Living Car Free - your ideal city?

ya don't say? =]



i would say there are varying degrees of consideration when applying graffiti (for the record, i don't do tagging or graf). do they pick a big white wall on main street, or a big white wall in the alley?

they'll most likely choose the alley, not out of consideration, but since it's harder to get caught there. but also because they know fewer will care about it, and hence it will last there longer. i wouldn't call them "considerate" for doing so, but i do think they know what spots are worth putting time into, and which are not.

of course, there are some who will paint on anything, anywhere. saw a local news story recently about a white delivery truck that was being hit with graf weekly. to solve it, they commissioned an artist to put up a nice (graf) mural on the truck. so far, it hasn't been hit again.

so what i'm saying is that one say to solve the "scourge" of graf is to give the kids somewhere (legal) to do it.

this is similar to skateboarding in my mind; many locales say you can't skate here or there, yet they give you no place to actually do it. there has to be an outlet for these kinds of things, whether or not you enjoy their outcomes.

I see your point.

I have supported the building of skate parks with ramps, walls, half pipes and agree it is hard on skaters and BMX riders when they can't practice their chosen activity. But it is also hard on the owner of the property that the skaters are using to avoid having someone file a law suit because a skater was hurt on their property. I understand your point and think the community can give the skaters some outlet.

The same excuse graffiti advocates use is the one Street racers use. They say they have to race and because there are so few places to race they race on the street.

But I simply don’t think there is compelling evidence that these artists “need” to deface someone else’s property. Even in your description you use the words getting caught indicating they know it is against the law. But whatever the case is it isn’t considerate to paint on any property that doesn’t belong to you or that you have permission to paint, write on or mark on. The owner not the artist gets to determine what goes on their wall. A beautiful picture of the Virgin with Child is not art if it is placed on the wall of someone from Israel.

I have seen parks in LA where the city has decided to allow some of these artists the privilege of decorating the walls in the park. It doesn’t take long before some other artist decides to modify the art with touches of their own. It doesn’t improve the art and sooner or later the tax payer has to pay to get it fixed.

But then that is just one reason I don’t care for big cities and they more than likely would never make my “ideal city list.” People have come to expect vandalism and so they make excuses for it and finally just give up and learn to live with it. At least that is how it seems to those of us that prefer that our property is decorated the way we want it decorated. So I would add to my ideal city that people are considerate of each other and there is no graffiti. The city could build an art center day club to give the kids some outlet. Letting them paint the side of my truck so I wouldn’t have to keep repainting it is simply extortion. IMHO.

I see your point.

I have supported the building of skate parks with ramps, walls, half pipes and agree it is hard on skaters and BMX riders when they can't practice their chosen activity. But it is also hard on the owner of the property that the skaters are using to avoid having someone file a law suit because a skater was hurt on their property. I understand your point and think the community can give the skaters some outlet.

The same excuse graffiti advocates use is the one Street racers use. They say they have to race and because there are so few places to race they race on the street.

But I simply don’t think there is compelling evidence that these artists “need” to deface someone else’s property. Even in your description you use the words getting caught indicating they know it is against the law. But whatever the case is it isn’t considerate to paint on any property that doesn’t belong to you or that you have permission to paint, write on or mark on. The owner not the artist gets to determine what goes on their wall. A beautiful picture of the Virgin with Child is not art if it is placed on the wall of someone from Israel.

I have seen parks in LA where the city has decided to allow some of these artists the privilege of decorating the walls in the park. It doesn’t take long before some other artist decides to modify the art with touches of their own. It doesn’t improve the art and sooner or later the tax payer has to pay to get it fixed.

But then that is just one reason I don’t care for big cities and they more than likely would never make my “ideal city list.” People have come to expect vandalism and so they make excuses for it and finally just give up and learn to live with it. At least that is how it seems to those of us that prefer that our property is decorated the way we want it decorated. So I would add to my ideal city that people are considerate of each other and there is no graffiti. The city could build an art center day club to give the kids some outlet. Letting them paint the side of my truck so I wouldn’t have to keep repainting it is simply extortion. IMHO.


