Living Car Free - Cars are a plague

I think it would be best for everyone if we would live in car free cities. Cars require city design that makes me vomit. Roads take up so much place in a city that it's a major cause of reducing population density and increasing urban sprawling. As we build roads and increase distances between us and our destinations, we increase our need for cars. It's a very intelligent design, especially if you sell cars...

Urban sprawl are inherently destructive for the environment, but it's a small matter compared to it's destructive power to our quality of life. Running cars isn't cheap, it requires the construction and maintenance of infrastructures such as roads, bridges, etc, that is very expensive, not to say the cars themselves and their fuels. In the US, transportation alone represent 20% of the GDP. In any economy, the resources are limited, and the part allocated to transportation isn't used for anything else but that. I'm not under the impression that cars are what increase our quality of life the most, in fact it prolly reduces it, so we could use these resources in a more useful way.

There are plenty of other problems. Car accidents are a major cause of mortality and injury. In canada where I live, 3000 people die every year, I think. I don't know the figures exactly, but the number of injuried people must be much more. That's a lot of lives destroyed just because they wanted to go somewhere.

We live in a technological era, and our cars illustrate that. They're very efficient tools, but they're used in very inefficient ways. Seeing a car stuck in traffic, in the snow, as we get a lot here, or in a car crash is always a pathetic and hearth breaking view...

Anyways, I can't wait for baby boomers to die off so that we can start building arcologies. I don't know if there'll be room for bikes, though, but bikes aren't for everyone to serve as a main vehicle.

I think it would be best for everyone if we would live in car free cities. Cars require city design that makes me vomit.

I think you got it backwards. The urban designs you're talking about were done under the assumption that people will just drive everywhere.

Come out to older cities (if you aren't already), especially here on the East Coast and in Europe, and you'll have an easy time getting around without a car. These urban centers were designed around pedestrians, horses, and -- occasionally -- cyclists. Businesses were (and are) close enough together that you didn't need to travel three miles just to get from the grocer to the tailor.

Get out to the fabled suburban sprawl with cul-de-sacs around every corner and you'll really want a car so that you won't have to spend half the day pedaling.

Come out to older cities (if you aren't already), especially here on the East Coast and in Europe, and you'll have an easy time getting around without a car. These urban centers were designed around pedestrians, horses, and -- occasionally -- cyclists. Businesses were (and are) close enough together that you didn't need to travel three miles just to get from the grocer to the tailor.


Even the older parts of Mid West cities can be pretty reasonable for bicycles. In Des Moines, the older part of the city features a grid-style layout which means you can select non-arterial routes and still move around pretty efficiently. Another big help to any city is when motorists are somewhat used to having bikes on the streets. This helps slow traffic down.

Of course, as you move out to the suburbs, this all falls apart, but not so much so that it couldn't benefit from a series of good bike lanes on the arterial routes.

Anyways, I can't wait for baby boomers to die off so that we can start building arcologies.

Thanks. Keep tabs on my Facebook page so you know when this boomer dies off.

That was a pretty ignorant remark. Just wait till you discover how clueless most of your generation is.

lol

Thanks. Keep tabs on my Facebook page so you know when this boomer dies off.

That was a pretty ignorant remark. Just wait till you discover how clueless most of your generation is.

+1 bro, +1!

Microtom, if you feel so passionately about the negative effects of cars, I'd encourage you to get involved to correct the problem.

If there's a Smart Growth group in your community or region, look into joining up with them. If your city is putting together or updating its Official Community Plan, attend the open houses and give your comments. Write a letter or two to your local newspapers. If there's a transit lobby group, look at getting involved with them.

Whatever you choose to do, don't just sit around grousing over the problems you see. Do something. And drop your comments about the Baby Boomers. Some of the people in that age group are the ones who have already been working long and hard to bring about alternatives to car use.

Lighten up everyone. I think a lot of us, including myself, have felt this way at one point or another. Its good to point out the illogic in this argument but he is just expressing himself. If you give a problem a little thought then yes he is ignoring certain point but.... get over it.

motor vehicles will always have a place in our society (like it or not). However, not everybody NEEDS a motor vehicle. What is unfortunate is that auto manufacturers have successfully created the feeling that autos are necessary for 99% of the population. I think this can change (and will, if the current economic conditions persist).

