Poll: Eight in 10 say it's important for SUV drivers to switch

[zimv20]

link (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20050915-1156-energy-poll.html)


Poll: Eight in 10 say it's important for SUV drivers to switch to more fuel-efficient vehicles

WASHINGTON – Eight in 10 people say it's important for Americans now driving sport utility vehicles to switch to more fuel-efficient vehicles to reduce the nation's dependence on oil, a poll found.
With gas prices hovering around $3 a gallon nationally and the price of natural gas rising sharply, six in 10 said they are not confident President Bush is taking the right approach to solving the nation's energy problems, according to the survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.

Given several choices for dealing with energy problems, the public has some clear preferences:

–Almost seven in 10 want the government to establish price controls on gasoline and want more spending on subway, rail and bus systems.

–Just over seven in 10 want to give tax cuts to companies to develop wind, solar and hydrogen energy.

–Just over eight in 10 want higher fuel efficiency required for cars, trucks and SUVs.

–Slightly more than half, 52 percent, favor giving tax cuts to energy companies to explore for more oil.

The rising anxiety over high gas prices has caused a shift in public priorities about the importance of exploring for new energy.

Almost six in 10 now say exploring for new sources of energy is more important than protecting the environment. People were evenly split on that question in 2002. Half now support drilling for oil and gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska – up from 42 percent who felt that way in March.

Only four in 10 wanted to promote the increased use of nuclear power, while slightly more than half opposed that step.

The Pew poll of 1,523 adults was taken Sept. 8-11 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

meanwhile, have a look at the vehicles heading away from Rita (http://nytimes.com/2005/09/21/national/nationalspecial/21cnd-storm.html?hp)...

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/09/21/national/21cnd-texa.2.184.jpg

[iGary]

CNN ir reporting that gas may hit $5.00 a gallon if Rita delivers a strong blow to the reinfery areas in Texas.

That said, people should be able to drive whatever the heck they want.

It's not the SUV's that is the problem; it is that just about everyone in this country has a car...

[zimv20]

i agree that at $5 / gallon, the problem will take care of itself. i've been lobbying for such prices for a while now.

however, my plan would involve a series of small steps over years, not a 100% increase in a matter of months.

[dejo]

I'm curious how many people in 10 own an SUV.

[pseudobrit]

i agree that at $5 / gallon, the problem will take care of itself. i've been lobbying for such prices for a while now.

however, my plan would involve a series of small steps over years, not a 100% increase in a matter of months.

There's a deeper problem. These vehicles are already manufactured. When people buy a more efficient new car, they support a manufacturing process that uses more energy than the vehicle will consume in a year.

Moreover, we've designed our entire nation around the automobile. You can't drop in light rail or bus systems in the suburbs because they won't work. Many older cities are well planned because they were laid out and built before the automobile.

They'll do well as the automobile is relegated to an increasingly insignificant role.

This poll reflects the desperation that the American people are feeling and shows that the full nature of the reality hasn't hit home yet: 60% want drilling in Alaska and 70% think solar and wind will generate all the electricity. That's not going to cut it.

The hydrogen lie was not addressed, but I'm sure just as many Americans (70-80%) think that as soon as fuel cells are being churned out, everything will be okie-dokie and they can keep on driving.

Mark my words: the car is dead.

[zimv20]

Mark my words: the car is dead.
go on...

[pseudobrit]

go on...

And America is the car.

[zimv20]

I'm curious how many people in 10 own an SUV.
not exactly your answer, but here's some data from an august 2004 article (http://www.freep.com/money/autonews/suv13e_20040813.htm):

sales of SUVs have been growing for more than a decade, from about 900,000 a year in the early 1990s to about 4.5 million last year

[zimv20]

And America is the car.
assuming fuel becomes too costly a commodity, and people flock from the suburbs and exburbs back into the transit-enabled cities, what then?

will the highways become little more than transit routes for goods? will rail be back in fashion? will the airlines be all but bankrupt? will any farming be sustainable?

tell me more.

[pseudobrit]

assuming fuel becomes too costly a commodity, and people flock from the suburbs and exburbs back into the transit-enabled cities, what then?

will the highways become little more than transit routes for goods? will rail be back in fashion? will the airlines be all but bankrupt? will any farming be sustainable?

tell me more.

I think our airline flying will become bedtime stories we tell our grandchildren as they stare up at us like astronauts. "Wow, grandpa, you were on a plane? You really flew?" Or at least they'll look at us like we flew on the Concorde. There is absolutely no alternative to fuel oil when it comes to flying, and if it doesn't go away nearly altogether, it'll at least get prohibitively expensive.

Food will get more expensive but better for you. Look for local farmer's markets to re-emerge. People will go hungry.

The South will decline again. Air conditioning will be too costly. Don't be caught owning property in Phoenix.

[~loserman~]

I think our airline flying will become bedtime stories we tell our grandchildren as they stare up at us like astronauts. "Wow, grandpa, you were on a plane? You really flew?" Or at least they'll look at us like we flew on the Concorde. There is absolutely no alternative to fuel oil when it comes to flying, and if it doesn't go away nearly altogether, it'll at least get prohibitively expensive.

Food will get more expensive but better for you. Look for local farmer's markets to re-emerge. People will go hungry.

The South will decline again. Air conditioning will be too costly. Don't be caught owning property in Phoenix.

I agree with the Airplane going away.
I think you are wrong about the South though. I think the North will decline instead. You can survive without air conditioning, but you can't without heat.
When I was growing up air conditioning was unheard of in my house.

[zimv20]

Food will get more expensive but better for you. Look for local farmer's markets to re-emerge.
i like this part. in the cities, i'd expect the re-emergence of mom & pop shops. chicago's lost a lot of 'em, but i'd expect it to become more like nyc in that regard.

within 1/2 mile of me i've got 5 bus lines and an el stop, so i'm not doing too badly wrt public trans.

[pseudobrit]

I agree with the Airplane going away.
I think you are wrong about the South though. I think the North will decline instead. You can survive without air conditioning, but you can't without heat.

Wrong.

More people die from heat than freeze to death.

[Xtremehkr]

Let the marketplace sort out SUV drivers, there isn't any need to legislate them.

Maybe a pollution tax, since that affects everyones well being. One of the problems with the market, as it exists, is that there is no penalty for pollution.

I followed a diesel powered Excursion through a drive through today, the young woman and her baby were the only people in the truck. She turned the engine off at every window.

I can't wait until people start making rational decisions again. This fad that has lead to combining mothers with enormous SUVs to carry around one or two kids is just silly.

[pseudobrit]

Let the marketplace sort out SUV drivers, there isn't any need to legislate them.

Too bad the marketplace isn't free WRT oil, but heavily subsidized.

[miloblithe]

It's not the SUV's that is the problem; it is that just about everyone in this country has a car...

Which people exactly do you want to take cars away from?

[miloblithe]

This fad that has lead to combining mothers with enormous SUVs to carry around one or two kids is just silly.

