Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Miami Beach? Heavens, no. Density alone does not a city make. It has a lovely beach and not much else
So in other words, one dense, walkable environment where many people don't own cars and get to work - and all of their necessities - without them is not a city, while others are. And you decide?
Uh huh. Enjoy your own vision of reality - and your opinions - because that's precisely all that they are.
So in other words, one dense, walkable environment where many people don't own cars and get to work - and all of their necessities - without them is not a city, while others are. And you decide?
Uh huh. Enjoy your own vision of reality - and your opinions - because that's precisely all that they are.
You're being purposefully obtuse. You clearly have very strong feelings about whatever suburb you live in. When you have several million people living in dense, walkable neighborhoods connected by excellent public transit, you let me know
You're being purposefully obtuse. You clearly have very strong feelings about whatever suburb you live in. When you have several million people living in dense, walkable neighborhoods connected by excellent public transit, you let me know
Already lived in cities dominated by dense, walkable neighborhoods connected by excellent public transit, and left. So don't expect to hear from me on that point.
I'm hardly being obtuse. Houston, Atlanta, Los Angeles, Miami, and any other number of metro areas built in similar fashions are cities, nothing more and nothing less. Anybody who believes otherwise has been horribly misinformed and is distorted by such a remarkable degree of bias that they do not even deserve to be taken seriously in these types of discussions.
People are entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.
It is not an unassailable virtue. Meaning, people who live in less-dense cities are not evil, environment-hating rednecks, nor are Manhattanites necessarily paragons of sustainable living.
It is not an objectively "superior" type of lifestyle. Density isn't "hip" to everyone. It is but one of many possible lifestyle choices.
By itself, it does not make any one city superior to another. One must take into account a whole range of factors to make such assessments. Saying that "City A is better than City B simply because City A is denser" is an asinine line of thought.
By itself, it does not translate into better livability. Some of the densest cities in the world are in developing and middle-income nations. They're hardly livable areas.
Density exists in virtually every city in the world. The people who want to live in dense environments have no shortage of choices, so I'm not sure why they must constantly criticize people who do not share their lifestyle preferences.
Yes, there can be "dense sprawl." Los Angeles? Miami?
The market should be the ultimate force that shapes which areas are dense and which aren't, not government. People who want to live in dense environments should have that option, as should people who prefer less density or even, *gasp*, sprawl.
Your thoughts?
I agree with the whole personal preference angle, but as far as resource-efficiency and environmental-friendliness, dense and walkable cities are actually better.
I agree that density is not by itself good reason to declare a city to be superior or more livable--however, some of the attributes that often go hand-in-hand with density do.
I also don't agree with the market being the ultimate force--civilization was built on man's ability to plan. Throwing that away is not a good idea. Besides, government policy and market forces are not mutually exclusive to each other.
I don't "hate" Manhattan. It is one of the places where I would least prefer to live, and unlike some of the snobs here, I do not drool over that borough as the masterpiece of urbanity. And those so-called "sprawled nightmares" are the homes to tens of millions of families who love their neighborhoods. Other than an equalization of crime rates between central cities and the suburbs - a reality which in and of itself reflects the lack of safety in many inner cities - I have seen precious little evidence that the suburban model is about to come crashing down. Next...
I also don't care where anybody lives, one of the points I was trying to make to the density fetishists in this thread. And I hate to break it to you, but those of us living in suburbia really do not care what your preferences are. We do not care in the least that you don't "see the point" of living in our types of neighborhoods. You like dense, walkable neighborhoods. Good for you! It will not have any effect on my living choices, or those of millions of other suburbanites. That I, by living on a suburban cul-de-sac, offend some person living in a central city doesn't mean a damn thing to me. Many of us - myself included - have lived in your dense, walkable paradises before. We left because those areas did not fit our needs or preferences. If you get angry while going out to the suburbs, surely you can understand why some of us get slightly irritated at paying $40 to park our cars in downtown areas. When I lived in a "walkable paradise" in Detroit, I got slightly irritated when my car was vandalized, my home burglarized, living in constant fear of walking on the many sidewalks in the area.