Cars don't have to be a plague. They are right now because every household in the US has 2.5 cars on average.

Chill out and try to get involved. I wish I had the time to, but my life is too hectic right now. I plan to join a cycling/urban development advocacy group when I can. In the mean time, I'm raising cycling awareness by riding my bike.

Cheers.

That was a pretty ignorant remark.


Dumb, ignorant, inexperienced, perhaps, but funny none-the-less. Each time I see Monster Garage, Pimp My Ride, Nascar Racing, et-c., I change the channel, but not after viewing the "wet-behind-the-ears sprogs" the much larger percentage of people pushing immature driving, design, being environmental wasteful, and so on.

"MY" generation never does anything wrong! It is all the fault of the "young, rebellious, dumb and fulla *** generation"!!! As if we never were y-r-d-&-f-c. (also meant as dark humour). :roflmao2:

Car-free works for some, but would not work for everyone. When you have someone who has to drive 50 miles between several locations every day for work, and wear a suit and look presentable the whole time, car-free is very unrealistic. Cars are very over-emphasized, however when I buy a new couch from Ikea, how exactly do I transport it to my Apartment? If you say a city should be entirely car-free, do delivery trucks, city busses, etc. need to disappear as well? I think it is silly to drive less than five miles, but there are some times where time time saving is needed.

I currently live in a city, work a full time job and am applying to graduate schools at night. Days I have class I will have to drive, as there simply is not enough time to ride the 14 miles from work to school, shower/look presentable and start class on time. Tell me, what is better for society, one less car or one more person contributing to society with the benefits of a higher education?

"MY" generation never does anything wrong! It is all the fault of the "young, rebellious, dumb and fulla *** generation"!!! As if we never were y-r-d-&-f-c. (also meant as dark humour). :roflmao2:

Being a boomer, I've already discovered what a large percentage of any generation are in-duh-viduals, as Scott Adams so aptly named them.

When I was young I thought that boomers would be the ones to adopt earth friendly life styles and lead concious lives, because that's what I saw in my friends. What I missed was others of the same age, buying big cars and houses out in the suburbs and locking themselves into the gridlock. Turned out they were in the majority. Who knew? :rolleyes:

When you have someone who has to drive 50 miles between several locations every day for work, and wear a suit and look presentable the whole time, car-free is very unrealistic.

This is the problem we have. We've built a world in which it's very difficult for many people not to use cars. These people, as they grow up, have very little available options to chose from. In fact, the choices usually consist in choosing the brand and color of the car they'll buy, not the transportation system they use.

However, car-free for everyone is absolutely possible, but the changes required isn't simply limited to changing the kind of vehicles we're using. A change of vehicle in a city planned to accommodate cars simply doesn't work, as you've mentioned. This is the whole city that must be specifically redesigned around an alternate transportation system that we would wish to have.

So what exactly we we want to have? What we want is a system that allow high population density in order to reduce distances required to travel, to make both traveling more efficient and reduce the footprint of human habitations on the environment. We also want something safe to use that doesn't require extensive skills and knowledge. What's more important for us however is that the habitations and the transportation infrastructures integrated to it use as little resources as possible, while retaining it's efficiency, so that our limited resource can be directed to projects that we'll increase our quality of life more significantly.

There's very little undergoing effort to make such changes in urban planning and architecture, but there's some. One exemple of that is the future city Masdar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masdar_City) in Dubai, a 50,000 people city experiment which integrate an automated personal transport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_rapid_transit) system in a high population density environment.

art work: Andy Singer

check out Donald Shoup
http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/

as i recall, i had once read somewhere:

over 80% of cars in SOHO are looking for parking
there are something like 40k fewer cars in the USA than the entire population
there is on average something like 4 registered vehicles per licensed driver

something like: "why should cars live for free, when real estate is at a premium." <--- obviously a botched quote... i can't remember where i get this stuff from.

the above referring to things like for instance: consider the mass expanse of parking lot vs the square footage for a grocery store vs the rent/mortgage on the property. the theory is, less parking, more groceries and lower prices for food.

it goes something like that.

lots of stuff to digest.

