How how 'bout taking in piece work in tenament housing, sharing TB with your friendly neighbors? Or living right above a chinese noodle factory, 10 to a room? Sounds like the life.

Why does it have to go to such extremes... is there nothing in between... such as the cycling and communities of northern Europe... or is it either wide roads and strip malls or TB and tenament housing... and nothing else?

How how 'bout taking in piece work in tenament housing, sharing TB with your friendly neighbors? Or living right above a chinese noodle factory, 10 to a room? Sounds like the life.

Wow, I'm starting to see what those other guys mean when they respond to ILTB. Does this thing have a kill filter?

Does this thing have a kill filter?

Yup, go to User Control Panel and then select Buddy/Ignore Lists at the bottom of the list of links on the left.

Not that, you know, I didn't just do the same thing earlier this morning or anything. :)

This pisses me off, when you put a gold fish in an bigger tank what happens... People need to start wearing tighter clothes so when they sit down they'll feel that pinch and think oh I should loose some weight... not buy bigger ones!

And another thing, anyone notice that all off the shelf clothing, and even sports specific clothing has gained size over the past ten years? I'm still the same weight I was 15 years ago, maybe an inch more in the waist. I used to always order medium size clothes back then, now if I order medium, shirts and pants are swimming on me, I have to go with small, but I'm not any smaller. It's that the average person is now what was a large.

Wouldn't matter in street clothes, it doesnt need to fit skin tight. But my cycling apparel needs to hug the skin and not hang on me with big old folds.

:rolleyes:

Trying clothes on before you buy is a necessity nowdays. I refuse to shop at places without changing rooms. After all they may take offense to me trying on the clothes in the middle of target. :p
Plus, brands vary so much in what an actual size is. M is L in some brands and vice versa.

you're absolutely right. was merely correcting the above stated opinion that agitation for paved roadways bega with motorists.

As are you - :D

Furthering the discussion - while cyclists, in part, were agitating for roadways before the widespread use of cars, it was the post WWII suburb boom that resulted in plethora of nice boulevards and roads ouside of major cities.

Commuting to work is a very small part of my cycling lifestyle/experience. While it's true I live in a suburb and have the rare gift of a 4 mile roundtrip commute, I would gladly drive (and have, within reason) to maintain the quality of life I find attractive in a suburb. Excellent roads, freindly and knowledgeble drivers (for the most part), and scenic beauty to cycle in and around. I can do any number of 20+ mile loops after work (weather permitting), and have excellent rides. hills, greenery, and wildlife abound, as do sources for products and services. Further, If it were not for the SUV I have an enjoy, I would not be able to travel kit and kaboodle with the family to the numerous organised rides I do every year. We did 9 centuries last season, benefiting one charity or another. Saw amazing scenery in an amazingly scenic state, and enjoying it and experiencing it as few do. All on roads that were designed and in place thanks to our wonderful car culture.

I will not willingly give that up, and you would have to put a gun to my head to force me to live in a filthy, crowded city. And if you did, I'd be continually plotting to take your gun and get myself out..... :D

Yup, go to User Control Panel and then select Buddy/Ignore Lists at the bottom of the list of links on the left.

Not that, you know, I didn't just do the same thing earlier this morning or anything. :)


Thank you.

Why does it have to go to such extremes... is there nothing in between... such as the cycling and communities of northern Europe... or is it either wide roads and strip malls or TB and tenament housing... and nothing else?
Because the US in 2005 isn't Northern Europe. Let me know how many families with school age children, with the means to do otherwise, are moving into walkable gentrified "communities" of urban areas. And how many yuppies decide that those gentrified walking communities in older US cities don't seem so great when its time to raise children. And learn just how wonderful those walkable urban communities are when its time to send children to public school.

No doubt childless singles, and couples with no intention of sending children to local schools (or local playgrounds) may take a different view of walkable communities in Year 2005 US cities.

Because the US in 2005 isn't Northern Europe. Let me know how many families with school age children, with the means to do otherwise, are moving into walkable gentrified "communities" of urban areas. And how many yuppies decide that those gentrified walking communities in older US cities don't seem so great when its time to raise children. And learn just how wonderful those walkable urban communities are when its time to send children to public school.

No doubt childless singles, and couples with no intention of sending children to local schools (or local playgrounds) may take a different view of walkable communities in Year 2005 US cities.


