Pop. Density and Sprawl
Eric A. Mathiasen
pop/sq. mile
Density Population Land Area
New York 5407 16,044,000 2,967
Chicago 4285 6,792,000 1,585
Twin Cities 1957 2,080,000 1,063
Seattle 2966 1,744,000 588
Kansas City 1673 1,275,000 762
Portland 3021 1,172,000 388
Comparison of Cities' Sizes to Cities' Densities
Numbers Reflect Land Area if Densities Were Switched
As a point of reference, Yellowstone National Park is 3438 sq. miles
NYC Chi TC Sea KC PDX
New York 2967 3744 8199 5409 9589 5311
Chicago 1256 1585 3471 2290 4059 2249
Twin Cities 385 485 1063 701 1243 689
Seattle 323 407 891 588 1042 577
Kansas City 236 298 652 430 762 422
Portland 217 274 599 395 700 388
This chart may be a little confusing, but basically it shows how
big each city listed on the left would be in square miles if its
population density were that of each city across the top.
As you can see, if New York had the population density of Kansas
City, it would require the eqivalent of two Yellowstone National
Parks in additional land to house the people. Chicago is
currently the size of about half of Yellowstone. If it had the
population density of the Twin Cities, it would require an area
the size of the whole Park.
Portland is still pretty small, but still you can see that if it
were the population density of Kansas City, it would be almost
twice as big geographically.
Logistically it is interesting, too. The Twin Cities for example,
would make a perfect circle of about 37 miles across at their
current density. If they were as dense as Portland, they would
cut that diameter to only 29 miles, and need almost 400 fewer
square miles to house the people. That a lot of land saved from
asphalt.
-Eric
--
Eric A. Mathiasen | er...@mathiasen.com | www.mathiasen.com
Aksel Karcher
koolhaases smlxl:
what would happen, if the netherlands would be populated with a nyc-density,
schematically filled up from the southern end. the chart is pretty
impressive as well imho.
dutch people are especially concerned about density and sprawl, cause higher
density (with max.living quality) can keep them from investing in making new
land from the north sea!
hellos, aksel.
Robert Coté
<emat...@tekka.wwa.com> wrote:
=Here's some population density figures, comments below.
Density Population Land Area
=New York, Chicago, Twin Cities, Seattle, Kansas City, Portland
=Comparison of Cities' Sizes to Cities' Densities
Funny, Los Angeles isn't on the list. Of course that may be
because LA doesn't fit the premise of the argument. Throw
out data that doesn't fit the premise? Welcome to a.p.u.
mi...@tusc.net
I must have missed the argument in Eric's original post. All I saw was an
interesting comparison of populations, land areas, and densities among several
cities. What was his argument?
Miles Eddins
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Eric A. Mathiasen
: In article <6ts8l0$6fr$2...@hirame.wwa.com>, "Eric A. Mathiasen"
: =New York, Chicago, Twin Cities, Seattle, Kansas City, Portland
:
: Funny, Los Angeles isn't on the list. Of course that may be
: because LA doesn't fit the premise of the argument. Throw
: out data that doesn't fit the premise? Welcome to a.p.u.
I chose the cities I did not to exclude any, but because I had
familiarity with them. I'm not really familiar with Los Angeles,
so I didn't include it.
And it doesn't really detract from my point. As polluted as
L.A. is, imagine if it had an average density similar to the
Twin Cities of MInneapolis and St. Paul. L.A. would then be about
three times as big, at 5,829 square miles, probably extending all
the way down to San Diego.
For those of you who want to look at figures on your own, I took
data from: http://www.publicpurpose.com/dm-uadr.htm
According to their data, Los Angeles is the highest density city
in the U.S., with a population of 11,402,000 in a land area of
1,966 square miles yielding a density of 5,800 people per square
mile. Los Angeles has other factors that affect it. Over the
past forty years, New York has gained about 25% more people,
while Los Angeles has grown by nearly 300%! The disadvantage
of this extremely high growth is that planning efficient community
layouts and infrustructure becomes a nightmare. I would speculate
that if L.A. hadn't managed to keep the density high, it's already
difficult problems would have completely destroyed the manageability
of the urban area long ago.
One interesting point is that *generally* speaking, cities that were
well-established by the early 1900s have decreased population density
while those that have "come into their own" more recently have steadily
increasing population densities. I think LA didn't really "come into
its own" until the movie industry started taking off in the 1920s, and
so it fits that pattern. This is a little hard to really test hard
because there just aren't a whole lot of cities that are large now but
weren't important centers of commerce in the early 1900s.
-Eric
--
Eric A. Mathiasen | er...@mathiasen.com | www.mathiasen.com
Q: How does a quantum logic chicken cross the road?
A. The chicken is distributed probabilistically on all sides
of the road until you observe it on the side of your choice.
Robert Coté
<emat...@tako.wwa.com> wrote:
=Robert Coté <tech...@west.net> wrote:
=: In article <6ts8l0$6fr$2...@hirame.wwa.com>, "Eric A. Mathiasen"
=: =Here's some population density figures, comments below.
=: =New York, Chicago, Twin Cities, Seattle, Kansas City, Portland
=:
=: Funny, Los Angeles isn't on the list. Of course that may be
=: because LA doesn't fit the premise of the argument. Throw
=: out data that doesn't fit the premise? Welcome to a.p.u.
=
=I chose the cities I did not to exclude any, but because I had
=familiarity with them. I'm not really familiar with Los Angeles,
=so I didn't include it.
=
=And it doesn't really detract from my point. As polluted as
=L.A. is, imagine if it had an average density similar to the
=Twin Cities of MInneapolis and St. Paul. L.A. would then be about
=three times as big, at 5,829 square miles, probably extending all
=the way down to San Diego.
=
=For those of you who want to look at figures on your own, I took
=data from: http://www.publicpurpose.com/dm-uadr.htm
=
=According to their data, Los Angeles is the highest density city
=in the U.S., with a population of 11,402,000 in a land area of
=1,966 square miles yielding a density of 5,800 people per square
=mile. Los Angeles has other factors that affect it. Over the
=past forty years, New York has gained about 25% more people,
=while Los Angeles has grown by nearly 300%! The disadvantage
=of this extremely high growth is that planning efficient community
=layouts and infrustructure becomes a nightmare. I would speculate
=that if L.A. hadn't managed to keep the density high, it's already
=difficult problems would have completely destroyed the manageability
=of the urban area long ago.
So, according to your new inclusive listing the most dense city LA
is also the most polluted. Hmm. One of the highest growth cities
is also one you claim to be a planning nightmare. Hmm.
OTOH you claim LA has managed to keep its' density high. In reality
it is higher than ever and actually started out low density.
=One interesting point is that *generally* speaking, cities that were
=well-established by the early 1900s have decreased population density
=while those that have "come into their own" more recently have steadily
=increasing population densities. I think LA didn't really "come into
=its own" until the movie industry started taking off in the 1920s, and
=so it fits that pattern.
I agree and this contradicts your previous claim tha LA has been
keeping density high. You also need to address the misconception
that LA is sprawled when in fact it is compact and dense. Hmm.
=This is a little hard to really test hard
=because there just aren't a whole lot of cities that are large now but
=weren't important centers of commerce in the early 1900s.
LA, Miami, Las Vegas, Orlando, about 100 others. They all match your
premise. All this tells us is that growth increases density and
decay reduces density. Any policy to be derived from this shocker?
craig sweet
concerned about population growth, though lets face it there's way too many
of us in certain parts of this world, and not enough in others. I'm more
interested in how we settle on the land. The original suburban subdivisions
were marketed as inexpensive alternatives...you could buy *so much* for so
little. Cheap land was good for the developer and those purchasing. Now
days something else is being marketed. Quality of life perhaps?? However,
is that the reality? Is life better in the suburbs?? I guess some would
say yes, and others would say no just as many disagree about urban life.
Eric A. Mathiasen
<A bunch of stuff>
Robert,
You seem to be looking to create an arguement where there
really isn't one. You are miscronstrueing what I write, jumping to
conclusions on what I might be implying, and basically assuming that
in some way your unstated assumptions are better than whatever it is
you think I think.
The only solid belief I have is that low-density CITIES cause more long
term problems than they solve. The data I posted wasn't really meant to
start a debate, just to get people thinking. My intent wasn't to have
you attack with no added discussion, but for you to post your opinions
and ideas. Please ADD to the discussion instead of just attacking
mindlessly.
Thanks,
r...@inetworld.net
<emat...@tako.wwa.com> wrote:
>And it doesn't really detract from my point. As polluted as
>L.A. is, imagine if it had an average density similar to the
>Twin Cities of MInneapolis and St. Paul. L.A. would then be about
>three times as big, at 5,829 square miles, probably extending all
>the way down to San Diego.
Won't happen because we've got Camp Pendleton between us and Smell-A.
Thank God for the Marines!!!
=Bob
Who knows what miracle tomorrow may bring?
Robert Coté
<emat...@tekka.wwa.com> wrote:
=The only solid belief I have is that low-density CITIES cause more long
=term problems than they solve.
You also claimed that the densest city in the US was also the most
polluted, contradicting your own premise at least on this one point.
There are other sprawl problems that may or may not have a realtion
to density. All you need is a definition of "sprawl" to proceed.
=The data I posted wasn't really meant to
=start a debate, just to get people thinking.
Musta missed that part of the post. The "word" sprawl has been used
as a pejorative for a patteren of development that some people object
to with actually enumerating there objections. There are in excess of
200 posts dealing with issue available. Density was not accepted
as the major component of sprawl.
=My intent wasn't to have
=you attack with no added discussion, but for you to post your opinions
=and ideas. Please ADD to the discussion instead of just attacking
=mindlessly.
Your original post was missing the highest density CMSA in the US.
This oversite also happened to not fall within your premise. Coincidence?
I pointed it out, you corrected it and now it turns out that this
mindless attack was detrimental to the discussion. It was detrimental
to your premise, to the discussion however...
Robert Alexander
craig sweet wrote in message <3602E61C...@bigsky.net>...
[snip]
The original suburban subdivisions
>were marketed as inexpensive alternatives...you could buy *so much* for so
>little. Cheap land was good for the developer and those purchasing. Now
>days something else is being marketed. Quality of life perhaps?? However,
>is that the reality? Is life better in the suburbs?? I guess some would
>say yes, and others would say no just as many disagree about urban life.
This anecdote may or may not be on point.
I-45 dumps into the north end of downtown Houston. Rush hour finds it a
parking lot. A homeless person who had taken up residence under a nearby
bridge had the temerity to display various, scrawled signs to passers-by.
"If you lived here, you'd be home now;"
"Honk if you had a good commute;" or "Have a nice day."
Two months ago, he was shot and killed. A downtown office worker who
commuted 19 miles each way has been charged with manslaughter. It was a
case of "road rage" where nobody was cut off.
Ahhh, the quality of life.......
George Conklin
Robert Coté <tech...@west.net> wrote:
>In article <6tvfpc$ltr$1...@hirame.wwa.com>, "Eric A. Mathiasen"
><emat...@tekka.wwa.com> wrote:
>
>=The only solid belief I have is that low-density CITIES cause more long
>=term problems than they solve.
>
>You also claimed that the densest city in the US was also the most
>polluted, contradicting your own premise at least on this one point.
>There are other sprawl problems that may or may not have a realtion
>to density. All you need is a definition of "sprawl" to proceed.
>
Dense cities also cause social pathology.
Andrew Snyder
Eric A. Mathiasen schrieb:
> Here's some population density figures, comments below.
