Re: Design: Pedestrians, bikes, etc.

Page 1 of 2  


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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 05 Sep 2008, Pat wrote

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.)
--
Cheers, Harvey
Architectural and topographical historian
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06 Sep 2008, Ken S. Tucker wrote

Not sure; might have been either of those. (Did Yorkdale welcome the subway or were they reluctant to have it? Can't remember...)
--
Cheers, Harvey
Architectural and topographical historian
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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 technology areas.
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

How is it less desirable to want to spend less of your time and money driving from store to store? Please explain.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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, either.
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 are great.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Pat wrote:

...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 Amish technology)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
)

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 famine.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
george conklin wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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 death.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Many of the first real factories needed water, but not necessarily potable water. For the first factories, water was a form of energy.
--
So? In building large-scale water works for industry, the whole water
supply was cleaned up. Malaria, for example, declined sharply when farmers
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nor was the increased vulnerability of hurricane-prone areas to storms due to loss of wetlands...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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 power.
---------------------------------------------------------- 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;
Amy
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
george conklin wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

In the modern world, at least you are alive to complain all the time. In past generations, you would already be dead and not worried about ecosystems. And diets were horrid in the past.

Yes, because malarial swamps killed millions of people every year. The unintended consequence of draining them was a vastly lower death rate and better food too.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
george conklin wrote:

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 reclaimed/renewed/recreated anyway.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
[snip]

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Er, water delivery over distances, and the advantages of washing, were figured out by the Romans, Arabs, and Chinese long before the industrial revolution.

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".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    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.