lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: Suburban sprawl (with additions from the Maglev thread)
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Sorry, this thread is closed. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 06-14-2009, 09:50 PM   #81
Q
The one who knocks
 
Q's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: ABQ
Posts: 6,643
Current Game: Mowing down neos with my M60
LF Jester Forum Veteran Helpful! 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
How typically American.
Don't worry, D_Y. If the people in power nowadays have their way, the great evils of free enterprise and private ownership will soon be a thing of the past in this country. You and all of the other people who have been successfully conditioned to think like you by our wonderful education system will have your socialist utopia, and anyone like me who objects to it will either be slaving away in the gulag or dead.


"They should rename the team to the Washington Government Sucks. Put Obama on the helmet. Line the entire walls of the stadium with the actual text of the ACA.
Fix their home team score on the board to the debt clock, they can win every game 17,000,000,000,000 to 24. Losing team gets taxed by the IRS 100%, then droned."
-Toker
Q is offline   you may:
Old 06-14-2009, 10:33 PM   #82
Darth_Yuthura
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Vienna
Posts: 1,585
Current Game: KOTOR III
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qliveur View Post
Don't worry, D_Y. If the people in power nowadays have their way, the great evils of free enterprise and private ownership will soon be a thing of the past in this country. You and all of the other people who have been successfully conditioned to think like you by our wonderful education system will have your socialist utopia, and anyone like me who objects to it will either be slaving away in the gulag or dead.
I wouldn't take it THAT far.

The strongest survive and the weak perish. That isn't referring to people; I mean societies. Right now the US is the strongest military and economic power in the world, but that is because we have outsourced many of our manufacturing demands to China, as has Japan. That had given us an advantage to buy cheap across the world and transport it to the US, but as fuel prices go up, that becomes a liability.

China represents the greatest threat to the US, not militarily, but economically. They may be in a bad position now, but they are poised to overtake the US within the next few decades.

No, I'm not going to point to my solutions as the answer. It is impossibly more complex than any one solution could provide, but a part of any solution to improve the US economy is finding and reducing the inefficiencies that this state needs to operate. By improving the transportation infrastructure, many other benefits come from not having to overcome distance as much for every kind of upkeep cost.(police coverage, utility upkeep, fuel demand, transportation upkeep costs, and other items I listed before) It costs a lot to upkeep any kind of system network, but spreading it out costs much more. The idea of placing the same demand on fewer networks of greater capacity is sound.

From this allows the US economy to grow because a billion dollars saved is a billion dollars earned. Much more can be done here and now from reducing infrastructure costs than can ever be achieved through innovation. Once innovation catches up, then I would gladly like to have privacy in a suburb again.
Darth_Yuthura is offline   you may:
Old 06-14-2009, 10:55 PM   #83
EnderWiggin
Sine Amore Nihil Est Vita
 
EnderWiggin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,395
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
Right now the US is the strongest military and economic power in the world, but that is because we have outsourced many of our manufacturing demands to China, as has Japan.
I disagree. China is a stronger economic power.

_EW_



Hello, Pot? This is Kettle. You're black. ~ Prime

Yes, I hate you.

J7 - thanks for accepting me as part of the 'family.'
EnderWiggin is offline   you may:
Old 06-14-2009, 11:04 PM   #84
Darth_Yuthura
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Vienna
Posts: 1,585
Current Game: KOTOR III
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnderWiggin View Post
I disagree. China is a stronger economic power.

_EW_
Technically no, but they are poised to overtake us. We don't manufacture, but the US provides tertiary goods which is value added to the US GDP and something demanded by other states that we have provided mostly after the communications age started.

The US could improve in other areas, such as growing crops for human consumption much more than for feeding to cattle and pigs. That would allow for more food to be exported as well, but that is a very small part of the GDP.
Darth_Yuthura is offline   you may:
Old 06-14-2009, 11:41 PM   #85
Jae Onasi
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem
 
Jae Onasi's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,912
Current Game: Guild Wars 2, VtMB, TOR
Alderaan News Holopics contributor Helpful! LucasCast staff Veteran Fan Fic Author 
We could grow more grain for export--we certainly have plenty of untilled or fallow farmland right now.


From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"

Read The Adventures of Jolee Bindo and see the amazing Peep Surgery
Story WIP: The Dragonfighters
My blog: Confessions of a Geeky Mom--Latest post: Security Alerts!
Love Star Trek AND gaming? Check out Lotus Fleet.

Jae Onasi is offline   you may:
Old 06-14-2009, 11:50 PM   #86
Darth_Yuthura
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Vienna
Posts: 1,585
Current Game: KOTOR III
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi View Post
We could grow more grain for export--we certainly have plenty of untilled or fallow farmland right now.
That opens up another front that I'm not inclined to deal with.

There must be a fallow period taken during crop production. At any one time, there are at least 25% of fields not in use to allow the soil to recover after each planting. Crop rotation helps this, but fallow periods have to be taken on a regular basis.

Of all the beef you can produce, you end up feeding the cow twenty times as many calories as you get back from its growth. Instead of growing crops for cattle, you could get twenty times as much nutritional value for human consumption.
Darth_Yuthura is offline   you may:
Old 06-15-2009, 12:21 AM   #87
Jae Onasi
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem
 
Jae Onasi's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,912
Current Game: Guild Wars 2, VtMB, TOR
Alderaan News Holopics contributor Helpful! LucasCast staff Veteran Fan Fic Author 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
That opens up another front that I'm not inclined to deal with.

There must be a fallow period taken during crop production. At any one time, there are at least 25% of fields not in use to allow the soil to recover after each planting. Crop rotation helps this, but fallow periods have to be taken on a regular basis.

Of all the beef you can produce, you end up feeding the cow twenty times as many calories as you get back from its growth. Instead of growing crops for cattle, you could get twenty times as much nutritional value for human consumption.
I wasn't clear--I was talking about land left fallow because the gov't pays the farmers not to grow crops on them. With modern agriculture techniques, there's no need to leave ground fallow 25% of the time or even rotate crops, though it helps to grow soybeans every few years to fix nitrogen back into the soil. I'm not familiar with the amount of of calories required to grow cattle, but I do know it's not nearly as efficient a use of calories as feeding people the grain directly.

We also have a lot of farmland in the Plains that just isn't in use at all--there aren't any farmers to till the land in some areas.


From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"

Read The Adventures of Jolee Bindo and see the amazing Peep Surgery
Story WIP: The Dragonfighters
My blog: Confessions of a Geeky Mom--Latest post: Security Alerts!
Love Star Trek AND gaming? Check out Lotus Fleet.

Jae Onasi is offline   you may:
Old 06-15-2009, 01:21 AM   #88
EnderWiggin
Sine Amore Nihil Est Vita
 
EnderWiggin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,395
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi View Post
I do know it's not nearly as efficient a use of calories as feeding people the grain directly.
For sure:

If we're the primary consumer, we can use about 10% of the grain's energy for our own body's processes.