>
> pop/sq. mile
> Density Population Land Area
> New York 5407 16,044,000 2,967
> Chicago 4285 6,792,000 1,585
> Twin Cities 1957 2,080,000 1,063
> Seattle 2966 1,744,000 588
> Kansas City 1673 1,275,000 762
> Portland 3021 1,172,000 388
>
>
> Comparison of Cities' Sizes to Cities' Densities
> Numbers Reflect Land Area if Densities Were Switched
> As a point of reference, Yellowstone National Park is 3438 sq. miles
>
> NYC Chi TC Sea KC PDX
> New York 2967 3744 8199 5409 9589 5311
> Chicago 1256 1585 3471 2290 4059 2249
> Twin Cities 385 485 1063 701 1243 689
> Seattle 323 407 891 588 1042 577
> Kansas City 236 298 652 430 762 422
> Portland 217 274 599 395 700 388
>
I think one of the most interesting examples of urban sprawl has to do
with Memphis, the city i live in. Over the last 50 years, i'd guess the
memphis population has grown only 15-20%, due mostly to politics and
racial disputes. The local governments have set up a system where they
obviously don't want memphis to become bustiling economic center, like
say Atlanta. Even though the population has changed little in the past
few years, the land area of the city has been unprecidented, in effort
for memphis to maintain a tax base. Today the actual incorportated area
is twice that of Atlanta, and four times that of St. Louis. People here
are moving away from the city onto neiboring land, only to become part
of the city again in a few years due to annexation.
Even cities that aren't necessarily growing rapidly have to deal with
the urban sprawl situation. The politics involved here are harming both
the environment and costing the government billions of dollars a year.
Andrew Snyder
mor...@bellsouth.net
CVN
George Conklin wrote:
These days the (low density) suburbs are holding their own in terms of social
pathology.Surely you don't think suburbanites are exempt from domestic
violence, addictions, child abuse, serial killers, and mental illness? The
suburbs of Long Island seem to have been supplying a disproportionate share
of sociopaths to the national headlines.
Robert Coté
<emat...@tekka.wwa.com> wrote:
=There is no contradiction. My point wasn't that high-density
=produces less pollution. My point was that it keeps that pollution
=confined to a smaller area. Although I'll admit I wasn't real clear
=about that. I don't know of any studies of pollution per-person
=comparing low density to high density areas. I could see results
=going either way, because high-density requires heavier, more
=massive infrastructure, but low-density requires more individualized
=transit, sewage, and garbage networks. Either way, for x number
=of people, high density will create pollution in a smaller area than
=low density.
And the power plant and the agribusiness and the airport? See? The
extensive infrastructure necessary to support high density is not
concentrated like you would have us beleive.
=sprawl - "Rapid urban or suburban growth which results in the
=predominant reliance upon a single mode of transportation to
=conduct normal living activities. The most common mode being the
=automobile. Normal living activites including working, eating,
=residing and recreation."
=
=This definition provides for the lack of effective public trans-
=portation, the segmentation of residential from nearly all
=commercial and retail zones, and the general spacing which
=negates pedestrianism as a practical method of transport. Sorry,
="pedestrianism" is me getting carried away, it should just read
="walking." :-)
This is pretty good. Sprawl is auto reliance. Very few have been
willing to broach this one publically.
=: Your original post was missing the highest density CMSA in the US.
=: This oversite also happened to not fall within your premise. Coincidence?
=
=Okay, would YOU please state my "premise" for me, since I don't really
=think that LA being exceptional is a fatal flaw to anything? And
=because I'm having a hard time seeing your point, which will be
=easier to see when I know what you think you're attacking.
I thought it was that density produced fewer impacts but now it is
more clearly defined as: "high density will create pollution in a
smaller area than low density." I also assume that any "bad" thing
except of course congestion can be substituted for pollution.
As I said above the effects of a compact high density urban setting
are felt far away where supporting infrastructure operates. This
does not mean low density works any better just that there are numerous
high density benefits that are ephemeral when fully calculated.
Eric A. Mathiasen
: You also claimed that the densest city in the US was also the most
There is no contradiction. My point wasn't that high-density
produces less pollution. My point was that it keeps that pollution
confined to a smaller area. Although I'll admit I wasn't real clear
about that. I don't know of any studies of pollution per-person
comparing low density to high density areas. I could see results
going either way, because high-density requires heavier, more
massive infrastructure, but low-density requires more individualized
transit, sewage, and garbage networks. Either way, for x number
of people, high density will create pollution in a smaller area than
low density.
: to density. All you need is a definition of "sprawl" to proceed.
And if there was a univerally acceptable definition of "Sprawl"
we'd all already know it. Here's a definition I've never seen, but
that takes into account what I think sums up the down side of
sprawl and many low-density developments.
sprawl - "Rapid urban or suburban growth which results in the
predominant reliance upon a single mode of transportation to
conduct normal living activities. The most common mode being the
automobile. Normal living activites including working, eating,
residing and recreation."
This definition provides for the lack of effective public trans-
portation, the segmentation of residential from nearly all
commercial and retail zones, and the general spacing which
negates pedestrianism as a practical method of transport. Sorry,
"pedestrianism" is me getting carried away, it should just read
"walking." :-)
: Your original post was missing the highest density CMSA in the US.
: This oversite also happened to not fall within your premise. Coincidence?
Okay, would YOU please state my "premise" for me, since I don't really
think that LA being exceptional is a fatal flaw to anything? And
because I'm having a hard time seeing your point, which will be
easier to see when I know what you think you're attacking.
-Eric
Eric A. Mathiasen
: Density raises COSTS to everyone, including government.
The vast majority of increased costs are the result of the increased
value provided by proximity. Some of the other governmental costs
can be attributed to the larger economic disparity between city
residents. New York for example has hundreds of thousands of people
making six-figure incomes. They can pay more for housing, so costs
go up. But they still need people nearby to work in the services
they use (restaurants, cleaners, entertainment). Most service workers
don't make six figures. So the government thinks it has to subsidize
housing (because the market, while efficient, is sometimes even slower
than government to provide a solution to a need).
: Dense cities also cause social pathology.
Depending on what you mean by "cause" and "social pathology"
I think I could provide some better explanations. Which
social pathologies are you most concerned with? And what
densities do those pathologies start to manifest themselves?
George Conklin
>: Density raises COSTS to everyone, including government.
>
>The vast majority of increased costs are the result of the increased
>value provided by proximity.
Wrong. It is the added cost of keeping the infractructre
running, things like 300 million dollar per mile subways,
additional costs of running water, electric and other lines.
Eric A. Mathiasen
: In article <6u4mlj$dmg$2...@hirame.wwa.com>,
I still maintain that that (with the exception of the 300
million dollar/mile subway) that teasing out the effects of
proximity demand would explain any extra costs. There are
some things that do cost more, but also things that cost
less. I don't know about transit costs in NYC, but in Chicago
you can buy a transit pass for less than $90/month that will
get you anywhere in the city of Chicago. Almost any car will
cost it's owner more than that (gas, maint., insurance, payment).
That's a potential cost savings. In NYC you can get a T1 communications
line for less than $200/month. That will cost near $1000/month in
most less dense markets.
Yes, there are trade-offs, and I would not maintain that cities are
for everyone. But the benefits of proximity are quite large. Why do
you think companies are paying the average resident of Manhattan over
$75,000/year and still not moving out of the city? It's got to be
economically viable or there's no way it would stay that way.
The high-density Tri-State area has one of the highest concentrations
of wealth in the world. Do you really think that would remain the same
if they were spread out like Kansas City, from Boston to Washington to
Philadelphia (hence becoming something akin to the Seven-State area :-) )
Eric A. Mathiasen
: And the power plant and the agribusiness and the airport? See? The
: extensive infrastructure necessary to support high density is not
: concentrated like you would have us beleive.
The power plant, the agribusiness and the airport are all going to
exist whether there's high density or not. With low density you would
need more, smaller airports because if you're really spread out it isn't
likely people will want to drive three hours to the nearest major metro
airport. You would need the same amount of food (agribusiness or not -
high density doesn't mean higher total population). And while cities
probably do draw more electrical power per person, I can't imagine that
spread-out areas would use less gasoline, so you (or actually I guess it
would be I) could very well argue that low density electrical savings
would be offset by increased consumption of other fuels.
: As I said above the effects of a compact high density urban setting
: are felt far away where supporting infrastructure operates. This
: does not mean low density works any better just that there are numerous
: high density benefits that are ephemeral when fully calculated.
I've been making a lot more points that I've been remembering (I'm
not being snide, I mean that literally). But, I'll keep forging on.
Lets say I have a business. Lets say it's growing quickly because it
makes some gadget that people really like. Now lets say I need workers
to help make this gadget. Where do they live? And as I and my neighboring
businesses grow bigger, where do more and more of my employees live?
After a point the required commute time for enough employees starts to
get too big for me to be able to hire mor people from the surrounding
diverse economy. So I increase my pay, and my workers start to displace
the surrounding companies less-well paid workers because land values around
me go up, but the density stays the same, and so taxes are proportionally
higher on that property. Pretty soon we could end up with Flint,
Michigan. One large employer which WILL eventually hit hard times and
have to lay off a significant amount of people, resulting the to near
destruction of the local economy and thousands of people on public
assistance and/or receiving unemployment aid.
Now lets say that instead of the density staying the same, it started
to increase around my company and my friends' growing companies. Density
increases, and my surrounding friends' companies and mine can share a lot
of the same infrustructure. My highest paid workers can still afford
spacious homes, and the rest of the workers get a little smaller home, but
are in a diversified, stable economy. Some of them might lose their jobs,
but there is another company down the street that is in a different industry
and doing well so they get a new job after only a couple of weeks on
unemployment. And now, because there are enough people here, they don't have
to drive two hours to see the Symphony, a new one opens up to serve the
concentration of people. More stores open up, closer to where my workers
live. More theatres. Light-rail gets put in so that their pre-driving
age teenagers can get across town to take those piano lessons while the
toddlers at home get the full attention of mommy.
Which scenario sounds better to you?
Robert Coté
<emat...@tako.wwa.com> wrote:
=I still maintain that that (with the exception of the 300
=million dollar/mile subway) that teasing out the effects of
=proximity demand would explain any extra costs.
Details, after all what's $300 million per mile for a subway
or (guessing) $450 million per mile for Boston's Big Dig.
BTW both have huge environmental and sociological mitigation
measures as part of their costs. Costs derived from the
high density of their respective service areas.
=There are
=some things that do cost more, but also things that cost
=less. I don't know about transit costs in NYC, but in Chicago
=you can buy a transit pass for less than $90/month that will
=get you anywhere in the city of Chicago. Almost any car will
=cost it's owner more than that (gas, maint., insurance, payment).
You are confusing cost with price. The transit pass is priced
at $90 but the service provided costs many times that. The only
portions of the car owners' cost that is applicable is gas and
insurance. The maintainence and car payment are capital costs
not operating costs. Apples, oranges.
Duncan MacGregor
Recently, Robert Coté (tech...@west.net) wrote:
>
> Details, after all what's $300 million per mile for a subway
> or (guessing) $450 million per mile for Boston's Big Dig.
Boston is paying that ridiculous amount for two reasons that have little
or *nothing* to do with public transit:
1. An important street is being widened and buried underground.
2. Major political squabbles over some of the contracts.
Both events have hoisted the price much higher than it need be.
[Anyone familiar with OC Transpo *knows* that building a tunnel for autos
(or for diesel buses) is decidedly more expensive than building a subway;
it must be ventilated and equipped with fire extinguishers, lest the fuel
(much more dangerous than electricity) catch fire.]
> BTW both have huge environmental and sociological mitigation
> measures as part of their costs. Costs derived from the
> high density of their respective service areas.
If Boston had *not* bothered to bury the street underground, a lot of the
problems would have gone away. It might have prevented some of the miserable
litigation that is reportedly occuring, too.
