|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#771
|
|||
|
|||
promoting "smart growth"
"donquijote1954" wrote in message oups.com... On Apr 6, 8:01 am, Chris wrote: The walkable city disappeared before industrialization. You cannot have a modern city with walking the main way to get around. It was impossible in 1890 too. Your children, depending on your age, your grandchildfren will once again see a 'walkable city' when the oil runs out Or when Venezuela breaks relations with the US, the troops abandon Iraq and the Oil Kingdom is toppled. The anti-trolley people were saying the same thing: wait until the trolley breaks down. That ended the walkable city, and the modern industrial city could not exist without mechanized transport. If you are talking about putting people back on farms, then most of us would die off because it would kill the efficiency which we need to feed ourselves. Walkable cities are non-sustainable. |
Ads |
#772
|
|||
|
|||
promoting "smart growth"
"donquijote1954" wrote in message oups.com... On Apr 6, 7:40 am, "George Conklin" wrote: "Pat" wrote in message oups.com... On Apr 5, 8:09 am, "Amy Blankenship" wrote: "George Conklin" wrote in message hlink.net... "Amy Blankenship" wrote in message news "George Conklin" wrote in message hlink.net... To say that Smart Growth is the only way is like saying only Chevrolet makes cars. I did not say it was the only way. But it seems to be the only way if you actually want to plan the future, vs. Wrong again. Smart Growth has stated that they are the only way to go, like Christian fudamentalist shouting "one way." Wrong. The future is not what some self-centered group wants it to be. OK, so what other schools of thought should we be looking at for other ideas on formulating urban plans? Just because the APA has become a one-note charlie does not mean that the quiet working of reality is not present. We saw that on the planning board all the time. As one local pol. said, "We will pass the plan and then spend the next 20 years repealing it." Which is what is happening. It happens one decision at a time when the commands of Smart Growth violate everyone's common sense. When neighborhoods show up en masse and scream, things get changed. Our local homeowner association has done that quite well, even owing about 1 square foot of a local business development so we can have standing to sue if the developer does not do what he said he would do (he has), but the planners were 100% furious with the deal. The commision? 5 to 0 in favor of us. That is how progress gets made, but not by grand, empty and vapid promises of some great and glorious (and false) future. So in other words you can't offer another school of thought.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I personally subscribe to the "You can't push one a string" school of planning. It is similar to the "You can't Turn the River Around School" but there are subtle differences. Neither are close to the "I'm smarter than you and know what is better" school that most planners subscribe to. Planning doesn't, in general, work because planners are trying to tell people what to do. You just can't do that with very much success. The best you can do is to influence them is subtle ways to make things closer to your ideal of better. If people want McMansions (hint, they do) then you can' stop that. Them best you can do is have subtle influence of how and where they are built. If you try too much, the elected officials will (rightly) put the kabosh on what you want. Also, if you try, smarter people (and there are always smarter people) will find away around any reg you can imaging. Actually look at the article on Sociation Today about why planning fails. It fails because it is based on an obsolete model of how a city should look.http://www.ncsociology.org/sociation...42/jentsch.htm Jentsch is a former professor of planning who worked with Smart Growth in various jurisdictions as a planner. This should be an interesting read too... Sprawl Costs Us All Many people think that sprawl (or scattered growth) is an inevitable result of an economic system that demands lower costs and efficiency. But this is a myth: sprawl development costs more than careful planning and development. "Sprawl is cheaper for developers than careful planning because they can pass much of the cost on to taxpayers. The real cost of sprawl is dispersed through a range of other costs that we, as citizens and consumers, have to pay." http://www.smartergrowth.net/issues/...stofsprawl.htm Smart Growth is based on a lie, but a useful one to get the taxpayer to pay for a developer's schemes. |
#773
|
|||
|
|||
promoting "smart growth"