If we're a secondary consumer (ie cow eats grain, we eat cow) then we only get 10% of the cow's energy. That's only 1% of the grain's energy potential.

So yes, it's 10x more efficient to feed people grain.

_EW_



Hello, Pot? This is Kettle. You're black. ~ Prime

Yes, I hate you.

J7 - thanks for accepting me as part of the 'family.'
EnderWiggin is offline   you may:
Old 06-15-2009, 02:11 AM   #89
Web Rider
Senior Member
 
Web Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: here
Posts: 1,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnderWiggin View Post
For sure:

If we're the primary consumer, we can use about 10% of the grain's energy for our own body's processes.

If we're a secondary consumer (ie cow eats grain, we eat cow) then we only get 10% of the cow's energy. That's only 1% of the grain's energy potential.

So yes, it's 10x more efficient to feed people grain.

_EW_
Except unlike the cow, people can't survive on grain alone.


"So if you go to Washington, it's buildings clean and nice. Bring a pack of matches...and we'll burn the White House twice!"

"Nobody's talking about extermination. No one ever does. They just do it." - Magneto

"Don't solicit for your sister, that's not nice, unless you get a good percentage of her price."
Web Rider is offline   you may:
Old 06-15-2009, 04:09 AM   #90
Darth Avlectus
Your point?
 
Darth Avlectus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Attack on Titan
Posts: 4,254
Current Game: Soul Calibur 5
Ok. So I see how it is. Mom and pop biz, it's harder to survive in urban areas, but if they can, they are the better for it. Needless to say niche' firms high in demand will do quite well. Especially do better in suburban and rural areas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi View Post
I wasn't clear--I was talking about land left fallow because the gov't pays the farmers not to grow crops on them.
Such a folly, and yet we wonder what more could be done to help feed the starving? Hmm. Or how about making able bodied and minded people receiving paychecks and not working do something else for that $$$? It might just save some expenses. Just an idea.

Quote:
With modern agriculture techniques, there's no need to leave ground fallow 25% of the time or even rotate crops, though it helps to grow soybeans every few years to fix nitrogen back into the soil. I'm not familiar with the amount of of calories required to grow cattle, but I do know it's not nearly as efficient a use of calories as feeding people the grain directly.
Well, while I will agree there...on the fact of the matter for cattle...what I cannot figure out is why we're using euro based cattle, instead of indigenous bison: they're heartier plus less destructive given they are in their native environment. Just something to consider. I know I'd be using american bison if I were farming.
Quote:
We also have a lot of farmland in the Plains that just isn't in use at all--there aren't any farmers to till the land in some areas.
Well, if it ain't being used for farming and has no plans to ever be used as such again for a number of reasons and factors (location, people, etc.), then maybe we can either
1) Allow native plants and ecosystem to reclaim it (and shut the enviros up a bit)
2) Construct these "clean/new age" power sources for generating economic revenue and jobs in those areas (and sierra club would you *PLEASE* stop deceptively wording your ballot analyses so that your sheeple vote it down)
3) Give something back to the red man for a change. Love it or give it back. Ok, so I'm kind of getting personal there. Still a suggestion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Web Rider View Post
Except unlike the cow, people can't survive on grain alone.
This is true. We need veggies and fruit. Protein one way or another. and a few other things.


"I cant see S***! --YOU GO TO HELL!" --Tourettes guy
Darth Avlectus is offline   you may:
Old 06-15-2009, 06:40 AM   #91
EnderWiggin
Sine Amore Nihil Est Vita
 
EnderWiggin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,395
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Web Rider View Post
Except unlike the cow, people can't survive on grain alone.
I'm aware of that. However, people are quite capable of gaining much of their daily nutrients from eating direct producers. They would have to supplement it with some primary consumer in their diet, but not nearly to the extent that they do now.


Quote:
Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity View Post
This is true. We need veggies and fruit. Protein one way or another. and a few other things.
Wow.


_EW_



Hello, Pot? This is Kettle. You're black. ~ Prime

Yes, I hate you.

J7 - thanks for accepting me as part of the 'family.'
EnderWiggin is offline   you may:
Old 06-15-2009, 09:17 AM   #92
Darth_Yuthura
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Vienna
Posts: 1,585
Current Game: KOTOR III
Answer: the potato.

With exception to a few nutrients, you can live off potatoes. They yield the greatest nutritional value per acre of land as well, but that's not really what I was going for. I would like to see more crops for food that humans will consume directly, whether it be grain, potatoes, or tomatoes.
Darth_Yuthura is offline   you may:
Old 06-15-2009, 11:08 AM   #93
Jae Onasi
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem
 
Jae Onasi's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,912
Current Game: Guild Wars 2, VtMB, TOR
Alderaan News Holopics contributor Helpful! LucasCast staff Veteran Fan Fic Author 
You cannot live off of the potato alone. It does not have protein, much less any complete proteins.


From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"

Read The Adventures of Jolee Bindo and see the amazing Peep Surgery
Story WIP: The Dragonfighters
My blog: Confessions of a Geeky Mom--Latest post: Security Alerts!
Love Star Trek AND gaming? Check out Lotus Fleet.

Jae Onasi is offline   you may:
Old 06-15-2009, 12:31 PM   #94
Darth_Yuthura
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Vienna
Posts: 1,585
Current Game: KOTOR III
That's what the 'exception of a few nutrients' essentially covered. The Irish depended upon the potato so greatly that the potato famine caused mass starvation when it struck.

Obviously you shouldn't depend on any one food, as a restricted diversity in your diet is very unhealthy. The Irish supplemented it with goat's milk to provide the last piece of their diet that the potato didn't provide. Aside from that, it yielded most of the calories, vitamins, and minerals that they needed.
Darth_Yuthura is offline   you may:
Old 06-17-2009, 10:26 AM   #95
Jae Onasi
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem
 
Jae Onasi's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,912
Current Game: Guild Wars 2, VtMB, TOR
Alderaan News Holopics contributor Helpful! LucasCast staff Veteran Fan Fic Author 
"Exception of a few nutrients"? Protein is absolutely essential in the diet. It's also not a great choice for people who have diabetes--potatoes have too many starches and not enough complex carbohydrates. Whole grains are a better choice because they have more soluble and insoluble fiber and less simple carbs.


From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"

Read The Adventures of Jolee Bindo and see the amazing Peep Surgery
Story WIP: The Dragonfighters
My blog: Confessions of a Geeky Mom--Latest post: Security Alerts!
Love Star Trek AND gaming? Check out Lotus Fleet.

Jae Onasi is offline   you may:
Old 06-17-2009, 11:37 AM   #96
Q
The one who knocks
 
Q's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: ABQ
Posts: 6,643
Current Game: Mowing down neos with my M60
LF Jester Forum Veteran Helpful! 
Sprouted grains are one of the best non-meat sources of protein that I know of.

This discussion is reminding me more and more of Asimov's The Caves of Steel. They ate mostly different strains of yeast in that book.