>
> =There are
> =some things that do cost more, but also things that cost
> =less. I don't know about transit costs in NYC, but in Chicago
> =you can buy a transit pass for less than $90/month that will
> =get you anywhere in the city of Chicago. Almost any car will
> =cost it's owner more than that (gas, maint., insurance, payment).
>
> You are confusing cost with price. The transit pass is priced
> at $90 but the service provided costs many times that. The only
^^^^ ^^^^^
> portions of the car owners' cost that is applicable is gas and
> insurance. The maintainence and car payment are capital costs
> not operating costs. Apples, oranges.
Proof, please. How can you say that *per*capita* costs of public transit
are much higher than autos? Economies of scale imply the exact opposite.
[And don't claim that they are not applicable; they most definitely apply
to such things as fuel consumption.]
Just a thought from ...
--
Duncan MacGregor | aa...@freenet.carleton.ca | #include <disclaimer.h>
Also at: "http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~aa735/" | To err is human ...
Robert Coté
aa...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Duncan MacGregor) wrote:
=Boston is paying that ridiculous amount for two reasons that have little
=or *nothing* to do with public transit:
=
=1. An important street is being widened and buried underground.
=
=2. Major political squabbles over some of the contracts.
=
=Both events have hoisted the price much higher than it need be.
=[Anyone familiar with OC Transpo *knows* that building a tunnel for autos
=(or for diesel buses) is decidedly more expensive than building a subway;
=it must be ventilated and equipped with fire extinguishers, lest the fuel
=(much more dangerous than electricity) catch fire.]
=
=If Boston had *not* bothered to bury the street underground, a lot of the
=problems would have gone away. It might have prevented some of the miserable
=litigation that is reportedly occuring, too.
The reason for going under is urban preservation. At ground level many
buildings, even entire neighborhoods would have been destroyed. In
effect killing the patient with the cure. The transportation
infrastructure is absolutely required. The urban preservation is optional
although very desireable. The huge additional expenses have nothing to
do with the requirement and everything to do with urban subsidy.
Boston is not paying for this. The entire US is paying.
The Big Dig is a transportation improvement not just a transit project.
The concensus that got us to go underground determined that there were
more problems at the surface despite the cost savings.
Ron Newman
tech...@west.net (Robert Coté) wrote:
> The reason for going under is urban preservation. At ground level many
> buildings, even entire neighborhoods would have been destroyed. In
> effect killing the patient with the cure. The transportation
> infrastructure is absolutely required. The urban preservation is optional
> although very desireable. The huge additional expenses have nothing to
> do with the requirement and everything to do with urban subsidy.
The road not taken (pun intended) would have been to emulate San Francisco:
take down the elevated freeway, and *don't replace it*.
Unfortunately, Boston never seriously considered this option.
--
Ron Newman rne...@thecia.net
http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/
Scott M. Kozel
>
> [Central Artery/Tunnel Project in Boston]
> The reason for going under is urban preservation. At ground level many
> buildings, even entire neighborhoods would have been destroyed. In
> effect killing the patient with the cure. The transportation
> infrastructure is absolutely required. The urban preservation is optional
> although very desireable. The huge additional expenses have nothing to
> do with the requirement and everything to do with urban subsidy.
>
>
> The Big Dig is a transportation improvement not just a transit project.
I agree with all you said.
In my viewpoint, the CA/T much more an urban renewal project than a
transportation project, since the existing 6-lane elevated highway could
have been rehabilitated and widened to 8 lanes for probably no more than
$1 billion. The $8.4 billion to depress and bury the Central Artery is
IMO about 85% urban renewal and urban open space creation, because it is
removing the expressway from surface visibility, and creating over 150
acres of open land in the CBD.
"Project benefits include creation of more than 150 acres of open land,
including 27 acres where the existing Central Artery now stands, 105
acres at Spectacle Island in Boston Harbor (where Project dirt is
capping an abandoned dump), and 40 more acres of new parks in and around
downtown Boston. Clay and dirt from the Project is being used to fill
and cap landfills throughout the Boston area"
(http://www.bigdig.com/thtml/summary.htm).
Central Artery/Tunnel Project website - http://www.bigdig.com/home.htm
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington D.C. http://www.richmond.infi.net/~kozelsm
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley
http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Campus/5961/pennways.html
Robert Coté
rne...@thecia.net (Ron Newman) wrote:
=In article <techscan-220...@term6-8.vta.west.net>,
=tech...@west.net (Robert Coté) wrote:
=
=> The reason for going under is urban preservation. At ground level many
=> buildings, even entire neighborhoods would have been destroyed. In
=> effect killing the patient with the cure. The transportation
=> infrastructure is absolutely required. The urban preservation is optional
=> although very desireable. The huge additional expenses have nothing to
=> do with the requirement and everything to do with urban subsidy.
=
=The road not taken (pun intended) would have been to emulate San Francisco:
=take down the elevated freeway, and *don't replace it*.
=
=Unfortunately, Boston never seriously considered this option.
The US transportation system never considered this option because the
elevated portion is critical to the entire region. Logan is an
international airport among other things that are connected only through
these central Boston highways.
John Hay
>
> In article <techscan-220...@term6-8.vta.west.net>,
> tech...@west.net (Robert Coté) wrote:
>
>
>
Nothing unfortunate about it. Where would all the car, truck and bus
traffic have gone? Not on 495—too far out for many drivers. Not on
128—enough said. Not on the surface—that would only have put more
traffic in the crooked streets of Boston. SF's 480 was partially
completed stubs, an eyesore, and damaged by an earthquake, so it was
easier to get rid of. The Central Artery was fully completed (though
expressways to the north and south were not, but that's another story),
so there was more of an incentive to replace like with like, i.e.
limited access. Not in the Ted Williams Tunnel—it could never handle all
the diverted through and Logan traffic. Not on the T—it's at capacity
already. A central Boston rail tunnel might have gotten some (but not
most) cars off the roads, but it could never carry freight with the
steep grades necessary. I followed just about every Scheme in the papers
and elsewhere, and IMO it's clear that underground is the place for the
Central Artery.
--
JH
Remove “at” in e-mail address to reply
“Don Sutton has lost 13 games in a row without winning one of them.”
—Ralph Kiner
mous...@my-dejanews.com
tech...@west.net (Robert Coté) wrote:
> You are confusing cost with price. The transit pass is priced
> at $90 but the service provided costs many times that.
Show me that in this case that providing the service "costs many times that".
Assumption Man is back at it ;)
> The only portions of the car owners' cost that is applicable is gas and
> insurance. The maintainence and car payment are capital costs
> not operating costs. Apples, oranges.
Since when is an oil change or a transmission fluid change a capital cost? I
never knew that I could amortize an oil change over x number of years.
Maintainence is a capital cost? Really? So your telling me that, for example,
janitorial staff in a building are a capital expenditure - after all they are
maintaining the building.
Who is comparing apples with oranges?
Robert Coté
=In article <techscan-210...@term6-45.vta.west.net>,
= tech...@west.net (Robert Coté) wrote:
=
=> You are confusing cost with price. The transit pass is priced
=> at $90 but the service provided costs many times that.
=
=Show me that in this case that providing the service "costs many times that".
=Assumption Man is back at it ;)
Snide little insults are not wiped away by smileys. Arrogant jerk ;) [See?]
CTA's farebox recovery is 47%. It is less for transit passes. Operating
costs are less than half of total costs. The service costs at least
4 times more than the charge.
=> The only portions of the car owners' cost that is applicable is gas and
=> insurance. The maintainence and car payment are capital costs
=> not operating costs. Apples, oranges.
=
=Since when is an oil change or a transmission fluid change a capital cost? I
=never knew that I could amortize an oil change over x number of years.
=Maintainence is a capital cost? Really? So your telling me that, for example,
=janitorial staff in a building are a capital expenditure - after all they are
=maintaining the building.
Maintainence is considered a captial cost by many (most/all?) transit
agencies as an accounting convienience. The theory is that since it
adds to the capital value of the serviced equipment...
=Who is comparing apples with oranges?
You are apparently.
Eric A. Mathiasen
I don't know, but I like oranges better. Succulent sweet and liquidy,
a good orange excites my tongue like no other fruit with the sweet
sugars and high acididity. Mmmmm. Apples aren't bad, either, but
it's next to impossible to find excellent tree-ripened apples in a
supermarket, and oranges seem to transit-ripen better than apples.
Robert Coté
<emat...@tako.wwa.com> wrote:
=: =Who is comparing apples with oranges?
=
=I don't know, but I like oranges better. Succulent sweet and liquidy,
=a good orange excites my tongue like no other fruit with the sweet
=sugars and high acididity. Mmmmm. Apples aren't bad, either, but
=it's next to impossible to find excellent tree-ripened apples in a
=supermarket, and oranges seem to transit-ripen better than apples.
Yes, you have discovered the problem with remote markets for agricultural
products. Around here we have different kinds of both oranges and
strawberries. Not many apples, sorry. The juiciest oranges don't
travel well and become juicers. The strawberries are numbered. #1s
are so soft and flavorful they don't travel at all. Not shippable.
Of course there is also the infamous Davis tomatoe. Gross pulpy under
ripe abominations. They do however ship just as easily as the tennis
balls they taste like.
Of course I can drop by farmer Carl's ranch and ask to pick up a few
dropped oranges. It is considered shoplifting to pick your own from
the orchard. The nice little lady at the strawberry stand has a few
flats of #1s tucked away behind the counter if you ask nicely. The
stand is on one corner of the strawberry field where they are grown.
Don't go to the stand across the street, they bring in their berries
from the same places the supermarket gets them.
The only way to get these goodies is in a low density mixed use
environment. It has drawbacks just like any system but apparently
you and I would both miss some of the benefits were we to follow
your plan and eliminate this develoment option in favor of discreet
areas of rural exclusive and compact high density urban forms.
Eric A. Mathiasen
: The only way to get these goodies is in a low density mixed use
: environment.
No, the only way to get those things universally is a weather
machine. The fact of the matter is that the main reason we have
"shippable" produce isn't that it doesn't travel the 200 miles
from Central California to L.A. well, but because we can't grow
oranges in places like Minnesota where I live, and even things
like peaches and nectarines don't usually ripen soon enough around
here to be commercially viable. We do have corn and tomatoes
available, though, at roadside stands.
The vast majority of unripe, shipable produce is bred that way
so that regional producers can suppy consumers in areas that don't
have the climate to support popular fruit. Sure, when I lived
in a small town growing up we went and got fresh, seasonal fruits,
berries in the early summer, pears and peaches in the fall. But
we still generally drove between a half-hour and an hour to get
there because while the space was there, they didn't grow what we
wanted near us (they grew onions closest to us). Wanting near-by
agriculture isn't a good reason to create urban planning guidelines,
and won't even guarantee the results you seek.
We do agree on mixed-use, just the density it is applied and the
extent to which we would draw it (I wouldn't consider agriculture
to be something to mix in with regular industry and/or homes).
Who wants grain trucks snarling traffic all day for a month or so
every year? Or the smell of crushed onions wafting through the
evening air for a couple of months each year? Of how about that
dairy? Talk about a NIMBY issue!
Robert Coté
<emat...@tako.wwa.com> wrote:
=Robert Coté <tech...@west.net> wrote:
=: The only way to get these goodies is in a low density mixed use
=: environment.
=
=No, the only way to get those things universally is a weather
=machine.
No amount of weather control could get good tomatoes, #1 strawberries,
"juicer" oranges, thick skinned lemons, heritage squashes, cherimoyas,
and hundreds of other crops to urban markets due to competetive crop
pressures.
