|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Before & after bike ghettos
"Peter Cole" wrote in message ...
On 10/20/2010 11:08 AM, Duane Hebert wrote: I'd point out that while roaming over New England by bike, I never felt any inhospitable treatment, maybe I just have low standards, but people seemed friendly enough, and quite tolerant of cyclists. You'll find the same thing touring in Quebec. Even if you run into people that don't speak English it works out. The only strange thing that I had happen in New England was at the foot of a hill that we were starting, there was this brake shop and the guys outside having a smoke started jeering a bit. By the time we reached the top we realized both why they were jeering and why there was a brake shop at the bottom g |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Before & after bike ghettos
Peter Cole writes:
On 10/20/2010 11:08 AM, Duane Hebert wrote: I'd point out that while roaming over New England by bike, I never felt any inhospitable treatment, maybe I just have low standards, but people seemed friendly enough, and quite tolerant of cyclists. I have experiencedconsiderable *personal* hospitality in New England, both on a bicycle and off. New Englanders are quite capable of both friendliness and hopsitality. What they won't do is vote to spend money on things, like street signs, that are seen as primarily benefiting visitors. Spending money on promoting tourism they do understand. I didn't say this attitude is wrong, but I found it novel. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Before & after bike ghettos
Peter Cole writes:
On 10/19/2010 2:34 PM, Radey Shouman wrote: Most other places I have lived or visited have some notion of civic hospitality: they want, or believe they should want, visitors to feel welcome, and are willing to spend a little public money to make it so. New Englanders apparently do not. Individually many are hospitable, but most consider any money at all spent to benefit outsiders to be purely wasted. Signs for streets every local should know fall into this category. Accomodations for out-of-town cyclists do as well. Perhaps this attitude is simply the result of a long experience of local democracy, I don't know The Boston area was, at least at one time, noted for its network of public spaces. The famous "Emerald Necklace" was designed by Frederick Law Olmsted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerald_Necklace. The greater Boston area is loaded with various public spaces acquired over the years and grand structures erected for the common use. Right. Spaces intended to benefit the local voting public. Until I moved to Massachusetts I had never seen a sign saying: "Park|Beach|whatever for the use of residents of xxx town only" Now I have seen several. I doubt these are still legally enforceable, but they are there. Massachusetts is over 60% forested, and ranks 35th in percentage of public land, unlike Iowa, at #49, ahead of only Kansas. Also in New England, NH ranks #19. Unlike an industrial farming hell hole like Iowa, where GM monoculture spreads for endless miles, spreading toxic runoff all the way to the Gulf of Mexico, and sewage lagoons dot the landscape, breeding the next strain of antibiotic resistant bug, Massachusetts retains much of its original landscape and natural resources. People come to New England to enjoy its seashores, mountains and winding country roads. People ride bikes here to enjoy the scenery, not for fried dough and beer. Fried clams, maybe. That's not the original landscape, most of the forest was farmland not all that long ago. Quite a bit of it was farmland (abandoned due to pestilence) when the pilgrims first showed up. Massachusetts is scenic and varied, and the clams and oysters are some of the best. On the other hand, Mass can't live on clams alone, and happily eats food grown in Iowa. A quick survey in any of the popular areas -- Cape Cod, NH's White Mountains, the Maine coast, will reveal a high percentage of out of state plates. Hardly a testimony to an unwelcome reception. Cash cows are welcome anywhere. Residents of vacation spots, including the ones you mention, learn to concentrate on the bottom line. No one *likes* tourists in a tourist town, though. My "overpopulated" town, despite being only 6 miles from downtown Boston, is bordered by a river clean enough for swimming and to support a population of herons, otters and seasonal herring runs. My urban street is wandered by coyotes, fox, deer, rabbit, groundhog and even the occasional moose, and overflown by hawks and harriers, occasionally making kills outside my window. All that, and the restoration of the harbor and coast was accomplished with billions of public dollars. That is civics in action. I can drive 75 miles to the Cape and sail my sailboat to a stone's throw from the Obama & Kennedy families summer spots, with a 12 acre island to myself in a pristine and protected coastal area on a mid-summer's day: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFByfOJGMqo The whole area is loaded with public resources, many preserved since colonial times. I'm