Single men, on the other hand, need their SUVs.

[Xtremehkr]

Single men, on the other hand, need their SUVs.

I rarely see men hauling around one or two kids in an SUV. I usually see them hauling around just themselves in a full size ("man sized" from a different thread) truck and imagine that those are the others halves of the women I mentioned.

I didn't mean to exclude men from the discussion, but I most often see them in man sized trucks that are rarely used to their full capacity.

That should makes things more correct. I keed.

[Ugg]

I agree with the Airplane going away.
I think you are wrong about the South though. I think the North will decline instead. You can survive without air conditioning, but you can't without heat.
When I was growing up air conditioning was unheard of in my house.

Global warming anyone?

I agree that the southern regions will become unbearable. The north has a lot of forests, wood stoves although they pollute are a viable alternative to electricity. There is no alternative whatsoever to air conditioning.

Living in California's Central Valley, summers can get awfully warm but are dry and bearable, winters are extremely mild. I could probably do without heat for all but 2 months of the year.

Public transportation sucks here, but it's a small city and I can get from one end to the other via bicycle in 45 minutes.

Since the Central Valley is the nation's produce basket and home to some incredible micro breweries, I'm set!

[miloblithe]

If there is significant global warming, hurricane activity in the gulf will increase (and in the Atlantic). Rebuilding every summer in the coastal regions of the South will no longer make any sense, and will not be done. The Midwest will experience a massive boom as everything goes (back) there.

[pseudobrit]

Wrong.

More people die from heat than freeze to death.

Just wanted to back this up with my source, which I read on the Wall Street Journal's front page from August 18.

The National Weather Service says extreme heat was the biggest weather-related killer in the U.S. from 1994 to 2003, beating out winter storms, extreme cold, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes and lightning. In Europe, a heat wave in August 2003 caused 35,000 deaths, according to the Earth Policy Institute, an environmental think tank. After that disaster, politicians in France faced intense criticism that they had mishandled the crisis.

Chill Factor

In Chicago in 1995, more than 650 people died during extended high heat. One would have to go back to before the days of central heating to find a case when extreme cold killed that many people in the U.S., says Laurence Kalkstein, senior fellow at the Center for Climatic Research at the University of Delaware. Mr. Kalkstein is participating in a National Weather Service project to add dozens of cities to the service's heat-warning system.

Tallies of heat deaths aren't perfect because it can be difficult to classify whether a fatality is the result of poor health or extreme weather. While estimates vary widely, Mr. Kalkstein believes that heat kills about 1,500 people in an average year in the U.S., often through heat-induced strokes and heart attacks.

link (http://www.pulpny.org/html/in_aid_for_the_poor__hotter_st.html)

[iGary]

However, my plan would involve a series of small steps over years, not a 100% increase in a matter of months

I hope you're not an elected official, no offense. :o

Where does this money you're *cough* stealing *cough* from me going to go? ;)

[.Andy]

Nuclear power and public transport.

Solves everything but peoples selfishness.

[pseudobrit]

Nuclear power

Not cost efficient. Not sustainable. Not safe. Not even close.

[skunk]

Even $6 gallons don't stop people here.

[Don't panic]

Just wanted to back this up with my source, which I read on the Wall Street Journal's front page from August 18.
link (http://www.pulpny.org/html/in_aid_for_the_poor__hotter_st.html)

yeah, but would the numbers be in the same ratio without cheap central heating?
maybe the south wouldn't be retirement-land anymore, but healthy people can certainly live without air-conditioning: it may not be as comfortable, but wouldn't be lethal. on the other hand you just cannot live at below freezing temperatures without significant sources of heat (without going back two-hundred years in way of life and density of population)

[Roger1]

I wonder if retrofitting this thing to cars, and putting it on new cars, would help cut gas usage?

http://www.canada.com/montreal/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=cfeb17de-d945-4db4-87a6-090911200e96

[ChrisBrightwell]

meanwhile, have a look at the vehicles heading away from Rita (http://nytimes.com/2005/09/21/national/nationalspecial/21cnd-storm.html?hp)...

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/09/21/national/21cnd-texa.2.184.jpgI could be mistaken, but most school buses run on diesel these days. :P

[dejo]

meanwhile, have a look at the vehicles heading away from Rita (http://nytimes.com/2005/09/21/national/nationalspecial/21cnd-storm.html?hp)...

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/09/21/national/21cnd-texa.2.184.jpg

And is it just me or is that last school bus completely empty, save the driver? Where is it going?

[takao]

Even $6 gallons don't stop people here.

and people are even demanding that the speed limits on the highways get increased up to 160 km/h isntead of 130 ;)

today should have been a "car free day" according to the government... needless to say: it wasn't ;)

[zimv20]

Where does this money [...] going to go?
public trans, investment in alternative energies.

[zimv20]

I could be mistaken, but most school buses run on diesel these days. :P
i believe that's correct.

have a look at the leftmost column of vehicles. hard to pick out a passenger car among them. if we can assert that SUVs increase global warming which increases hurricane intensity which increases gas prices, then we can enjoy the irony.

[zimv20]

ahhh, here's a few passenger cars, amid so many pick-ups.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/09/22/national/rita.184.4.650.jpg

[pseudobrit]

yeah, but would the numbers be in the same ratio without cheap central heating?
maybe the south wouldn't be retirement-land anymore, but healthy people can certainly live without air-conditioning: it may not be as comfortable, but wouldn't be lethal. on the other hand you just cannot live at below freezing temperatures without significant sources of heat (without going back two-hundred years in way of life and density of population)

I tend to think otherwise. My mother grew up in a farmhouse lacking central heating. She'd set a glass of water on the table at night and it'd be ice in the morning.

We're warm blooded, so we make our own heat. You just bundle up at night. You can always add layers of clothing in the winter; you can't get any more naked in the heat.

Not only that, but where can we find a population consisting of exclusively "healthy people" and why would they want to live in the desert by themselves, knowing they'd have to retire (or raise a family) elsewhere?

[pseudobrit]

ahhh, here's a few passenger cars, amid so many pick-ups.

Lots of half empty vehicles. Splendidly efficient.

[.Andy]

Not cost efficient. Not sustainable. Not safe. Not even close.
BS.

Nuclear is much safer than coal. How many miners die per year? How much C02 gets thrown into the atmosphere by burning coal? Lung cancer by pollution.

Pebble-bed reactors rock. Deny it all you like but it's the future. Once people get over this ridiculous "it's not safe rubbish". Sure there is an intrinsic risk but it's far far far less than that involved with current coal burning powerplants. It's like the fear of getting attacked by a shark but having no concern about jumping in a car and driving to the beach.

And not sustainable. That's even more bollocks. Coal isn't sustainable either. We have buttloads of uranium here in Aus. The only thing that needs to be definitively sorted is the storage of waste. And that's not really that big an issue that can't be overcome either with a little bit of funding and research into reuse/recycling.

Check out France and their nuclear independence. They've seen the future about thirty years ago when the oil price first went bananas.