=The fact of the matter is that the main reason we have
="shippable" produce isn't that it doesn't travel the 200 miles
=from Central California to L.A. well, but because we can't grow
=oranges in places like Minnesota where I live, and even things
=like peaches and nectarines don't usually ripen soon enough around
=here to be commercially viable. We do have corn and tomatoes
=available, though, at roadside stands.
Ahh, but you have supported to pro sprawl position by citing an
example of where existing urban structures inhibit access to a better
QoL.
...
=
=We do agree on mixed-use, just the density it is applied and the
=extent to which we would draw it (I wouldn't consider agriculture
=to be something to mix in with regular industry and/or homes).
Yes but you don't live here on the cutting edge of global land use
experimentation. My friends John and Kathy B have just purchased
some 30+ acres of mixed Avocado and Citrus to raise their 5 children
on. He's a doctor. Hmmm. I've frequently posted here that we should
look at what the rich do and copy them. We should also look to
California for future trends.
=Who wants grain trucks snarling traffic all day for a month or so
=every year? Or the smell of crushed onions wafting through the
=evening air for a couple of months each year? Of how about that
=dairy? Talk about a NIMBY issue!
Onions are a common "tweener" crop locally. You cannot find a proximate
resident that prefers the alternative (development) to the actuality
(onions).
Eric A. Mathiasen
: Ahh, but you have supported to pro sprawl position by citing an
: example of where existing urban structures inhibit access to a better
: QoL.
I've never said it's a black and white issue, just that my opinions
are always infallible, without blemish, and blazing with the
righteous power of perfection. :-)
Of course there are trade-offs. There are for anything. It's a trade-
off that your friends John and Kathy have to drive to go to the ocean.
Oceans are nice and improve QoL, but would you advocate everyone live
on an ocean beach?
: Yes but you don't live here on the cutting edge of global land use
: experimentation. My friends John and Kathy B have just purchased
: some 30+ acres of mixed Avocado and Citrus to raise their 5 children
: on. He's a doctor. Hmmm. I've frequently posted here that we should
: look at what the rich do and copy them. We should also look to
: California for future trends.
How do they harvest? If they don't harvest it all themselves, where do
the harvesters live? Are migrant workers really something new designs
of living should rely on? I don't see "what the rich do" as something
to look to for absolute transplantation of ideas. After all there are
some very significant reasons that what works for a small subset of
very-well skilled or moneyed individuals won't work for everyone.
: Onions are a common "tweener" crop locally. You cannot find a proximate
: resident that prefers the alternative (development) to the actuality
Yes, but I bet that they knew about the onions when they moved in, and
chose to live their anyway. That's a pre-ordered result and not
necessarily the universal result.
Robert Coté
<emat...@tako.wwa.com> wrote:
=I've never said it's a black and white issue, just that my opinions
=are always infallible, without blemish, and blazing with the
=righteous power of perfection. :-)
Did you receive copyright permission from Colin Leech before posting
this? :)
=Of course there are trade-offs. There are for anything. It's a trade-
=off that your friends John and Kathy have to drive to go to the ocean.
=Oceans are nice and improve QoL, but would you advocate everyone live
=on an ocean beach?
Interestingly enough, most people do live near the ocean. Population
distribution shows this clearly. The family in question and my
family are both in a costal zone according to the Sunset Western Garden
Book. Our maximun temp this Summer was 92 deg F, some 25 deg F lower
than the San Fernando Valley temps of the same time and only some 25
miles away.
=: Yes but you don't live here on the cutting edge of global land use
=: experimentation. My friends John and Kathy B have just purchased
=: some 30+ acres of mixed Avocado and Citrus to raise their 5 children
=: on. He's a doctor. Hmmm. I've frequently posted here that we should
=: look at what the rich do and copy them. We should also look to
=: California for future trends.
=
=How do they harvest? If they don't harvest it all themselves, where do
=the harvesters live? Are migrant workers really something new designs
=of living should rely on? I don't see "what the rich do" as something
=to look to for absolute transplantation of ideas. After all there are
=some very significant reasons that what works for a small subset of
=very-well skilled or moneyed individuals won't work for everyone.
John manages the crop and the work schedule as a hobby. Professional
pruners and harvesters and hydrologists and etc. all play their part
and ply their trades in concert. Deep "doctor pockets" finance the
operation and the land that on average more than pays for itself. The
only reason it takes deep pockets is that rare occasion when there is a
poor crop. The interesting trend is the agri-specialist jobs.
=: Onions are a common "tweener" crop locally. You cannot find a proximate
=: resident that prefers the alternative (development) to the actuality
=
=Yes, but I bet that they knew about the onions when they moved in, and
=chose to live their anyway. That's a pre-ordered result and not
=necessarily the universal result.
I'm not sure I understand. Most of the locals knew about crops that might
smell (brocolli is worse) but why does this apply to the subject of
density distribution? Just asking.
As far as watching the rich, remember these are the early adopters of
what eventually become the norm. Microwave ovens, air travel, suburban
living (which you pointed out), excessive private auto usage, lower
density urban housing, personal electronics, credit, on and on.
You want to see the future, look at the rich of today. They have
multiple houses, non-genetic extended family support social structures,
locational mobility, conservative politics, global perspective,
Sierra Club membership...
Scott M. Kozel
>
> In article <6uc1m6$ngt$2...@hirame.wwa.com>, "Eric A. Mathiasen"
> <emat...@tako.wwa.com> wrote:
>
> =I've never said it's a black and white issue, just that my opinions
> =are always infallible, without blemish, and blazing with the
> =righteous power of perfection. :-)
>
> Did you receive copyright permission from Colin Leech before posting
> this? :)
Oops! Let's not have any plagiarisms here! :-)
Robert Coté
(ZeroGrav4) wrote:
[Coté wrote in reference to wealthy living patterns]
=>suburban
=>living (which you pointed out), excessive private auto usage, lower
=>density urban housing,
=
=Remember.......there is a Manhattan(central park), Miami/Miami Beach(anywhere
=near water), Paris, London(some parts), Beverly Hills (i wouldn't count it as a
=suburb), Hollywood, Seattle(some parts), Sanfransisco (some parts), Vancouver,
=Sao Paulo(certain neighborhoods like European Gardens), Belo Horizonte (this
=one hill), Rio De Janerio (certain areas), Buenas Aires, Tokyo(some parts),
=Hong Kong (some parts), ect. Alot of rich people do live in the city.
A lot of rich people do live in the cities. They live in lower density
urban housing than average. Perceptually that is why, Central Park views
and adjacent and Beverly Hills and "BH Zip Code" areas with this lower
density urban model are frequented by the rich. The rich are leading the
way as they have for centuries. Follow them to the future. Lower
density, perceputal open space, multiple residences, etc.
On that last point, multiple residences. This is a potential political
bomb. Taxes are voted by either property OR residence. One can vote
for ones' multiple properties but only one residence. My mom has homes
in two states. Residence is a matter of tax law. Her voting in the
other location is pure economics and not from any sense of community.
Oh, and yes rich people get to vote more and their votes count more than
poor people.
My mom's two residences used to average less than 0.5 persons per dwelling
unit (DU). My sisters' kids are using one address for the school district.
Wow, <0.5 persons per DU and 4 elementary students generated. This is all
pop density versus sprawl. Higher density with no change in either land use
or taxable base or voter power yet the school district has picked up a
quick $28,000 per year educational expense. No change in sprawl, yet an
unsustainable development pattern. Hmm, its not so simple is it Andrew?
ZeroGrav4
>suburban
>living (which you pointed out), excessive private auto usage, lower
Remember.......there is a Manhattan(central park), Miami/Miami Beach(anywhere
near water), Paris, London(some parts), Beverly Hills (i wouldn't count it as a
suburb), Hollywood, Seattle(some parts), Sanfransisco (some parts), Vancouver,
Sao Paulo(certain neighborhoods like European Gardens), Belo Horizonte (this
one hill), Rio De Janerio (certain areas), Buenas Aires, Tokyo(some parts),
Hong Kong (some parts), ect. Alot of rich people do live in the city.
-Andrew
George Conklin
ZeroGrav4 <zero...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>suburban
>>living (which you pointed out), excessive private auto usage, lower
>>density urban housing,
>
>Remember.......there is a Manhattan(central park), Miami/Miami Beach(anywhere
>near water), Paris, London(some parts), Beverly Hills (i wouldn't count it as a
>suburb), Hollywood, Seattle(some parts),
And so forth. All high cost living for very little
square footage, just exactly why we don't need more of it in
modern urban areas. What about Manhattan's excessive use of
public transit?
ZeroGrav4
> And so forth. All high cost living for very little
>square footage, just exactly why we don't need more of it in
>modern urban areas. What about Manhattan's excessive use of
>public transit?
>
>
>
What about everything that Manhattan has to offer?
-@—D•
sh...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
: > And so forth. All high cost living for very little
--
New York City is a blight on humanity. Period. End of story. Only yuppies
could find anything good about living there.
George Conklin
I suppose the above statement is basically supposed to be
sarcastic, but it does raise a point. Mahanttan has
essentially medieval segmentation....the very rich and the
very poor live there. The middle class is pushed out, or
limited to paying $1,500 a month for one small room. That
is a heck of a penalty to put on society to support a few
museums, high-prestige bank buildings and the burden put on
outlying areas to serve Manhattan. The New York Times even
ran an article last year about how Brooklyn has been
exploited to serve the needs of Manhattan.
ZeroGrav4
>New York City is a blight on humanity. Period. End of story. Only yuppies
>could find anything good about living there.
>
Yes......It is a fact that everyone in NYC is a yuppie. Thankyou for proving
this.
- Andrew Linhares
gregory byshenk
[He's Baaack ...]
> >What about Manhattan's excessive use of
> >public transit?
> What about everything that Manhattan has to offer?
Please, don't feed the trolls.
"Hi, my name is Greg, and I'm a ... public transit user.
During the colder months, I use public transit 6 or 7 days
a week, often several times a day..."
--
+ gregory byshenk - gbys...@tezcat.com - gbys...@prairienet.org +
== Help take a byte out of spam: <http://www.cauce.org> ==
=> Now up: "Help! I've Been Spammed! - A guide for the beginner."
URL: <http://www.tezcat.com/~gbyshenk/ive.been.spammed.html>
Colin R. Leech
Robert Coté (tech...@west.net) wrote:
> In article <19980925230619...@ng95.aol.com>, zero...@aol.com
> (ZeroGrav4) wrote:
> =
> =Remember.......there is a Manhattan(central park), Miami/Miami Beach(anywhere
> =near water), Paris, London(some parts), Beverly Hills (i wouldn't count it as a
> =suburb), Hollywood, Seattle(some parts), Sanfransisco (some parts), Vancouver,
> =Sao Paulo(certain neighborhoods like European Gardens), Belo Horizonte (this
> =one hill), Rio De Janerio (certain areas), Buenas Aires, Tokyo(some parts),
> =Hong Kong (some parts), ect. Alot of rich people do live in the city.
>
> A lot of rich people do live in the cities. They live in lower density
> urban housing than average.
Generally yes, but not universally. The Upper East Side of Manhattan
certainly wouldn't fit a "low density" description, except in relation to
the rest of Manhattan.
--
#### |\^/| Colin R. Leech ag414 or crl...@freenet.carleton.ca
#### _|\| |/|_ Civil engineer by training, transport planner by choice.
#### > < Opinions are my own. You may consider them shareware.
#### >_./|\._< "If you can't return a favour, pass it on." - A.L. Brown
sh...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
: > >What about Manhattan's excessive use of
: > >public transit?
: > What about everything that Manhattan has to offer?
: Please, don't feed the trolls.
: "Hi, my name is Greg, and I'm a ... public transit user.
: During the colder months, I use public transit 6 or 7 days
: a week, often several times a day..."
Don't worry Greg. That 12-step program for transit users will help you if
you use the steps, i.e. 1. Save your money. 2. Buy a car. End of problem.