"They should rename the team to the Washington Government Sucks. Put Obama on the helmet. Line the entire walls of the stadium with the actual text of the ACA.
Fix their home team score on the board to the debt clock, they can win every game 17,000,000,000,000 to 24. Losing team gets taxed by the IRS 100%, then droned."
-Toker
Q is offline   you may:
Old 06-18-2009, 12:59 AM   #97
Darth_Yuthura
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Vienna
Posts: 1,585
Current Game: KOTOR III
Read.

The Potato: How the Humble Spud Rescued the Western World
by Larry Zuckerman, 1999 North Point Press

You might actually find that potatoes have a noticeable quantity of protein. Don't proclaim something that doesn't hold water unless you really know what you're talking about. Thanks to Qliveur for seconding that fact.


The point of this was that the US isn't hurting for agricultural land, which was why sprawl was able to rampage out of control while Europe has had to be more careful with the way they developed their cities. There is enough Agricultural land in Europe to support 10% of the world's population on only 2% of the world's land area. How could they do so well under those conditions?

They use their agricultural land more for human consumption/not raising animals. And they condense their cities to have a smaller footprint, conserving precious land for growing crops.

Last edited by Darth_Yuthura; 06-18-2009 at 01:07 AM.
Darth_Yuthura is offline   you may:
Old 06-18-2009, 06:39 AM   #98
Jae Onasi
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem
 
Jae Onasi's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,912
Current Game: Guild Wars 2, VtMB, TOR
Alderaan News Holopics contributor Helpful! LucasCast staff Veteran Fan Fic Author 
Read
Old article, but read
Read.

You need to take a college level class in nutrition like I did for nursing and then doctor school. Go read about protein needs. I erred in saying potatoes didn't have protein--I view it, as the nutritionists who taught me and wrote books and journal articles on it, as a starch rather than a protein source, and I'm more concerned about foods that affect the eyes in any case. I should have said they have inadequate protein. I was correct about the incomplete protein. The USRDA says the average baking potato contains 6% of the daily allowance of protein. Are you planning on eating 17 potatoes a day? I'm not.

Furthermore, the potato has insufficient amounts of essential amino acids (the ones that the body can't make itself), and thus is an incomplete protein.
An adult needs 1400 mg of the amino acid isoleucine. The baked potato with skin provides 101 mg.
Leucine: adult needs 2730mg, potato provides 150mg
Lysine: adult needs 2100 mg, potato provides 152mg
Methionine+Cysteine: 1050mg, potato provides 70mg
Phenylalanine+Tyrosine: 1750mg, potato provides 202mg
Threonine: 1050mg, potato provides 91mg
Tryptophan: 280mg, potato provides 39mg
Valine: 1820mg, potato provides 140mg.

Furthermore, most of the protein is located right below the skin. If you remove the skin before cooking the potato, you lose a lot of the protein, and then the potato's protein contribution drops dramatically.

You also need to learn what sprouted grains are. Potatoes are not germinated seeds, they are tubers. There is a difference. Before you lecture me again on getting my facts straight, you'd better make sure you have yours straight, too. There's a reason why potatoes aren't mentioned nearly very often in vegan/vegetarian diet books. It's because the protein content is not nearly as good as soy, eggs, milk/cheese (all of which are complete proteins) and grains and legumes, which, while incomplete, have enough of some essential proteins in a reasonable serving that when combined provide the equivalent of a complete protein (e.g. refried beans on a corn or whole-wheat tortilla). Potatoes are calorically dense, but not as nutrient or protein dense, as grains and legumes.

I've been to France. I lived with two different families while I was there. Both families served meat every day. They also grew their own vegetable patches since groceries are more expensive there with the higher taxes. My husband spent several weeks in Germany. They had meat every day, too. Meat is a large part of the European diet, as it is here, so I'd like to see your data on their diet and land use for animals vs. grains/other foods. I would also be interested in seeing how much is imported.

So Europe has to be more careful with their land usage. Fine for them. What's that have to do with the US? It's a different continent. Our needs are different, our wants are different. It's not that big of a deal to have suburban areas here. You're getting your panties in knots over something that isn't a problem here, other than fuel usage, which our gov't is addressing. We could expand all the suburban areas ten-fold and still not make much of a dent in the amount of land going completely unused in the rural parts of this country. I'd also like to point out that those of us who live in single family dwellings wouldn't be able to have our fruit and veggie patches in our backyards if we lived in dinky urban condos, so we wouldn't be able to contribute to our families nutritionally or to increasing greenspace.


From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"

Read The Adventures of Jolee Bindo and see the amazing Peep Surgery
Story WIP: The Dragonfighters
My blog: Confessions of a Geeky Mom--Latest post: Security Alerts!
Love Star Trek AND gaming? Check out Lotus Fleet.

Jae Onasi is offline   you may:
Old 06-18-2009, 08:01 AM   #99
Bimmerman
Junior Member
 
Bimmerman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Bouncing off the Rev Limiter
Posts: 437
Forgive me for not chiming in on the potato discussion. Jae's right on that.

I've been living and working in Munich for the last six months. I have tons of experience using the excellent public transportation here. I live in an apartment building that is 15 minutes away from where I work. It houses people very efficiently. The grocery store is anywhere between 5 and 15 min away by foot. I have no bicycle. I have no car (here). Everything I need to live and function as a member of society is within 15 minutes by foot.

What do I think?

I cannot wait to go back home to my suburban town and live freely and away from everyone else.

I strongly disagree with and absolutely reject the "New Urbanism" (sidebar, that's a really stupid name) concept. I've lived in the European model that it is trying to emulate, and I've been going crazy. There is no space to live. No green areas without going to a public park. No scenery. No ability to BBQ. Nowhere to park a car, so people do without. I am kept up late by people smoking in their apartment. I am woken up early (or late) by people playing music. I cannot sit outside, as there isn't an outside to sit on. There are no trees. There is no wildlife. Everything costs roughly double what I would deem prudent. There is simply buildings and efficiency and I cannot stand it.

My German friends find nothing wrong with the city. In truth, it is a very beautiful, clean, safe city. I enjoyed visiting and touristing around here in years and trips past. Living here, I feel choked and stifled. Whereas Europeans view the urban model as liberating, I find it cramped and very uncomfortable. I cannot function in a European-model city, and do not ever intend to again. What works for Europe does not necessarily work for America, do not kid yourself otherwise.

Back in the states, I live 30 minutes away from Denver at the foothills of the Rocky Mountains. Anywhere I want to go takes at least 5 minutes by car. I worked 15 minutes by car, 30 min by bike. The grocery store is a good 5-8 mins. I have nearly an acre of land to do my own thing on. I have trees. I have herds of deer in my front driveway in the morning. I see bears and mountain lions occasionally. My nearest neighbor is 100 yards away. The nearest bus stop is a one mile walk away. My town has one of the best bus systems anywhere, and is part of the RTD, itself consistently ranked in the top 3 nationwide. There is no subway, no mass transit train system where I live. There is one of the best universities in in my town. The education system here is regarded as one of the best. I love it. I cannot wait to get back home. I have decided to veer away from my desired career field to live in the town I love.