an "outsider" there, too. This weekend is the "Head of the Charles Regatta", an event where thousands of rowers come from around the country (& world sometimes) to compete on the river that runs straight through Boston. The next Boston Marathon sold out registrations (20,000) in 8 hours. Boston draws hundreds of thousands of students from the country and world to spend four or more years at our universities, many of them decide to stay on. Tourism is a huge part of the New England economy, and taken seriously in Boston & Massachusetts, too. While that may be dismissed as only being business-like, the large historical and contemporary investments in public spaces, unlike places like Iowa, indicate the importance placed on those public areas and resources. They are for all, including "outsiders". I agree with a lot of your description, but it's arguing against something I didn't write. As for "friendliness", I don't know how to measure that directly, but it seems that people who choose to live among lots of other people must like people more than those who choose the prairie. I don't see evidence of anti-outsider sentiment in Boston, Massachusetts or New England. Additionally, I have experienced far more tolerance here than in other parts of the US (like northern CA, parts of OR, *all* of IN, never mind the deep South). I found Texas to be "friendly", but hardly "tolerant". Given the choice, I'll take tolerance, especially when riding a bike. You may find the frugal omission of street signs inhospitable, but I find the usual lack of bullet holes more welcoming. Boston has a remarkably low standard for politeness -- once a person gets used to that the people can be as friendly as those anywhere. Once I lived in Texas, and my boss was a Boston native. He railed repeatedly against duplicitous southern belles. I had no idea what he was talking about. When I moved here, years later, the penny dropped: They were showing the minimum politeness they thought consonant with human decency, but he thought they really liked him. Hilarity ensued. I'm not sure you can hold Boston up as a beacon of tolerance, though, it seems quite thoroughly segregated. Also, I have to wonder if you've equated a lack of anti-Yankee sentiment with tolerance; it's easy to mistake tolerance of one's own with tolerance in general. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Before & after bike ghettos
On 10/20/2010 2:41 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Right. Spaces intended to benefit the local voting public. Until I moved to Massachusetts I had never seen a sign saying: "Park|Beach|whatever for the use of residents of xxx town only" Now I have seen several. I doubt these are still legally enforceable, but they are there. These are common. It's not the beach that's usually being rationed, it's the parking. On the other hand, Mass can't live on clams alone, and happily eats food grown in Iowa. Not entirely happily. I agree with a lot of your description, but it's arguing against something I didn't write. Point taken. Boston has a remarkably low standard for politeness -- once a person gets used to that the people can be as friendly as those anywhere. These days, they're more than ever, friendly as those anywhere, because they're from anywhere. We're not as regional as we used to be, neither is the rest of the country. I'm not sure you can hold Boston up as a beacon of tolerance, though, it seems quite thoroughly segregated. Also, I have to wonder if you've equated a lack of anti-Yankee sentiment with tolerance; it's easy to mistake tolerance of one's own with tolerance in general. The was a recent article in the paper about this. It asked the question why people remained in high crime neighborhoods in Boston, when the (safer) alternatives weren't any more expensive. Indirectly addressing the question of continuing segregation. They felt the reasons were complex. It might have been feel-good, CYA, I don't know. Boston is still highly segregated, true, but it's simplistic to call it racism. Boston got a really bad national rep over the school busing turmoil. Neighborhoods in Boston were more clannish than many other cities. That's one of the reasons for the spate of recent movies, it makes colorful drama, most of that ethnic clustering is long gone, despite what Ben Affleck shoots. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Before & after bike ghettos