Donald Shoup: awesome!

parking spaces a plague on American Cities (http://www.intransitionmag.org/Winter_2009/Free_Parking.html)

There's very little undergoing effort to make such changes in urban planning and architecture, but there's some. One exemple of that is the future city Masdar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masdar_City) in Dubai, a 50,000 people city experiment which integrate an automated personal transport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_rapid_transit) system in a high population density environment.

Another good example is Copenhagen (http://www.kk.dk/sitecore/content/Subsites/CityOfCopenhagen/SubsiteFrontpage/DesignedForLife/GreenUrbanMobility.aspx). Currently 36% of the population commutes by bike. Thats a higher percentage than commute by car or commute by mass transit. Copenhagen has been amending the infrastructure for 30 years to make the city more bike friendly. :D

I think it would be best for everyone if we would live in car free cities.

It would be best for everyone if nations freely shared their resources and eliminated world hunger.

I think both propositions are equally unlikely so you might as well HTFU and get used to the world.

This is the problem we have. We've built a world in which it's very difficult for many people not to use cars. These people, as they grow up, have very little available options to chose from. In fact, the choices usually consist in choosing the brand and color of the car they'll buy, not the transportation system they use.

However, car-free for everyone is absolutely possible, but the changes required isn't simply limited to changing the kind of vehicles we're using. A change of vehicle in a city planned to accommodate cars simply doesn't work, as you've mentioned. This is the whole city that must be specifically redesigned around an alternate transportation system that we would wish to have.

So what exactly we we want to have? What we want is a system that allow high population density in order to reduce distances required to travel, to make both traveling more efficient and reduce the footprint of human habitations on the environment. We also want something safe to use that doesn't require extensive skills and knowledge. What's more important for us however is that the habitations and the transportation infrastructures integrated to it use as little resources as possible, while retaining it's efficiency, so that our limited resource can be directed to projects that we'll increase our quality of life more significantly.

There's very little undergoing effort to make such changes in urban planning and architecture, but there's some. One exemple of that is the future city Masdar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masdar_City) in Dubai, a 50,000 people city experiment which integrate an automated personal transport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_rapid_transit) system in a high population density environment.

I agree that this is the ideal, but we need a healthy dose of realism! We can't start from scratch, we have to work with what we have. Saying we want a city as you described is as useful as me saying I want a tree that grows money. It would be great to have, but unfortunately it is impossible the way things work right now.

We need to develop plans to revamp our current cities and gradually move away from dependence on cars. There is simply no realistic way to start building new cities with new infrastructures up from scratch. I am not sure what the solution is (and I wish it were easier), but perhaps public transportation initiatives need to be focused on a bit more, even if they are park-and-ride kind of things for a while.

Unlike many cyclists, I don't have any issue with cars. If anything, transitioning from riding public transit to transporting myself exclusively by bike made me appreciate peoples' desire to own a vehicle that provides them with mobility to the destination of their choosing, at the time of their choosing, with the company of their choosing. I generally ride on 25 mph streets, and don't have too many disagreements with motorists. However, I do take issue with newer suburban style planning, which often doesn't ensure connectivity between lower speed streets -- that needs to be improved significantly. There should be stricter emissions standards too.

It would be best for everyone if nations freely shared their resources and eliminated world hunger.

I think both propositions are equally unlikely so you might as well HTFU and get used to the world.

Finding a cure for cancer would be nice too!

What's more important for us however is that the habitations and the transportation infrastructures integrated to it use as little resources as possible, while retaining it's efficiency, so that our limited resource can be directed to projects that we'll increase our quality of life more significantly.

There's very little undergoing effort to make such changes in urban planning and architecture, but there's some. One exemple of that is the future city Masdar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masdar_City) in Dubai, a 50,000 people city experiment which integrate an automated personal transport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_rapid_transit) system in a high population density environment.

Dubai? :lol: Isn't that a country totally financed and bankrolled by the users of the resources being pumped out of their ground? Does anybody in Dubai, besides the 3rd world nationals working as busboys and maids do anything constructive besides collect royalty checks and spend the money?

Not everybody is going to be able to live the life of luxury in the Big House while somebody else sends them a check every month as long as the petroleum keeps flowing.