Call me a stereotypical American if you want. I don't care. I will NEVER live in a big city again, nor will I ever subscribe to this horrid "new urban" idea. Jae's post on p2 hit the nail on the head perfectly.

D_Y, your posts sound like you have researched and written essays about said New Urbanism, but reek of someone who is spouting what your professor told you to think. The concept is all high and minded, but inherently flawed. Americans like their space. They will never consciously decide to live where they are miserable unless their jobs are worth it. I do not want to live in an apartment building just so I don't need to own a car. Long before I was ever a car addict, I have hated living in big cities (born and moved away from San Francisco) and loved going biking in the mountains above Boulder. I know I'm not the only one.

Please lose the attitude where those of us who cannot stand living in a big city (and who have done so) are somehow inferior and lesser people. It's supremely condescending. I get it, you advocate this concept. Try to live it, as I'm actually doing now, and then tell me if it's all great and wonderful.


A racing addiction makes a crack addiction look like a vague desire for something salty. -Randy Hickman

Fear disturbs your concentration. - Sabine Schmitz

Last edited by Bimmerman; 06-18-2009 at 08:10 AM.
Bimmerman is offline   you may:
Old 06-18-2009, 10:42 AM   #100
Darth_Yuthura
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Vienna
Posts: 1,585
Current Game: KOTOR III
It's not a matter of want, but sustainability.

Americans want their open spaces? How much would they be willing to pay to have their open spaces? Well I'll tell you that when you create a system that spreads itself horizontally, the issue is not any one person, but millions all wanting the same thing. The US has become auto-dependent, which means that when the price of fuel rises, it directly impacts how the state functions.

With mass transit, you will also be dependent on energy; but those that use electricity are not bound to any single source to operate. I'm for clean energy, which is why I'm not in favor of coal; but I also recognize that the US has an abundant supply of it. That makes electricity a more favorable source of power for transportation than oil (gasoline, kerosene, and diesel fuel)

The best solution, however, is to try and promote pedestrian travel. That means having as many destinations within walking distance as possible, which means higher density. That can also be augmented by providing light rail to allow even more destinations to more people. That doesn't mean the automobile has to go, but it should not continue to be the dominant means of transportation.

An issue was brought about public transportation flourishing as energy got more expensive... When the energy crisis of last year hit, public transportation actually suffered badly because they saw a rise in demand while they had to pay even more for their fuel. Public busing couldn't expand in times when demand was at its highest because they didn't have the funding it needed for that to happen. When they didn't have the funding to expand, they became overtaxed and could barely afford to break even with their own high fuel prices. Light rail overcomes this more easily, but demands a set population density for it to work. Portland is the best example of an auto-dependent city that successfully integrated light rail for an effective alternate means of transportation. Even removing 10% of cars improves fuel economy due to reduced traffic congestion. That's why it works so well.

And in regards to the 'open space' issues... the whole point of higher densities is to provide fewer, larger open spaces so that it would make people feel more comfortable than on that 40 X 20 plot of land that is in front of every house for miles on end. It would be better to acknowledge that there are millions of others wanting the same things, so it is best to focus on creating a system by which everyone benefits instead of everyone vying for their own interests.

Last edited by Darth_Yuthura; 06-18-2009 at 10:49 AM.
Darth_Yuthura is offline   you may:
Old 06-18-2009, 11:47 AM   #101
JediAthos
Senior Member
 
JediAthos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,438
Current Game: Defiance
Forum Veteran Contest winner - Fan Fiction 
I don't have a whole lot to add to this discussion that hasn't already been said and I have by no means done extensive research on the subject so in that regard I will pose a question or two.

DY: You said that you would advocate providing fewer large open spaces so that people would feel more comfortable than in their front yard...(assuming I interpreted what you said correctly) How do you believe that would be so? How would you go about taking something that many Americans cherish away from them?

Frankly, I would tend to side with Bimmerman as I spent a fair amount of time in Europe in various cities while I was serving in the Navy. I couldn't imagine living as they do on top of one another all the time. To me personally that would be...claustrophobic.

I do live in an apartment now in West Texas which really doesn't qualify as densely populated and I have lived in apartments in the past in Virginia Beach and frankly I hated it.

I think we might be better served devoting our time and money to revamping our power grid, improving mass transit availability where it is viable, and researching vehicles that can utilize other types of fuel sources.

I guess I just fail to see how it would be economically viable to attempt to implement a system such as you describe. What do you do with people who don't wish to live in a city? Cut them off? Force them out?

Perhaps I don't understand the issue fully, but those are my questions and opinions such as they are.


"You'll find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."

JediAthos is offline   you may:
Old 06-18-2009, 12:41 PM   #102
Darth_Yuthura
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Vienna
Posts: 1,585
Current Game: KOTOR III
Quote:
Originally Posted by JediAthos View Post
I do live in an apartment now in West Texas which really doesn't qualify as densely populated and I have lived in apartments in the past in Virginia Beach and frankly I hated it.
I actually would consider that to be high density. I really am not pointing to New York and downtown Chicago as ideal models, as 40,000 people per square mile is overkill. There is a point where it becomes less logical to stack people on top of one another.

Buildings like the Sears Tower, World Trade center towers, and Tai-pah 101 are not the direction I am going for. I would be more for cities like Portland, with a density of 4,500 people per square mile, where mass transit is viable on a regional scale. That doesn't mean that you should build such a light rail system, but the option would at least be available for future development. That's the target I'm in favor of.

As for apartments and condos, I recognize that they are favored less by families with children. That is not something I really addressed. I know that most who prefer condos will likely be singles or childless couples, which should also be taken into consideration for the placement of schools. For families that do have children that live in single family detached homes, urban planning would be critical for planning bus routes and public spaces.

In my hometown of only 3,200 people, much funding is lost to school buses because there are so many people spread out that they drive 3 miles to collect only 12 children in some rural locations. That sounds small, but if these 12 children lived in a sprawl neighborhood, the number of bus stops adds hundreds to the service costs each year. On another route, in a very low density town, children often walk down their street and reduce the number of stops from 7 to only one (and reduce the time it takes to pick up students by driving along a main road and not turning down every end street along the way)

Same thing goes for post office trucks... consolidate people's mail boxes into one location and you can make each stop they make for a dozen boxes instead of one.

Garbage trucks can provide for many more people if they have one dumpster instead of a can for each house. Utility lines are much cheaper to place and maintain if you have more people sharing the same lines.

As for privacy... either you have a rural home for complete isolation, or you have neighbors surrounding you. If you are going to have neighbors, it's best to work in conjunction with them to share as many of the same systems as possible. It doesn't mean everyone must live in apartments, but those that live in single family detached homes should cluster together whenever possible for services such as these.
Darth_Yuthura is offline   you may:
Old 06-18-2009, 12:58 PM   #103
Bimmerman
Junior Member
 
Bimmerman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Bouncing off the Rev Limiter
Posts: 437
DY, your model may work for big cities. In fact, many people in big cities already follow a similar model. However, it is utterly ineffective at combating suburban sprawl. There is no way to get around the fact that, short of walking everywhere, a car is infinitely more convenient than relying on public transportation. Cheaper too.

