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.
Sure. It will make "urban planners" salivate at the prospect of employment through federal grants or the threat of withholding federal tax moneys in order to pursue this agenda. Although on the surface the speech appears benign, in reality its implementation is "planned community" on steroids. To achieve the stated objective, the "plan" will involve a lot more than just sidewalks. It would have to dictate what kind of businesses and how many of them can be located in the subject area - same for schools, etc. The money would be far better spent repairing failing infrastructure as opposed to trying to dictate how people should live.
The money would be far better spent repairing failing infrastructure as opposed to trying to dictate how people should live.
News Flash: Public money has already been dictating how people should live, and far more forcefully than anything the surgeon general is prescribing here. When our cities are designed such that the only reasonable housing choice for a young family (desiring quality public schools) is on or near a cul-de-sac and 2+ miles from the nearest supermarket, drug store, dry cleaner, etc, then yes, our lifestyles have been dictated to us by the powers that be. In a walkable neighborhood, residents have a choice to drive wherever they like. But in a non-walkable neighborhood, driving is the only option.
Additionally, the primary reason our infrastructure is failing and crumbling is that there is far too much of it. This nation never counted the cost of maintenance when building its version of Car-topia. The expressways, the bridges, the endless lane additions, the parking lots, and the miles and miles of redundant utility lines to connect buildings which are needlessly isolated from each other... the cost of maintaining all these luxuries is absurd.
News Flash: Public money has already been dictating how people should live, and far more forcefully than anything the surgeon general is prescribing here. When our cities are designed such that the only reasonable housing choice for a young family (desiring quality public schools) is on or near a cul-de-sac and 2+ miles from the nearest supermarket, drug store, dry cleaner, etc, then yes, our lifestyles have been dictated to us by the powers that be. In a walkable neighborhood, residents have a choice to drive wherever they like. But in a non-walkable neighborhood, driving is the only option.
Additionally, the primary reason our infrastructure is failing and crumbling is that there is far too much of it. This nation never counted the cost of maintenance when building its version of Car-topia. The expressways, the bridges, the endless lane additions, the parking lots, and the miles and miles of redundant utility lines to connect buildings which are needlessly isolated from each other... the cost of maintaining all these luxuries is absurd.
Then why is it the inner cities are the ones with the most crumbling infrastructure and suburbs are in pretty good shape?
The obvious answer is that your conclusion is totally wrong.
News Flash: Public money has already been dictating how people should live, and far more forcefully than anything the surgeon general is prescribing here. When our cities are designed such that the only reasonable housing choice for a young family (desiring quality public schools) is on or near a cul-de-sac and 2+ miles from the nearest supermarket, drug store, dry cleaner, etc, then yes, our lifestyles have been dictated to us by the powers that be. In a walkable neighborhood, residents have a choice to drive wherever they like. But in a non-walkable neighborhood, driving is the only option.
what bu2 said, plus:
"Public money" is not dictating the design you claim. Not sure what your beef is with "cul-de-sac". I'm guessing you might be in the group of urbanophiles that think "cul-de-sac" is a cuss word. Oftentimes it is the residents of these subdivisions that oppose having businesses located in or near them. They are called "nimbys".
Maybe the "young family" wants affordable housing (not found "downtown" except in rundown cities). Maybe they want good schools. Maybe they want a yard. Maybe they don't want the restrictions imposed by cities. Maybe they would rather spend money on their house as opposed to city taxes. Maybe they don't want to live in hamster-style housing.
Maybe the "reasonable choice" is because savvy young families can get more AND pay less in the environment you despise so much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwiksell
Additionally, the primary reason our infrastructure is failing and crumbling is that there is far too much of it. This nation never counted the cost of maintenance when building its version of Car-topia. The expressways, the bridges, the endless lane additions, the parking lots, and the miles and miles of redundant utility lines to connect buildings which are needlessly isolated from each other... the cost of maintaining all these luxuries is absurd.
As far as maintaining the infrastructure - it is the infrastructure within the cities failing first and foremost. There are different funders for bridges, expressways, etc.
"redundant utility lines to connect buildings which are needlessly isolated from each other"? What utility are you referring to? This doesn't really make any sense. If you are talking about electrical, you could complain about hooking all your hamster houses to the same electric line. Same argument applies for gas and water. The purpose of the utility line isn't to "connect buildings together" but rather to provide a common transport mechanism for transportation/delivery of consumables or waste from one or more sources to one or more destinations - not between consumers.
"Parking lots" - oh the horror! Do they destroy your "urban fabric"?
Your representatives prefer erecting new monuments to themselves instead of taking care of existing infrastructure. What's your excuse for Detroit?
Will this have an impact in the planning community?
Not really, just the combination of two things everyone has already known about for a long-time.
1) Walking is good for you.
2) Streetsblog has no interest in veracity. The quote had nothing to do with walkable communities, but that's their agenda and they saw a way of misrepresenting it to drive the agenda. If you're actually expecting anything to come out of Streetsblog just misrepresenting the same tired old message that walking is good for you which had nothing to do with urban design... well, I guess you're their target audience. The answer is it won't. Everyone has already known that walking is good for you for a long time.
The quote had nothing to do with walkable communities
Quote:
“Thirty percent of Americans report they do not have sidewalks in neighborhoods,” Murthy said. “We can change that. We can change it by city planners, transportation professionals and local government leaders working together to improve the safety and walkability of neighborhoods for people with all abilities. Community leaders and the law enforcement can work together to make sure that no American is ever unsafe walking out the door.”
News Flash: Public money has already been dictating how people should live, and far more forcefully than anything the surgeon general is prescribing here. When our cities are designed such that the only reasonable housing choice for a young family (desiring quality public schools) is on or near a cul-de-sac and 2+ miles from the nearest supermarket, drug store, dry cleaner, etc, then yes, our lifestyles have been dictated to us by the powers that be. In a walkable neighborhood, residents have a choice to drive wherever they like. But in a non-walkable neighborhood, driving is the only option.
Additionally, the primary reason our infrastructure is failing and crumbling is that there is far too much of it. This nation never counted the cost of maintenance when building its version of Car-topia. The expressways, the bridges, the endless lane additions, the parking lots, and the miles and miles of redundant utility lines to connect buildings which are needlessly isolated from each other... the cost of maintaining all these luxuries is absurd.
You could try living in a different city. Quite a few cities in the Bay Area would work for you, and a few would not. Rather than moaning about how you're forced to live somewhere, try moving. You'd actually have trouble finding anywhere in the Bay Area that's suburban where you're two miles from the nearest supermarket at this point. Maybe if you go out to Walnut Creek or Woodside you can find that, but it's actually getting pretty difficult. You'd really have to concentrate on finding that place two miles from a supermarket as if you just threw darts you'd end up somewhere that wouldn't qualify.
Also, the cost really isn't that absurd at all. Our local planning coalition put the cost to fully maintain roads at an extra 50 cents per gallon in gas taxes, which isn't that expensive. I mean, figure you've got to drive your 1/2-ton Suburban everywhere and drive 20,000 miles a year. That's still only about $800/year. In contrast to public transit, that's nothing at all. A transit pass costs $1,200/yr to the user, but fares only cover around 20% of the operating costs. The tax payer is picking up another $4,800. Cars are cost effective which is why they're so popular. Transit... well, it's not so much. Even somewhere like San Francisco it's still really expensive. I mean, you have to do it there because there's just not enough room for everyone to be driving everywhere but that's not a real concern out where I live. Everyone drives everywhere anyway and the traffic isn't that bad.
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.