[pseudobrit]

BS.

Nuclear is much safer than coal. How many miners die per year? How much C02 gets thrown into the atmosphere by burning coal? Lung cancer by pollution.

Pebble-bed reactors rock. Deny it all you like but it's the future. Once people get over this ridiculous "it's not safe rubbish". Sure there is an intrinsic risk but it's far far far less than that involved with current coal burning powerplants. It's like the fear of getting attacked by a shark but having no concern about jumping in a car and driving to the beach.

And not sustainable. That's even more bollocks. Coal isn't sustainable either. We have buttloads of uranium here in Aus. The only thing that needs to be definitively sorted is the storage of waste. And that's not really that big an issue that can't be overcome either with a little bit of funding and research into reuse/recycling.

Check out France and their nuclear independence. They've seen the future about thirty years ago when the oil price first went bananas.

I'm a TMI baby, so I may be biased. I've been lucky enough to survive the worst nuclear cock-up the western world has known. Of course, it has less to do with luck and more to do with the prevailing winds blowing north that day instead of south.

Nuclear energy, like communism, is a fantastic idea in theory that fails miserably when put to practice.

Know why there were reactors built in the US in the past 30 years? Because it costs more to operate a nuclear plant than it makes in billable electricity.

The only -- ONLY -- way a nuclear power plant becomes cost effective is with massive (nearly total) government absorption of overhead. Which means we's be paying for construction, training, safety, materiel, and disposal. And then we'd have the privilege of paying profits into a utility for the kW/hrs we use, too.

[pseudobrit]

Nuclear is much safer than coal. How many miners die per year? How much C02 gets thrown into the atmosphere by burning coal?

If your coal-fired power plant breaks down, you lose money. Fill in the rest.

I agree that coal is a dead end, and we should be looking elsewhere, but I'm very hesitant to think that we should just carelessly jump into nukes because the nuclear industry still doesn't have its **** together and likely never will.

As a bare minimum, it would need to be federally controlled and Navy run.

[mactastic]

BS.
Advocate for repeal of the Price-Anderson act, and find a way to render the waste safe. Then I'll buy into your argument.

[jelloshotsrule]

Advocate for repeal of the Price-Anderson act, and find a way to render the waste safe. Then I'll buy into your argument.

can you sum up what the price-anderson act says/does? teach me senor.

[pseudobrit]

can you sum up what the price-anderson act says/does? teach me senor.

Protects the nuclear industry with blanket federal insurance. IOW, they're not liable for any accidents. There's a ver ylow limit on what would be paid out in case of one, and the government would pay all of it.

[iGary]

ahhh, here's a few passenger cars, amid so many pick-ups.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/09/22/national/rita.184.4.650.jpg

Are you expecting the guy to haul his trailer with a Honda Civic?

[jelloshotsrule]

Are you expecting the guy to haul his trailer with a Honda Civic?

yeah. everyone driving a pickup and suv is hauling a big trailer. good point!!

[jelloshotsrule]

Protects the nuclear industry with blanket federal insurance. IOW, they're not liable for any accidents. There's a ver ylow limit on what would be paid out in case of one, and the government would pay all of it.

oh ok, so just like every other industry. ;) i'm shocked!!

[pseudobrit]

oh ok, so just like every other industry. ;) i'm shocked!!

No other industry enjoys anything close to the ratio of the combination of risk and limited liability that the nuclear industry does.

[jelloshotsrule]

i guess that makes sense since the possible risk is so high... ie, nuclear plant disaster is much more serious than some other potential problems. regardless, all industries get to run their own tests, set up their own policies in gov't. it's quite handy and not at all corrupt

[pseudobrit]

Put it this way:

At the Davis Besse (http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/vessel-head-degradation.html) plant, the 6" steel containment head had completely corroded away around a leaking nozzle. The operator knew of the potential for this leak and the corrosion and fought the NRC to stop an inspection because they didn't want to lose money during the shutdown.

When the NRC finally inspected, they found the leak they suspected could be there, and there was nothing but 3/8" of the stainless steel inner lining left holding the pressurized water reactor together.

If the head had blown open and thousands died, how many billions or trillions of dollars do you think FirstEnergy would be on the hook for? Thanks to Price-Anderson, it's only $200 million.

Here's a neat overview:

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/nuclear_safety/davisbesse-retrospective.html

[mactastic]

can you sum up what the price-anderson act says/does? teach me senor.

Indeed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price-Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act) I can help you.
The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (commonly called the Price-Anderson Act) limits liability insurance obligations for nuclear plant operators. The act currently provides indemnity to all nuclear facilities (except Navy aircraft carriers and submarines) constructed in the United States before 2026. The Act is broadly viewed as a requirement for nuclear energy in the United States. Environmental groups, consumer groups and taxpayer watchdogs have criticized the act as a handout to the nuclear power industry.
It's the feds *cough stealing from me cough* to provide welfare to corporations.

[katchow]

Indeed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price-Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act) I can help you.

It's the feds *cough stealing from me cough* to provide welfare to corporations.

that got me a little choked up too.
:(

[Ugg]

Are you expecting the guy to haul his trailer with a Honda Civic?

Shouldn't the question be why he needs such a huge trailer? Let's face it, it's not a matter of need but want and if someone wants something like that in this day and age, they should be paying a surcharge for taking up space on the nation's highways and the civics should be given a rebate

[jelloshotsrule]

Shouldn't the question be why he needs such a huge trailer? Let's face it, it's not a matter of need but want and if someone wants something like that in this day and age, they should be paying a surcharge for taking up space on the nation's highways and the civics should be given a rebate

go home to mother russian you commie pinko bastard!

[takao]

go home to mother russian you commie pinko bastard!

looks like i'm gonna wear my "Moscow '80" tshirt tomorrow "just cause" ;)

[skunk]

Shouldn't the question be why he needs such a huge trailer?"Needs"? Since when did "needs" enter into the calculation?

[tristan]

I didn't see a time frame in the poll. Maybe "switch" means "switch in seven years when I buy my next car".

I would like to think the SUV era is over, but I honestly don't think that the average middle class American has any experience living anywhere else but the suburbs. I grew up in the burbs and now live in a "downtown" urban area connected to DC and I love it - but among my "peer group" I'm very rare.

I walk by the grocery store every day to get $20 worth of groceries. They drive to CostCo every week and pick up $150 worth. They worry about their lawns, I have a courtyard downstairs with a fountain. They drive to the gym, I walk four blocks. They have a big place full of junk, my place is small and organized to the cm. They think a restaurant is close if it's three miles away, I rarely go to restaurants that are six blocks away. It's just a whole different lifestyle.

[Ugg]

I didn't see a time frame in the poll. Maybe "switch" means "switch in seven years when I buy my next car".

I would like to think the SUV era is over, but I honestly don't think that the average middle class American has any experience living anywhere else but the suburbs. I grew up in the burbs and now live in a "downtown" urban area connected to DC and I love it - but among my "peer group" I'm very rare.