: --
: + gregory byshenk - gbys...@tezcat.com - gbys...@prairienet.org +
: == Help take a byte out of spam: <http://www.cauce.org> ==
: => Now up: "Help! I've Been Spammed! - A guide for the beginner."
: URL: <http://www.tezcat.com/~gbyshenk/ive.been.spammed.html>
--
Eric A. Mathiasen
: A lot of rich people do live in the cities. They live in lower density
: urban housing than average. Perceptually that is why, Central Park views
: and adjacent and Beverly Hills and "BH Zip Code" areas with this lower
: density urban model are frequented by the rich. The rich are leading the
: way as they have for centuries. Follow them to the future. Lower
: density, perceputal open space, multiple residences, etc.
Servants, large collections of cars, high-labor decor in their buildings,
prime, limited space locations? All of these are things than many rich
people enjoy but would be unsustainable by the general population. Looking
to the rich for technological advances is one thing. Looking to their
lifestyle is another. The fact of the matter is that it takes a tremendous
amount of dedicated labor to accomodate the "Lifestyles of the Rich and
Famous". Anytime you have a large amount of dedicated labor it means that
MOST people CAN'T enjoy that lifestyle.
: Oh, and yes rich people get to vote more and their votes count more than
: poor people.
Not really. It is a violation of federal law to vote for federal
officials from more than one state. And in most states it is illegal to
vote more than once in state-wide elections, regardless of how many houses
you own. And for local issues, it really isn't significantly more
representation to be able to vote for school board members in two counties.
Maybe you were being sarcastic, but if so it didn't come across well in
type.
: My mom's two residences used to average less than 0.5 persons per dwelling
: unit (DU). My sisters' kids are using one address for the school district.
: Wow, <0.5 persons per DU and 4 elementary students generated. This is all
: pop density versus sprawl. Higher density with no change in either land use
: or taxable base or voter power yet the school district has picked up a
: quick $28,000 per year educational expense. No change in sprawl, yet an
: unsustainable development pattern. Hmm, its not so simple is it Andrew?
No change in taxable base? If they are using a real property address, then
the taxes on that property go to the school district in most states. And
if they actually lived at the address, it wouldn't increase the property tax
on it, now would it? So I guess I'm confused as to your point.
Eric A. Mathiasen
: New York City is a blight on humanity. Period. End of story. Only yuppies
: could find anything good about living there.
Okay, I realize this is either a) a troll or b) sarcasm or c) both, but ...
First off, an anecdote. A friend of mine just moved to Queens from the
North Side of Chicago. One of the things he said about the change was that
he enjoyed seeing a much greater variety of people in Queens than in his
Chicago neighborhood. He sees older people, families, and some people his
own age (we're both mid-twenties). Parts of New York are mostly yuppies,
but as a whole it's a very diverse city in almost every sense of the
word. I honestly believe that most people who call NYC a "blight" are just
scared of it. It's easy to dismiss something that is huge, puts you WAY
out of your realm of experience, and consequently scares the dickens out of
you as bad. But prejudice isn't reality. Cities are the symbol of
civilization. Big cities are the symbol of a large civilization.
Someone else who was probably being sarcastic called NYC transit system
"excessive". No matter what you think of density, it's pretty much
unassailable that if you do have high density you need some form of
mass transit, whether it's publicly funded or not, because mass amounts
of people just can't rely on automobiles to be effectively fast in a very
high density area if they are the only means of transit. It's practically
part of the definition of high density.
Robert Coté
<emat...@tekka.wwa.com> wrote:
=Robert Coté <tech...@west.net> wrote:
=: A lot of rich people do live in the cities. They live in lower density
=: urban housing than average. Perceptually that is why, Central Park views
=: and adjacent and Beverly Hills and "BH Zip Code" areas with this lower
=: density urban model are frequented by the rich. The rich are leading the
=: way as they have for centuries. Follow them to the future. Lower
=: density, perceputal open space, multiple residences, etc.
=
=Servants, large collections of cars, high-labor decor in their buildings,
=prime, limited space locations? All of these are things than many rich
=people enjoy but would be unsustainable by the general population. Looking
=to the rich for technological advances is one thing. Looking to their
=lifestyle is another. The fact of the matter is that it takes a tremendous
=amount of dedicated labor to accomodate the "Lifestyles of the Rich and
=Famous". Anytime you have a large amount of dedicated labor it means that
=MOST people CAN'T enjoy that lifestyle.
Wrong on nearly every count. As the wealth of both individuals and nations
grows, one trend is lower labor, more productivity. A modern kitchen and
a cook replaces the kitchen staff of 60 years ago. Those technical advances
displace labor and make the benefits more universally available.
=: Oh, and yes rich people get to vote more and their votes count more than
=: poor people.
=
=Not really. It is a violation of federal law to vote for federal
=officials from more than one state. And in most states it is illegal to
=vote more than once in state-wide elections, regardless of how many houses
=you own. And for local issues, it really isn't significantly more
=representation to be able to vote for school board members in two counties.
=Maybe you were being sarcastic, but if so it didn't come across well in
=type.
Votes are also allocated per property as in school bonds. Votes are also
allocated per dollar value of property as in assesment districts. Rich
people own more and more expensive properties and so get more votes in
these cases.
=: My mom's two residences used to average less than 0.5 persons per dwelling
=: unit (DU). My sisters' kids are using one address for the school district.
=: Wow, <0.5 persons per DU and 4 elementary students generated. This is all
=: pop density versus sprawl. Higher density with no change in either land use
=: or taxable base or voter power yet the school district has picked up a
=: quick $28,000 per year educational expense. No change in sprawl, yet an
=: unsustainable development pattern. Hmm, its not so simple is it Andrew?
=
=No change in taxable base? If they are using a real property address, then
=the taxes on that property go to the school district in most states. And
=if they actually lived at the address, it wouldn't increase the property tax
=on it, now would it? So I guess I'm confused as to your point.
I will try again. Mom's house in western MA has been paying into the
tax base for the last ten years without any public school kids. Now
this year the same house has 4 kids in the school district. Last year
they attended a CT school. A population density shift has occured with
huge consequences. The CT school finds itself flush with money and the
MA school is strapped for cash. No sprawl involved only a density change.
The point is twofold. One, increased density has some worse problems
than sprawl, school funding for instance. Two, the negative aspects
of what is called sprawl can be explained by mechanisms that have nothing
to do with land use development patterns. Tax law and raw population
in this case.
adam...@my-dejanews.com
>
> New York City is a blight on humanity. Period. End of story. Only yuppies
> could find anything good about living there.
>
Last time I checked, New York was the United States (and the World's) center
for Arts, Culture, Business, Music, Entertainment and so on... If you think
living in a bland, boring place is "good" than you differ from most people
(and almost everyone I have ever met!)
Adam Rosa
http://members.wbs.net/homepages/a/d/r/adrosa/index.html
adam...@my-dejanews.com
> : New York City is a blight on humanity. Period. End of story. Only yuppies
> : could find anything good about living there.
>
>
> First off, an anecdote. A friend of mine just moved to Queens from the
> North Side of Chicago. One of the things he said about the change was that
> he enjoyed seeing a much greater variety of people in Queens than in his
> Chicago neighborhood. He sees older people, families, and some people his
> own age (we're both mid-twenties). Parts of New York are mostly yuppies,
> but as a whole it's a very diverse city in almost every sense of the
> word. I honestly believe that most people who call NYC a "blight" are just
> scared of it. It's easy to dismiss something that is huge, puts you WAY
> out of your realm of experience, and consequently scares the dickens out of
> you as bad. But prejudice isn't reality. Cities are the symbol of
> civilization. Big cities are the symbol of a large civilization.
Correct! and even the people who are scared about living in such a huge city
don't really understand it. New York is simply a collection of
neighborhoods, or small towns, they are just like the small towns in Indiana,
Utah, or Texas, only these small towns are not surrounded by cornfields or
forests, they are surrounded by other small towns. One block in Brooklyn
could be the equivalent of a village in Iowa...My point is, you really have
to live in the city to understand the way it works...the Manhattan you see in
the movies and on your double-decker bus tour is not the same city that New
Yorkers live in...they live in the corner grocery, the laundromat, the
neighborhood diner etc. Some neighborhoods are more depressed than others,
just as some small towns suffer the loss of the factory or mill, while others
gain new high tech industries...
Eric A. Mathiasen
: Wrong on nearly every count. As the wealth of both individuals and nations
: a cook replaces the kitchen staff of 60 years ago. Those technical advances
: displace labor and make the benefits more universally available.
You still have the cook. And part of the reason kitchen staff can be
reduced is that families are smaller and the wealthy no longer routinely
have business guests stay the night, hence fewer people to cook for.
Technical advances displace some labor. But not all. The rich also
eat out a lot. Even in a showcase restaurant, few on the staff make
enough to afford the lifestyle of those they serve, and it's still the
quality of the cook, not the quality of his oven that people return for.
And lets take house-cleaning. House-cleaning is a labor-intensive
operation. Few people have full-time house-cleaning staff, but a fair
number of upper-middle and upper class people employ part-time cleaners
or a cleaning service. In a high density area there is a good chance
that a cleaning service could make decent money without charging so much
that only the wealthy can afford their services. In a low-density area
travel time between residences would take so much time that it would be
much harder to gain a large clientel at a reasonable price.
: I will try again. Mom's house in western MA has been paying into the
: tax base for the last ten years without any public school kids. Now
: this year the same house has 4 kids in the school district. Last year
: they attended a CT school. A population density shift has occured with
: huge consequences. The CT school finds itself flush with money and the
: MA school is strapped for cash. No sprawl involved only a density change.
If the density increases, either it will decrease back (there will always
be some fluctuation) or land values will increase as long as crime is
controlled, bringing in additional revenues (in addition to creating wealth)
to cover the additional expenses in (among other things) education.
Fluctuations should be expected and prepared for. And trends can be planned
for. I don't see it as being an insurmountable problem. The control of
crime is key to any environment, no more so in high-density than low, but
govenments can sometimes "forget" to adjust law-enforcement spending as
densities change.
: The point is twofold. One, increased density has some worse problems
: than sprawl, school funding for instance. Two, the negative aspects
: of what is called sprawl can be explained by mechanisms that have nothing
: to do with land use development patterns. Tax law and raw population
: in this case.
I will agree with the last sentence. What would happen to current
residential patterns if one of the largest government subsidies currently
in place were revoked? Yes, I'm talking about tax-deductible housing
interest. Why should renters pay homeowners? Why should paid-up
homeowners pay those still buying? Is that fair, equitable? You don't
seem to agree with subsidizing things needed in a higher-density area,
but are you willing to stop the subsidies in the suburbs? I wonder what
would happen if we ALL paid the TRUE cost of living where we do?
Duncan MacGregor
Recently, "SHARX" (sh...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca) scribbled:
>
> : "Hi, my name is Greg, and I'm a ... public transit user.
> : During the colder months, I use public transit 6 or 7 days
> : a week, often several times a day..."
>
> Don't worry Greg. That 12-step program for transit users will help you if
> you use the steps, i.e. 1. Save your money. 2. Buy a car. End of problem.
>
especially if your household already has one, is definitely wasted.
If you did something that could kill you, could kill lots of other people,
costs lots of money, is ruinous to the environment, *and* is heavily taxed,
you'd STOP, wouldn't you?
Hint: there are a lot of people complaining that *hundreds" of people are
killed each year in airplane crashes. Yet, more than forty thousand people
are killed each year on highways in the U.S. Given that the figures for
highways are *two* orders of magnitude greater than for airplanes, why do
people complain about the risks of flying, and say "Cars are safer than
flying"? Someone has bad math, no doubt about it.