On 10/20/2010 2:41 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Right. Spaces intended to benefit the local voting public. Until I moved to Massachusetts I had never seen a sign saying: "Park|Beach|whatever for the use of residents of xxx town only" Now I have seen several. I doubt these are still legally enforceable, but they are there. These are common. It's not the beach that's usually being rationed, it's the parking. On the other hand, Mass can't live on clams alone, and happily eats food grown in Iowa. Not entirely happily. I agree with a lot of your description, but it's arguing against something I didn't write. Point taken. Boston has a remarkably low standard for politeness -- once a person gets used to that the people can be as friendly as those anywhere. These days, they're more than ever, friendly as those anywhere, because they're from anywhere. We're not as regional as we used to be, neither is the rest of the country. I'm not sure you can hold Boston up as a beacon of tolerance, though, it seems quite thoroughly segregated. Also, I have to wonder if you've equated a lack of anti-Yankee sentiment with tolerance; it's easy to mistake tolerance of one's own with tolerance in general. The was a recent article in the paper about this. It asked the question why people remained in high crime neighborhoods in Boston, when the (safer) alternatives weren't any more expensive. Indirectly addressing the question of continuing segregation. They felt the reasons were complex. It might have been feel-good, CYA, I don't know. Boston is still highly segregated, true, but it's simplistic to call it racism. Boston got a really bad national rep over the school busing turmoil. Neighborhoods in Boston were more clannish than many other cities. That's one of the reasons for the spate of recent movies, it makes colorful drama, most of that ethnic clustering is long gone, despite what Ben Affleck shoots. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Before & after bike ghettos
Peter Cole writes:
On 10/20/2010 2:41 PM, Radey Shouman wrote: Right. Spaces intended to benefit the local voting public. Until I moved to Massachusetts I had never seen a sign saying: "Park|Beach|whatever for the use of residents of xxx town only" Now I have seen several. I doubt these are still legally enforceable, but they are there. These are common. It's not the beach that's usually being rationed, it's the parking. The signs I'm thinking of are definitely about the park, but they are fairly old. On the other hand, Mass can't live on clams alone, and happily eats food grown in Iowa. Not entirely happily. Not unhappily enough to plow up those forests again. Boston has a remarkably low standard for politeness -- once a person gets used to that the people can be as friendly as those anywhere. These days, they're more than ever, friendly as those anywhere, because they're from anywhere. We're not as regional as we used to be, neither is the rest of the country. I can't speak for the past, but I do notice regional differences in how strangers are expected to deal with each other, and I don't believe it's just population density. I'm not sure you can hold Boston up as a beacon of tolerance, though, it seems quite thoroughly segregated. Also, I have to wonder if you've equated a lack of anti-Yankee sentiment with tolerance; it's easy to mistake tolerance of one's own with tolerance in general. The was a recent article in the paper about this. It asked the question why people remained in high crime neighborhoods in Boston, when the (safer) alternatives weren't any more expensive. Indirectly addressing the question of continuing segregation. They felt the reasons were complex. It might have been feel-good, CYA, I don't know. Boston is still highly segregated, true, but it's simplistic to call it racism. Boston got a really bad national rep over the school busing turmoil. Neighborhoods in Boston were more clannish than many other cities. That's one of the reasons for the spate of recent movies, it makes colorful drama, most of that ethnic clustering is long gone, despite what Ben Affleck shoots. I thought it was so locals could groan at the actors' accents. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Before & after bike ghettos
On 10/21/2010 11:03 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Peter writes: On 10/20/2010 2:41 PM, Radey Shouman wrote: Right. Spaces intended to benefit the local voting public. Until I moved to Massachusetts I had never seen a sign saying: "Park|Beach|whatever for the use of residents of xxx town only" Now I have seen several. I doubt these are still legally enforceable, but they are there. These are common. It's not the beach that's usually being rationed, it's the parking. The signs I'm thinking of are definitely about the park, but they are fairly old. I've only seen these signs on small, town owned beaches, state beaches and parks don't check for residency. The big town beaches often charge for parking if you don't have a town sticker. On the other hand, Mass can't live on clams alone, and happily eats food grown in Iowa. Not entirely happily. Not unhappily enough to plow up those forests again. It's hard to compete against socialized corn, ask the Mexicans. Boston has a remarkably low standard for politeness -- once a person gets used to that the people can be as friendly as those anywhere. These days, they're more than ever, friendly as those anywhere, because they're from anywhere. We're not as regional as we used to be, neither is the rest of the country. I can't speak for the past, but I do notice regional differences in how strangers are expected to deal with each other, and I don't believe it's just population density. It's hard to make generalities, but the people I knew who relocated often claimed to find West-coasters "superficial", but that's