I dont know, to me a big wall in the center of a city where ANYONE is allowed to paint whatever they want sounds kinda cool. I mean, why not let the people who live there put whatever they want up instead of some random guy in a city office somewhere?I agree that it is not considerate to do it on someone elses stuff if it is not asked for but there are millions of people who break minor laws like that all the time. How about speeding, trespassing (Stealth camping), stopping for stop signs (im from CA where they dont stop ). If its done in an ally or some other such random place that no one cares about.... then no one should care! Yes your personal freedoms end when they infringe on mine except when you drive an SUV and pollute my air? There are millions of things that happen all the time where one group of people are "infringing" on others but they are social acceptable and hence not made to be "illegal." Graffiti is stigmatized as offensive to the visual senses because it started as an underground movement, much like skateboarding.

I dont know, to me a big wall in the center of a city where ANYONE is allowed to paint whatever they want sounds kinda cool. I mean, why not let the people who live there put whatever they want up instead of some random guy in a city office somewhere?I agree that it is not considerate to do it on someone elses stuff if it is not asked for but there are millions of people who break minor laws like that all the time. How about speeding, trespassing (Stealth camping), stopping for stop signs (im from CA where they dont stop ). If its done in an ally or some other such random place that no one cares about.... then no one should care! Yes your personal freedoms end when they infringe on mine except when you drive an SUV and pollute my air? There are millions of things that happen all the time where one group of people are "infringing" on others but they are social acceptable and hence not made to be "illegal." Graffiti is stigmatized as offensive to the visual senses because it started as an underground movement, much like skateboarding.

I know we see this differently because we see property ownership differently. But you sound a bit like a anarchist. Not calling you one however.

It is totally inconsistent to complain about a SUV polluting the air, an act that some would argue is legal if not moral, and not complain about someone polluting the walls of a city, an act known to be illegal and not moral. Like I said the logic you are using to allow graffiti is exactly the same one street racers use. They say they have to race in the street because they have nowhere else to race. If one works then both work.

Yes there are millions of people breaking the law but it hardly gives us an excuse to be lawless. If you are willing to look the other way when someone places graffiti on your neighbor’s wall are you also willing to look the other way when they break into your neighbor’s house? Because it seems unfair to have a clean wall because someone feels they have a need to deface it should we allow it? Would it be just as unfair if I parked my bike outside a store and someone felt they needed to take it to get across town? How much destruction of property would you allow before you would put a stop to it?

Like I said it cost the school district where I used to work close to half a million dollars to clean up graffiti from school property. That is close to half a million dollars that will not go to the children’s education, teacher’s salaries, or building improvements. Tell me again how graffiti isn’t a crime?

I think Banksy is the most famous graffiti artist.

I know we see this differently because we see property ownership differently. But you sound a bit like a anarchist. Not calling you one however.

It is totally inconsistent to complain about a SUV polluting the air, an act that some would argue is legal if not moral, and not complain about someone polluting the walls of a city, an act known to be illegal and not moral. Like I said the logic you are using to allow graffiti is exactly the same one street racers use. They say they have to race in the street because they have nowhere else to race. If one works then both work.

Yes there are millions of people breaking the law but it hardly gives us an excuse to be lawless. If you are willing to look the other way when someone places graffiti on your neighbor’s wall are you also willing to look the other way when they break into your neighbor’s house? Because it seems unfair to have a clean wall because someone feels they have a need to deface it should we allow it? Would it be just as unfair if I parked my bike outside a store and someone felt they needed to take it to get across town? How much destruction of property would you allow before you would put a stop to it?

Like I said it cost the school district where I used to work close to half a million dollars to clean up graffiti from school property. That is close to half a million dollars that will not go to the children’s education, teacher’s salaries, or building improvements. Tell me again how graffiti isn’t a crime?

I never said it was a crime, I just said that I dont car if people do it. Take drugs for example. No one cares if other people do it, just dont do something stupid while on them (or not on them) and dont do it in public. Government waists a lot of money trying to stop it when it doesnt effect other people. Im not trying to say graffiti is ok even though it is illegal. I just dont really car what is or is not legal. I do not use what is legal to define what is moral and right for me to do. I DO NOT do lots of things that are legal because I think them immoral and vice versus. In my ideal city graffiti would be allowed in far more places than they are now. I am not debating with you that it is not illegal. I do not agree with anarchism but I hardly thing that a little graffiti creates anarchy.