>
> : --
> : + gregory byshenk - gbys...@tezcat.com - gbys...@prairienet.org +
I say: SAVE YOUR PLANET * * * SELL YOUR CAR
--
Duncan MacGregor | aa...@freenet.carleton.ca | #include <disclaimer.h>
Also at: "http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~aa735/" | To err is human ...
Robert Coté
=In a
=>
=> New York City is a blight on humanity. Period. End of story. Only yuppies
=> could find anything good about living there.
=>
=
=Last time I checked, New York was the United States (and the World's) center
=for Arts, Culture, Business, Music, Entertainment and so on... If you think
=living in a bland, boring place is "good" than you differ from most people
=(and almost everyone I have ever met!)
Arts, LA.
Fine Arts, Paris.
Business, London.
Music, not applicable except as a business then LA.
Entertainment, LA.
And so on:
Crime, not NYC.
Air quality, weather, etc. not NY.
Popularity as permanent desitiniation, Mexico City.
Popularity as temporary desitiniation, NYC. Yes, one point.
By growth, NYC is not even on the scale.
Argue with my suggestions but please, NYC is not worth the electrons
you wasted in its' boosterism. Funny that the examples you cite are
LA centric in their valuation. Another indicator IMO.
ZeroGrav4
I think NYC is more of a cultural center then LA.
NYC= Nation's major banking and Corperate HQ
NYC = 3x the population of LA
NYC= a place where you don't need a car.
NYC= high paying jobs but expensive housing cost (well
manhattan)
NYC= number 2 city tourist destenation after
Orlando.
NYC= Theater Meca
NYC= Transportation hub
NYC= where most sitcoms are modeled after.
-Andrew
Robert Coté
(ZeroGrav4) wrote:
=I think NYC is more of a cultural center then LA.
=
=NYC= Nation's major banking and Corperate HQ
=NYC = 3x the population of LA
=NYC= a place where you don't need a car.
=NYC= high paying jobs but expensive housing cost (well
=manhattan)
=NYC= number 2 city tourist destenation after
= Orlando.
=NYC= Theater Meca
=NYC= Transportation hub
=NYC= where most sitcoms are modeled after.
"Than" LA, Andrew not "then" LA.
IF you had quoted the original this may make sense.
As it is, it dies not make sense and is incorrect.
Deleware is the corporate (not coperate) HQ.
NYC population is 2x LA City. Irellevant regardless.
NYC is the #1 temp destination. I granted this and you
refuse to accept a conceeded point. Still wrong after
your Orlando diversion.
NYC is not a transport hub, the NYc area is.
Sitcoms? Andrew, stop, take a breath, now. Do you really
want to start a thread in apu with a pissing contest
between LA and NY regarding situation comedies and their
respective locations? You don't. I certainly don't.
craig sweet
Robert Coté wrote:
Why argue with your suggestions, you are allways right.
ZeroGrav4
> it dies not make sense and is incorrect.
It died? My spelling may be aweful but it has nothing to do with my point.
Your completely changing the subject.
>NYC population is 2x LA City. Irellevant regardless.
NYC metropolitan area is 3x the LA area
>NYC is the #1 temp destination. I granted this and you
>refuse to accept a conceeded point. Still wrong after
>your Orlando diversion.
Prove it.
>NYC is not a transport hub, the NYc area is.
that is what i ment.......i was assuming you would comprehend.
>Sitcoms? Andrew, stop, take a breath, now. Do you really
>want to start a thread in apu with a pissing contest
>between LA and NY regarding situation comedies and their
>respective locations? You don't. I certainly don't.
>
Just watch t.v. and count yourself. It's nothing to make a fuss about. Geez.
-Andrew
Greg Gritton
>
> gregory byshenk (gbys...@tezcat.com) wrote:
> : ZeroGrav4 <zero...@aol.com> wrote:
> : [He's Baaack ...]
>
> : > >What about Manhattan's excessive use of
> : > >public transit?
>
> : > What about everything that Manhattan has to offer?
>
> : Please, don't feed the trolls.
>
> : During the colder months, I use public transit 6 or 7 days
> : a week, often several times a day..."
>
> Don't worry Greg. That 12-step program for transit users will help you if
> you use the steps, i.e. 1. Save your money. 2. Buy a car. End of problem.
>
> : => Now up: "Help! I've Been Spammed! - A guide for the beginner."
> : URL: <http://www.tezcat.com/~gbyshenk/ive.been.spammed.html>
>
> --
>
You forgot the rest of the steps.
3. Pay insurance, maintanence, etc. Now, you can't your money anymore.
4. Your car eventually wears out. Go back to transit and start saving
money.
5. Repeat
Or, alternatively, you could skip step 2, continue saving or investing
money, and build something up for a family, vacations, retirement,
a time when you might be out of work, etc.
Having a car is useful, but it is an expensive proposition.
Many estimates run around $3000+ per year, although
you can spend less if you get an older car and maintain
it yourself. But, if you can get away with not having one,
you will save even more.
Greg Gritton
Scott M. Kozel
The vast majority of Americans do NOT want to live in New York City.
Too big, too dense...
> Why argue with your suggestions, you are allways right.
"Important announcement!! Pot calling kettle! Pot calling kettle!
Come in kettle!! ...."
Robert Coté
=Robert Coté wrote:
=
=> In article <6uoog4$f9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, adam...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
=>
=> =In a
=> =>
=> => New York City is a blight on humanity. Period. End of story. Only yuppies
=> => could find anything good about living there.
=> =>
=> =
=> =Last time I checked, New York was the United States (and the World's) center
=> =for Arts, Culture, Business, Music, Entertainment and so on... If you think
=> =living in a bland, boring place is "good" than you differ from most people
=> =(and almost everyone I have ever met!)
=>
=> Arts, LA.
=> Fine Arts, Paris.
=> Business, London.
=> Music, not applicable except as a business then LA.
=> Entertainment, LA.
=> And so on:
=> Crime, not NYC.
=> Air quality, weather, etc. not NY.
=> Popularity as permanent desitiniation, Mexico City.
=> Popularity as temporary desitiniation, NYC. Yes, one point.
=> By growth, NYC is not even on the scale.
=>
=> Argue with my suggestions but please, NYC is not worth the electrons
=> you wasted in its' boosterism. Funny that the examples you cite are
=> LA centric in their valuation. Another indicator IMO.
=
=Why argue with your suggestions, you are allways right.
It's not that I'm always right, it's that you are always wrong.
Any prospect of Misoulas' GP online circa Feb 1997?
Any sales tax in Montana?
Let's move on. "Why argue?" because I can be wrong. This makes you
wrong again Craig. You capacity for your personal public humiliation
seems unbounded.
When are you moving to Ventura County? After all you acknowledge that
every single QoL issue in Misoula is deficient by comparison.
I invited alternative viewpoints in the "hopes" of illustrating
the hubris of considering NYC the center of anything not to hear
from some little inconsequential northern state that best deserves
ward of the nation status.
Robert Coté
(ZeroGrav4) wrote:
=>The vast majority of Americans do NOT want to live in New York City.
=>Too big, too dense...
=
=Americans get the wrong inmpression of city living and have know idea what it's
=like. Most don't even know that there is a place called tokyo where the crime
=is about the same as a few of the U.S. states combined. Alot of people my age
=(16) don't even know what the largest city is in the country. I asked alot of
=people and they sayd "Los Angeles?". Most Americans have the wrong conseption
=of cities.
=
=-Andrew
=Fort Lauderdale, Fl (9th largest sprawl area in the USA)
(n th Largest sprawl area by virtue of an organization that
does not respond to requests for methodology, that is.)
By my secret, unpublished, super special arbitrary, ad hoc,
unscientific, special socio-illogical, uncalibriated mondo
sprawl-o-meter; Fort Lauderdale is the cloudiest city on
the planet. What you don't believe me? The data is not
in question. E-mail me for a methodology and right after I
receive a response to my sprawl definition the analysis is
yours.
Most Americans live in cities and have firsthand knowledge of
what you claim they have no idea about.
Tokyo is homogeneous to the point of xenophibia and has REPORTED
crime lower than several states combined on a POPULATION basis.
One may also draw arbitrary lines in the Central States that have
hundreds of times Tokyo's area and far less total crime.
Happy birthday. Last week you were 15.
What Is the Largest CIty? LA? Fort Worth? NYC?
Largest CMSA? Area, Municipal boundary? Sphere of Influence?
Conception, as in immaculate. Perception is a better word.
Your definiton of city. For planners it translates as "teat."
Robert Coté
(ZeroGrav4) wrote:
=> it dies not make sense and is incorrect.
=
=It died? My spelling may be aweful but it has nothing to do with my point.
=Your completely changing the subject.
The numerous and deliberate mispellings (above and below) were subtle
incentives toward readability. Misplaced apparently. There is no
"awe" in spelling that changes meaning.
=>NYC population is 2x LA City. Irellevant regardless.
=
=NYC metropolitan area is 3x the LA area
There is NYC and there is NY Metro. There is LA City and LA Metro.
Wrong and wrong and I was SPECIFIC about city regardless.
=>NYC is the #1 temp destination. I granted this and you
=>refuse to accept a conceeded point. Still wrong after
=>your Orlando diversion.
=
=Prove it.
You are apparently correct. NYC is not the center of this
activity either. Your previous post was in error.
=>NYC is not a transport hub, the NYc area is.
=
=that is what i ment.......i was assuming you would comprehend.
You said city, you meant city, you don't... nevermind.
=>Sitcoms? Andrew, stop, take a breath, now. Do you really
=>want to start a thread in apu with a pissing contest
=>between LA and NY regarding situation comedies and their
=>respective locations? You don't. I certainly don't.
=>
=
=Just watch t.v. and count yourself. It's nothing to make a fuss about. Geez.
Why bother watching TV when the lowest form of intellectual
pablum is regurgitated via the best intellectual processes
16 years of overexposure can generate? LOLAMOLI
Scott M. Kozel
>
> >The vast majority of Americans do NOT want to live in New York City.
>
> Americans get the wrong inmpression of city living and have know idea what it's
And "pushers" to pack the people into the subway cars like sardines,
plus the people have tiny amounts of living spaces. There are
tradeoffs.
The U.S. does have a crime problem, but at least it historically has had
a stable government (separation of powers is valuable when a president
screws up). Japan lost 2 million people in World War II, due
nationalistic militaristic stupidity. Even at current rates, the U.S.
has 1,000 years to solve its homicide problem before they catch up with
what Japan brought onto itself during WWII.
> A lot of people my age (16) don't even know what the largest city
> is in the country. I asked a lot of people and they sayd
> "Los Angeles?". Most Americans have the wrong conseption of cities.
A lot of young Americans aren't well-versed when it comes to geography,
lots of studies have shown that.
Robert Coté
ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech) wrote:
=Robert Coté (tech...@west.net) wrote:
=>
=> I will try again. Mom's house in western MA has been paying into the
=> tax base for the last ten years without any public school kids. Now
=> this year the same house has 4 kids in the school district. Last year
=> they attended a CT school. A population density shift has occured with
=> huge consequences. The CT school finds itself flush with money and the
=> MA school is strapped for cash. No sprawl involved only a density change.
=>
=> The point is twofold. One, increased density has some worse problems
=> than sprawl, school funding for instance.
=
=All you've proven is that property taxes aren't necessarily an appropriate
=way to fund schools.
No, Colin, all I demonstrated, by example, was that negative elements
normally ascribed to sprawl are actually atribitable to raw population
shifts or existing tax laws. This is a case where neither is wrong but
they conflict with common notions of coupled obligations/services.
A question for you. Are there any current pay for service or product
mechanisms you are satisfied with? Every scheme you've ever commented
about has flaws you object to.