And yet the same schools and road designs that existed in the early 60s when I rode and walked to school are now considered dangerous... why... could part of the problem be speed limits in the areas? Could part of the problem be vehicle density (heavier use of the road by vehicles then the road was originally designed for)? Could part of the problem be perception by vehicle using parents that cannot perceive of their little ones making their way to school on their own power?

Two of the above issues are perception based; based on heavy reliance on motor vehicles. The third issue is the result of heavy reliance on motor vehicles.

As a further indication of these changes, is the neighborhood in which I now live... built in the mid 50s, with single car garages; today, most homes are build with two car garages.

So the changes that foster walking or not walking (or cycling) may have little to do with an actual association with Northern European like communities, but more on dependence on motor vehicles... and the resulting reliance thereof... such as the wide seats that started this thead.

And yet the same schools and road designs that existed in the early 60s when I rode and walked to school are now considered dangerous... why... could part of the problem be speed limits in the areas? Could part of the problem be vehicle density (heavier use of the road by vehicles then the road was originally designed for)? Could part of the problem be perception by vehicle using parents that cannot perceive of their little ones making their way to school on their own power?

Two of the above issues are perception based; based on heavy reliance on motor vehicles. The third issue is the result of heavy reliance on motor vehicles.

As a further indication of these changes, is the neighborhood in which I now live... built in the mid 50s, with single car garages; today, most homes are build with two car garages.

So the changes that foster walking or not walking (or cycling) may have little to do with an actual association with Northern European like communities, but more on dependence on motor vehicles... and the resulting reliance thereof... such as the wide seats that started this thead.

Yes, I think you're right. Additionally we are seeing another side effect of the property price boom we have had here over the last 6 years - the young are living with their parents much longer, well into their 30's. Areas that previously had only 1 adult generation and 1 car per house now have 2 adult generations with often 3 or more cars per house and proportionately higher younger/inexperienced drivers coupled with an explosion in the popularity of the hotted up car culture. Streets that used to be peacefull enough for kids to play ball games on Sundays are now illegal racing venues and totally devoid of any signs of humanity except for the sounds of screeching tires.

And yet the same schools and road designs that existed in the early 60s when I rode and walked to school are now considered dangerous... why... could part of the problem be speed limits in the areas? Could part of the problem be vehicle density (heavier use of the road by vehicles then the road was originally designed for)? Could part of the problem be perception by vehicle using parents that cannot perceive of their little ones making their way to school on their own power?

Two of the above issues are perception based; based on heavy reliance on motor vehicles. The third issue is the result of heavy reliance on motor vehicles.

As a further indication of these changes, is the neighborhood in which I now live... built in the mid 50s, with single car garages; today, most homes are build with two car garages.

So the changes that foster walking or not walking (or cycling) may have little to do with an actual association with Northern European like communities, but more on dependence on motor vehicles... and the resulting reliance thereof... such as the wide seats that started this thead.
You miss the point entirely. Walkable communities, at least the gentrified communities in large urban US considered desirable for adults to walk to a core district of schools, shops, and working establishment; don't have convenient parking, period and never did. The middle class abandoned such areas long ago for decent places to raise children. The walkable feature may appeal to well off empty nesters and/or well off yuppie single/couples without school age children. The walking bit gets old when when fear takes over.

...with an explosion in the popularity of the hotted up car culture. Streets that used to be peacefull enough for kids to play ball games on Sundays are now illegal racing venues and totally devoid of any signs of humanity except for the sounds of screeching tires.

Sounds like us and my neighborhood back in the early-mid 70's!

Because the US in 2005 isn't Northern Europe.

Please notice that we're not TALKING about the US in 2005. We're talking about 2005 US in an alternative history where cars never became popular and there was no reason to build roads.

It really sounds to me like you're saying that any conceivable society must either A)have ubiquitous cars for everyone, or B)have everyone living in 3rd world squalor.

You miss the point entirely. Walkable communities, at least the gentrified communities in large urban US considered desirable for adults to walk to a core district of schools, shops, and working establishment; don't have convenient parking, period and never did. The middle class abandoned such areas long ago for decent places to raise children. The walkable feature may appeal to well off empty nesters and/or well off yuppie single/couples without school age children. The walking bit gets old when when fear takes over.