Microtom, if you want some Canadian examples of positive changes, look at Victoria, B.C. That city is taking some impressive steps to create a bicycle-friendly environment. There's a huge network of cycling trails, paths and bike lanes. On any given day, you'll see plenty of people on their bikes all around the city. Calgary, Alberta has also been working to become more bike-friendly.

For several years, Kelowna, B.C. has had some initiatives to encourage motorists to switch to cleaner running vehicles or to ditch the car altogether. At times, there have been financial incentives for people to take their vehicles off the roads.

A number of other communities around this province and elsewhere are also looking to improve conditions for cyclists and pedestrians.

The changes are happening, but they won't and can't happen overnight.

Car-free works for some, but would not work for everyone. When you have someone who has to drive 50 miles between several locations every day for work, and wear a suit and look presentable the whole time, car-free is very unrealistic. Cars are very over-emphasized, however when I buy a new couch from Ikea, how exactly do I transport it to my Apartment? If you say a city should be entirely car-free, do delivery trucks, city busses, etc. need to disappear as well? I think it is silly to drive less than five miles, but there are some times where time time saving is needed.

I currently live in a city, work a full time job and am applying to graduate schools at night. Days I have class I will have to drive, as there simply is not enough time to ride the 14 miles from work to school, shower/look presentable and start class on time. Tell me, what is better for society, one less car or one more person contributing to society with the benefits of a higher education?

Dont buy a new couch from IKEA maybe? Is that question REALY that hard to answer? Also... they deliver! Yeah, we get it, you travel for work. However, thats not personal use. Thats work use, get a company car. Problem solved. Besides I have hauled furniture on my bike plenty of times.

We are not saying that everyone should sell their cars right now, the infrastructure for such just is not available. However, with just a little investment that could be changed.

Live closer to work and school maybe?

Dont buy a new couch from IKEA maybe? Is that question REALY that hard to answer? Also... they deliver! Yeah, we get it, you travel for work. However, thats not personal use. Thats work use, get a company car. Problem solved. Besides I have hauled furniture on my bike plenty of times.

We are not saying that everyone should sell their cars right now, the infrastructure for such just is not available. However, with just a little investment that could be changed.

Live closer to work and school maybe?

You seem to not understand my point. This problem was proposed as a philosophical rant against cars. Delivery trucks, work vehicles, they are ALL cars. Making someone else pay for the car only relieves my personal guilt over using one, it does NOT eliminate the problem. Less cars plus more delivery trucks does not solve the problem.

Work and school are pretty far apart, if I want to get into a good program, I can't just 'move closer'. Right now I commute 13 miles each way by bike, only use my car when I am really pressed for time.

I think I agree with you though. The infrastructure needs to change, however we need to think of solutions that work within the current system.

(not really cycling related but just a "ps-") Birth rate went up to the highest EVER - a 44% increase. Something else to blame those darn baby boomers for.

(not really cycling related but just a "ps-") Birth rate went up to the highest EVER - a 44% increase. Something else to blame those darn baby boomers for.

Surely that was their parents' fault? ;)

As a matter of fact, birth rates are declining across the rich world, they are below replacement levels in parts of Europe.

art work: Andy Singer

check out Donald Shoup
http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/


Thank you for this information about parking. It really made me feel that progress is being made in the world relating to the automobile. The solution is very simple. I read many of the articles that were linked on Dr. Shoup's page.

It is too bad that some politicians want to change the formula and thereby screw up the workability of the real solution. When one bakes a cake it won't work if sand is used as a substitute for flower. That is how some of the politicians are screwing up the program in DC. DC doesn't get anything right.

Thank you for this information about parking. It really made me feel that progress is being made in the world relating to the automobile. The solution is very simple. I read many of the articles that were linked on Dr. Shoup's page.

It is too bad that some politicians want to change the formula and thereby screw up the workability of the real solution. When one bakes a cake it won't work if sand is used as a substitute for flower. That is how some of the politicians are screwing up the program in DC. DC doesn't get anything right.

ya that guy Donald Shoup is a genius!

all of this stuff has little to do with the actual product (the car) but rather the infrastructure.
and most ironically
its all about parking!

crazy huh?

i've been reading this stuff for sometime now.