Look at this and the related threads. You don't like any definition
of sprawl, including lists of constituient parts. You don't like the
current road funding mechanism, calling it subsidy. You don't like
full cost recovery for city services to urban areas except when those
areas are sprawled. You don't want to adopt standard accounting methods
for transit costing. You now don't like rich neighborhoods putting
more money into their schools because somehow you think this may mean
less for others. The inconsistencies accumulate.
Robert Coté
zero...@aol.com (ZeroGrav4) wrote:
=The largeset city in the USA (largest as in greatest area in the city itself
=meaning not including metropolitan area) is Las Vegas, Nevada with 39,370.3 sq.
=miles.
Would that be circular city 224 miles across or a rectangular city 50 miles
north to south and 787 miles wide Los Angeles to Lubbock?
ZeroGrav4
>The vast majority of Americans do NOT want to live in New York City.
>Too big, too dense...
Americans get the wrong inmpression of city living and have know idea what it's
like. Most don't even know that there is a place called tokyo where the crime
is about the same as a few of the U.S. states combined. Alot of people my age
(16) don't even know what the largest city is in the country. I asked alot of
people and they sayd "Los Angeles?". Most Americans have the wrong conseption
of cities.
-Andrew
ZeroGrav4
>
>What Is the Largest CIty? LA? Fort Worth? NYC?
>Largest CMSA? Area, Municipal boundary? Sphere of Influence?
The largeset city in the USA (largest as in greatest area in the city itself
meaning not including metropolitan area) is Las Vegas, Nevada with 39,370.3 sq.
miles.
Cities with the Greatest populations are:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population, 1997
Metropolitan area -------------------
Number Rank
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlanta, GA MSA 3,627,184 11
Austin-San Marcos, TX MSA 1,071,023 42
Boston-Worcester-Lawrence-Lowell-Brockton, MA-NH NECMA 5,827,654 7
Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY MSA 1,164,721 36
Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA 1,350,243 32
Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL-IN-WI CMSA 8,642,175 3
Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN CMSA 1,934,145 23
Cleveland-Akron, OH CMSA 2,908,439 14
Columbus, OH MSA 1,460,242 31
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX CMSA 4,683,013 9
Denver-Boulder-Greeley, CO CMSA 2,318,355 20
Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint, MI CMSA 5,438,756 8
Grand Rapids-Muskegon-Holland, MI MSA 1,026,295 46
Greensboro--Winston-Salem--High Point, NC MSA 1,152,779 37
Hartford, CT NECMA 1,105,174 39
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX CMSA 4,320,041 10
Indianapolis, IN MSA 1,503,468 29
99,319 257
Jacksonville, FL MSA 1,034,604 44
Kansas City, MO-KS MSA 1,709,273 24
Las Vegas, NV-AZ MSA 1,262,099 34
Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, CA CMSA 15,608,886 2
Memphis, TN-AR-MS MSA 1,083,186 41
Miami-Fort Lauderdale, FL CMSA 3,515,358 12
Milwaukee-Racine, WI CMSA 1,636,572 26
Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI MSA 2,792,137 16
Nashville, TN MSA 1,134,524 38
New Orleans, LA MSA 1,307,758 33
New York-No. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA CMSA/NECMA 19,876,488 1
Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News, VA-NC MSA 1,544,945 27
Oklahoma City, OK MSA 1,030,504 45
Orlando, FL MSA 1,467,045 30
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD CMSA 5,971,860 6
Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA 2,839,539
Pittsburgh, PA MSA 2,361,019 19
Portland-Salem, OR-WA CMSA 2,112,802 22
Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC MSA 1,050,054 43
Rochester, NY MSA 1,086,082 40
Sacramento-Yolo, CA CMSA 1,655,866 25
St. Louis, MO-IL MSA 2,557,806 18
Salt Lake City-Ogden, UT MSA 1,247,554 35
San Antonio, TX MSA 1,511,386 28
San Diego, CA MSA 2,722,650 17
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA CMSA 6,700,753 5
Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton, WA CMSA 3,367,872 13
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA 2,227,000 21
Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV CMSA 7,206,517 4
West Palm Beach-Boca Raton, FL MSA 1,018,524 47
-Andrew
Colin R. Leech
Robert Coté (tech...@west.net) wrote:
>
> I will try again. Mom's house in western MA has been paying into the
>
All you've proven is that property taxes aren't necessarily an appropriate
way to fund schools.
Henry Fung
>The largeset city in the USA (largest as in greatest area in the city itself
>meaning not including metropolitan area) is Las Vegas, Nevada with 39,370.3 sq.
>miles.
>
I always thought it was Houston. Hmmm.
(Houston has an unique "extraterritorial zone" that makes it control the
people living 5 miles outside its city limits.)
>Cities with the Greatest populations are:
>
CMSAs are not reliable ways to show sizes of cities. I know many people who
would shudder to be considered living in the Detroit area, living in
Ann Arbor or Flint.
Similarly, Riverside-San Bernardino-Long Beach-Los Angeles-Santa Ana is not
one huge glob on the map, contrary to popular perception.
There's the "meth zone" on I-10 between the areas, and the Southland (which
no one except Jerry Dunphy and his ilk uses) has multiple centers, with open
space in between, etc.
gregory byshenk
> : "Hi, my name is Greg, and I'm a ... public transit user.
> : During the colder months, I use public transit 6 or 7 days
> : a week, often several times a day..."
> Don't worry Greg. That 12-step program for transit users will help you if
> you use the steps, i.e. 1. Save your money. 2. Buy a car. End of problem.
I think I'll stop at step 1, thanks. My step 2 is more along the
lines of "go to Paris."
But if you want to buy a car instead, I won't stand in your way...
gregory byshenk
> First off, an anecdote. A friend of mine just moved to Queens from the
> North Side of Chicago. One of the things he said about the change was that
> he enjoyed seeing a much greater variety of people in Queens than in his
> Chicago neighborhood. He sees older people, families, and some people his
> own age (we're both mid-twenties). Parts of New York are mostly yuppies,
> but as a whole it's a very diverse city in almost every sense of the
> word.
FWIW, the same is true of Chicago.
Eric A. Mathiasen
: All you've proven is that property taxes aren't necessarily an appropriate
: way to fund schools.
I'll get behind that platform!
Eric A. Mathiasen
: "Than" LA, Andrew not "then" LA.
Alright, Robert Cot, you know it's not good form to correct fellow
Usenetters grammar and/or typos. Partly because, well, there's a
chance to correct you below.
: IF you had quoted the original this may make sense.
: As it is, it dies not make sense and is incorrect.
^^^^
: Deleware is the corporate (not coperate) HQ.
See above.
: NYC is not a transport hub, the NYC area is.
Uh, okay then LA isn't an entertainment center, the LA area is.
: Sitcoms? Andrew, stop, take a breath, now. Do you really
: want to start a thread in apu with a pissing contest
: between LA and NY regarding situation comedies and their
: respective locations? You don't. I certainly don't.
Yeah, Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Chicago, Cleveland, Indianapolis,
Seattle, Washington, D.C., Boston, Atlanta, Miami, they all have
sitcoms (or have had) sitcoms based there too. And that's just
a partial list. Sitcoms settings aren't a particularly good
example to compare cities by. After all, even Seinfeld was
filmed in LA though set in NYC.
Eric A. Mathiasen
: The vast majority of Americans do NOT want to live in New York City.
: Too big, too dense...
The vast majority of Americans do not want to live in LA, either. And
that's a good thing. Neither city could support a majority of America.
Imagine LA with 140 million people living in it. ;-)
Eric A. Mathiasen
: Many estimates run around $3000+ per year, although
Well, the federal government gives tax deductions of 32.5 cents
per mile, so if we assume that's what they think it costs to
operate an average car, and the average american drives 10,000
miles a year, then on average you'd have $3250/yr for a car.
Now for a 10-year old car, with some maintenance done at home,
for a family of four that drives closer to 15,000 miles/yr,
it would probably be still around $3000/yr because of higher
miles, less gas mileage, etc. Now to be fair, transit passes for
two adults and two school-aged children in Chicago would be
about $3400/yr.
sh...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
: In a
: >
: > New York City is a blight on humanity. Period. End of story. Only yuppies
: > could find anything good about living there.
: >
I prefer NOT to live in a city where every second person has an attitude
and/or is a "legend in their own mind", i.e. who doesn't give a rat's ass
for anyone else save themself!
: Last time I checked, New York was the United States (and the World's) center
: for Arts, Culture, Business, Music, Entertainment and so on... If you think
: living in a bland, boring place is "good" than you differ from most people
: (and almost everyone I have ever met!)
: Adam Rosa
: http://members.wbs.net/homepages/a/d/r/adrosa/index.html
: -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
: http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
--
ZeroGrav4
>I prefer NOT to live in a city where every second person has an attitude
>and/or is a "legend in their own mind", i.e. who doesn't give a rat's ass
>for anyone else save themself!
Yes what you just said has been proven by scientists many times and is now a
fact (sarcasm!!). Your just a fool. Please don't post an opinion when your
trying to give a fact!. By the way..........Since according to you (MR.
SCIENTIST) everyone in NYC has a bad attitude and only care for
themselves.......that makes everyone in the suburbs loving, careing, and
thoughtfull. YEAH RIGHT!!!!!
-Andrew
sh...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
: >I prefer NOT to live in a city where every second person has an attitude
: -Andrew
Only an intellectually deficient asshold like yourself would conclude
that. Fact is that crime rates are far lower in most suburbs than in most
city cores. Not zero, of course, but a lot, lot lower. Yes, there are
shitheads in the suburbs...isn't that where you live?
ZeroGrav4
>Only an intellectually deficient asshold like yourself would conclude
>that. Fact is that crime rates are far lower in most suburbs than in most
>city cores.
In the USA suburbs have less crime then city cores. And , I am an asshole
to other assholes.
Not zero, of course, but a lot, lot lower. Yes, there are
>shitheads in the suburbs...isn't that where you live?
Yes.......as I said before....i live in the 9th worse suburban sprawl area in
the USA. Not by choice......I plan to move whenever i can.
-Andrew
Davie, Florida
Colin R. Leech
Robert Coté (tech...@west.net) wrote:
>
> The Big Dig is a transportation improvement not just a transit project.
The Big Dig is a highway project, not a transit project. There's still no
concrete plan for a North Station-South Station rail link.
Alex Toth
> Robert Coté (tech...@west.net) wrote:
> >
> > The Big Dig is a transportation improvement not just a transit project.
>
The Big Dig is billed as a transportation improvement, but actually is a
project almost exclusively devoted to burying the Central Artery. The
Attorney General had to sue the agencies involved just to prod them along
on the supposed transit projects included in the plan. I suspect any MBTA
improvements will be completed long after the Big Dig is done.
Robert Coté
ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech) wrote:
=Robert Coté (tech...@west.net) wrote:
=>
=> The Big Dig is a transportation improvement not just a transit project.
=
=The Big Dig is a highway project, not a transit project. There's still no
=concrete plan for a North Station-South Station rail link.
And NOW Colin is an expert on Boston. The breath of his "knowledge" seems
unbounded.
From www.bigdig.com:
"The Central Artery/Tunnel Project is far more than highway construction.
It is a multi-modal transportation project unlike anything ever attempted
in an American city. Public transportation plays a major role in the CA/T
project. Increased transit ridership will help the project control traffic
during construction. An expanded public transportation system will help
the new Central Artery and I-90 extension to Logan Airport work more
efficiently once construction is finished. And the CA/T project is
designed to integrate the new highway with other transportation modes to
make the entire system work more smoothly. "
The site also lists the mitigation (urban renewal/preservation) measures
as taking up 1/3 of the cost. It also lists the MBTA administered
additions to public transit that are part of the Big Dig. Excellent site.