I walk by the grocery store every day to get $20 worth of groceries. They drive to CostCo every week and pick up $150 worth. They worry about their lawns, I have a courtyard downstairs with a fountain. They drive to the gym, I walk four blocks. They have a big place full of junk, my place is small and organized to the cm. They think a restaurant is close if it's three miles away, I rarely go to restaurants that are six blocks away. It's just a whole different lifestyle.

Yep, the problem we face really isn't the automobile it's a matter of zoning. Too many people want a faux chateau on a half acre in a gated community and builders are only interested in building the largest homes possible in order to maximize their profits. Urban living by nature is the most environmentally friendly thing around. Public transit cannot be justified in most suburbs as it needs a certain density to succceed. The curse of the box stores would be minimized if suburbs were denser and shopping was at hand. Suburbs need cars and cars cause us to be estranged from our communities.

I'm fortunate in that I live in a very bike friendly town. It's not just a bunch of aging hippies and college students who ride but the entire spectrum of the community. The transit here sucks but who needs it with 10 months of good riding weather and dedicated cycle lanes AND a populace that respects cyclists.

[zimv20]

I walk by the grocery store every day to get $20 worth of groceries.
that's the best, isn't it? no need to plan meals far in advance, produce is always fresh (well, relatively), and i can't remember the last time i drove there.

so many things w/in walking distance. even walked to see a movie tonight, only 15 minutes away, then 2 blocks back to get sushi.

my '98 VW has about 35k miles on it.

[tristan]

Yeah, I love it, I think those suburbanites are living in the stone age. But they don't know any differently, and getting them to cross the Potomac is like pulling teeth, so they'll probably never know what they're missing.

[mactastic]

I have more cows for neighbors than people and I like it that way. ******* living in the city, I tried it and I don't like it. I understand the benefits, but there are also downsides to it too.

I bet tristan doesn't have a workshop in his nicely organized place. My place may be full of stuff but it isn't junk. (Wasn't it Carlin who asked why everyone else's stuff is $***, but your $*** is stuff? ;) ) I love going out to the garage and spending the day with the door open to the world and my dog at my feet working on projects. I bet you don't get much in the way of the enjoyment of gardening outside of containers either. Of course you probably don't miss things like that much, but others do. Where the hell am I going to put my tablesaw in a city apartment? And how happy are the other residents going to be to hear me working at 10pm because it's the only time I've got?

I bet zim never wakes up to the sounds of silence broken only by birds. I've never heard a siren or some jerkoff peeling out on my street out here. In the afternoon I can grab the .22 and head across the front yard to across the street (about a quarter mile to the street from my door) and shoot with the neighbor on his property. Yeah, he's got enough room to have a 200 yard range in a box canyon on an unused area of his ranch. And a herd of semi-wild horses running around on it.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with living in the city, I'm just suggesting that it won't work for everyone, and suggesting that everyone up and move to the cities just because you like it is not feasible. There is a freedom to living in the city, but there is also a different kind of freedom in the country too. And there are people who like them both.

[iGary]

I have more cows for neighbors than people and I like it that way. ******* living in the city, I tried it and I don't like it. I understand the benefits, but there are also downsides to it too.

I bet tristan doesn't have a workshop in his nicely organized place. My place may be full of stuff but it isn't junk. (Wasn't it Carlin who asked why everyone else's stuff is $***, but your $*** is stuff? ;) ) I love going out to the garage and spending the day with the door open to the world and my dog at my feet working on projects. I bet you don't get much in the way of the enjoyment of gardening outside of containers either. Of course you probably don't miss things like that much, but others do. Where the hell am I going to put my tablesaw in a city apartment? And how happy are the other residents going to be to hear me working at 10pm because it's the only time I've got?

I bet zim never wakes up to the sounds of silence broken only by birds. I've never heard a siren or some jerkoff peeling out on my street out here. In the afternoon I can grab the .22 and head across the front yard to across the street (about a quarter mile to the street from my door) and shoot with the neighbor on his property. Yeah, he's got enough room to have a 200 yard range in a box canyon on an unused area of his ranch. And a herd of semi-wild horses running around on it.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with living in the city, I'm just suggesting that it won't work for everyone, and suggesting that everyone up and move to the cities just because you like it is not feasible. There is a freedom to living in the city, but there is also a different kind of freedom in the country too. And there are people who like them both.

There are plusses to both.

I definitely don't miss getting my car vandalized, driving in traffic or having bars on my window. I also don't miss paying $1,000 for a bottom level studio, either.

I do miss being able to walk to dinner, the variety of people...

[maya]

SUV, have no real place in a dense city. They have a purpose if you use a trailer to hitch a boat or some other recreational vehicle.


However people who bought SUV's bought them to be safe and protected. I say BS, you can only be safe to a certain point in life. Nothing in life is 100% certain. :)

[mactastic]

There are plusses to both.

I definitely don't miss getting my car vandalized, driving in traffic or having bars on my window. I also don't miss paying $1,000 for a bottom level studio, either.

I do miss being able to walk to dinner, the variety of people...
Exactly. That's what I was saying.

I've done both, and I know which one I prefer.

[Ugg]

Exactly. That's what I was saying.

I've done both, and I know which one I prefer.

Fine, but your preference for living in the country costs all of us money. Should we all be responsible for subsidizing your choice?

[mactastic]

Fine, but your preference for living in the country costs all of us money. Should we all be responsible for subsidizing your choice?
How exactly do you subsidize my country living?

And are we really going down the 'why do you get to steal from me at the barrel of a gun to subsidize your smoking/drinking/adventure racing/mountain climbing habits' BS?

[iGary]

Fine, but your preference for living in the country costs all of us money. Should we all be responsible for subsidizing your choice?


:confused:

[IJ Reilly]

How exactly do you subsidize my country living?

And are we really going down the 'why do you get to steal from me at the barrel of a gun to subsidize your smoking/drinking/adventure racing/mountain climbing habits' BS?

Not sure what Ugg meant, but I think we're all familiar with the land use issues inherent with trying to provide everybody "land, lots of land." It just isn't workable, and the effort to make it workable has created the mess we know as suburban sprawl.

[Ugg]

How exactly do you subsidize my country living?

And are we really going down the 'why do you get to steal from me at the barrel of a gun to subsidize your smoking/drinking/adventure racing/mountain climbing habits' BS?

Road construction that serves only a small population. Emergency services that need to be larger than their urban counterparts simply because of the distances involved. Power, cable, telephone lines that do the same, increased runoff requiring extensive drainage work, destruction of habitat which increases government expenditure on saving threatened species, increased emissions from your commute, etc.

It doesn't take a PHD in economics to come to the conclusion that exurban development is costly to society at large.

Both my brothers live in the country as does my mother. My sister and father live in very small towns with limited services which means they have to drive fairly long distances for their everyday needs. I am well aquainted with the reasons why people chose to live in such locations. In the case of my parents, when both of them needed serious medical attention, the ambulance costs to take them to a hospital were twice what it would cost me living in Chico.