You are right, I did miss that point... and again this may be an issue of location. However, what was considered quite walkable in the '60s is hardly so today... perhaps based on a fear factor... not one of crime, but one of traffic density and speed.

In my current neighborhood and quite nearby, there are sidewalks everywhere... which would seem to make the neighborhood quite walkable... but the road noise in and around the shopping centers makes walking quite uncomfortable (difficult to converse over), and fosters the perception that the area is very auto centric. Cyclists do however manage to negotiate the traffic and move about in the area, whether they do it from the sidewalks or out in the street. If there were more cyclists (folks in the area simply cycling to the stores vice driving) the perceptions of the area would be vastly different. The stores are serving the local community... this is not a mall area that serves some bedroom suburb, so the patrons are local.

The issue is again, automotive dependence.

BTW oddly enough some of the older people do walk... and drag behind them their little carts to hold groceries... older habits I suppose are harder to break.

Please notice that we're not TALKING about the US in 2005. We're talking about 2005 US in an alternative history where cars never became popular and there was no reason to build roads.

You may be talking about some alternate Universe, I choose to talk about cycling reality

Because the US in 2005 isn't Northern Europe. Let me know how many families with school age children, with the means to do otherwise, are moving into walkable gentrified "communities" of urban areas. And how many yuppies decide that those gentrified walking communities in older US cities don't seem so great when its time to raise children. And learn just how wonderful those walkable urban communities are when its time to send children to public school.

No doubt childless singles, and couples with no intention of sending children to local schools (or local playgrounds) may take a different view of walkable communities in Year 2005 US cities.

Pretty much "on the nose".

Locally, I can look to San Francisco. A once shining jewel of a city reduced to urine soaked and feces encrusted doorways. Cooincidetally, one of the fastest declining cites in the U.S., as people with children and the means to move do so in droves. It is not a fit place to raise a family.

I'll take the "car culture" of the peaceful, clean suburbs, if you don't mind.

You miss the point entirely. Walkable communities, at least the gentrified communities in large urban US considered desirable for adults to walk to a core district of schools, shops, and working establishment; don't have convenient parking, period and never did. The middle class abandoned such areas long ago for decent places to raise children. The walkable feature may appeal to well off empty nesters and/or well off yuppie single/couples without school age children. The walking bit gets old when when fear takes over.
This explains the ghost towns that are New York, Boston, DC and Chicago quite well. Burlington, Iowa, huh?

I'll take the "car culture" of the peaceful, clean suburbs, if you don't mind.
A pox on you, sir.

I will not willingly give that up, and you would have to put a gun to my head to force me to live in a filthy, crowded city. And if you did, I'd be continually plotting to take your gun and get myself out..... :D


hmmm maybe the city you live in. the filthy city i live in is sparkling clean and selling million dollar condos all over the place - to the point people like myself are worried the city will "lose" the grit and filth that makes a diverse city what it is.

This explains the ghost towns that are New York, Boston, DC and Chicago quite well. Burlington, Iowa, huh?
Please provide details on which of those cities has middle class affordable communities where the breadwinners walk to their employment and where in those cities those "communities" are located?

hmmm maybe the city you live in. the filthy city i live in is sparkling clean and selling million dollar condos all over the place - to the point people like myself are worried the city will "lose" the grit and filth that makes a diverse city what it is.
Which filthy city would that be? There are so many to choose from.

BTW do a significant number of those purchasers of million dollar condos, or the people who love grit and filth of diversity send any of their own children to the local filthy, gritty, and diverse public schools?

Looks like some people need to have a few files updated.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/15/health/main680243.shtml

Looks like some people need to have a few files updated.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/15/health/main680243.shtml
:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :beer:

Pretty much "on the nose".

Locally, I can look to San Francisco. A once shining jewel of a city reduced to urine soaked and feces encrusted doorways. Cooincidetally, one of the fastest declining cites in the U.S., as people with children and the means to move do so in droves. It is not a fit place to raise a family.

I'll take the "car culture" of the peaceful, clean suburbs, if you don't mind.


At some point people need to take a stand, and dig in.
Moving away from problems will not ever solve them.

Get on a city or town board. Invest in your neighborhood. Walk the streets and pick up trash. Donate time to a soup kitchen to help people who need it. Encourage your friends to move in... it's the quickest way to change a neighborhood!