I support highway spending - I don't see highways as a bad thing, sorry - but don't see a problem with spending more money on public transportation - even subsidizing it for the poor - but the problem public transit has consistently had in this country is attaining financial feasibility with extremely low levels of ridership. The bottom line is that, even if you doubled the scope of the average urban transit system and gave away free fare, people will not ride it if they feel like the facilities are unsafe, unsanitary, or - the big one - less convenient than using a car. I will not go out of my way to ride a bus or a train if I can do the same thing easier with a car. Many people feel the same way. Sorry if that offends you. I could really care less.
$40 for parking... That's something that transit is good for... if the systems were in good repair and getting equal amounts of funding with the highways, they might be more convenient for you to ride than taking a car. When gas got so high last summer, people switched to transit and guess what? They liked it better! Ridership has gone up here in Chicago consistently for the last year.
I'm not offended, I just think its funny the way many people in the country think that if they don't use transit then it doesn't affect them. The fact of the matter is that it does, because good transit systems take cars off the road, making travel less of a hassle for those who insist on taking their cars everywhere.
You lived in Detroit. Hmm, that probably explains part of your views. That's not paradise, and probably why you THINK every city in the Northeast and Midwest are crumbling. They're not. Chicago has its share of problems, but we certainly aren't a city that people are afraid to visit or move to.
"density fetishists" - lol.
and by the way, the place I used to live IS a sprawled nightmare. The "leadership" in the city did not think when they let subdivisions and strip malls take over ... and when places experience such rapid growth they, gasp!, find an increase in crime because their police forces aren't catching up with the population increase.
It is not an unassailable virtue. Meaning, people who live in less-dense cities are not evil, environment-hating rednecks, nor are Manhattanites necessarily paragons of sustainable living.
It is not an objectively "superior" type of lifestyle. Density isn't "hip" to everyone. It is but one of many possible lifestyle choices.
By itself, it does not make any one city superior to another. One must take into account a whole range of factors to make such assessments. Saying that "City A is better than City B simply because City A is denser" is an asinine line of thought.
By itself, it does not translate into better livability. Some of the densest cities in the world are in developing and middle-income nations. They're hardly livable areas.
Density exists in virtually every city in the world. The people who want to live in dense environments have no shortage of choices, so I'm not sure why they must constantly criticize people who do not share their lifestyle preferences.
Yes, there can be "dense sprawl." Los Angeles? Miami?
The market should be the ultimate force that shapes which areas are dense and which aren't, not government. People who want to live in dense environments should have that option, as should people who prefer less density or even, *gasp*, sprawl.
Your thoughts?
A counterpoint:
Density does not "Cause Crime".
Some of the most crime ridden cities in the US are indistinguishable from a typical middle-class subdivison. Detriot, a city consistantly ranked most dangerous in the US and one of the most in the world, is made up of mostly large single family homes. Ditto Compton, California. People make the place, not the other way around. Dense neighborhoods do not lack community.
Some of the longest lasting friendships I've witnesses occur in very dense areas. I've seen more kids playing outside in Brooklyn than most of Long Island at any given moment. Density isn't inherently stifling or psychologically alienating.
Some of the most creative and well-adjusted people I meet day-to-day are city people. Not too many "Taxi Driver" types either. Meanwhile, check out how many suburban/rural kids caught up in Meth/Weed, you'd be saddened. Density is not incondusive to rasing children
Some of the best schools on earth cater to inner city children in places like NY, London, Paris, Tokyo. etc. Zoos, Museums, Libaries, Playgrounds, and hangout spots abound. Children get to meet people from all walks of life and are less likely to grow up sheltered. Dense nabes aren't only places of "Last Resort"
The real estate prices in many urban zones should put this one to rest. Plenty of extrodinarily wealthy families exist comfortably and happily in Manhattan, Chicago, DC, etc. Plenty of urban parks to scratch one's green itch Rural living is not inhereitantly more "wholesome" or "moral".