Shoup, had changed the face of Colorado Blvd in Pasadena, by putting in parking meters.
the merchants protested for, i think a year, then somehow they put them in.
with some of the money from the meters, they do things like keep the area clean, help with renovations, etc...

and of course the meters deter parking all day long, which in turn, promotes more patrons, due to a higher turn over of parked cars...

blah blah blah

Shoup! he's a genius! IMHO its the solution.

i had worked a place, and i was the only one riding a bike to work.
suddenly one day my employer had a "Car Pool" program, complete with shuttles to pick up employees, etc...

i had to laff out loud, (like an idiot) and when the speaker asked why i had laughed, i replied, "its more like, PLEASE DON'T PARK IN THE PARKING LOT PROGRAM." which was the reality of the situation. Employee parking was taking up too much room.
that is... until they finished the new garage at something like $12M, which also earned an award for Best Garage, in an Architecture Magazine (which was proudly announced at staff meetings)

when you go get groceries, just look at the parking lot. imagine if the store could be bigger, more product, and i think it would translate to lower prices.

look at all the space alloted for cars in your neighborhood...
thats all space that could be used for housing

look at all the pavement... most of it, impermeable. watch how much water goes down the gutters.
and then wonder of water shortages, etc...

SHOUP
shoup
SHOUP
shoup

that guy is a genius

so get this:

one of the local Regional Parks has passes available for purchase.

of course, access to Public Parks is free.

so whats the pass for?

parking of course.

the irony?

no one realizes they are paying to park their car.

from what i can tell, most (car topper types... that is the MTB types with their bike a top their cars) think they are paying to be able to ride in the park.

which is indirectly true...

only in that, for some distance around the park, there are "no parking" signs.

when i was living in Ventura, my dad complained that it costs money to go anywhere.

so i'd go to the beach all day and come home and tell him I spent no money.
he'd refuse to believe it.
i'd tell him, its Public Space, and the charge is to get into the State Beach Park, IN YOUR CAR.
its the toll for parking that costs.
the beach is open to the public, its FREE
all you have to do is not drive a car

the greatest, most pointless failure in American planning and design
http://intransitionmag.blogspot.com/2009/03/shoup-shows-cities-how-to-just-say-no.html

last rant:

so its not necessarily 100% the problem of The Car
rather than...
we provide so called "Free Parking"
but of course nothing is free.
the cost of parking spaces is a hidden cost in the mortgage, the products sold at the stores, etc...

You seem to not understand my point. This problem was proposed as a philosophical rant against cars. Delivery trucks, work vehicles, they are ALL cars. Making someone else pay for the car only relieves my personal guilt over using one, it does NOT eliminate the problem. Less cars plus more delivery trucks does not solve the problem.

Work and school are pretty far apart, if I want to get into a good program, I can't just 'move closer'. Right now I commute 13 miles each way by bike, only use my car when I am really pressed for time.

I think I agree with you though. The infrastructure needs to change, however we need to think of solutions that work within the current system.

Ahh your right, I think I read too much into it. I apologize. Think we are both on the same page. Sometimes the choice we make to sustain our... sustainable lifestyle, are hard. With the may the the infrastructure is, it is a daunting task to undertake. I think eliminating personal car use is an extremely good start. Just because companies use cars that does not mean that we can not be car free individuals and vice versa!

look at all the space alloted for cars in your neighborhood...
thats all space that could be used for housing
When I was growing up, houses had the biggest windows facing the street. Car parking was to the side and a lot of houses didn't have garages. Those that did might have an attached garage off to the side, or more likely a detached garage set back from the house. Today a lot of the newer houses have large garages to the front of the house. Instead of showcasing the family's living area, houses are now designed so the bedrooms for cars are the most prominent features.

I liked that in one of the articles linked at Shoup's site there was a first draft of a California bill (SB 518 (Lowenthal) Reducing Congestion and Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Parking Policy Reform).

It proposed to keep the price of parking separate from the rents of tenants. That way people who don't have cars don't have to pay for the expense of the parking facility. I'm sure I pay for the two spots I'm allotted and don't use.