Exurban development is a losing propostion for all involved.

[iGary]

Hey, I'm tired of paying for others kids to go to school.

Get over it, Ugg.

[Ugg]

Hey, I'm tired of paying for others kids to go to school.

Get over it, Ugg.


You still don't get it do you. The reason this country is so dependent upon oil is NOT because of the automobile but because of poor zoning practices. Exurban and suburban development are the reason why public transit isn't viable in many communities. What is needed is a serious rethink about how we plan where we live. Exurban developement is simply not the way forward.

School benefits everyone so your argument, you must admit is pretty lame. The road to mac's house probably only benefits a very few. There's a big difference.

[zimv20]

I bet zim never wakes up to the sounds of silence broken only by birds.
actually, i do. i live on a quiet, tree-lined street w/ a surprising amount of wildlife (racoons, opossum included). there's some noise, sure, but as often as not, the birds are the loudest makers of it.

the people from whom i bought my house included a furniture maker. the garage had no car, it was a workshop, as was the basement (which has a 220 line in it, used for some kind of giant tablesaw).

the yard is small, but it's mostly a garden.

it's certainly not what you've got, just saying it's not totally devoid of some of the aspects.

[Ugg]

go home to mother russian you commie pinko bastard!

There's no smiley but i hope you're joking?!?!

The head in the sand approach isn't going to work anymore. Our oil dependency is going to be the reason for our decline. If we don't start asking some difficult questions, we'll never have the choice of providing an answer, it'll be forced upon us.

[iGary]

You still don't get it do you. The reason this country is so dependent upon oil is NOT because of the automobile but because of poor zoning practices. Exurban and suburban development are the reason why public transit isn't viable in many communities. What is needed is a serious rethink about how we plan where we live. Exurban developement is simply not the way forward.

School benefits everyone so your argument, you must admit is pretty lame. The road to mac's house probably only benefits a very few. There's a big difference.

Oh, I get it all right. As long as I do what YOU tell me to, I'm OK. That's called totalitarianism. Color it any way you like.

And having a country where people can live wherever they want doesn't benefit us as a whole?

The reason we have poor zoning practices is because people won't stop breeding. There are too many of us.

So your plan would have us all crammed into one space?

[IJ Reilly]

I don't think I've eever seen "zoning" and "breeding" used together in one sentence before. A curious statement indeed, especially when you consider that the U.S. has one of the world's lowest birth rates. Anyway...

The reason we have bad zoning practices is because we cling to the idea that everybody wants and needs to live on their own miniature version of Tara. Then we gripe about the loss of agriculture and open space, and demand more acres of pavement to cope with the traffic which cannot help but be produced from that style of development.

[Ugg]

Oh, I get it all right. As long as I do what YOU tell me to, I'm OK. That's called totalitarianism. Color it any way you like.

And having a country where people can live wherever they want doesn't benefit us as a whole?

The reason we have poor zoning practices is because people won't stop breeding. There are too many of us.

So your plan would have us all crammed into one space?

Nope, you can live anywhere you want and I would have no problem with that but you should pay for the privilege if your choice creates a burden for the rest of society.

Sure, choice is a great thing and where would we be without Thoreau's rantings or Michael Pollan's excellent books, Second Nature and the Botany of Desire? Both were the direct result of their exurban lifestyle. Society would be much poorer without them. But the frontier mentality is only leading us further along the path of destruction. By the way, exurban development swallows of disproportionate amounts of farmland, are you going to feed yourself, too?

The birthrate is lower than at any time in this country's history. But second homes are increasing in number and all homes are increasing in size while household sizes are decreasing. So it's not a matter of too many breeders but too much desire for an idealized version of frontier life. Greed by any other name...

It's not a matter of cramming everyone in a single space. I would advocate against that. Take a look at what's happening in northern Europe. Small concentrated urban centers with moderately dense suburbs surrounded by greenbelts.

The one American city that I admire the most is Portland, OR. Due to strict zoning practices in the 70s, it has been able to concentrate growth to an extent that transit not only makes sense financially but people use it! Zoning doesn't have to be some Soviet inspired nightmare, it can be very appealing.

Rather than blindly defending your choice, why don't you come up with something substantial?

[iGary]

Nope, you can live anywhere you want and I would have no problem with that but you should pay for the privilege if your choice creates a burden for the rest of society.

Like kids, right?

Um, unemployment should definitely go, too.

Welfare - a burden - out of here.

I'm tired of subsidizing the Space Shuttle. Too damned expensive.

You can't decide which side you are on, can you?

[Ugg]

Like kids, right?

Um, unemployment should definitely go, too.

Welfare - a burden - out of here.

I'm tired of subsidizing the Space Shuttle. Too damned expensive.

You can't decide which side you are on, can you?

Kids and education go hand in hand and they benefit ALL of society.

Social programs are meant to help the most vulnerable members of society, ie those who have few or no choices or need temporary assistance.

The Space Shuttle, hmmm, I'm a little indifferent to it but I think it could be argued that it does have some benefit to society.

I know which side I'm on, the side of reason and common sense. Which side are you on? Does it make sense to pave over farmland and subdivide our forests into five acre ego boosting mini ranches? No, it doesn't. The US is still caught up in some John Wayne fantasy and Thoreau's inspiring if
somewhat mad ramblings. Reason needs to supplant fantasy and reasonable zoning laws only make sense.

Unfortunately, gas is going to have to hit $7 a gallon before reason and common sense makes any headway. It'll be interesting to see how you feel about land use practices when that happens.

[iGary]

Kids and education go hand in hand and they benefit ALL of society.

Your point was that people should not be burdened by the choices of others. Well I didn't hold a gun to anyone's head and tell them to have kids. Why should I, a person without children, be forced to pay for other people's choices?

(Of course I don't believe this, it is just displays the flaw in your logic.)

Social programs are meant to help the most vulnerable members of society, ie those who have few or no choices or need temporary assistance.

In most cases, because of choices they made - you said it, not me.

I know which side I'm on, the side of reason and common sense. Which side are you on? Does it make sense to pave over farmland and subdivide our forests into five acre ego boosting mini ranches? No, it doesn't.

Oh, ego-boosting eh? There's the rub. No matter how much you'd argue that you don't feel this way, you want everyone to be the same. It's either the rich make to much money...this guy has too much land...go on, tell us how you really feel.

Jesus, do you know what you sound like?

Unfortunately, gas is going to have to hit $7 a gallon before reason and common sense makes any headway. It'll be interesting to see how you feel about land use practices when that happens.

Well I haven't seen a realistic solution out of you yet, so...

[pseudobrit]

Unfortunately, gas is going to have to hit $7 a gallon before reason and common sense makes any headway.

Not even then. People still cling to the belief that some magical solution will arise.

When gas hits $10 a gallon and hydrogen cars won't be available until the year x+20*, they'll very angrily question about why no bus routes or train lines run past their front door that's 20 miles from anything except sprawled suburbia.