Flight - and fear. The problems will follow. Look at inner ring suburbs in most cities. They are going through a similar change "the old neighborhoods" did years ago. Decay happens when people walk away. Everything we make, our bikes, cars, families, and our cities need constant maintainence. If we don't maintain the things we create - we can expect them to rot.

At some point people need to take a stand, and dig in.
Moving away from problems will not ever solve them.

Get on a city or town board. Invest in your neighborhood. Walk the streets and pick up trash. Donate time to a soup kitchen to help people who need it. Encourage your friends to move in... it's the quickest way to change a neighborhood!

Flight - and fear. The problems will follow. Look at inner ring suburbs in most cities. They are going through a similar change "the old neighborhoods" did years ago. Decay happens when people walk away. Everything we make, our bikes, cars, families, and our cities need constant maintainence. If we don't maintain the things we create - we can expect them to rot.
How many (any) of your neighbors in the Green Mountain State (or anywhere else) plan on putting such idealism to the test and moving back to Roxbury (or similiar walkable "communities") to raise their families and change those neighborhoods?

Get on a city or town board. Invest in your neighborhood. Walk the streets and pick up trash. Donate time to a soup kitchen to help people who need it. Encourage your friends to move in... it's the quickest way to change a neighborhood!

Been there, done that, got the scars to prove it. The thing you find out very quickly in politics, you can lead a horse to water...

How many (any) of your neighbors in the Green Mountain State (or anywhere else) plan on putting such idealism to the test and moving back to Roxbury (or similiar walkable "communities") to raise their families and change those neighborhoods?

Moving back?
What about folks who just stay put and work within their communities wherever they happen to be, to make their bit of the world a better place?

I'm not suggesting things can be undone - but we can learn from it.

Moving back?
What about folks who just stay put and work within their communities wherever they happen to be, to make their bit of the world a better place?

I'm not suggesting things can be undone - but we can learn from it.
Good idea. Learn from it. People with families to raise and the means, will continue to leave undesirable communities, walkable or not, for the same reason nobody with families and the means, will move back to such a "community".

How many (any) of your neighbors in the Green Mountain State (or anywhere else) plan on putting such idealism to the test and moving back to Roxbury (or similiar walkable "communities") to raise their families and change those neighborhoods?

You seem to think Vermont is some sort of suburb, and that everyone here is a castaway from a hard knock life in the big city.

And yet the same schools and road designs that existed in the early 60s when I rode and walked to school are now considered dangerous... why... could part of the problem be speed limits in the areas? Could part of the problem be vehicle density (heavier use of the road by vehicles then the road was originally designed for)? Could part of the problem be perception by vehicle using parents that cannot perceive of their little ones making their way to school on their own power?

Two of the above issues are perception based; based on heavy reliance on motor vehicles. The third issue is the result of heavy reliance on motor vehicles.

As a further indication of these changes, is the neighborhood in which I now live... built in the mid 50s, with single car garages; today, most homes are build with two car garages.

So the changes that foster walking or not walking (or cycling) may have little to do with an actual association with Northern European like communities, but more on dependence on motor vehicles... and the resulting reliance thereof... such as the wide seats that started this thead.

This reminds me of a planned community in northern Virginia called Reston. The orginal developer/planner had a scheme where everyone could walk or bike through a network of paths. It was patterned after Eoropean communities. The paths stayed off the roads and went through scenic wooded areas. The town was supposed to have a number of village centers that contained drug stories, doctor and dentist offices, grocery stores, etc. No traffic lights were planned either because people were motivated to walk or ride everywhere and the little auto traffic would just flow.

That didn't work out. No one wanted to live there and have long commutes to DC for work. For years Reston was stagnant. Then the technology boom came along and companies started/relocated there. The roads were inadequate. Two lanes roads became six lanes. The toll road to Reston was widened to eight. A "downtown" center was built compleet with a high rise hotel, condos, and office buildings.

So the reality is this isn't Europe. Our economy is based more on services than farming or industry. We are an extermely mobile workforce. Many jobs are based in working at one single location and workers must travel large distances to multiple locations. Many people have to wear business suits/dresses and can't bike. Even when walking is possible, time schedules don't allow it.

Many parts of our country is becoming increasingly dependent on autos. Cursing the use doesn't solve any problem. We all pay for conjestion in so many ways. Major roads need constructed in many places. The Washington DC area now is the third most conjested in the country. Public transportation that was designed 30 years ago doesn't work for many.

