Posted on 10/26/2005 6:55:53 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
Everybody out!
PING
You might be interested in this.
We don't hate big cities, we merely reject them. :-)
We tend to dislike mass transit only in places where it doesn't work. On the east coast it seems to work. On the west coast it does not.
the new urbanists run rampant over property rights and personal privacy. Those are two major problems.
I lived in Long Beach, CA for many years and thought that was one of the best planned cities. We had our schools, a park, police station, post office and groceries within walking distance of any home in the city.
Unfortunately school bussing destroyed the whole concept.
The best way to obtain better community design and retard urban sprawl is to get rid of zoning. Most communities were compact and were pedestrian and transit friendly until zoning became widely adopted following WWII. Once local planning boards got zoning powers, they increased minimum lot widths to 70, 80, and 100 feet or more and lot areas to 10,000 or 20,000 sq ft or more. Once you get lots that big, you can kiss walking to neighborhood elementary schools and corner stores goodbye. There is no longer the required population within walking distance to support neighborhood schools, parks, stores, and workplaces. Zoning is the problem, NOT the solution. Get rid of these regulations and let the free market dictate what gets built and where. We might all be pleasantly surprised. Do you really think that private developers WANT to build 1/2 acre suburban lots?
Simple. We've lived there and left; used it and been disgusted by it. You can keep it.
And correct, there are a thousand reasons why New Urbanism is utter BS that aren't mentioned is this article.
Because mass transit is a money sucking system that taxes inhabitants of poorer rural counties to benefit wealthier urban populations?
New Urbanism is an attempt to recreate the US in the image of Europe, which is plain stupid because it ignores the vast expanses of the US, especially in the western states.
I don't have a problem with cities, I have a problem being taxed for infrastructure where I don't live, while the state ignores the failing bridges where I do live. If mass transit is so wonderful, how come ridership is so low it has to be subsidized?
As usual, the planners don't ask us how we want to live, they tell us how they think we ought to live. No Thanks.
Real classy of these folks to take advantage of a disaster to impose their secular religion on the victims thereof.
How so? Not being provocative but curious.
I am deeply suspicious of anything which is 'centrally planned', but some of their ideas, from what I've read, make sense. I've seen several cities stateside which have made no attempt to integrate their transportation networks - such as rail systems which run near an airport but have no way of connecting between the two. The Europeans (God help me I'm about to praise Europeans) tend to have more pedestrian friendly downtowns and convenient rail systems, though this is likely more a function of the age of their cities and the population density of their countries than anything else.
Here's hoping they hire *exclusively* New Urbanist planners for the rebuilding effort.
That's exactly how I feel about living in the country. I spent 8 long years in a small East Texas town with a population of 882. The most miserable years of my life. Then whooo-hoooo, moved to Jasper Texas, with sub-10,000 pop and found it was no better. I've been in Dallas the last 2 years, and this place is heaven compared to the sticks.
Mass transit just makes sense for urban populations. Good sense. It's one of the few things that Europe does really well.
I'm not sure I agree. I'm not really prepared to refute your arguments, but while it's not scientific, I'm not fond of Houston which has no zoning laws.
But you can't plan and build a "downtown" from the ground up any more than you can an entire economy.
Yeah, there's nothing quite like the Dallas City Council to make one think that one lives in a truly "progressive" community.
Unfortunately, you are taxing me for your transit services. Not something I can enthusiasticly support. I have no problem with cities building light rails or having bus fleets. I do object to them not charging the full cost to their riders and then making up the difference through state wide gas taxes as is done in my home state of Oregon.
You want to arrange your life around a train or bus schedule, knock yourself out, just stop charging me for it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.