"SMS" wrote in message ... donquijote1954 wrote: You even find them in the environmental movement, feeding the hungry children in Timbuktu and in the promotion of democracy for Iraq... My favorite story was when the Sierra Club thought they had a deal where the developers would pay $100 million dollars and in return the Sierra Club would not oppose development in San Jose's Coyote Valley. A Sierra Club member, upset by this extortion, leaked the story. "http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2006/01/02/story2.html" The whole thing collapsed when it was made public. The city of San Jose, to their credit, is not letting developers build housing in the Coyote Valley until the industrial and commercial space is developed and sold (or leased). Both Apple and Cisco abandoned plans for large campuses in that area. Apple sold the land and is adding a campus in Cupertino (and they oppose the conversion of commercial to residential) while Cisco may still own the land but has no plans to develop it. The developers are chomping at the bit to build housing there. They tried to elect a mayor that would eliminate the requirement for intelligent growth, but they lost...for now. The computer industry knows it cannot command its employees to live in a Smart Growth ghetto. You should be smart enough to see that too, but I guess not. |
#774
|
|||
|
|||
promoting "smart growth"
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 11:28:37 GMT, "George Conklin"
wrote: "Dave Head" wrote in message Across the street would be fine. I lived across the street from the National Carbon Company in Fostoria, and, once we got 'em to clean up some particularly nasty particulates, it was just great. Dave Head Most people don't want lower class housing. Hey, the price was right. I sold it about 15 years ago for $12K. Now, I'ts prolly worth $50K 'cuz the neighborhood has improved dramatically. Small house. But lotsa space outside. And... nobody really cares about the carbon plant. DPH |
#775
|
|||
|
|||
promoting "smart growth"
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Amy Blankenship" wrote in message ... "Baxter" wrote in message ... I don't hear that many complaints from the people who live on the cliff above Swan Island - and that includes some fairly pricey homes. What were residents saying _before_ the industrial facilities were built? That's lost in history, but they probably were glad for the jobs. There's been industry on Swan Island since probably before 1900. |
#776
|
|||
|
|||
promoting "smart growth"
In article t,
"George Conklin" wrote: Smart Growth is based on a lie, but a useful one to get the taxpayer to pay for a developer's schemes. Not like that's new. That sort of scheming was around long before "smart growth." |
#777
|
|||
|
|||
promoting "smart growth"
"Tim McNamara" wrote in message ... In article t, "George Conklin" wrote: Smart Growth is based on a lie, but a useful one to get the taxpayer to pay for a developer's schemes. Not like that's new. That sort of scheming was around long before "smart growth." True, but smart growth is just the latest scam. |
#778
|
|||
|
|||
promoting "smart growth"
In article t,
"George Conklin" wrote: "Tim McNamara" wrote in message news:timmcn- Seems to me that there are just too many people, who all have to live somewhere and have as much right to good housing as I have. There's no perfect solution- allow sprawl and spend trillions of dollars subsidizing cars. Increase density and get the problems of crowding- increased crime, pummeled infrastructure, and a tendency towards a bleaker and more aggressive life. All the gloom and doom posted here does NOT reflect reality. Give it up boys...half the counties in the USA are losing population and the people will move to the few areas where growth is happening. That's one of those statistics that follows lies and damned lies. But stop worrying about it. It's worth worrying about if you live in one of those places people are moving to, and it's worth worrying about if you live in one of those places people are moving from. Just don't put everyone in a Russian-style apartment building and remember that what Smart Growth now calls good development was at one time condemned as bad. It's inevitable as cities grow. Density will increase and with that comes urban gulags. But there are ways to avoid the "vertical ghettos" syndrome (I grew up near Chicago, and the failings of the housing projects is vivid even though I didn't live near them. Having to occasionally go down into those areas for work was like entering another world a horrible one of bleak concrete and harsh light, of filth and despair). I think cooperative housing is a better notion than traditional apartment buildings. Personal investment and some type of ownership of one's home encourage pro-social behavior. |
