I guess that explains why so many strip malls are laid out to make walking
unlikely. And people laugh at me when I say we need to stop building in
such a way that we force additional gas consumption. I guess when gas
prices get so high people won't be able to afford to drive around the mall
and shop too, things will change.
When I studied planning at Toronto in the mid 1970s, one of the case
studies of "exclusion by transport" was a major mall in North Toronto
that had specifically refused to consider a subway link -- even
though the line passed close by -- because the developers wanted to
actively discourage customers who couldn't afford to own a car.
(I was at UofT just after the 1970s' oil crisis; the mall owners by
then were whining that the city wasn't doing enough to extend the
subway to the mall... It's been over 30 years, and I've forgotten
the name of the mall.)
Architectural and topographical historian
Men drive to one store when they want to buy something. They seldom go
from store to store shopping. Men tend to hate shopping.
Women go to large shopping malls more so that they can walk around and shop
at narrow stores. Women of course also shop at strip malls, but I have not
seen many women driving from store to store.
You appear to just be fabricating a lie to justify those deadly diesel
busses that degrade the health and life span of so many people.
Sort of like your other childish nonsense about gasoline prices. Every car
company is developing hybrid cars for alternative fuels and lots of money is
going into the development so that rich people can grab a big chunk of the
six trillion dollar per year market for fuel. The price of hybrid fuels is
expected be far less than gasoline.
I invite you to come to our local strip mall and try to get from Barnes and
Noble to PetSmart without driving, and see how much I'm lying. This sort of
strip mall is repeated thousands of times across the USA.
There's a picture of one on the cover of this book
http://www.bigboxswindle.com /. It's not the one in my town, but the stores
and structure are recognizably the same.
I'm really curious, Jack. Why are you so terrified that people might be
able to live in an environment where they could drive less?
I am not terrified, its just a far less desirable life pushed by people with
the Technology Laggard mental condition. I have a lot of experience with
people that are mentally screwed up with this condition in multiple
They all act the same way. They lie a lot and have great difficulty dealing
with reality. They are not fun and I prefer to avoid these troubled people.
All that can be done is to correct them in the futile hope that they can
ever become rational in normal society.
For both of you, you have to realize that there are different strokes
for different folks. You can't impose your views or priorities on
other and there is no, single right answer. The best you can do is
make alternatives economically feasible.
Look at all of the wonderful things technology has brought. Air
travel to go see the grandkids/parents. Fresh fruit all winter.
Refrigeration and A/C. Who would want to live without it. Well, the
Amish for example. They would. Your arguments are completely lost on
them. Okay, granted, the Amish are not the most mainstream group
you'll find, but they are a wonder example of the fact that different
folks like different things.
Driving. I'm okay with it. I can think, listen to books, and talk on
the phone. It's not bid deal. But it's given me the ability to live
in a small down in the middle of nowhere. I can work out of my house,
have time for the kids, etc. From my perspective, I think both of you
are whooped. But again, maybe I'm not the most mainstream guy,
So Amy likes walkable communities. Good for her. Jack recognized
that most people don't give a d**n about planning -- they just want to
live their lives, work their jobs, eat their TV dinners, and watch
American Idol. Good for Jack and good for them.
People will make their decisions based on their likes, dislikes, and
economics. So the more option we have available, the better.
Everyone is out making good choices, from their own perspective.
Except that some choices preserve the environment for future generations in
better shape than others, and by the way, help the current generation
maintain its shape better than others. I guess if you don't give a flying
flip about current health or future environmental quality, yes, all choices
...While maybe trying to convince some folks that some strokes make
environmental and/or ecologic/'nomic sense before they go off the cliff
of their making and drag everyone else down with them.
Pollution, excess time, costs & labor.
'Whole nuther'? 'I'll keep my nose out of your business.'?
This reads like the late Don. Maybe even the words in caps, too. ;)
At any rate, with regard to "fresh", (storage-ripened, GM, irradiated,
etc.) veggies all year round, some are beginning to talk about _how_
they get them from wherever out of season; as well as about growing
locally... Perhaps commerce ships will use sails again. (kind of like
It was technology, not "modern" medicine, which brought down the death
rates from their historic highs, the demographic transition. Moving food
long distances was a good bit of the drop. Local? That equates with
I'm all for "technology", given the wise application of it, and I see a
lot of questionable applications.
I'm also cautious about the context in which we view death-rates, such
as, for some examples, over scales of time (in their postponement or
inevitability); in historical records; quality-of-life; or the inherent
effects of population-expansion on, say, the ecosystem.
If I'm "not living", I might as well be dead.
Plumbing as a "technology", for another example, only goes so far if it
ends up as raw, untreated sewage in our oceans. Likewise with
mass-production plastic manufacturing in reference to the floating
plastic garbage dump in the middle of the Pacific.
The concern with using technology to treat problems brought about by
technology also comes to mind.
It's not so much technology, as the capacity to think wisely and desire
to live truly happily.
Clean water was one of the real benefits of industrialization.
Factories needed lots of water, and water works were needed. So, yes,
plumbing was part of the solution. Sorry you don't think so. And
transporting food long distances was essential too. Bad diets = early
Generally, factories built during the industrial revolution (and prior
thereto) that relied on water power were built on hillsides. They
created the small towns and industrial cities of the North-east.
Many of these cities were built in rural areas that had a waterfall.
The water supplies were quite pristine but reservoirs had to be built.
Hurricanes really weren't an issue (but an occasional nor'easter might
be). Speaking of hurricanes, Ike blew by last night. My son got his
first "snow day" of the season because the school didn't have any
I know Boston was built on a drained swamp, but I had a vague impression
there aren't actually a whole lot of malaria-infested swamps in the
Northeast. I sort of assumed readers would be able to infer from that that
my point wasn't directed at the Northeast, even if it weren't for the
obvious fact, which you helpfully pointed out, that it's very rare for a
hurricane to hit there. I wasn't addressing your comments about the water
supply to factories, but George's comments about drained swamps, which were
only tangentially related.
Hope this helps you follow more easily;
Where/when/how, and compared with industrial fast food and high-sugar
pops and their effects? Despite wisdom to the contrary? Industrial
pesticides? Was 'organic' how everyone farmed in the past?
Although I'm no epidemiologist, I'm tempted to wager that, by
eliminating one "disease vector" by some kinds of questionable methods,
you open up a few more.
From what is understood, many swamps and marshes are being
What's wrong with you, don't you *like* rivers that catch fire? Come on
already, what's not to love - the fish come out pre-boiled! Plus all the
heavy metals add *heft* (and what's wrong with an extra eye or two).
Even more simply and to the point, why export the locally-grown produce and
then import the same produce from hundreds or even thousands of miles
away...? That is what currently happens quite often.
That was actually interesting ;) TOo often, it's a case of "out of sight,
out of mind". The point IMO isn't to turn into a Luddite, but rather, to
take *all* factors into account, to not simply *ignore* the consequences of
various actions, and instead mitigate negative effects.
Er, water delivery over distances, and the advantages of washing, were
figured out by the Romans, Arabs, and Chinese long before the industrial
Hot house vegetables can be grown locally, as opposed to importing hot-
house vegetables from far away. For example, the local (Houston area)
grocery sells some types of hot-house tomatoes from Canada. THere's
something weird about that.
Also, fruits, etc., which have to be picked green because they'd otherwise
rot on theri way from Chile or oher distant areas have been shown to be
lower in nutrients than ripe gruit and vegetables. So sorry, but there are
advantages to "going local".
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.