*(x variable = current year)

[Ugg]

Your point was that people should not be burdened by the choices of others. Well I didn't hold a gun to anyone's head and tell them to have kids. Why should I, a person without children, be forced to pay for other people's choices?

(Of course I don't believe this, it is just displays the flaw in your logic.)



In most cases, because of choices they made - you said it, not me.



Oh, ego-boosting eh? There's the rub. No matter how much you'd argue that you don't feel this way, you want everyone to be the same. It's either the rich make to much money...this guy has too much land...go on, tell us how you really feel.

Jesus, do you know what you sound like?



Well I haven't seen a realistic solution out of you yet, so...

No, my point was quite clearly that when a few make choices that cause the rest of society to pay then it's an undue burden. Having kids and educating them is clearly not a minority practice. I think anyone can clearly see the difference.

Ah, the old argument that the unemployed and disabled are that way because of choices they made. So, the construction worker who was injured in an accident is solely liable because he chose to work in construction? That's a bunch of bs and you know it. What about the child born with Down's syndrome? Social programs are abused from time to time but the cost to society isn't nearly what corporate abuse of the tax code is. Why am I not hearing you complain about all the corporate welfare?

No, I don't want everyone to be the same, I appreciate diversity and I truly understand the appeal of living in the country. Believe it or not but it's true. What I am saying and you seem to be denying is that exurban development is not sustainable. What we need to do is seriously examine the choices we make as individuals and as a society. Land use practices in this country are abominable.

A few years ago I dropped out of the rat race. With prudent investing and modest living I am able to live quite comfortably and work only when it suits me. It's not for everyone but it was my choice and I am happy with it and envy absolutely no one. Especially their stress levels. My greed early on was what allowed me to make the choice that I made AND I understand that.

My solution is simply that we let go of our frontier mentality and realize that our zoning practices are unrealistic for the age we live in. That solution will only come when people like you and mac are faced with $7 a gallon gasoline. After all, capitalism and the law of supply and demand have always been the reasons for change in this country.

[pseudobrit]

I don't think I've eever seen "zoning" and "breeding" used together in one sentence before. A curious statement indeed, especially when you consider that the U.S. has one of the world's lowest birth rates. Anyway...

The reason we have bad zoning practices is because we cling to the idea that everybody wants and needs to live on their own miniature version of Tara. Then we gripe about the loss of agriculture and open space, and demand more acres of pavement to cope with the traffic which cannot help but be produced from that style of development.

There are two ways of living life: in the city and in the country. Let's look at this from a pre-automobile angle.

The country affords you with a detatched life, it's rustic and all about open spaces and you've got lots of land to work and play with. You've also got to deal with a lot of **** on your own. Food, water, the outhouse, wild animals: you name it, it's your problem. And you've either got to be retired or work from home, because a commute is out of the question.

The city gives you all the benefits of a civilized society, with all the vulgar unpleasantries of a civilized society. You've got indoor plumbing, electricity, theatres, restaurants, food markets, jobs, and so on. You've also got crime, disease, noise, and pollution that comes population density

Now we've got the automobile and the suburbs. It's a not-so-detatched life. There's a little swath of land but it's not much, really. You're hardly roughing it. You've got indoor plumbing and electricity like in the city, but you don't have anything else unless you drive to it, which you have to, because you can't grow or hunt food on your little 1/2 acre plot and you can't can't walk or ride a bike to your job that's 40 miles away. It's polluted, too, because of the driving that everyone around you does. Crime is lower than in the city but there's still enough of it to be a concern. No buses or trains will ever run past your "neck of the woods" because the layout of the neighborhood is such that the population density will never make mass transit a possibility.

We wanted the best of both worlds and ended up with the worst of each.

[mactastic]

Innefficient road building huh? What exactly do you propose the farmers and ranchers drive on to move their stuff? Should we get rid of farmers and ranchers too? It's not like I drive on a superhighway out here. I drive on the same roads as the tractors that work the fields. If those roads aren't there you don't eat. It's that simple.

Paving over the farmlands? Somewhat, but that's a different matter. The farmlands were here first, it's not like bad planning put them here. This place has been a ranch since long before this city had 10,000 residents. And in the areas I'm in, there is very little pavement. You know where I find the most paved over areas? The city.

I'm fully in agreement that urban planning has been poorly done in large part due to the automobile, but one of the failings of some of the 'new urbanist' approaches to development (which I admire in many other ways) is the approach that they know better than I what I should like.

I have satellite TV and dial up internet because there is no cable out here. Yes we do have those 'subsidized' electric lines, but it's not that far off the main distribution lines that go through the hillsides.

And honestly, how well do you react when someone argues that universal health care is stealing and why should poor little old me have to subsidize those who live risky lifestyles? I don't accept that argument, and I don't think you would either. You can't have cities without rural agricultural support. And rural areas benefit from having a city nearby.

You can't have agricultural areas without providing some transport system and infrastructure. These things don't operate in a vacuum. People live in these farming and ranching communities. They are not leeching off you, they are providing for you. Yes there is a lot of the 'ranchettes' you mention going on around here, and that is a problem that needs to be addressed, but not with the blunderbuss of 'everyone into the cities'.

[iGary]

No, my point was quite clearly that when a few make choices that cause the rest of society to pay then it's an undue burden. Having kids and educating them is clearly not a minority practice. I think anyone can clearly see the difference.

No, you said that you didn't want to pay for people's choice to live out in the country.


Ah, the old argument that the unemployed and disabled are that way because of choices they made. So, the construction worker who was injured in an accident is solely liable because he chose to work in construction? That's a bunch of bs and you know it. What about the child born with Down's syndrome? Social programs are abused from time to time but the cost to society isn't nearly what corporate abuse of the tax code is. Why am I not hearing you complain about all the corporate welfare?

See, that is what bothers me about the political forum on this board: Various people are constantly putting words in my mouth and trying to pigeon-hole me into this conserva-nazi role that I am not. I never said ANY OF THAT.

I said: "In most cases, because of choices they made." and that is true.

[zimv20]

but not with the blunderbuss of 'everyone into the cities'.
i think a more accurate characterization is "everyone from the suburbs into the cities."

[Ugg]

Innefficient road building huh? What exactly do you propose the farmers and ranchers drive on to move their stuff? Should we get rid of farmers and ranchers too? It's not like I drive on a superhighway out here. I drive on the same roads as the tractors that work the fields. If those roads aren't there you don't eat. It's that simple.

Paving over the farmlands? Somewhat, but that's a different matter. The farmlands were here first, it's not like bad planning put them here. This place has been a ranch since long before this city had 10,000 residents. And in the areas I'm in, there is very little pavement. You know where I find the most paved over areas? The city.

I'm fully in agreement that urban planning has been poorly done in large part due to the automobile, but one of the failings of some of the 'new urbanist' approaches to development (which I admire in many other ways) is the approach that they know better than I what I should like.