when there was far more regionalism. Like your Southern belles, the friendliness was only skin deep. Boston got a really bad national rep over the school busing turmoil. Neighborhoods in Boston were more clannish than many other cities. That's one of the reasons for the spate of recent movies, it makes colorful drama, most of that ethnic clustering is long gone, despite what Ben Affleck shoots. I thought it was so locals could groan at the actors' accents. Yes, but the local accents are also dying out. Most of the neighborhoods in Boston started out as ghettos, even the white ones (Irish, Italian), they often stayed pretty homogeneous long after discrimination ended (the white ones). Most of them, including South Boston, Dorchester, Charlestown and the North End, became finally mixed once condo-conversion and gentrification started right after the busing era. You still have Irish parades and Italian parades in the same neighborhoods, but most of the crowds come in from the 'burbs, the locals are often yuppies. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Before & after bike ghettos
Peter Cole writes:
On 10/21/2010 11:03 AM, Radey Shouman wrote: Peter writes: On 10/20/2010 2:41 PM, Radey Shouman wrote: These days, they're more than ever, friendly as those anywhere, because they're from anywhere. We're not as regional as we used to be, neither is the rest of the country. I can't speak for the past, but I do notice regional differences in how strangers are expected to deal with each other, and I don't believe it's just population density. It's hard to make generalities, but the people I knew who relocated often claimed to find West-coasters "superficial", but that's when there was far more regionalism. Like your Southern belles, the friendliness was only skin deep. I said "polite", not "friendly". Politeness *is* superficial. Many Bostonians seem to think it insincere, people in other regions think it indispensable nonetheless. I think my first interaction with a Bostonian was with a parking lot attendant. "How are you?" - "Fine, how are you?" - "Like ****!". That's a conversation that might happen between friends anywhere, but between strangers I found it quite surprising. Boston got a really bad national rep over the school busing turmoil. Neighborhoods in Boston were more clannish than many other cities. That's one of the reasons for the spate of recent movies, it makes colorful drama, most of that ethnic clustering is long gone, despite what Ben Affleck shoots. I thought it was so locals could groan at the actors' accents. Yes, but the local accents are also dying out. Maybe, but they're still very much in evidence. I know people that claim to be able to identify which town in Eastern Mass someone came from, by accent. When tested they're often right. Most of the neighborhoods in Boston started out as ghettos, even the white ones (Irish, Italian), they often stayed pretty homogeneous long after discrimination ended (the white ones). Most of them, including South Boston, Dorchester, Charlestown and the North End, became finally mixed once condo-conversion and gentrification started right after the busing era. You still have Irish parades and Italian parades in the same neighborhoods, but most of the crowds come in from the 'burbs, the locals are often yuppies. I can't speak for Boston proper, I haven't spent enough time there. I do know people that moved out of my town (Lowell) because they thought Cambodians and Puerto Ricans were much harder to bear than Greeks and French Canadians. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Before & after bike ghettos
On 10/20/2010 9:49 AM, Peter Cole wrote:
[...] As for "friendliness", I don't know how to measure that directly, but it seems that people who choose to live among lots of other people must like people more than those who choose the prairie.[...] Yet, in the real world, people are the most rude and stand-offish in large cites. While you do get people that want to be "left the hell alone" in remote rural areas, these people almost never bother those who do not intrude upon them. -- Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007 I am a vehicular cyclist. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Before & after bike ghettos
On 10/20/2010 10:44 AM, Peter Cole wrote:
[...] I'd point out that while roaming over New England by bike, I never felt any inhospitable treatment, maybe I just have low standards, but people seemed friendly enough, and quite tolerant of cyclists.[...] Even in the urban Boston and NYC parts of New England? -- Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007 I am a vehicular cyclist. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Before & after bike ghettos | Dan | General | 6 | October 10th 10 05:01 AM |
Before & after bike ghettos | [email protected] | General | 8 | October 7th 10 04:39 PM |
Before & after bike ghettos | Peter Cole[_2_] | General | 0 | October 6th 10 01:20 PM |
Before & after bike ghettos | Chalo | General | 13 | October 1st 10 05:01 PM |
Before & after bike ghettos | Peter Cole[_2_] | General | 1 | September 29th 10 11:45 PM |