Re: The Mayor's comments

On Sep 20, 8:20 am, John <dahlgren.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 19, 3:54 pm, rotten <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 18, 9:21 pm, "John" <j_dahlg...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> > > "Rotten" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:-uidnTPZ-aCejH7bnZ2dnUVZ_ournZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> > > > "William" <willbecoo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > >news:1189281932.687319.211240@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> > > >> On facebook I am "friends" with the Mayor of
Minneapolis. On his
> > > >> profile he said one of his goals as Mayor is to "Reaweave
the urban
> > > >> fabric." I was'nt sure what this meant so I asked him. Here
was his
> > > >> reply.
>
> > > > It means nothing because it's an empty platitude only uttered by
> > > > politicians.
>
> > > >> "Glad you asked: I talked about reweaving the urban fabric
because
> > > >> today's cities need to be reconnected. Cities grew as places
where you
> > > >> could find work, home, shopping, recreation and pretty much
everything
> > > >> you wanted within walking distance or on transit lines. After
WW2,
> > > >> when suburbs started to spread, that fabric that held communties
> > > >> together was torn apart...transit ripped up, strip malls
replaced the
> > > >> corner store, etc. Now people finally realize what we lost so we
need
> > > >> to weave it back together into neighborhoods where we can once
again
> > > >> find all that within a walk or transit ride. So that means more
> > > >> transit, better urban design, better landscape, and more
decisions
> > > >> that keep us from spreading even further apart."
>
> > > >> What do you think?
>
> > > > Cities declined mostly because of crime.
>
> > > I know I'm late weighing in on this thread but had t reply to this
thread.
> > > You're wrong here.
>
> > No, actually I'm right. Crime was the primary factor.
>
> I would like to know where you got that info then.  It goes against
> everything I've ever learned about flight to the suburbs.

Really? Look at "white flight" out of Newark after the 1967 riots.

> > > >It had nothing to do with strip malls or "transit being ripped
up" or any
> > > >other nonsense. People want to feel safe, when many cities exploded
in the
> > > >60's with "righteous racial fury", all it did was scare
people more.
>
> > > But the exodus did not start--or end--with crime.  Many other issues
started
> > > the movement away from cities before anyone spoke about crime.
>
> > Crime, corruption, and chaos started the exodus and was the most
> > prevalent factor.
>
> Again, until I see some primary info I'll have to disagree with you.

Use common sense. Nearly everyone I've read, including experiences
from relatives, indicates that people fled the cities because of crime
and chaos. I'm sure I could dig up some "primary info" to support this
but... it's not really worth the effort.

> > > >Cities declined also because people inherently want more space and a
slower
> > > >pace of life, which is naturally offered in suburbia.
>
> > > Slower pace of life in Surburbia?  Really?  Where I have to drive my kids
> > > everywhere they need to go?  Where I have to commute to the City--or
another
> > > suburb--for a job because my suburb wants to be a bedroom community?
> > > Suburbs were looked at cleaner and the govt made it easier to build in
green
> > > space rather than rebuild in the city.
>
> > No, it truly is a slower, relaxed, and safer pace of life in suburbia
> > for most people with families.
>
> Maybe at the outset, but not anymore.  Life truly is slower in the
> cities than in the suburbs.  I've lived in both.

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".

> > > > "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 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.

> 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.

> > > > Second, after they do this they need to get the cost of housing
under
> > > > control, and offer families the type of housing they want to the
best of
> > > > their ability.
>
> > > Many cities have cheaper housing than the suburbs.  What they need to do
is
> > > to remake the streets and consolidate lots to provide more space for
people
> > > used to growing up in the suburbs.
>
> > Good luck with that. How do you propose to accomplish that?
>
> I live in the midwest.  Lots of rustbelt cities here.  The City of
> Youngstown OH has a plan to shrink from it's older boundaries.  They
> propose to tear down abandoned houses, help the remaining people who
> live on those streets move to a more populated area, remove the
> infrastructure and let the area return to a natural state.  Lots of
> cities could do the same thing.

To me it sounds like you want to save cities by turning them into
sprawl-type areas. Remove the infrastructure? So we'll save the cities
by tearing them up, Robert Moses style? You have some odd ideas.

> > > >Cities need to realize that they have a natural disadvantage because
most
> > > >families will probably inherently want what is only found in the
suburbs.
>
> > > No.  Cities have a disadvantage because most people have already formed
> > > negative opinions without really experiencing what City life is actually
> > > like.  Most people want what is in the city, they just want it in a
suburb
> > > setting.
>
> > Which is why suburbs form outside of cities. Over time, the city loses
> > relative importance while the suburb urbanizes.
>
> So people don't want a city but they turn the suburb they're residing
> in into a city in order to enjoy the benefits of a city.  You're
> defeating your own argument.

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.

I fall into the trap of referring to "sprawl" as suburbs as well, and
have done so in this argument.

> I hope I'm not coming across as a dick.  It's kind of nice to debate
> Urban Planning without resorting to name calling and such.

No you're not, but many people hold this issue very dear to their
heart so they respond very angrily when you question them.

> > > >So cities will have to make do with a higher amount of young single
> > > >professionals, artists, and gays (who are naturally attracted to
cities,
> > > >not that that's a bad thing mind you) than the suburbs.
>
> > > That is a very good thing.  Then they need to hold onto those peole and
show
> > > them that a City is an ideal place to raise a family.
>
> > > >City governments just need to be a servent to the people who elect
them,
> > > >that's all.
>
> > > That goes for all governments.
>
> > I'm in agreement there.
>
> > > >They need not attract families.
>
> > > Yes they do--in big fat hairy gibs.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
[ Auf dieses Posting antworten ]
Antworten

God (20.09.2007 19:28)
Joe the Aroma (20.09.2007 22:51)