I have satellite TV and dial up internet because there is no cable out here. Yes we do have those 'subsidized' electric lines, but it's not that far off the main distribution lines that go through the hillsides.

And honestly, how well do you react when someone argues that universal health care is stealing and why should poor little old me have to subsidize those who live risky lifestyles? I don't accept that argument, and I don't think you would either. You can't have cities without rural agricultural support. And rural areas benefit from having a city nearby.

You can't have agricultural areas without providing some transport system and infrastructure. These things don't operate in a vacuum. People live in these farming and ranching communities. They are not leeching off you, they are providing for you. Yes there is a lot of the 'ranchettes' you mention going on around here, and that is a problem that needs to be addressed, but not with the blunderbuss of 'everyone into the cities'.

Ah, I knew the farming quotient would come into play. Exurban development is mostly a royal pain for the farmers and ranchers. Newcomers to rural areas are rarely ready to deal with the realities of farming like the smells and the noise and the dust and it's the farmers that suffer. Sure they need roads but the increased traffic or rural development is only a hindrance to them.

Moving everyone into the city is not the answer nor one that I have advocated. What I would advocate is cluster development in order to make services more efficient and reduce the cost to society. I honestly don't see anything wrong with that nor do I think any reasonable person would either. With every right comes a responsibility. It's your right to live where you choose but it's also your responsiblity to do so in a reasonable manner.

My generation is the first in my family for a few hundred years that chose not to farm. I'm well aware of what farming is and what it requires. I'm also well aware that the patchwork farming that is becoming prevalent due to poor exurban planning only increase the costs to farm. It also increases the value of the land to the point where young farmers are unable to get a toehold and the retiring farmers are virtually forced into selling their farm for development purposes. Intelligent planning should realize the economic, intrinsic and societal value of farmland as opposed to the current system of awarding it to those with the "desire" to live away from the city. Farmland is an extremely rare commodity. It can't be manufactured.

Lumping universal health care with intelligent land use practices is like comparing apples to oranges. Health care is an expense, land is capital.

[zimv20]

What I would advocate is cluster development in order to make services more efficient and reduce the cost to society.
i wonder if returning to a rail-centric goods/passenger distribution system would achieve this naturally.

[Ugg]

See, that is what bothers me about the political forum on this board: Various people are constantly putting words in my mouth and trying to pigeon-hole me into this conserva-nazi role that I am not. I never said ANY OF THAT.

I said: "In most cases, because of choices they made." and that is true.

Ok, if it's "true" then back it up with some statistics. I would really like to see how many people on disability and on welfare are there because of choices they made. Because AFAIK, social programs mostly serve those who really need it, unlike corporate welfare. If I'm wrong, I'll apologize.

It's a nice day here so I'm off for a bike ride! Enjoy!

[pseudobrit]

i think a more accurate characterization is "everyone from the suburbs into the cities."

I have no problem with building rural roads because they're relatively low-impact and low-maintenance.

But these tangled suburban nightmares are another story. That's where I see farmland being paved over, woods being clearcut and hillsides being leveled to make way for another monstrous rack of hideously designed and cheaply built cardboard $200,000 homes.

This looks like **** to me:

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/publications/cir1164/suburban_big.jpg

I wouldn't live in one of these houses if you gave me one:

[zimv20]

This looks like **** to me:
gotta say, those houses are closer to each other than a lot of other newer developments i've seen.

still don't like the mcmansion, though.

[Ugg]

i wonder if returning to a rail-centric goods/passenger distribution system would achieve this naturally.

I think it would but the infrastructure is in pretty poor shape and it would require a serious overall. It would also take a serious commitment to planning and I don't see that happening any time soon.

[IJ Reilly]

I'm fully in agreement that urban planning has been poorly done in large part due to the automobile, but one of the failings of some of the 'new urbanist' approaches to development (which I admire in many other ways) is the approach that they know better than I what I should like.

It has ever been thus. This is the very plot-line of modern architecture, in fact. In any event, I'm not here to defend the New Urbanists precisely (I think they are much better at describing the problem than proposing workable solutions to it), but at least they have forced architects and planners to come face-to-face with the last 50 years of bankrupt ideas.

Hating cities is nothing new. It has a long and colorful history in the U.S. going back to the Founders themselves, very few of whom were city people (Franklin being the notable exception), and held agrarianism very close to their hearts. But I think our cultural hatred of cities took a really vicious turn after World War II, when we set about destroying not only the cities themselves through horribly misguided "urban renewal" projects, but at the very same time, methodically annihilating the urban hinterlands, the very places that made city life livable, with rampant uncontrolled suburbanization. In any event, long before the New Urbanists started expounding on virtues of livable cities and the ills of suburbia, these ideas were being introduced into the discussion by the historic preservation movement.

Personally, I think it's beginning to make a difference in a positive way. Cities that had been left for dead only 25 years ago are being revived. Suburbanization is now being recognized for what it is: not the solution, but the problem. If some of this had occurred while I was still practicing as a city planner, I might even have stayed in the profession. It wouldn't have seemed quite so futile.

[tristan]

Where I live, downtown Bethesda, is a bit of an interesting urban experiment. It's a relatively new downtown area of about 50 blocks. The housing is new, there's plenty of parks, there's no crime, and it's become a draw for suburbanites from all over, so it can support tons of great restaurants and other destinations (art galleries, bookstores, etc). It is metro accessible but still has plenty of parking garages - free on weekends. It's part of one of the best school systems in the country. They have outdoor concerts and street festivals. There's a nature trail that goes all the way to the Potomac. It's expensive, average household income is $99,000, but I can't help but think that this is how people are going to live in the future. Chevy Chase, 3 miles south and on the NW DC border, is already trying to duplicate Bethesda by creating a downtown, but has a ways to go.

[mactastic]

It has ever been thus. This is the very plot-line of modern architecture, in fact. In any event, I'm not here to defend the New Urbanists precisely (I think they are much better at describing the problem than proposing workable solutions to it), but at least they have forced architects and planners to come face-to-face with the last 50 years of bankrupt ideas.
Indeed, and who has bigger egos than architects? Who knows better than you how you should live. Wright prescribed the slippers you should wear in a particular room for Peet's sake! But yes, you are right, the New Urbanists are to be applauded for bringing the problems to the planning rooms. And, as you say, their recognition of the problem in no way means they've solved it. It's the "I know what's good for you" problem. If everyone could live in a nice TOD with no more than 1/4 mile between the transit stop and the farthest house, with a mixed use core, and nice 25 dwelling unit per acre housing averaged across the development we'd be in great shape. But we all know how the 'one size fits all' remedy works. Badly.