I do not want to be forced to take a train or bus or walk everywhere. I do not want to live next to my neighbor with only a wall separating us. I want to have a house with a garage and home theater and yard and space. I do not want to live in super close proximity to other people. I want my space, my privacy. I am not the only one who wants this. This is the American dream, and I take offense that you think I must conform to a european big city model. I do not want to nor will I ever conform to that. I've tried it, and now that I'm not on a keylogged computer at work, I hate it.

I've done the urban thing. I've done the walking everywhere and using subways and buses. It is only convenient when you're coming back from the bar drunk, and that issue can be solved by taxis.

There is plenty of space for "sprawl" here in the west; sustainability is not an issue.

Finally, your point on open space. Munich has one of, if not the, biggest and largest city parks in the world, the English Garden. It is beyond congested, with little room for a few people to toss a frisbee around. Americans, especially out west, pride ourselves on our vast empty spaces. You will never get us to agree to your idea. There is a huge difference in mindset between westerners and country folk and people from big cities: we want our space, and we do not do well in apartment buildings.

As for not using cars as main transportation, go right ahead and make mass transit appealing to use for big cities. It will do the most good there. Mass transit will do absolutely nothing for suburban sprawl. If the light rail here in Denver that goes to the suburbs is any indication, it takes so long and is so inconvenient that the only people who ride it that far are those who cannot afford cars. Do not be so naive as to think all big cities are gridlocked like LA. I have lived in the Denver area most of my life and have rarely experienced LA or NY or SF-style traffic. Most of the US population does not live in the biggest cities, so mass transit is useless for most of the population. Is it useful? Yes. Will it replace my car? Only if I'm in a big city, in which I hate living.

What your argument comes down to exposes a great irony. You claim that the best way to stop suburban sprawl is to have more people live in big cities or areas of high population densities. To have apartment buildings for everyone, mass transit cheap and available, everything within walking distance, low energy living, etc etc. You're evidently unaware that most people living in the suburbs moved out of the big city to get away from all of that. How can you possibly expect people to want to go back to that? Americans want their space, and the suburbs are absolutely cheaper to live in when compared to the big city, even including costs of driving.

I will gladly spend more money driving if I save moeny on rent/mortgage, save money on insurance, save money on utilities, save money on food, save money on drinks, save money on just about everything. Being where you and your family are happy and comfortable is priceless, regardless of any other economic consideration.


A racing addiction makes a crack addiction look like a vague desire for something salty. -Randy Hickman

Fear disturbs your concentration. - Sabine Schmitz
Bimmerman is offline   you may:
Old 06-18-2009, 01:06 PM   #104
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,046
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
I actually would consider that to be high density.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
I would be more for cities like Portland, with a density of 4,500 people per square mile, where mass transit is viable on a regional scale.
Then no, you would not consider West Texas high density. Even Houston only has a population density of 3,828 people per square mile. We Texans like our space. One of the larger West Texas towns of Lubbock has a population density of 1,831 people per square mile. You may get up to your 4,500 number if you included livestock, but I really don’t want to ride a bus with livestock.

The area I live in has a population of 72,186 with a population density of 402 people per square mile. Of course the density is kind of distorted since no one around here wants to live up against the prisons and chemical plants in the area. Silly people.



Last edited by mimartin; 06-18-2009 at 04:05 PM.
mimartin is online now   you may:
Old 06-18-2009, 01:15 PM   #105
Bimmerman
Junior Member
 
Bimmerman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Bouncing off the Rev Limiter
Posts: 437
I just wikipedia'd my city.

Ironically, my town has a population density of 3884.1 / sq mi (higher than Denver). Odd. My town has lots of space per person, and has few apartment buildings. Almost everything is single family homes or duplexes. Denver is suffocatingly large and dense to me, while my town with a larger density is much more comfortable. Statistics aren't everything; Boulder has greenery and parks and open spaces that truly disguise the number of people living here.....most cities I have seen do not.

Granted, I live outside the city limits and have more land. The density of where I technically live (the county), is a whopping 391 / sq mi.

However, remove the university from the equation and we have 1790 / sq mi. That's why the town feels small and livable.

Mass transit works in my town, but only as far as buses. As I said earlier, my town's mass transit system is part of one of the highest rates services around. My town is still centered around cars. We don't have traffic of any discernible sort. Population density itself is a useless statistic, as how the population is serviced by infrastructure is more important. If it's a town like Boulder, where most people live in actual houses (ignoring the university students and student-centered apartments), that's not a bad population density.

Where I live now, in Munich, the density is 11000/sq mi. Way too many.


A racing addiction makes a crack addiction look like a vague desire for something salty. -Randy Hickman

Fear disturbs your concentration. - Sabine Schmitz

Last edited by Bimmerman; 06-18-2009 at 01:20 PM.
Bimmerman is offline   you may:
Old 06-18-2009, 03:58 PM   #106
Jae Onasi
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem
 
Jae Onasi's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,912
Current Game: Guild Wars 2, VtMB, TOR
Alderaan News Holopics contributor Helpful! LucasCast staff Veteran Fan Fic Author 
I await your answers to my previous questions asking for data.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
It's not a matter of want, but sustainability.
What sustainability problem are you talking about? We have unsold land in my county that is in between two major cities. We have states where there's so much land the gov't is paying people to homestead on it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DY
Americans want their open spaces? How much would they be willing to pay to have their open spaces?
I pay about 1200 per month for my home. If I had a condo in Chicago, it would cost me three times more and have half the space. It costs more to live in the big city. A lot more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DY
Well I'll tell you that when you create a system that spreads itself horizontally, the issue is not any one person, but millions all wanting the same thing.
Yes, millions want to get out of over-crowded, over-taxed, over-priced city living. There's plenty of space for them, too. You're ignoring all the problems with urban living except the transit efficiency aspect yet again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DY
The US has become auto-dependent, which means that when the price of fuel rises, it directly impacts how the state functions.
_I_ am 'the state'. _You_ are 'the state'. Every American is 'the state'. This is a republic, not a socialist or communist state. The government exists to serve the people, not the other way around. The day we all forget that is the day we should just hang it up and sign the Communist manifesto.