#779
|
|||
|
|||
promoting "smart growth"
On Apr 6, 6:28 pm, "George Conklin"
wrote: "donquijote1954" wrote in message ups.com... On Apr 5, 5:10 pm, "George Conklin" wrote: "Chris" wrote in message . .. "George Conklin" wrote in link.net: "Dave Head" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 20:39:54 GMT, "George Conklin" wrote: "Dave Head" wrote in message .. . My home town, Fostoria, Ohio, is dotted with factories in all corners except the extreme Northwest. People live across the street from factories all over that town. Life is great - there's lotsa people that can walk to work. There's very little downside to it - some people get bothered by truck traffic a bit, but otherwise its great. You even get used to the factory whistles, and use them to tell time without your watch. Dave Head The rust belt is not the future. Small factories are going out of business all over the place due to their inefficiency and global competition. And this statement invalidates the concept of living close to work exactly how? DPH We already live close to work: 20 minutes on the average. That is close enough. 20 minutes by foot?? No, by automobile. We in the west are so dependent upon our cars. 10 minuts by foot is about a mile away. The walkable city disappeared before industrialization. You cannot have a modern city with walking the main way to get around. It was impossible in 1890 too.- It didn't disappear, it was killed, just like the trolley. By the way, in 1890 it was BICYCLES that ruled the roads... It was the trolley which spread cities by a factor of 100 AND ended the walkable city. Bicycles? They changed nothing. I take it that you have never read "The Revenge of the Methodist Biycle Company"? John Kane, Kingston ON Canada |
#780
|
|||
|
|||
promoting "smart growth"
"Bill" wrote in message ... donquijote1954 wrote: You even find them in the environmental movement, feeding the hungry children in Timbuktu and in the promotion of democracy for Iraq... For example: (this is serious) 'For the Bush administration, democracy promotion is not just a "made in the U.S." venture, but a goal shared with many other countries. We also seek to broaden our partnerships with local and global nongovernmental organizations and international organizations, so that we can work together on democracy promotion, advancement of human rights, and humanitarian relief.' No ****. Bush seems to think he can blow smoke up everybodies ass. Other countries share the goal of not having to listen to American B.S. We have no REAL partnerships because they will **** on us and change sides as soon as it is to their advantage. 'Partner' is a word that is way overused in business. Your 'partner' can switch overnight and put you out of business. China is not a partner or friend but they love our money. Democracy promotion is reserved for those with oil for us. Advancement of human rights is just politician rhetoric. Humanitarian relief means sending our money to a country that does not appreciate it, all for a news byte, and while ignoring the problems at home, like New Orleans, the homeless in OUR country, etc. I get really tired of people talking about New Orleans like it's some sort of failure of national policy. The problem in NO is local leadership and the helpless mentality of the New Orleans residents who get media attention. Mississippi had it worse if anything (whole towns here were completely wiped off the map), but you don't hear people referring to us as a symptom of some sort of national malaise. And the reason why is that our leadership made the decision that we would pick ourselves up by our bootstraps and get back to work, whether or not there was any aid at the federal level. New Orleans chose a different path--even worse, they chose to keep the mayor who'd failed them so badly in power. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ride Report ( Long) - Children's Cancer Institute Bike Ride - Townsville to Cairns | HughMann | Australia | 2 | August 7th 05 04:08 AM |
Early-bird bike ride helps Sierra Club ("Morning Glory" ride) | Garrison Hilliard | General | 5 | July 8th 05 05:44 PM |
Bike Ride Pictures: Club ride to Half Moon Bay, CA, June 2005 | Bill Bushnell | Rides | 0 | June 28th 05 07:05 AM |
Bike Ride Pictures: Sequoia Century Worker's Ride (200k, w/variations), June 2005 | Bill Bushnell | Rides | 0 | June 19th 05 03:31 PM |
[Texas] Bridgewood Farms "Ride From the Heart" Charity Bike Ride | Greg Bretting | Rides | 0 | January 15th 04 05:38 AM |