Wide seats in cars is what started this thread. I'm not sure how this evolved but what auto manufacturers are doing is giving the money spending public what they want. Sure overweight and out of shape public causes us all money but so don't bars, night clubs, smoking, fast food restaurants, etc. What do you all want to do - outlaw anything we don't believe in?

You seem to think Vermont is some sort of suburb, and that everyone here is a castaway from a hard knock life in the big city.
Forget any reference to Vermont. From where do you expect middle class urban homesteaders/community rebuilders to come from? And for whose benefit would these idealistic do gooders make this effort to rebuild these walkable communities? It certainly will not be for their own children except in the parents' smokey counter culture dreams.

Well, to back up bmike, I live in Burlington, Vermont. This city is considered one of the top ten to live in within the US by several magaiznes, like Outside, Esquire, and, I think, Newsweek. One of the features of Burlington that I really like is the WALKABLE downtown area. I live on Church Street, one of the funkiest streets on the East Coast. It is in the core of downtown Burlington. One of its best features is that IT HAS BEEN BLOCKED OFF TO ALL MOTORIZED TRAFFIC. That's right, no cars or parking on Church Street. You can walk to the active nightlife, downtown shoppping, a grocery store, schools, the waterfront (Lake Champlain). There are weeks on end when my wife and I never use our car. There are many families with children around here. Housing is expensive, but we live here on my professor's salary. I would say that a middle class family can afford to live in Burlington - a good example of a walkable community in the US.

.... parents' smokey counter culture dreams.

You know, I don't see how you are going to win any converts by insulting people. And just how is this bicycle advocacy anyway?

Please provide details on which of those cities has middle class affordable communities where the breadwinners walk to their employment and where in those cities those "communities" are located?
After college and then until a few years ago, I lived in downtown NY and then Greenpoint, which were completely walkable, but now, to my shame, in the quest for a backyard rather than a fire escape, I've moved to a neighborhood which is completely walkable, except for my commute to work, which I bike. I know parents & families who live in Greenwich Village, Murray Hill, the Lower East Side and Chinatown who can and do commute by foot to their jobs and have all they need for the day-to-day within a short walk, and even in my Brooklyn neighborhood, from which I must bike to work in Manhattan, there are scores of people who walk to their businesses and occupations. The family that owns the cornershop have a commute of perhaps a hundred yards, while the schoolteacher who just moved her family into the house next door to me must commute a full block and a half to her job. In fairness, there are families like mine, which are split between spouses who largely remain within the walkable neighborhood and those, like me, who rely on some combination of public and private transportation to commute, but the number of people who stay within the neighborhood and on foot is pretty astounding. And it's been going on this way for a long time. My mom, a teacher, never walked further than four blocks to reach work, except for the three years she taught at a private school and had to walk nearly half a mile. And my grandfather, also a teacher, was an inveterate walker and commuted by foot from Bay Ridge to Windsor Terrace in all weather for the duration of his career, thoough the commute did get seven blocks shorter when he move from 88th Street to 81st Street in his 50s.
The vision many people have of cities like New York as being megalopolises surrounded by bedroom communities is no more than half right and perhaps not even that. Huge numbers of people in this city, and other cities like it, spend the overwhelming majority of their time in the same neighborhood or in closeby neighborhoods which require minimal transit beyond shoe leather. My cousins in Chicago, my friends in DC and my sisters in Boston could tell you the same sorts of stories about their cities, I'd reckon.

Pretty much "on the nose".

Locally, I can look to San Francisco. A once shining jewel of a city reduced to urine soaked and feces encrusted doorways. Cooincidetally, one of the fastest declining cites in the U.S., as people with children and the means to move do so in droves. It is not a fit place to raise a family.

I'll take the "car culture" of the peaceful, clean suburbs, if you don't mind.

You're out of your mind, I've watched SF for the past 30 years. In that time the Embarcadero has changed from a elevated freeway dungen to a wonderfull pedestrian promade from the beautiful new baseball park (with valet bike parking by Kash) to the Fishermans wharf. The Haight Ashbury neighbor hood was a ghetto in 1975 and now has been fully restored with every shopfront occupied. I don't know what you mean by declining, have you priced real estate there? It's skyhigh. They just built a brand new Fine Arts museum in GG Park. It beats the hell out of any of the auto-centric suburbs like those in Contra-Costa county and the Pleasenton-Livermore-Tracy area.