My downstairs neighbors (two guys) have four trucks and one car. They each get a company provided truck. My next door neighbor has one car and parks his 18 wheeler with trailer on the shoulder of the street in front of the building. I keep one bicycle inside and one on my balcony. I deserve some type of refund.

I liked that in one of the articles linked at Shoup's site there was a first draft of a California bill (SB 518 (Lowenthal) Reducing Congestion and Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Parking Policy Reform).

It proposed to keep the price of parking separate from the rents of tenants. That way people who don't have cars don't have to pay for the expense of the parking facility. I'm sure I pay for the two spots I'm allotted and don't use.

My downstairs neighbors (two guys) have four trucks and one car. They each get a company provided truck. My next door neighbor has one car and parks his 18 wheeler with trailer on the shoulder of the street in front of the building. I keep one bicycle inside and one on my balcony. I deserve some type of refund.
If you're each allotted one parking stall, would there be anything stopping you from renting out your parking spot to a neighbour who has an additional vehicle?

If you're each allotted one parking stall, would there be anything stopping you from renting out your parking spot to a neighbour who has an additional vehicle?

Believe me, I've thought of that. Our spots are not dedicated spots. I just have a right to use any two open spaces. Without dedicated spots anybody else in the building could claim that the extra trucks were parked in their open spots.

If you're each allotted one parking stall, would there be anything stopping you from renting out your parking spot to a neighbour who has an additional vehicle?

My brother did that when he lived in Brookline, MA. IIRC his apartment came with one parking space, if he wanted another it would cost him several hundred dollars a month extra. He didn't have a car so he rented it out to his neighbor at a discount.:lol:

Aaron:)

Ahh your right, I think I read too much into it. I apologize. Think we are both on the same page. Sometimes the choice we make to sustain our... sustainable lifestyle, are hard. With the may the the infrastructure is, it is a daunting task to undertake. I think eliminating personal car use is an extremely good start. Just because companies use cars that does not mean that we can not be car free individuals and vice versa!

I couldn't have said it better myself. :thumb:

When I was growing up, houses had the biggest windows facing the street. Car parking was to the side and a lot of houses didn't have garages. Those that did might have an attached garage off to the side, or more likely a detached garage set back from the house. Today a lot of the newer houses have large garages to the front of the house. Instead of showcasing the family's living area, houses are now designed so the bedrooms for cars are the most prominent features.

Putting the garage in front is very practical. A garage right in front, with little to no driveway minimizes the amount of the yard actually devoted to the car, and the garage then serves as a noise buffer to keep the house quieter. The backyard is then freed up for nature and family use. :)

In the days when the garage was set back, garages were small and held one car. Newer houses have much larger and wider garages, so the amount of space devoted to vehicle parking is the same if not greater, even with a short driveway.

Around my area, hardly anyone uses their garage to store their car or truck, it's mainly used as a storage unit for their overflowing personal items, and my garage is the only one on my block that actually has a motor vehicle in it. To think that my parents raised two children, were still able to park both of their cars in the garage, and not have any need to rent a storage unit, showing how much personal possessions have been amassed by individuals over a few decades.

In the days when the garage was set back, garages were small and held one car. Newer houses have much larger and wider garages, so the amount of space devoted to vehicle parking is the same if not greater, even with a short driveway.

Around here there is a trend to have the entire front of these town houses devoted to a wide garage, the main living room is above the garage so you get the living room windows looking down on the street. People walking on the street, walk past blank walls of metal garage doors sometimes with a stairway door to the side. The rear of the house has a deck overlooking a small fenced yard. Whether or not it is an efficient use of space, it makes a horribly depressing streetscape. As James Kunstler remarked about a similar streetscape in one of his talks, "No amount of prozac can make you feel good about yourself as you walk down such a street." There are high end neighborhoods in the suburbs of DC where if you go to take your dog for a walk you end up walking down blocks of nothing but beige painted steel garage doors. I wonder about the psychological effect it has on the fairly affluent residents. I stopped to talk to some dog walkers as I was short cutting through such a neighborhood and they seemed so desperate for the human interaction. I felt sad as I pedaled away from them.

Anyways, I can't wait for baby boomers to die off so that we can start building arcologies.