The price of fuel rose dramatically last year. Why? Corporate and OPEC greed, pure and simple. OPEC refused to increase production, and oil companies took tremendous advantage of oil speculation. Their greed contributed to the worldwide recession/depression.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DY
With mass transit, you will also be dependent on energy; but those that use electricity are not bound to any single source to operate. I'm for clean energy, which is why I'm not in favor of coal; but I also recognize that the US has an abundant supply of it. That makes electricity a more favorable source of power for transportation than oil (gasoline, kerosene, and diesel fuel)
That works for electric cars and electric power to houses all over the country, not just mass transit in big cities.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DY
The best solution, however, is to try and promote pedestrian travel. That means having as many destinations within walking distance as possible, which means higher density. That can also be augmented by providing light rail to allow even more destinations to more people. That doesn't mean the automobile has to go, but it should not continue to be the dominant means of transportation.
Who determined that crazy idea? You ever try to carry groceries for a week for a family of four in your arms walking home? I live about 6 blocks from our grocery store and walk there when I only need a few items, but there's no way I could carry a full load home. Furthermore, since you've experienced harsh winters as I have, you know that walking in below zero temperatures and 2 feet of snow that we can experience regularly in WI winters makes a car far more necessary than in places without some of these issues.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DY
An issue was brought about public transportation flourishing as energy got more expensive... When the energy crisis of last year hit, public transportation actually suffered badly because they saw a rise in demand while they had to pay even more for their fuel. Public busing couldn't expand in times when demand was at its highest because they didn't have the funding it needed for that to happen. When they didn't have the funding to expand, they became overtaxed and could barely afford to break even with their own high fuel prices.
How were city governments supposed to anticipated the unprecedented rise in fuel costs? Consult their magic 8 balls? They didn't have the funds because they hadn't budgeted for them, and they were seeing a decrease in tax revenue because of the housing collapse and decreased revenues from sales taxes on top of that. There's no way they could expand transit rapidly, anyway. You can't go to the local Wal-Mart and buy 3 city buses and an L-train station or two.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DY
Light rail overcomes this more easily, but demands a set population density for it to work. Portland is the best example of an auto-dependent city that successfully integrated light rail for an effective alternate means of transportation. Even removing 10% of cars improves fuel economy due to reduced traffic congestion. That's why it works so well.
Vivat for Portland. Sure we could learn from them, but that doesn't solve the problem: not all people want to live in big cities.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DY
And in regards to the 'open space' issues... the whole point of higher densities is to provide fewer, larger open spaces so that it would make people feel more comfortable than on that 40 X 20 plot of land that is in front of every house for miles on end. It would be better to acknowledge that there are millions of others wanting the same things, so it is best to focus on creating a system by which everyone benefits instead of everyone vying for their own interests.
Great. So I can go to a park 3 miles from my concrete-patio'd condo to sit on a graffiti-covered park-bench and look at some pooping pigeons and dog-ugly starlings pecking the ground around some fenced-in trees. Whoopee. I'll keep my nature-filled backyard, thank you very much.


From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"

Read The Adventures of Jolee Bindo and see the amazing Peep Surgery
Story WIP: The Dragonfighters
My blog: Confessions of a Geeky Mom--Latest post: Security Alerts!
Love Star Trek AND gaming? Check out Lotus Fleet.

Jae Onasi is offline   you may:
Old 06-18-2009, 04:04 PM   #107
Darth_Yuthura
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Vienna
Posts: 1,585
Current Game: KOTOR III
It's quite clear that I shouldn't try to argue with an issue like this when others have their own strong opinions. (removed flamebait). mimartin

I see that if people aren't going to confront a painful truth, then they will not believe anything I present. I see that I will only drive people away from what I've presented because they will just generate reasons and justifications for their lifestyle. Just wanted to inspire people to see a better future than what we are embarking upon, but clearly I must be the only one standing out from the group. Clearly if things are working so well, I must be the one not seeing things right.

When I come to see the reality is much different from what I'm envisioning, then maybe I can at least take some satisfaction when I see that all my logic is flawed. Maybe it would be great to see that all that I'm fearing is just in my head. I can stand finding out that I'm the one who's wrong on this issue; that would make me VERY satisfied.

Last edited by mimartin; 06-18-2009 at 05:01 PM. Reason: removed flaimbait
Darth_Yuthura is offline   you may:
Old 06-18-2009, 04:44 PM   #108
jrrtoken
Senior Member
 
jrrtoken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
It's quite clear that I shouldn't try to argue with an issue like this when others have their own strong opinions. (removed flamebait). mimartin
No, it's just people can't be forced to live where the government decides. If what you're proposing was the status quo, then it would be unconstitutional.
Quote:
I see that I will only drive people away from what I've presented because they will just generate reasons and justifications for their lifestyle.
Recognizing problems is one thing, but proposing solutions which are either wasteful or restrictive towards citizens is something totally different.

Last edited by mimartin; 06-18-2009 at 05:01 PM. Reason: removed quoted flamebait
jrrtoken is offline   you may:
Old 06-18-2009, 04:49 PM   #109
Jae Onasi
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem
 
Jae Onasi's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,912
Current Game: Guild Wars 2, VtMB, TOR
Alderaan News Holopics contributor Helpful! LucasCast staff Veteran Fan Fic Author 
Darth_Yuthura, are you done editing your post yet? I'd like to respond, but can't until you're finished changing what you're saying.


From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"

Read The Adventures of Jolee Bindo and see the amazing Peep Surgery
Story WIP: The Dragonfighters
My blog: Confessions of a Geeky Mom--Latest post: Security Alerts!
Love Star Trek AND gaming? Check out Lotus Fleet.

Jae Onasi is offline   you may:
Old 06-18-2009, 05:32 PM   #110
Darth_Yuthura
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Vienna
Posts: 1,585
Current Game: KOTOR III
Clearly I don't seem to be presenting any problems, since everything is going just so perfectly with everyone but me. So much for presenting a problem, let alone declaring a solution.

If everything is going so great with everyone, then I'm just playing games on paper. So if everything is just peachy, I'll just stop spouting off about a bunch of nothing that people aren't going to believe anyway. There, I'm done.
Darth_Yuthura is offline   you may:
Old 06-18-2009, 05:57 PM   #111
Bimmerman
Junior Member
 
Bimmerman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Bouncing off the Rev Limiter
Posts: 437
DY, you are continually ignoring the fact that Jae, myself, and many others in this thread have pointed out-- that we don't want to live in a big city. Therefore, your urban utopia is inherently flawed.

No-one here is confronting a painful truth. My painful truth came when I moved from beautiful Boulder to beautiful Munich. I lived in the big city. I hate the big city. I won't repeat the reasons a third time. I am saving for a down payment for a nice suburban house even though I am single at the moment. Wasteful? Maybe so. Unlike you, many others in this thread have lived in the big cities of the world and have experienced this urban model your sociology professor is proselytizing. I reject it as inferior and restrictive. I want the freedom to do what I want on my land; that is impossible in a big city. It is an inherently American (and western) desire as well; my German friends here have no such desire.

If anyone in this thread is ignoring evidence to the contrary, it is you. Keep telling us how this is a great theory, how it will revolutionize urban settings, how it will save the planet, how it will ..... .

I do not see why I should change my lifestyle and sacrifice my happiness and financial security just to not have to drive and live 'efficiently.' I'm an engineer; my profession revolves around doing things the most efficient way possible within realistic constraints. You sound like a liberal arts college student without any real world experience; you're missing the realistic constraint aspect to this discussion.

Here are the biggest flaws in your argument:

1) Americans culturally like having privacy and space. This will not change.
2) Big cities are expensive
3) Suburbs are nicer in all measurable ways-- lower crime, more trees, less people, etc etc
4) Big cities have lots of people. Many Americans don't like that....why else would we have moved out West?