Out of all the stereotypes, this one bothers me the most. Being out in the countryside does not give someone "Values" or "Morality". Look at those "Good Ol Country Boys" who shot and killed the parents of 16 disablied children. Witness the Green River or BTK killers. Being in a city doesn't make you some hediodistic satan-worshipping demon so many want to believe. Some of the sickest acts of sadism I've read about occur in the most remote areas.
For the record, I don't agree with the concept of using government to create "More sustainable" communites, so on that front we're both on the same team. However, I sense a definate inner insecurity in your post. If suburbia is so great, then why your rage towards anything not like it? And I've got news for you, there isn't too much difference in set up between Detroit and the nicest parts of Oakland Co. Both are made up of largley single family homes, the only difference is Detroit is somewhat more packed together. Me thinks you're really projecting your experiences in D-town onto everyone/where else
Density does not "Cause Crime".
Some of the most crime ridden cities in the US are indistinguishable from a typical middle-class subdivison. Detriot, a city consistantly ranked most dangerous in the US and one of the most in the world, is made up of mostly large single family homes. Ditto Compton, California. People make the place, not the other way around.
Agreed, and I never said otherwise - but I would add that lack of density doesn't cause crime, either. So not sure what the point is. Next...
Quote:
Dense neighborhoods do not lack community.
Some of the longest lasting friendships I've witnesses occur in very dense areas. I've seen more kids playing outside in Brooklyn than most of Long Island at any given moment.
I've lived in neighborhoods with densities exceeding 10,000 people per square mile and neighborhoods under 1,000 people per square mile. I've made plenty of friends in both environments.
Quote:
Density isn't inherently stifling or psychologically alienating.
Some of the most creative and well-adjusted people I meet day-to-day are city people. Not too many "Taxi Driver" types either. Meanwhile, check out how many suburban/rural kids caught up in Meth/Weed, you'd be saddened.
Inherently, no. For many of us, it is stressful, pointless, and not an attribute considered essential - or even beneficial - in our neighborhoods.
Quote:
Density is not incondusive to rasing children
Some of the best schools on earth cater to inner city children in places like NY, London, Paris, Tokyo. etc. Zoos, Museums, Libaries, Playgrounds, and hangout spots abound. Children get to meet people from all walks of life and are less likely to grow up sheltered.
Density does not equal diversity, any more than a lack of density connotes exclusionary living; among the urban elitists, this is a constant refrain. Absolutely, children can be exposed to the full rainbow of diversity in many dense environments. But the notion that suburbia is this 96% WASP environment utterly lacking in any type of diversity is so patently false that it truly is laughable. My suburban neighborhood here in Broward County, FL is far more diverse than the most dense parts of the cores of cities like Pittsburgh and Buffalo.
Quote:
Dense nabes aren't only places of "Last Resort"
The real estate prices in many urban zones should put this one to rest. Plenty of extrodinarily wealthy families exist comfortably and happily in Manhattan, Chicago, DC, etc. Plenty of urban parks to scratch one's green itch
Plenty of extraordinarily wealthy families live in non-dense environments as well - I already provided a list of such areas on another post in this thread.
Quote:
Rural living is not inhereitantly more "wholesome" or "moral".
Out of all the stereotypes, this one bothers me the most. Being out in the countryside does not give someone "Values" or "Morality". Look at those "Good Ol Country Boys" who shot and killed the parents of 16 disablied children. Witness the Green River or BTK killers. Being in a city doesn't make you some hediodistic satan-worshipping demon so many want to believe. Some of the sickest acts of sadism I've read about occur in the most remote areas.
I fully agree. I don't believe that rural people are any "better than anybody else." But, unlike many of the snobs on this site, I'm logically consistent in that I don't belief that people living in city cores are any better than rural denizens, nor do I think that their lifestyle choices are in any way wiser or objectively superior. The amount of "smugness", arrogance, and disdain for anything not in the model of Manhattan displayed on this site by urban elitists is truly astounding at times.