I seem to recall, being a boomer myself, that there was some hope, many decades ago, that the boomers would be the ones to save the world. We can see how well that went. I certainly hope, for the sake of my children, that the next generation can do better, but I don't know...

People walking on the street, walk past blank walls of metal garage doors sometimes with a stairway door to the side.

Sounds like they should invite some muralists to come in and paint the neighborhood. Or maybe kids from the local schools.

I seem to recall, being a boomer myself, that there was some hope, many decades ago, that the boomers would be the ones to save the world. We can see how well that went. I certainly hope, for the sake of my children, that the next generation can do better, but I don't know...

Uh, the subset of boomers who cared saved the world from some of the threats. They just didn't get all the changes they wanted and didn't anticipate how their successes would be used against them. All those boomers involved in the civil rights struggle must be able to see that their work produced results. In this area the old "hippie" neighborhoods are now more desirable places to live than the "urban renewal" neighborhoods created by the previous generation's vision. In my neighborhood if you take the walking tour, you can see where the people took a stand against car dominated urban renewal. You can see by rent and purchase prices that most people now prefer to live in the environment created by the boomers rather than the environment created by their parents. I'm too young to have participated but I've met some of the people who did and looked at their photo albums showing the changes they created. I know that the popular history is that the late '60s and early '70s was a big drug orgy but there were many young people back then who worked hard to make positive changes in the world. They succeeded in spite of their own government working against them.

Sounds like they should invite some muralists to come in and paint the neighborhood. Or maybe kids from the local schools.
That kind of thing is frowned upon in the suburbs. Beige or white or red brick only. In the city we have tons of murals some painted by school kids. Also some nice mosaics. Not in the downtown, in the older neighborhoods. Did you see the watermelon house right up 11th street from where you stayed? Its around 11th and P, Q, R somewhere in there. They had a blank wall where an adjacent house was removed so they painted it like a big slice of watermelon. I'd never get the idea to paint my house like a vegetable but I don't mind if other people do.

That kind of thing is frowned upon in the suburbs. Beige or white or red brick only.

Well, you have to see a bit of disfunction in those suburbs that go for such bland environments. But if that's the area they chose to live in. Even the Romans painted their outer walls. I saw the Pompeii exhibit at the National Gallery. Kind of a nice contrast there.


Did you see the watermelon house right up 11th street from where you stayed? Its around 11th and P, Q, R somewhere in there. They had a blank wall where an adjacent house was removed so they painted it like a big slice of watermelon.

Nope, I missed the watermelon house. I didn't get any further up 11th than the Korean-owned grocery store. That neighborhood was a fearsome one for bicycles. A lot were abandoned or just plain stripped. Kinda scary.

Even the Romans painted their outer walls. I saw the Pompeii exhibit at the National Gallery. Kind of a nice contrast there.



Nope, I missed the watermelon house. I didn't get any further up 11th than the Korean-owned grocery store. That neighborhood was a fearsome one for bicycles. A lot were abandoned or just plain stripped. Kinda scary.
Here's a good one. In the "historic" section of Alexandria people aren't allowed to use bright colors on their houses in order to preserve the colonial character. The city archaeologists who have investigated the layers of paint on the old houses say that in the colonial period the people painted their houses in bright colors. This contradiction is even part of some tour guide talks. It informs us about how much the sensibilities of suburban blandness have infused the culture of our leaders.

Hey, I posted a photo here a few months ago of a bunch of bikes parked at an apartment building right near the Korean grocery. I know I've been watching an old bike deteriorate down by Samuel Gompers park at 11 and Mass. but that isn't scary. It shows how many bikes are used there. A certain percentage get hurt to where the owner doesn't care so you see them. If the owners live in apartments they might not have good bulk trash removal. Some buildings only do bulk trash a few times per year. The owner just leaves it out and forgets about it. Some apartments don't allow bikes inside
so you see them all over locked to fences. 12th street has a lot of bikes locked outside too.

I remember seeing the same thing in Amsterdam except the bikes got much older before abandonment, maybe they were higher quality to begin with. We who love bikes try to keep our old friends alive but most people who ride those cheap bikes won't bother to fix them after the first time something serious happens.