As for inspiring a better future, you have done nothing of the sort. I cringe at the thought of being required or forced to live in the big city all in the name of almighty Efficiency. Flame me or ignore me all you like, but I will always be a very vocal opposing voice to increased urbanization.

What you ask the people to do, in the name of more ideal and efficient living, is near socialism. Removed Flamebait ~ mimartin

To be fair, it is a very ideal model of an urban society. It just doesn't work in reality. I'm proof. Either ignore the fact that both Jae and myself have experienced both sides, and continue to spout your professor's textbook, or find out why we dislike and reject the model and change the model to fit the people you are wanting to apply it to.

An engineer can design a perfect part, but if it cannot be manufactured, there's no point. Similarly, you can accept a theory of urbanism, but if the other people do not accept or flat out reject it, there's also no point in clinging to said model. Either accept our differences on the issue and try to find common ground, or don't and continue to spout elitist nonsense.


A racing addiction makes a crack addiction look like a vague desire for something salty. -Randy Hickman

Fear disturbs your concentration. - Sabine Schmitz

Last edited by mimartin; 06-18-2009 at 09:26 PM. Reason: removed flaimbait
Bimmerman is offline   you may:
Old 06-18-2009, 07:40 PM   #112
Bimmerman
Junior Member
 
Bimmerman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Bouncing off the Rev Limiter
Posts: 437
Note to all- DY deleted his post, but the entirety of is is presented below in the quoted text, minus the Declaration of Independence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
Flaws in the counter argument.

1. Suburban sprawl and globalization were fueled by easily obtainable sources of energy.
I fail to see how that matters. Are we not supposed to capitalize on easily obtainable resources? Are we supposed to still be farmers huddled around caves? Are we supposed to not have invented steel or coal fired power plants because the raw materials are easily obtainable?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
When peak oil supply takes place, the price of energy is going to skyrocket and there will be difficult times ahead for those who have no substitute for their cars.
True....so long as you term 'energy' as 'oil.' You also seem convinced that everyone drives a 3mpg Suburban. That's false. When oil hit $4.50 a gallon, what happened? People drove less, but still drove. The simple fact is that the American lifestyle depends on cars for the majority of the people. If you cannot budget $30 more per week on gas (due to price fluctuations).....come on. If you can't afford the increase in something that is essential, stop going to starbucks, stop eating out, stop drinking, stop smoking, or quit bitching. Not hard. If a broke college student can afford two cars, school, and fuel to go racing (far more consumed than simple commuting), all by working during classes, and you as an established family cannot, something is very wrong.

Call cars evil all you want. Blame cars as the root of all evil and what's wrong with America all you want. That doesn't change the fact that people are buying more fuel efficient cars to lessen the hurt from the next inevitable price hike. That doesn't change the fact that people are smart enough to figure out ways to cope and deal with increased energy costs. People will either change their lifestyle and not drive as much, or pay more for the privilege of doing so. But do us the courtesy of allowing us to make that choice for ourselves.

Convenience has a price, but living in a big city and simply walking to the store and carrying groceries back is absolutely impractical when there's more than just you. Same goes for inclement weather, hot days, long travel needs, road trips, carrying stuff, pretty much everything. Cars will always be a part of the American culture and society. Stop tilting at windmills trying to change that fact, especially when great strides are being made in vehicle emissions and efficiency.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
2. Suburbs are more expensive per capita to maintain.
....and your proof for that blanket statement is...what, exactly?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
In terms of costs, you would find that what people pay in taxes is artificially generated and has no bearing on what it costs to maintain per capita.
Um.....what? People pay tax, that's hardly artificially generated. The property tax, city sales tax, and state income tax all go towards paying for the services provided in the suburb. The higher the cost of the house, the larger the property tax, which pays for the maintenance cost and service cost. Including this, it is cheaper to live in the Suburb and commute everywhere in a 2mpg F1 car, changing tires every 40 miles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
3. environmentally destructive.

Sorry, but urban activity destroys nature. When you create a sprawl city, you create an artificially maintained landscape.
....and building apartment buildings and mass transit and buses doesn't? Humans destroy nature, no matter where you are living. Artificial landscapes aren't necessarily bad for the environment, they are simply different.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
4. Government services are severely lacking.
Proof. The burden of proof for these statements is on you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
More taxpayers in a smaller area allows for more funding to civil servants and less to their vehicles. Ever hear of transportation oriented development? It's that significant to the function of a community.
Jesus, you're a socialist and borderline communist. I would much rather spend the money on my car driving as I please where I please instead of paying some high school dropout to tell me where it is best for the community that I travel. Absolutely not. Transportation oriented development is the exact same thing as a suburb; it is oriented around people owning their own house and driving their car. Hundreds of millions of Americans are happy with this; why aren't you? Have you ever lived in a suburb or small town?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
5. Less is more.
I would get banned for saying my thoughts as bluntly as I'd like.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
For most of human history, it has always been a quest to search for more resources when demand went up. The current dilemma is unlike any in the past because the goal should be targeted at reducing demand because most supply WILL NOT hold up under the current demands of the US. Any assumption that innovation will always bail us out of our predicaments is foolhardy.
No. The current dilemma is not even remotely centered around reducing demand; that's what you want to have happen. Toss words like supply and demand around enough, without any discussion of what item or commodity is being supplied or demanded, and you have basically genericized your argument into uselessness.

Furthermore, your blatant disregard for innovation is troubling. Have you paid any attention to the fuel savings introduced in cars in the last few years? Do you have any idea how much a minute increase in powerplant efficiency affects fuel consumption and output? Do you have any idea how better knowledge of materials has lightened and cheapened things without any degradation in safety, performance, or strength? Do you have any idea what agricultural advances there have been since the dawn of time? You thinking that pursuing innovation and improvement is a waste of time and resources frankly scares me.

You do realize that without innovators, we would not have AC electricity to power your ideal transportation? Wow.

Your idea of 'less is more' runs counter to American culture. I want to have a house, filled with a nice TV, sound system, car parts, car lift, tools, a nice yard, a beautiful wife, kids, a dog, guns, three or four cars, bicycles, a boat, camping stuff, etc. I agree that it is not needed. I absolutely reject your assertion that I am a better person and will live a happier life without these things. I have gone backpacking in the wilderness for weeks on end, and nothing makes me happier than to go home and enjoy my life with my stuff. I live in Munich now, with two suitcases of clothes, no car, no bike, a laptop, and a camera, and I cannot stand it. I have more than I need to survive, true, but I am not happy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Declaration of Independence
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
As an American, I have the right to live my life in liberty as I see fit, pursuing my happiness the best way I can. My happiness does not revolve around the things themselves, but around what they allow me to do-- go racing, live comfortably, live without next-wall neighbors, go skiing, go hiking, cook, shoot, etc. New Urbanism threatens my unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness, my personal liberty, and my life.