What you call a fit place to raise your kid, I call a Prozac wasteland.
You can have it.
This:
http://www.kunstler.com/eyesore_200104.jpg


Or this:
http://www.kunstler.com/mags_citiestroy.JPG

And just how is this bicycle advocacy anyway?

If we want people to commute on bikes, then the communities have to be walkable to make cycling more practical than driving. In the perfect world, every community will be designed from scratch to be walkable, with relevent jobs and a clean environment. In fact, there is already a perfectly workable plan for a carfree city (http://www.carfree.com/). In reality... well it depends on how much of an optimist you are. Let's just say that I think the US would have trouble incorportating these cities. It has less to do with "car culture" than it has to do with the type of work people prefer and the competition between companies providing that work.

There are weeks on end when my wife and I never use our car. There are many families with children around here. Housing is expensive, but we live here on my professor's salary. I would say that a middle class family can afford to live in Burlington - a good example of a walkable community in the US.
Heck San Francisco would be swell too, if it weren't for that pesky problems of affordable housing for families and public schools overwhelmed with social problems. Yep, buy low sell high, and be the one who bought low.

Or perhaps have parents/friend grandfathered into a rent controlled apartment and not have to pay current market rent or pay current market rates for housing in Greenwich Village.

I am not surprised to find towns dominated by a large University to be nominated as excellent areas for those employed with the University or businesses with University affiliations. I would love to be employed and raise a family in State College PA (Roar Lions, Roar).

Howewer I don't imagine affordable family suitable housing can be found too close to the campuses within the larger urban US cities

...I don't know what you mean by declining, have you priced real estate there? It's skyhigh. They just built a brand new Fine Arts museum in GG Park. It beats the hell out of any of the auto-centric suburbs like those in Contra-Costa county and the Pleasenton-Livermore-Tracy area.


And the price of real estate going up is the whole point. Now you've priced low income (and even middle class) people out, and they go elsewhere. It is very easy to make a walkable city for the well off, it is much more difficult to make one for the lower and middle class. For the lower income people, where do they go? The middle class; they go to the suburbs, your "prozac wasteland."

You know, I don't see how you are going to win any converts by insulting people. And just how is this bicycle advocacy anyway?
Agree and agree. Go back and re-read the OP of this thread, message #1, and ask the same question; which I already did in message #3 of this thread. Then read all the accompanying excuses for insulting the American public for not sharing the goals or lifestyle of counter culture oriented cycling aficionados.

Well, to back up bmike, I live in Burlington, Vermont. This city is considered one of the top ten to live in within the US by several magaiznes, like Outside, Esquire, and, I think, Newsweek. One of the features of Burlington that I really like is the WALKABLE downtown area. I live on Church Street, one of the funkiest streets on the East Coast. It is in the core of downtown Burlington. One of its best features is that IT HAS BEEN BLOCKED OFF TO ALL MOTORIZED TRAFFIC. That's right, no cars or parking on Church Street. You can walk to the active nightlife, downtown shoppping, a grocery store, schools, the waterfront (Lake Champlain). There are weeks on end when my wife and I never use our car. There are many families with children around here. Housing is expensive, but we live here on my professor's salary. I would say that a middle class family can afford to live in Burlington - a good example of a walkable community in the US.

Thanks.
I was going to start mentioning towns like Burlington, Vt., Portland, Ore., Portland, Me., Manhattan... Seattle, Wa... Charlottesville, Va... etc.

And the price of real estate going up is the whole point. Now you've priced low income (and even middle class) people out, and they go elsewhere. It is very easy to make a walkable city for the well off, it is much more difficult to make one for the lower and middle class. For the lower income people, where do they go? The middle class; they go to the suburbs, your "prozac wasteland."


Now which is it? An overpriced enclave for the upper class or a urine and feces covered slime pit?

And the price of real estate going up is the whole point. Now you've priced low income (and even middle class) people out, and they go elsewhere. It is very easy to make a walkable city for the well off, it is much more difficult to make one for the lower and middle class. For the lower income people, where do they go? The middle class; they go to the suburbs, your "prozac wasteland."

But you have to ask yourself why "prozac wasteland" looks the way it does... was it designed to allow consumers to be able to walk to those stores, or was it designed to service everyone from the driveup window.

