|
-Troika- posted:Why the hell do most transit projects have to file environmental impact anythings anyways. 99% of them are going through urban areas where there is no environment to speak of other than grassy medians and some trees. Carcinogens would fall under environmental impact.
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 08:11 |
|
|
Housing prices right now are because people want to move to the cities and we're not building places fast enough (either apartments or houses). Something is eventually going to give, and it will probably be the NIMBYs sooner or later.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
Eskaton posted:Ironically (or maybe not), places like Detroit have the most potential for hitting the reset button on everything. That's what they're doing right now.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:
You seem to have a lot of assumptions that aren't well spelled out. For one, this: Curvature of Earth posted:(Reminder that America is only 80% "urbanized", and that's using a comically loose definition of "urban".) Why is it comically loose? What are other nations' definition of urbanized, and how do they differ from that? I think you'll find it's not as different as you'd believe it. For another, you seem to be ignoring a lot of factors for cities' survival. Eugene, for example, has a major research institution which draws a lot of money and high paying jobs to the area. Similarly, that's why Corvallis (a city 1/3 the population of Eugene) is allowed to survive and thrive.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
No, the issue with towns in the South is that they didn't really have any development until after WW2. Those blocks were never buildings, they started out as parking spaces. Houston proper (as in, excluding the metro area) had 600,000 people in 1950, versus 800,000 for Boston. By the 1970s (when that photo was taken), Houston's population doubled and Boston's decreased by 25%. The difference is that Houston covers an area of over 600 square miles, while Boston covers about 90 square miles.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2016 06:33
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:yeah i doubt they just laid out perfectly orthogonal parking areas conforming to the block gridiron. Orthogonal areas don't really correlate with buildings, they correlate with newer construction. Boston isn't laid out orthogonally at all, because it's several hundred years old. That's the same reason why states in the Western US have much neater boundaries - they were organized with a specific plan in mind rather than evolving naturally.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2016 06:54
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:the road network, orthogonal or not, is much tougher to rebuild than just knocking down a set of buildings and consolidating lots. i'm not really sure what you're trying to argue here - are you saying that most of downtown houston was virgin land that was first developed as postwar parking lots? or are you saying that the civic government took an aggressive stance in imposing an orthogonal grid of purpose build parking over previous development, because that's a stretch for houston, city of no zoning ordinance. what are you trying to argue here, because midcentury urban renewal's tendency to destroy pedestrian oriented urban framework for a wasteland of cars is pretty well established as a trend in american urban planning and i'd like to hear more detail about your alternate theory I'm saying Houston was very small Pre-WW2 (which it was, it wasn't even 400,000 people back then) and was very spread out (because land is/was cheap), so when development did occur it was due to post-WW2 ideas of structuring society. There is a very high correlation between US cities that were major pre-WW2 and cities that are good for public transit. (Obviously exceptions exist, like Detroit, but their whole thing was focused around the automobile)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:this doesn't address at all what i was talking about, which is that prewar (which is just a proxy for pre mass automobile) development was knocked down for the sake of parking, to demonstrate some of the alternative responses to mass auto travel than the european tendency to push for pedestrianism first Yeah, and your proof that it was knocked down is that "the city has orthogonal grids". In fact, that's usually evidence of development that's post-WW2.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:you misread. i questioned why parking lots, if built freely, would conform to an orthogonal grid, because you claimed that large areas of downtown houston were not developed until the midcentury as individual block-sized parking lots. you're effectively saying that this map is a fabrication Here's the Houston "Skyline" from 1920, note that it really doesn't differ from that picture from the 1970s:  Are you technically correct that there were 2-3 story buildings in some of the areas (that didn't even fill out the whole lot) where there were then parking lots? Yes. Does that mean Houston tore down a bunch of buildings because they love cars so much? No. e: Here's the same area from the 1930s: 
computer parts fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Apr 24, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 08:11 |
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:so uh did you not notice that this image directly contradicts your earlier claim that " Those blocks were never buildings, they started out as parking spaces." They weren't really buildings. "City demolishes wooden shacks that only covered half of the lot" is not really that controversial.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2016 19:16
|
|