The classic American dream is to start from nothing, work and earn money as best you can, start a family, buy a house, buy a car or two, and retire richer and happier than you were before. Your urban theory claims my dream is hurtful to society and my fellow man, and that offends me greatly. Basically, according to you and your theory, anyone who is successful enough to afford a house away from the city should be punished, as everyone should live the same way near where they work and buy food, and never go anywhere. That, frankly, is banworthy-word stupid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
We've got overcrowding in all our cities already, so let's move out West!
You would honestly rather live packed on top of hundreds of other people in an apartment building, walking everywhere, relying on the government, than being responsible for your own damn self? Wow.

Please don't move out here and try to change my lifestyle. I enjoy it, I pay for it, do me the courtesy of leaving myself and fellow citizens the hell alone.

The point of this thread, as far as I can tell, is to debate suburban sprawl. Debate means discussion with facts. I, and others, have laid out our reasoning and experiences that justify our intense opposition to your proposed idea. You, as far as I can tell, have made no effort to understand our side, nor do anything about rant on why we are fools and that we should all live in apartments within walking distance of public transportation and everything. You spout talking points like a politician, but do not back them up with anything of substance. No facts, no sources, nothing except what reads as a textbook.

I understand where you are coming from, and thought somewhat similarly (regarding transportation, not on the suburbs part of your argument) prior to moving out here and experiencing exactly what you are proposing. I have found it to be horrible, and you will never convince me to give it another try. It flat out will not work for Americans in anything other than the biggest cities where not even close to the majority of the population lives.

My biggest issue with your unwavering belief in this idea is that it assumes my aspirations, my goals, my world, is unworthy as an alternative. It assumes that everyone is the same, that everyone wants to not have to drive, only wants to live within walking distance of work and the markets. "New Urbanism" threatens my way of life, and I have every right to defend myself and my dreams.


A racing addiction makes a crack addiction look like a vague desire for something salty. -Randy Hickman

Fear disturbs your concentration. - Sabine Schmitz
Bimmerman is offline   you may:
Old 06-18-2009, 07:50 PM   #113
JediAthos
Senior Member
 
JediAthos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,438
Current Game: Defiance
Forum Veteran Contest winner - Fan Fiction 
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but don't most larger American cities already have significant amounts of mass transit available?

NYC, Chicago, San Diego, DC, Dallas, Houston etc...all have readily available mass transit systems for those who wish to use them do they not? San Diego's trolley service is especially nice and I used it extensively while I was stationed there.

I've lived in or around several major cities including Dallas, Chicago, Norfolk, and San Diego and I never really found government services to be lacking in the suburban areas. There were always the common government services such as police, fire, water, sewage, and trash pickup.


"You'll find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."

JediAthos is offline   you may:
Old 06-18-2009, 08:15 PM   #114
Bimmerman
Junior Member
 
Bimmerman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Bouncing off the Rev Limiter
Posts: 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by JediAthos View Post
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but don't most larger American cities already have significant amounts of mass transit available?

NYC, Chicago, San Diego, DC, Dallas, Houston etc...all have readily available mass transit systems for those who wish to use them do they not? San Diego's trolley service is especially nice and I used it extensively while I was stationed there.
Yes, every large American city I've been to had good public transportation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JediAthos View Post
I've lived in or around several major cities including Dallas, Chicago, Norfolk, and San Diego and I never really found government services to be lacking in the suburban areas. There were always the common government services such as police, fire, water, sewage, and trash pickup.
+1


A racing addiction makes a crack addiction look like a vague desire for something salty. -Randy Hickman

Fear disturbs your concentration. - Sabine Schmitz
Bimmerman is offline   you may:
Old 06-18-2009, 08:51 PM   #115
jrrtoken
Senior Member
 
jrrtoken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by JediAthos View Post
I've lived in or around several major cities including Dallas, Chicago, Norfolk, and San Diego and I never really found government services to be lacking in the suburban areas. There were always the common government services such as police, fire, water, sewage, and trash pickup.
QFE, though I think that's more of a negative attribute of local government. If local governments seem to maintain wealthier and more posh communities more than neighborhoods in the city proper, that's more of a massive folly of the government.
jrrtoken is offline   you may:
Old 06-18-2009, 09:01 PM   #116
Darth_Yuthura
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Vienna
Posts: 1,585
Current Game: KOTOR III
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bimmerman View Post
Proof. The burden of proof for these statements is on you.
So why am I to be held responsible for having to disprove your accusations? You're the one who presented a counter-argument, failed to make your case, and then escalated the matter to a personal level...

No. If you bring something up, it's your responsibility to prove it before another is to take you seriously. You presented four major flaws in my logic... where's your proof that those are true? I say they're wrong.

Last edited by Darth_Yuthura; 06-18-2009 at 09:17 PM.
Darth_Yuthura is offline   you may:
Old 06-18-2009, 09:25 PM   #117
JediAthos
Senior Member
 
JediAthos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,438
Current Game: Defiance
Forum Veteran Contest winner - Fan Fiction 
DY...what I think Bimmerman was asking for was if you had evidence supporting the statement you made regarding government services to be lacking, expenditures per capita etc....


"You'll find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."

JediAthos is offline   you may:
Old 06-18-2009, 09:29 PM   #118
Emperor Devon
36 Wings, 365 Eyes
 
Emperor Devon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 5,479
Current Game: Ass Effect
Contest winner - Fan Fiction 
nice job at ignoring the rest of the post tho


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabretooth
We will be great failures one day, you and I
Emperor Devon is offline   you may:
Old 06-18-2009, 09:33 PM   #119
JediAthos
Senior Member
 
JediAthos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,438
Current Game: Defiance
Forum Veteran Contest winner - Fan Fiction 
at the risk of being off topic...was that directed at me Devon?


"You'll find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."

JediAthos is offline   you may:
Old 06-18-2009, 09:39 PM   #120
Darth_Yuthura
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Vienna
Posts: 1,585
Current Game: KOTOR III
Quote:
Originally Posted by JediAthos View Post
DY...what I think Bimmerman was asking for was if you had evidence supporting the statement you made regarding government services to be lacking, expenditures per capita etc....
The first law of cognitive geography: Distance and Similarity in Semantic Spaces

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~sara/html/...etal_gis02.pdf

In this, the basic concept is that you have a much greater influence when you're closer to the source than if you're further away. This is mainly applied to physical geography, but it holds true to human geography. Everything is related to everything else, but near things are more related than distant things. From this, it would make better sense to have police, schools, hospitals, and sanitation services closer to where they're needed. You can get more closer to a greater number of people in a dense city than a suburb.

The same thing goes to transportation because you have to spend more for powering these systems the further away from the source you get. This is why density is so important: because it holds true to this fundamental principle by having more people more easily able to reach a greater number of potential destinations with greater resiliency than being solely auto dependent.
Darth_Yuthura is offline   you may:
Post a new thread. Sorry, this thread is closed. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > Knights of the Old Republic > Community > Kavar's Corner > Suburban sprawl (with additions from the Maglev thread)

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:11 PM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.