Motor vehicle centeric designs are what make everything look like the same strip malls all over the US.

The same thing applies to housing... ever heard of "garage door dominance?" Probably not, unless you are in the building industry (my wife is... ). This signifies the way many suburbs have been designed in the past to NOT present a front porch or front door to the neighbors and street, but a driveway and two big garage doors. In those types of neighborhoods, it was discoved that neighbors often didn't know each other and the crime rates for home theft were higher... simply because the designs favored autos over people... neighbors never met, and no one could watch the street.

"garage door dominance"
Snout houses.

You may be talking about some alternate Universe, I choose to talk about cycling reality

Well, that's fine, talk about what you like, but don't join in to conversations that are about topics you choose not to talk about.

But you have to ask yourself why "prozac wasteland" looks the way it does... was it designed to allow consumers to be able to walk to those stores, or was it designed to service everyone from the driveup window.

Motor vehicle centeric designs are what make everything look like the same strip malls all over the US.

The same thing applies to housing... ever heard of "garage door dominance?" Probably not, unless you are in the building industry (my wife is... ). This signifies the way many suburbs have been designed in the past to NOT present a front porch or front door to the neighbors and street, but a driveway and two big garage doors. In those types of neighborhoods, it was discoved that neighbors often didn't know each other and the crime rates for home theft were higher... simply because the designs favored autos over people... neighbors never met, and no one could watch the street.

I see your point, but given that they are already driving to work and in their car, who wants to park at home and then walk to the grocery store. The great capitalistic system we have does what we want done. If people in the suburbs use strip malls, we get strip malls. Motor centric designs work in suburbia simply because "swinging by the store" on the way home from work is best done by parking in a parking lot at the store. More efficient, time wise.

About the "garage door dominance." My sig. other hates this style too. My first instinct would be to hid the garage as much as possible. But that's hard when people want to park in their garage and have little real estate to spare for a driveway - all this while still wanting a back yard. My sig. other managed to get a house where the garage is recessed, back behind the entrance way, but she also has 5 acres to work with.

The side-effects of our culture is unfortunate, but it is not related to any one thing. Rather it is the network of hundreds of little tendencies that exist here in the United States. These little tendencies, when taken alone, seem to be insignificant enough that it seems like we should be able to simply do away with most of them and change only a few to make a difference. But it's not like this. We can bemoan the "car culture" of the United States, but it is a product of our country's evolution and not something easily changed or easily linked to any one factor.

We can bemoan the "car culture" of the United States, but it is a product of our country's evolution and not something easily changed or easily linked to any one factor.
We built it, we can change it if we want to. You're living the suburban lifestyle, so you've bought into it. Ultimately we will be forced to change by the increasing scarcity and price of oil, it's just a question of whether we rationally plan for it, or make drastic changes in crisis mode at the last possible minute. We'd already be halfway there if gasoline in the US cost what it does in most other parts of the world. None of our politicians are helping by making affordable gasoline the issue, rather than making planning for change the issue.

Now which is it? An overpriced enclave for the upper class or a urine and feces covered slime pit?

Obviously somewhere on a continuum. But in your picture, I see a lot of dressy wool overcoats. This, plus your comment about the high real estate prices seems to indicate it is mostly home to people towards the upper class. I don't know where this is, so perhaps I am wrong, but the phenomena of low income people being pushed out of their homes by high property values brought on by development has a precedence.

... The great capitalistic system we have does what we want done....


I'll disagree, in that I don't think it does, but leave that for another thread! ;)


Agree that the thousands of decisions (right or wrong) have landed us here today. It's so subtle and easy - so the slope tends to be slight, rather than staring off the edge of an abyss.

Most people want clean air, clean water, biodiversity, trees, quiet streets, and safe places for chilren to learn and play, etc.

Most people want to know their neighbors, feel like a good citizen, and have choices about their lives.

Our current overlapping systems remove the negative effects of all the services and products we like and displaces them away from us in space or time. We do not immeaditately see both sides of our choices and actions... the perception is that we live in safe, quiet, clean communities... and we do only becuase the immediate costs of those things rarely come out of our own backyards.

... But in your picture, I see a lot of dressy wool overcoats. ...


And in the other I see lots of $$ being sucked right out of the local economy. Cars (and the energy to power them), chain stores, highway construction - it all takes $$ right from the local community and sends it elsewhere.