Hating cities is nothing new. It has a long and colorful history in the U.S. going back to the Founders themselves, very few of whom were city people (Franklin being the notable exception), and held agrarianism very close to their hearts. But I think our cultural hatred of cities took a really vicious turn after World War II, when we set about destroying not only the cities themselves through horribly misguided "urban renewal" projects, but at the very same time, methodically annihilating the urban hinterlands, the very places that made city life livable, with rampant uncontrolled suburbanization. In any event, long before the New Urbanists started expounding on virtues of livable cities and the ills of suburbia, these ideas were being introduced into the discussion by the historic preservation movement.
I guess I should qualify. I don't hate cities. I enjoy having access to them, and I do know that many people prefer them to more remote living. I know that the possess many benefits that I forgo by not living there. I dearly loved having a local tavern, and a local taco joint, etc. when I was in the city. The nightlife was exceptional, the cultural experience was new and interesting and always exciting. There are museums, and every kind of shop and store imaginable. Cultures from far and wide co-exist near each other, and provide the best of their culinary (one of my favorite ways to appreciate different cultures) prowess to be sampled.

Cities are where things happen, where trends start, where the movers and shakers make the big decisions that affect us all. It's got a rhythm and a life beyond simply that of it's inhabitants. I'm certainly not trying to say that I hate the city or the people that call it home. In many ways I miss being there still.

Personally, I think it's beginning to make a difference in a positive way. Cities that had been left for dead only 25 years ago are being revived. Suburbanization is now being recognized for what it is: not the solution, but the problem. If some of this had occurred while I was still practicing as a city planner, I might even have stayed in the profession. It wouldn't have seemed quite so futile.
I think you are right again here. City planners seem to lag a decade or so behind modern planning theory. I'm starting to see YIMBY groups form in this area as a response the the NIMBYism we're so used to seeing. Planners seem to be moving in the direction of mixed-use downtowns around here, which is a major improvement overall. There is a sense that growth cannot be endless (unless you're Phoenix ;) ) and that Urban Growth Boundaries might be a Good Thing.

At any rate, I certainly wasn't trying to be harsh on city life, or those who live their. In many ways I envy them. It just seemed like we are considered neanderthals for not wanting to live there earlier in this thread, and I wanted to provide a counterpoint to that.

[zimv20]

stopped off at the drugstore this evening. walking through the parking lot, a guy started his toyota TRD off-road pickup truck. a completely unnecessary toy in the city, but never mind.

i emerged from the store some 12 minutes later. guy is still there, in his truck w/ the engine running, talking on his mobile. let us note it's about 70 degrees F this evening, so i see little need for temperature control.

such waste stupifies me.

[IJ Reilly]

Indeed, and who has bigger egos than architects? Who knows better than you how you should live. Wright prescribed the slippers you should wear in a particular room for Peet's sake! But yes, you are right, the New Urbanists are to be applauded for bringing the problems to the planning rooms. And, as you say, their recognition of the problem in no way means they've solved it. It's the "I know what's good for you" problem. If everyone could live in a nice TOD with no more than 1/4 mile between the transit stop and the farthest house, with a mixed use core, and nice 25 dwelling unit per acre housing averaged across the development we'd be in great shape. But we all know how the 'one size fits all' remedy works. Badly.

I don't know that anyone is suggesting that one size fits all. I think the point is, the predominant land use paradigm employed over the last 50 years is broken (assuming it ever worked in the first place) and needs to be replaced with something that produces livable and functional places and doesn't destroy our remaining open spaces and agriculture. In a sense, suburban sprawl was the one size fits all of the last two generations, and it has worked out very badly.

[pseudobrit]

stopped off at the drugstore this evening. walking through the parking lot, a guy started his toyota TRD off-road pickup truck. a completely unnecessary toy in the city, but never mind.

i emerged from the store some 12 minutes later. guy is still there, in his truck w/ the engine running, talking on his mobile. let us note it's about 70 degrees F this evening, so i see little need for temperature control.

such waste stupifies me.

And when it comes to fuel oil, a resource upon which our national security, economy and very lives depend on, there are many among us who would argue that this guy had every right to waste that gas because he paid for it.

[mactastic]

I don't know that anyone is suggesting that one size fits all. I think the point is, the predominant land use paradigm employed over the last 50 years is broken (assuming it ever worked in the first place) and needs to be replaced with something that produces livable and functional places and doesn't destroy our remaining open spaces and agriculture. In a sense, suburban sprawl was the one size fits all of the last two generations, and it has worked out very badly.
Well, I know I'm not well versed in the intricacies of planning, but the only solution I saw from the New Urbanists was some twist on the TOD, which seems a little to much like a one-size-fits-all solution that may please some but certainly won't please everyone and has several problems.

I certainly like the way they address the problem publicly. They seem to be some of the only people thinking about how to make a livable city, but when all problems are being addressed by city-dwellers they are bound to be influenced by their lifestyle, just as it would be equally inappropriate for cities to be designed by country dwellers.

Again, my critique of New Urbanism is for it's output, not it's input. I think you said you feel the same way. For me, it's because they want to tell me how I should live instead of making me want to live there by example. I know it's hard what with trying to get anything close to their vision implemented into policy without being neutered.

[IJ Reilly]

Well, I know I'm not well versed in the intricacies of planning, but the only solution I saw from the New Urbanists was some twist on the TOD, which seems a little to much like a one-size-fits-all solution that may please some but certainly won't please everyone and has several problems.

I certainly like the way they address the problem publicly. They seem to be some of the only people thinking about how to make a livable city, but when all problems are being addressed by city-dwellers they are bound to be influenced by their lifestyle, just as it would be equally inappropriate for cities to be designed by country dwellers.

Again, my critique of New Urbanism is for it's output, not it's input. I think you said you feel the same way. For me, it's because they want to tell me how I should live instead of making me want to live there by example. I know it's hard what with trying to get anything close to their vision implemented into policy without being neutered.

A great deal of what the New Urbanists have been preaching has been transformed into simplistic marketing dogma by developers. They'll stick a front porch onto a tract house and call the product New Urbanist or Neotraditional or whatever. Of course they are missing the point, but I think a lot of people both inside and outside of the architectural profession aren't.

When I was a planner, developments were designed as much by the city engineer and the fire department as they were by anyone else, including the planners. I spent much of my planning career fighting for simple things like street trees and parkways, and maybe even a residential street less than 60 feet wide for God's sake. I lost nearly every time. If nothing else, the New Urbanists have pointed a spotlight on the practice of designing residential streets like miniature freeways. It is now permissible to design streets as though people use them, not just cars. That's a big victory in my book.

During the last 30 years or so, we've also been able to reopen the discussion about what to do with the "inner cities." The total package during the post-war era was to abandon them, level them, or at best, ignore them, and move everybody to a tract house in the suburbs. This process of urban depopulation and destruction has now been effectively reversed. People who a generation earlier would have been suburbanites have instead rediscovered the cities. That's even a bigger victory in my book because it suggests a deeper cultural shift that might just be durable.

[jelloshotsrule]

There's no smiley but i hope you're joking?!?!

The head in the sand approach isn't going to work anymore. Our oil dependency is going to be the reason for our decline. If we don't start asking some difficult questions, we'll never have the choice of providing an answer, it'll be forced upon us.

yes, i was kidding! look at my signature after all. ;)