Re: The Mayor's comments

On Sep 20, 1:28 pm, John <dahlgren.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Maybe for you. I don't know what city you live in, but life is slower
> > in the suburbs around here than in the city. Most everyone I would
> > talk to would agree. Most people who enjoy city life move there
> > because of the "action".
>
> What is your definition of city life?  It seem to me like you may have
> some preconceived notions of density within a city?  Most city
> neighborhoods cannot be distinguished from suburban neighborhoods.

Well for the purpose of argument, a city will generally have a high
population density than a suburb and for that I'd say that a suburb
has a slower pace of life.

> > > > > > "Urban fabric" is a bullshit postmodern term.
>
> > > > > Do you prefer the term "urban character?"  Goes right
along with "rural
> > > > > character."  I can define urban character better than
rural character.
>
> > > > Welp, let's just say it was the whole sentence... it was total
> > > > nonsense. The US "seperates transportation from the urban
form"? Huh?
> > > > Sounds like postmodern BS to me.
>
> > > It's "academicese." It's how academics and architects speak. 
It's
> > > true though.  It could be said in terms more people could understand.
>
> > No, it's not calculus, it's not chemistry, it's not sociology. It
> > sounds like BS to me. How does the US separate transportation from the
> > "urban form"? What transportation? Where is he talking about? How is
> > it seperated any more than any other country? It's not true in any
> > sense of the word... I can walk 10 feet from my house and get hit by a
> > car. So transportation is seperated from residents? It's a BS
> > statement.
>
> What he's saying is that transportation is designed for the suburbs
> with acres of parking lots, not for the close-in, parking on the
> street that typifies urban commercial centers.

He said it was seperated from the urban form... rectify that with what
you're telling me.

> > > > > >What can cities do to attract families? Well first they
need to control
> > > > > >crime.
>
> > > > > Nope.  First thing they need to do is improve schools. 
Families move where
> > > > > the schools are the best.
>
> > > > People will never move to where they don't feel safe. Who wants to
put
> > > > up with that, especially if you have a family?
>
> > > Funny thing though--if you fix the schools, you generally fix the
> > > crime problem.  And oh, by the way, crime is just as prevalent--if not
> > > more prevalent--in suburbs as it is in cities--especially when
> > > considering per capita crime.  It's just a perception that crime is
> > > greater in the city.
>
> > You've got to be kidding. So fixing schools will automagically fix
> > crime? Are you joking? Crime is higher in the suburbs than in the
> > cities? For one thing, I'm talking violent crime here, the kind most
> > people care the most about. But either way, your statement is BS.
>
> No it's not.  Look at per capita crime and you'll see that it is
> generally lower in urbanized cities than it is in smaller cities and
> suburbs.  The overall amount of crime may be greater because of more
> people, but there is less of a chance for any individual to be a
> victim.

I'm sorry but there's simply no way that cities have a lower per
capita crime rate than suburbs. I'm calling BS until I see some proof
of that.

> > > If you fix the schools, more middle class families move in.  That
> > > drives up the cost of housing which drives out poorer people who have
> > > higher incidences of crime.  Gentrification is generally the term
> > > given to that phenomenom.
>
> > Young single people might be willing to brave a crime-ridden area, but
> > nobody with a family to worry about will.
>
> You seem to think that all cities are over run with crime.  Where did
> you get such a notion?  Most people who live in a city--any city--are
> not vicitims of crime.

I never said anything you said I said.


> > To me it sounds like you want to save cities by turning them into
> > sprawl-type areas.
>
> No.  If there are abandoned houses on streets, tear the houses down
> and offer the lots to existing homeowners to expand their own lots--
> but not to build houses on.  Make the neighborhoods less dense.

It seems the free market could take care of that.

> >Remove the infrastructure?
>
> Sure.  Why not?  Maybe not remove it, but don't keep it under repair.
> If no one lives there, there is no reason for fire or police.

Elaborate further on that, please.

> >So we'll save the cities
> > by tearing them up, Robert Moses style? You have some odd ideas.
>
> No that's "Urban Renewal" which hoped that by removing slums new
> development would occur.  Stupid idea then, stupid idea now.  I say
> remove the houses and buildings and let the land lay fallow until you
> have a use for it.  Maybe odd ideas, but it's the coming thing for
> renewing older rust-belt cities.

Remove what houses and buildings? Maybe we should set off nuclear
bombs in our cities and destroy everything... it might solve some
problems. ;)

> > You need to lose your preconcieved notion of what a suburb is. A
> > suburb is merely a smaller town that has attached itself onto the edge
> > of a larger city.
> >It can very urban or not very urban, it can be
> > transit-oriented or not transit-oriented. Generally speaking, suburbs
> > are seperate political entities, they are usually a fraction of the
> > size of the "host city", and they are usually less dense. But they
> > really don't have to be. Suburbs have seperate political entities
> > called "exurbs" that attached to them as well. Cities, suburbs, and
> > exurbs all form the larger category that we call "urban areas". I
live
> > in what is considered a "streetcar suburb", although politically it
is
> > part of the "host city". So it's not really a true suburb in my
mind.
>
> The term suburb is merely a name that has little meaning anymore since
> the places we used to think of as suburbs are now full-fledged
> cities.  Exurb is a fairly new term as is the stupid "edge City."

No... I'd say a suburb is merely a geographical location with a
seperate political government which has attached itself to a larger
and denser city. The designation still makes sense.
[ Auf dieses Posting antworten ]