaurants were designed for people, not cars?
Quote:
originally posted by darkeconomist: But, the central idea of urbanism is that people, not cars, are the most important user around which to design and build cities. And the result of that thinking tends to be thinner streets, shorter setbacks, and more compact construction.
How is this different from having to walk to each of those different locations to perform a the simple tasks? It's not just autocentric design that's scattered destinations across wide swatch of the city; economic factors also weigh in. For instance, my credit union moved from downtown Cincinnati to a commercial/industrial neighborhood near downtown for cheap rent. If I lived downtown, I'd have to make a special trip via bus to get to the credit union. Doesn't matter if it's via bus or car, it's still a special trip. I couldn't stop for milk and Tylenol on the way.
Oh, and you can pick up milk and Tylenol in the same location in the 'burbs thanks to those big ol' sprawling supermarkets; my bank even has a branch at my favorite grocery store. So that's just one trip ... which I make on my way home from work, when the car's already up and running.
Exactly! And where does this idea come from that suburbanites (but apparently no one else) go on individual shopping trips for milk, Tylenol, banking, whatever? Who has time for that? Of all of the above, probably the only thing I'd make an individual trip for is Tylenol, if I had a splitting headache and didn't have any. Unless I was totally out of cash and was up to my credit limit on my cards, had no debit card, no checkbook, etc, the bank could wait until I had some other errands to run. About the only time I've gone to the grocery store for one item has been when we were having company and I needed something for a special recipe; even then, there's always more you need and can buy, saving you a trip at some later date.
How is this different from having to walk to each of those different locations to perform a the simple tasks? It's not just autocentric design that's scattered destinations across wide swatch of the city; economic factors also weigh in. For instance, my credit union moved from downtown Cincinnati to a commercial/industrial neighborhood near downtown for cheap rent. If I lived downtown, I'd have to make a special trip via bus to get to the credit union. Doesn't matter if it's via bus or car, it's still a special trip. I couldn't stop for milk and Tylenol on the way.
Oh, and you can pick up milk and Tylenol in the same location in the 'burbs thanks to those big ol' sprawling supermarkets; my bank even has a branch at my favorite grocery store. So that's just one trip ... which I make on my way home from work, when the car's already up and running.
And do your banking, at least if you've got BoA or one of the other big banks which have at least ATMs and often full banks in supermarkets. When I was in Washington, quite a few people took the bus out from Seattle to Fred Meyers and WinCo even though there were many, many grocery stores (ranging from neighborhood bodegas to full-sized supermarkets) in the city.
Remember when banks and restaurants were designed for people, not cars?
Oh cool, thanks for the info dude...I didn't know cars were autonomous beings, last I checked (which was about 20 minutes ago when I drove somewhere) PEOPLE USE CARS.
I understand that I'm just going to get the canned response of "well pedestrian walkable scale vs auto centric scale", but to compare the two as one being for "people" and one being for "cars" is by far one of the most idiotic arguments that anyone can make on these forums (or any forum for that matter) and makes it sound as if cars are some alien species that are taking over our habitat or something. Now come to think of it, I bet there'll be a few people here who actually would argue that...please don't, because you'd sincerely have to be the epitome of a moron to believe something that far out there.
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.