Quote:
For the record, I don't agree with the concept of using government to create "More sustainable" communites, so on that front we're both on the same team. However, I sense a definate inner insecurity in your post. If suburbia is so great, then why your rage towards anything not like it? And I've got news for you, there isn't too much difference in set up between Detroit and the nicest parts of Oakland Co. Both are made up of largley single family homes, the only difference is Detroit is somewhat more packed together. Me thinks you're really projecting your experiences in D-town onto everyone/where else
There isn't the slightest hint of insecurity in my commentary, as unlike many here, I've lived in the full gamut of communities. I've *lived* the life of density, and the suburban life. And you are quite incorrect in your reading of my posts, as I challenge you to find this so-called "rage" towards anything not suburban. i'm never going back ot the lifestyle of dense urbanity, but I never challenge the lifestyle decisions of people living that life.
The entire point of this point was to address those on the other side who never miss a chance to denigrate anything even remotely suburban with a veritable smorgasbord of stereotypes straight from the 1970's. If you're in search of "rage", look at the postings on this site of lifelong Northeasterners as they lambaste the lifestyles in the Sun Belt, despite having never had the willingness or level of personal development and courage to venture beyond the comfort zone of the immediate vicinity of their own home state.
$40 for parking... That's something that transit is good for... if the systems were in good repair and getting equal amounts of funding with the highways, they might be more convenient for you to ride than taking a car. When gas got so high last summer, people switched to transit and guess what? They liked it better! Ridership has gone up here in Chicago consistently for the last year.
I'm not offended, I just think its funny the way many people in the country think that if they don't use transit then it doesn't affect them. The fact of the matter is that it does, because good transit systems take cars off the road, making travel less of a hassle for those who insist on taking their cars everywhere.
I agree, and I fully support spending more money on public transit systems. But I maintain that simply throwing more money on public transit systems, by itself, won't solve the ridership issue, particularly when cars are just more convenient for many people. I've gone grocery shopping many, many times using the bus. Anybody who will try to tell me that going grocery shopping with (even highly efficient) bus routes is more convenient than using my car is horribly misinformed about what I, and many others, consider to be "convenient."
Quote:
You lived in Detroit. Hmm, that probably explains part of your views. That's not paradise, and probably why you THINK every city in the Northeast and Midwest are crumbling. They're not. Chicago has its share of problems, but we certainly aren't a city that people are afraid to visit or move to.
Please spare me a lesson on my own home region...you're wasting your time. I never once stated that I think that every city in the Northern-tier of this country is "crumbling", having lived in several of them. I'm simply providing a balance in the discussion to the people who would viciously malign every resident of every city that does not please their sensibilities.
Quote:
"density fetishists" - lol.
and by the way, the place I used to live IS a sprawled nightmare. The "leadership" in the city did not think when they let subdivisions and strip malls take over ... and when places experience such rapid growth they, gasp!, find an increase in crime because their police forces aren't catching up with the population increase.
And as I've said many times before, I have lived in places that so many people on this site seem to drool over; walkable streets, heavy pedestrian activity, extreme urban density. Those ares are not objectively superior to suburban ones; they simply provide a different lifestyle that is in NO way morally superior to suburban life.In a nutshell, entire point that I am making here.
I agree, and I fully support spending more money on public transit systems. But I maintain that simply throwing more money on public transit systems, by itself, won't solve the ridership issue, particularly when cars are just more convenient for many people. I've gone grocery shopping many, many times using the bus. Anybody who will try to tell me that going grocery shopping with (even highly efficient) bus routes is more convenient than using my car is horribly misinformed about what I, and many others, consider to be "convenient."
Please spare me a lesson on my own home region...you're wasting your time. I never once stated that I think that every city in the Northern-tier of this country is "crumbling", having lived in several of them. I'm simply providing a balance in the discussion to the people who would viciously malign every resident of every city that does not please their sensibilities.
And as I've said many times before, I have lived in places that so many people on this site seem to drool over; walkable streets, heavy pedestrian activity, extreme urban density. Those ares are not objectively superior to suburban ones; they simply provide a different lifestyle that is in NO way morally superior to suburban life.In a nutshell, entire point that I am making here.
ok.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