Take drugs for example. No one cares if other people do it, just dont do something stupid while on them (or not on them) and dont do it in public. Government waists a lot of money trying to stop it when it doesnt effect other people.

I care ... and it does affect other people.

I never said it was a crime, I just said that I dont car if people do it. Take drugs for example. No one cares if other people do it, just dont do something stupid while on them (or not on them) and dont do it in public. Government waists a lot of money trying to stop it when it doesnt effect other people. Im not trying to say graffiti is ok even though it is illegal. I just dont really car what is or is not legal. I do not use what is legal to define what is moral and right for me to do. I DO NOT do lots of things that are legal because I think them immoral and vice versus. In my ideal city graffiti would be allowed in far more places than they are now. I am not debating with you that it is not illegal. I do not agree with anarchism but I hardly thing that a little graffiti creates anarchy.

I can see we have a whole different idea of ideal and consideration. It sounds like you approve of graffiti, drug use and any other number of small time crimes simply because they don’t effect you personally. It is your right but once again it seems inconsistent to complain about SUVs and not about drug use or graffiti. But I do agree with Machka that drug use does effect other people. It destroys whole families and causes parents to mistreat children. But not to worry, there is little chance we would even live in the same city. Your description of an ideal city is my very definition of why I don’t care for big cities.

I've always thought the graffiti problem could just as easily be the graffiti solution, based on the thought that one man's notion of graffiti is another man's street art. You could defeat graffiti by advertising for street artists and channeling their talent in some positive fashion. Especially when you consider that most graffiti is a defacement of buildings or bridges that are pretty ugly in the first place.

Plus I've seen some pretty nice street art.

Instead we prefer to paint over (and over and over) their efforts or by arresting them.... a total waste of time and effort.

I've always thought the graffiti problem could just as easily be the graffiti solution, based on the thought that one man's notion of graffiti is another man's street art. You could defeat graffiti by advertising for street artists and channeling their talent in some positive fashion. Especially when you consider that most graffiti is a defacement of buildings or bridges that are pretty ugly in the first place.

Plus I've seen some pretty nice street art.

Instead we prefer to paint over (and over and over) their efforts or by arresting them.... a total waste of time and effort.

\agree

Well this is going nowhere. If our ideal cities has to have crime in it to be acceptable then our standards have fallen to an all time low. That might be one of the major reasons people left the city for suburbia in the first place.

I don’t know that I understand the logic of not being concerned about the effects of our actions concerning graffiti and saying people should be concerned about using so much fuel in a car. It would seem to me that if someone felt they had a debt to society to conserve energy and create a small carbon footprint they would have the same concern for their neighbors visual well being. There is very little difference between someone feeling they have the right to improve the scenery to their liking without concern to what others think and deciding to drive an F-350 to take the kids to school. Some might even consider such actions as hypocritical.

I don’t know that I understand the logic of not being concerned about the effects of our actions concerning graffiti and saying people should be concerned about using so much fuel in a car. It would seem to me that if someone felt they had a debt to society to conserve energy and create a small carbon footprint they would have the same concern for their neighbors visual well being. There is very little difference between someone feeling they have the right to improve the scenery to their liking without concern to what others think and deciding to drive an F-350 to take the kids to school. Some might even consider such actions as hypocritical. [/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

A great many things I don't understand either. If everyone was so concerned about their neighbour's visual well-being, most North American communities would put a lot more effort into their urban planning. We'd see fewer one-story malls surrounded by a sea of automobiles... We'd require our buildings to be of a higher visual standard. All of these things are an affront to the visual senses, but seem to be acceptable to our society.

I'm not condoning graffiti. I realize it is a problem, but feel it could be dealt with more effectively by trying to recruit some of these artistic people and get them working on more permanent and attractive works that would in a small way offset some of the hideous blandness that we see in our architecture. I'd like to see more artwork.

I'm not condoning graffiti. I realize it is a problem, but feel it could be dealt with more effectively by trying to recruit some of these artistic people and get them working on more permanent and attractive works that would in a small way offset some of the hideous blandness that we see in our architecture. I'd like to see more artwork.