HOW many times do you need "correction" before the information sticks?
Robert Coté
<atoth-05109...@207-172-245-105.s105.tnt2.sbo.erols.com>,
atoth@-pleaseditchthis-erols.com (Alex Toth) wrote:
=> Robert Coté (tech...@west.net) wrote:
=> >
=> > The Big Dig is a transportation improvement not just a transit project.
=>
=
=The Big Dig is billed as a transportation improvement, but actually is a
=project almost exclusively devoted to burying the Central Artery. The
=Attorney General had to sue the agencies involved just to prod them along
=on the supposed transit projects included in the plan. I suspect any MBTA
=improvements will be completed long after the Big Dig is done.
Go to www.bigdig.com
The MBTA is already receiving operational funding and infrastructure
improvements from the CA/T.
Fully 1/3rd of the total cost is listed as "mitigation."
Ron Newman
tech...@west.net (Robert Coté) wrote:
> "The Central Artery/Tunnel Project is far more than highway construction.
> It is a multi-modal transportation project unlike anything ever attempted
> in an American city. Public transportation plays a major role in the CA/T
> project.
There is no public transit portion of the CA/T project.
> The site also lists the mitigation (urban renewal/preservation) measures
> as taking up 1/3 of the cost. It also lists the MBTA administered
> additions to public transit that are part of the Big Dig.
The MBTA has totally failed to carry out the necessary improvement such
as restoring streetcar service to Jamaica Plain on the "E" line, extending
the Green Line from Lechmere to Medford, and connecting the Red and Blue
Lines at Charles Street.
--
Ron Newman rne...@thecia.net
http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/
Robert Coté
rne...@thecia.net (Ron Newman) wrote:
=In article <techscan-051...@term6-9.vta.west.net>,
=tech...@west.net (Robert Coté) wrote:
=
=> "The Central Artery/Tunnel Project is far more than highway construction.
=> It is a multi-modal transportation project unlike anything ever attempted
=> in an American city. Public transportation plays a major role in the CA/T
=> project.
=
=There is no public transit portion of the CA/T project.
Busses will be prohibited from using the road?
The mitigation portion of the entire budget specifically lists MBTA as
a funded mitigation measure.
=
=> The site also lists the mitigation (urban renewal/preservation) measures
=> as taking up 1/3 of the cost. It also lists the MBTA administered
=> additions to public transit that are part of the Big Dig.
=
=The MBTA has totally failed to carry out the necessary improvement such
=as restoring streetcar service to Jamaica Plain on the "E" line, extending
=the Green Line from Lechmere to Medford, and connecting the Red and Blue
=Lines at Charles Street.
Oh, this isn't about the Big Dig this is about your complaints concerning
MBTA.
Terry Jamro
lines? They are building a new platform at North Station so that the Green
and Orange platforms are next to each other and the current elevated North
Station flatform on the green line will be demolished.
The Big Dig is primarily highways, but there are some improvements on the
subway.
Ron Newman
I like to call that project the "Little Dig", but the name hasn't
caught on. It's next to the Big Dig, but basically unrelated to it,
although a single common structure was built to hold both a temporary Central
Artery ramp and a temporary re-routing of the Green Line elevated.
--
Ron Newman rne...@thecia.net
http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/home.html
Jeff B. Kurland
Robert Coté wrote in message ...
etc.) were promised to the citizens and the Federal Government) as
significant parts of the environmental mitigation for the Big Dig.
Robert Coté
<kurl...@erols.com> wrote:
=Robert Coté wrote in message ...
=>In article <rnewman-ya0240800...@enews.newsguy.com>,
=>rne...@thecia.net (Ron Newman) wrote:
=>Oh, this isn't about the Big Dig this is about your complaints
=concerning
=>MBTA.
=This is indeed about the Big Dig. These measures ("E" line restoration,
=etc.) were promised to the citizens and the Federal Government) as
=significant parts of the environmental mitigation for the Big Dig.
This is what I thought also. Who's dropping the ball here? Did the Feds
stop the funding stream, did the MBTA divert the money or is there a time
line that schedules these transit improvements "later?"
George Conklin
>In a
>>
>> New York City is a blight on humanity. Period. End of story. Only yuppies
>> could find anything good about living there.
>>
>
>for Arts, Culture, Business, Music, Entertainment and so on... If you think
>living in a bland, boring place is "good" than you differ from most people
>(and almost everyone I have ever met!)
>
>Adam Rosa
Actually NYC is the center for publically-supported HIGH
culture, and uses its influence to stamp out the rival
cultures such as those in Appalachia. To this degree, NYC
is a vast anti-culture machine.
Robert Coté
(ZeroGrav4) wrote:
=And say hello to ...high gas prices (gas prices might be low now.....but
=WILL go up in the comming years due oil being all used up, road rage, smog, car
=dependency, no culture, ect........i also can go on forevever!!
Andrew, I certainly don't doubt that you could go on forever. There are
after all, an infinite number of wrong answers and only a finite number of
correct ones.
For a bit of historical perspective you might be well advised to realize
that gasoline prices are the lowest in history and both proven and
suspected extractable reserves are the highest. The political turmoil
of the early 70's cannot be repeated in the current environment. The
envorinmental impacts of petroluem use is less now than ever before.
Portions of your other social problems are more correctly assigned to
raw population growth and not density or sprawl.
You do, however, make a compelling case for the dimunition of American
culture, civility, education and discourse, bravo.
ZeroGrav4
> Actually NYC is the center for publically-supported HIGH
>culture, and uses its influence to stamp out the rival
>cultures such as those in Appalachia. To this degree, NYC
>is a vast anti-culture machine.
thankyou doctor! I'm not trying to be mean but where did you get this info.
Because I think the suburb culture is a vast anti-culture machine.
FINELY WE ARE POSTING ONCE AGAIN????? WHERE DID YOU ALL GO? OH WELL BACK TO
THE POST:
Well.........let me make another point. When i went to a store in midtown
manhattan, downtown Miami(you need to know spanish), and D.C...........the
people are usually alot different then from here in the Suburbs of South
Florida. Usually the people here in the mall or the pharmacy don't usually
like to make conversation or wan't to say any more then "can I help you".
People here are brainwahed that living in the suburbs is the only way to live
(except Coconut Grove, Aventura and South Beach). Well......say good bye to
open spaces, farms, some animals (florida panther and some birds with weird
names.....i think spoonbill), uncrowed schools, public transit, walking to get
things done, ect.....i can go on. And say hello to TRAFFIC, 543,463,123,754
laned roads, housing developments (with houses that all look the same) the size
of cities, malls galore, high gas prices (gas prices might be low now.....but
WILL go up in the comming years due oil being all used up, road rage, smog, car
dependency, no culture, ect........i also can go on forevever!!
-Andrew
Davie, Florida
Scott M. Kozel
>
> In article <6vjfd0$juq$1...@nina.pagesz.net>,
> hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin) wrote:
> > HIGH
> > culture, and uses its influence to stamp out the rival
> > cultures such as those in Appalachia. To this degree,
> In other words, the "white trash" culture - the one that brought
> rattlesnakes into the church and thinks "HIGH culture" is more than one
> abandoned car up on blocks in the front yard.
You just insulted millions of middle-class Americans that live in a
dozen different states. (You implied that they are religious fanatics
and that they live in poverty).
Stop trolling.
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington D.C. http://www.richmond.infi.net/~kozelsm
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley
http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Campus/5961/pennways.html
JamieT...@juno.com
hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin) wrote:
> HIGH
> culture, and uses its influence to stamp out the rival
> cultures such as those in Appalachia. To this degree,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In other words, the "white trash" culture - the one that brought
rattlesnakes into the church and thinks "HIGH culture" is more than one
abandoned car up on blocks in the front yard.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
George Conklin
>>
>> In article <6vjfd0$juq$1...@nina.pagesz.net>,
>> hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin) wrote:
>> > HIGH
>> > culture, and uses its influence to stamp out the rival
>> > cultures such as those in Appalachia. To this degree,
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> In other words, the "white trash" culture - the one that brought
>> rattlesnakes into the church and thinks "HIGH culture" is more than one
>> abandoned car up on blocks in the front yard.
>
>dozen different states. (You implied that they are religious fanatics
>and that they live in poverty).
>
>Stop trolling.
>
>--
>Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
>Virginia/Maryland/Washington D.C. http://www.richmond.infi.net/~kozelsm
>Philadelphia and Delaware Valley
>http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Campus/5961/pennways.html
I don't think he is trolling. That is the opinion of all
kinds of New Yorkers.
George Conklin
>In article <6vjfd0$juq$1...@nina.pagesz.net>,
> hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin) wrote:
>> HIGH
>> culture, and uses its influence to stamp out the rival
>> cultures such as those in Appalachia. To this degree,
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>In other words, the "white trash" culture - the one that brought
>rattlesnakes into the church and thinks "HIGH culture" is more than one
>abandoned car up on blocks in the front yard.
>
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
You have just given me a perfect example of why NYC is
the anti-cultural capital of the USA.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> In article <6vmj0h$k88$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> <JamieT...@Juno.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <6vjfd0$juq$1...@nina.pagesz.net>,
> > hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin) wrote:
> >> HIGH
> >> culture, and uses its influence to stamp out the rival
> >> cultures such as those in Appalachia. To this degree,
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >In other words, the "white trash" culture - the one that brought
> >rattlesnakes into the church and thinks "HIGH culture" is more than one
> >abandoned car up on blocks in the front yard.
>
> the anti-cultural capital of the USA.
I won't try to speak for NYC, George, but I will speak about the poster
that made that comment. Anybody that uses such an extreme caricature to
describe Appalachia, is extremely biased and uneducated in his/her
outlook on other regions of the nation. Here in Virginia, almost a
million people live in Appalachia, and they are (by and large) fine
productive citizens.
George Conklin
However, large-scale urban culture, usually supported by
the rich, government and taxpayers, is strong anti-folk
culture. Corporations give money for the imported culture
of the Metropolitan Opera. People who feel that cities are
the home of all civilization make their point by trying to
prove that traditions outside the major cities are inferior.
One the reasons why people keep posting that suburban
culture is bad is simply a trained reflex: they are forced
to make fun of anyone not in a major city which they define
as a 'culture' center. That is where the hatred of
automobiles comes from, since it makes living in smaller
cities practical. This reduces the influence of the
traditioknal urban elites and their ability to ridicule
those outside.
Universities are very good at turning out cookie-cutter
musicians to fill places in major orchestras. And I have
nothing against Vivaldi or Gilbert and Sullivan (if Martyn
Greene is in the cast recording -:). But my real love is the
unofficial culture of the mills and what is known as
old-time music. It will die out as mass urban culture takes
over, but it was a valid tradition, one which even the
public radio stations won't discuss any more in this region,
saying that they cannot meet all 'whims.' So in place of
opera, they now put on a show which starts out, "What do you
know?" The answer which the audience screams back is, "Not
much." And they mean it.
Now, I think I will go off and listen to a CD of Ralph
Stanley, or maybe a 78 of Carl Story.
JamieT...@juno.com
koz...@richmond.infi.net wrote:
> > In other words, the "white trash" culture - the one that brought
> > rattlesnakes into the church and thinks "HIGH culture" is more than one
> > abandoned car up on blocks in the front yard.
>
> dozen different states. (You implied that they are religious fanatics
> and that they live in poverty).
>
> Stop trolling.
such as "stamping out the XYZ culture" are. You, the Professor, and I are all
Americans, and attempts to blame one sub-culture for the demise of
another are just about as counter-productive as racial discrimination.
Being from Texas, I'm often the "victim" of all sorts of redneck jokes.
But like most people, I have a sense of humor and being offended
never crosses my mind. If I offended you or anyone else, I apologize.