We do that already ... they're called "murals" and almost every city, town, and village is full of them. Sometimes they are just there for their beauty, other times they are there to depict historical events, and other times they are placed in areas that used to be favorite graffiti spots.

I took a collection of photos of the murals in Chemainus, BC for example:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/14302884@N04/sets/72157602332366219/

This is the town of Legal, Alberta, and their set of murals:
http://www.town.legal.ab.ca/
http://www.town.legal.ab.ca/murals.html

This is a site describing Winnipeg's murals:
http://www.themuralsofwinnipeg.com/

A great many things I don't understand either. If everyone was so concerned about their neighbour's visual well-being, most North American communities would put a lot more effort into their urban planning. We'd see fewer one-story malls surrounded by a sea of automobiles... We'd require our buildings to be of a higher visual standard. All of these things are an affront to the visual senses, but seem to be acceptable to our society.

I'm not condoning graffiti. I realize it is a problem, but feel it could be dealt with more effectively by trying to recruit some of these artistic people and get them working on more permanent and attractive works that would in a small way offset some of the hideous blandness that we see in our architecture. I'd like to see more artwork.

Once again I have to side with Machka. If we wanted their input we would ask for it and get a mural. If they were any good they wouldn’t have to practice their art after dark. These same “artist” are more than happy to add their touches to murals and interesting building as well. It would seem if they are artists they should buy some canvas and practice their art and maybe see if anyone is interested in it. It is vandalism and always will be. Practicing on the side of a rail car, someone’s wall, a monument is not art and never will be. And as long as it is a crime it is inconsiderate and should be prosecuted. Maybe if they offered a reward amounting to the cost of covering the graffiti up and maybe if they charged the criminal for what it cost to cover it up they would stop. Like it has been said, if we wanted their art we would ask for it. Because we didn’t ask for it they should stop doing it or they should pay the price like any other criminal.:notamused:

But if you prefer to have your property painted over that is your right, and your ideal city can have all the paint on everything your heart desires.
In fact because it is your ideal city you could spray can any wall you wanted.:lol:

My ideal city would be located somewhere FLAT.

My ideal city would be located somewhere FLAT.
Check out Lubbock, Texas.

Check out Lubbock, Texas.

Been there. Too hot. Too much stupidity.

And its in Texas, a state that has been more trouble than it is worth.

Been there. Too hot. Too much stupidity.

And its in Texas, a state that has been more trouble than it is worth.

Yeah, according to http://govpro.com/content/gov_imp_31439/, it's the second most conservative city in the U.S. But it sure is flat there.

My ideal city would be located somewhere FLAT.

Chicago is for you.

Yeah, according to http://govpro.com/content/gov_imp_31439/, it's the second most conservative city in the U.S. But it sure is flat there.

That's an interesting study. Seems like any city with a black population ranks as liberal. Any without black population are ranked conservative. It would have been interesting to study the survey and also to figure out what they means by "liberal" and what by "conservative".

Nonetheless, there are some liberal, flat cities in the US. Chicago does seem to rank pretty high and Minneapolis is another.

Yeah, according to http://govpro.com/content/gov_imp_31439/, it's the second most conservative city in the U.S. But it sure is flat there.

I didn't think about it before, but my ideal city would be liberal and ethnically diverse. And it would have a good gay community, and civil rights for gays.

Usually we think about the physical attributes of a city, but the people are even more important.

Can you have graffiti and at the same time considerate people? Doesn’t one exclude the other? I don't think they are mutually exclusive. There is some very tasteful, beautiful graffiti that enhances otherwise ugly-looking urban spaces. Of course, it's not the mindless tagging I'm talking about.

If the canvas doesn't belong to the artist can it be considerate? If it's a boring concrete tunnel or a bridge foundation... then yes, I think so. Or something like this (http://citizen.nfb.ca/footprint?dossier_nid=1112).

I agree that putting graffiti on private property (esp. belonging to individuals and small businesses, not megacorporations) is not considerate. That's what not I'm talking about, however.

There are sidewalk artists in Toronto, using coloured chalk to create very visually impressive art. Is that bad? Local blogs often take pictures of various humorous and serious notes residents post all over the city ("To bike riders", "to the a-hole who stole my shovel", "to the considerate people who helped me out after I had a bike wreck on this spot"). Is that bad? If I came to a semi-abandoned, muddy patch by a bridge foundation and planted some flowers there, which undeniably is an alteration of public space, would that be bad and inconsiderate? Didn't think so. This is the sort of thing that makes the city come alive, and reaffirms that public space belongs to the citizens. The graffiti I'm talking about is a phenomenon of a similar nature.

It can also be an act of civil protest. Look up Toronto's Urban Repair Squad, painting "bike lanes" on the road. Illegal? Check. Great stuff? Check.

Look up the guy who goes by the name of Roadsworth, and some samples of his work. Technically what he was doing was illegal, and he was eventually prosecuted for his "crimes". However, the enormous amount of public support he received might reveal something about what the people actually think about the issue.

If it's a boring concrete tunnel or a bridge foundation... then yes, I think so. Or something like this (http://citizen.nfb.ca/footprint?dossier_nid=1112).

Look up the guy who goes by the name of Roadsworth, and some samples of his work. Technically what he was doing was illegal, and he was eventually prosecuted for his "crimes". However, the enormous amount of public support he received might reveal something about what the people actually think about the issue.

Roadsworth http://www.roadsworth.com/main/index.php?x=browse&pagenum=1&category=2

I've noticed a lot of graffiti in places that seem abandoned or otherwise butt-ugly. I've just read a book by Malcolm Gladwell called the Tipping Point. In it he discusses how the New York subway was effective in dealing with crime and graffiti. One successful approach was to ensure that every instance was promptly covered up so that the subway no longer seemed like a run-down area. Eventually, graffiti slowed down.

A great approach would be to replace all the hideous graffiti with wall art.

Another approach might be to clean up everything but the tasteful graffiti. I've seen some pretty neat instances around on some under-freeway tunnels. Some of it should be made permanent.

Check out some interesting examples :http://www.graffiti.org/index/usa.html

The Canadian wall art looks a little more "funded" though.. http://www.graffiti.org/index/world.html

Post, Texas is forty miles southeast of Lubbock, where the high plains meet the rolling hills. It was established in 1907 as the utopian concept of the wealthy and quite eccentric inventor/breakfast cereal magnate C. W. Post. Post came from Michigan to West Texas, assuming the name Charlie Williams and passing himself off as a cowboy while he looked around for his perfect place to live.

Post intended Post City to be locally self supporting with plenty of privately owned small businesses and detached bungalow houses, surrounded by family farms of about 160 acres each, and with rail service to the main railroad network. I think he intended to be a major employer in Post City, but not the exclusive owner of everything. He provided liberal financing to newcomers, who would eventually own their own properties and businesses.

I admit it was a Chamber of Commerce version of utopia sprung fully formed from the brain of an obsessively health minded midwesterner. But as American utopian communities go, Post succeeded where most failed. C. W. Post did have to relent on coffee prohibition. Alcohol prohibition, well okay, but coffee prohibition -- out of the question!

The problem with intentional communities is that if they are to be economically sustainable, it's likely they will eventually merge with mainstream culture. That's how Post became, after a couple of generations, just another little town in West Texas.

The problem with intentional communities is that if they are to be economically sustainable, it's likely they will eventually merge with mainstream culture. That's how Post became, after a couple of generations, just another little town in West Texas.

By all accounts a nice enough one, as such places go, but I see what you mean.

I grew up in a planned city--Highland Park, Michigan. It was designed and developed by Henry Ford, of all people, when he built his first (actually the first) automobile assembly plant.

Interestingly, the city was laid out along streetcar lines, as Ford thought his workers would ride streetcars to the plant. Of course it wasn't long before the combination of high wages ($5 a day for assembly workers) and cheap cars made it possible for every worker to own an automobile. Many of the workers eventually moved out to the suburbs and drove long distances to work. (The first or second expressway in the world was also built in Highland Park.) Today, Highland Park is basically a ghost town, with only about 10 per cent of the population it had in Ford's heyday. The city has been bankrupt for a number of years and is managed by the state of Michigan.