Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
A yard and privacy is what makes a better/nicer community.
When all else fails, resort to insults.
- - - Updated - - -
45 minutes on a bike is still a short trip. The inconvenience of weather is only a non factor when it is less of an inconvenience than driving.
Not many people I know are willing to ride in the rain for hours when they can drive.
What? No.
Fenced in backyards make a more insulate community.
Bike/pedestrian safe paths, parks and easily accessible public recreation areas is what makes a nicer community.
- - - Updated - - -
Says someone who's never left rural america it seems.
Public transport is the norm in 99% of Europe and Asia.
Relevant where I am;
OPEN SPACE, CLOSED GATESAn aerial view shows part of Ardrossan. Its 50 sprawling homesites are protected from further development. Buyers enjoy the prospect of related tax breaks.
An insulate community is a nice community.
I have lived in the heart of the Bay Area, worked/gone to school in the downtown area of Portland. I know the times to drive and the times to take the train/bus.
- - - Updated - - -
Now THAT is paradise, thought the house is a bit big.
It's not, but whatever appeases your xenophobic fears.
- - - Updated - - -
Also, if all you know is American public transportation, then I'm sorry to tell you you're missing out on what i can really be like. American cities were never designed with public transportation in mind, and it's equally underfunded and underdeveloped as a result.
It's incredibly ironic how people that do nothing but complain about the state of America's urban spaces insist on continuing the same policies that led to America's urban spaces being garbage.
I really wouldn't give as much of a shit if said policies weren't also killing the planet.
Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
The thing is, I've heard some American urban planners rag on cul-de-sacs etc. And I've seen lots of areal photos of american cul-de-sac neighbour hoods. And the only issue I have with them (aside from "single family housing" and nothing else zoning) is that there aren't pedestrian and bike paths behind the houses. Those type of developments could still happen if you just also added those features. Bikes away from the traffic, short cuts between residential neighbourhoods and then with potential for common green-spaces as well.
The town I grew up in. Practically every residential street there is a cul-de-sac. However there is a robust network of paths and greenspaces within it all.
Last edited by Muzjhath; 2021-08-06 at 07:46 PM.
- Lars
Has nothing to do with fear, everything to do with not being forced to deal with people as much as possible.
I will always take the flexibility of a car over public transit anytime I am not going into a major city center. When it is cheaper and faster to take mass transit I do, but it is rare these days I bother going into the core of Portland, there is no reason to.
It's the antithesis of a "community". "Community" is about interaction and communication. A suburbia that's isolate is less a "community" than a prison complex where prisoners each have separate cells; at least the prisoners share common rooms and can see and communicate with each other.
Suburbia is a disease. It contributes essentially nothing of value to any city, only contributing to wasteful land use, increased traffic and emissions, and servicing demands that do not pay for themselves.
That's fear, or at least some unchecked antisocial tendencies.
Well designed public transit is as flexible as cars, and much better because you don't have to sit in traffic, stare at a GPS to not miss your turn, and have to worry about other drivers.I will always take the flexibility of a car over public transit anytime I am not going into a major city center. When it is cheaper and faster to take mass transit I do, but it is rare these days I bother going into the core of Portland, there is no reason to.
You're arguing from a point of literal ignorance, since you admit you don't know better.
FWIW, cul-de-sacs are frowned upon by modern city planners because the design models they produce lead to suburbias with minimal connections to surrounding roadways. Developers love this, because they can make nice little entrances to the "community", but it's garbage shit in terms of movement through the city. They also, weirdly, keep doing big wide curved streets thinking the curves slow people down, and they don't; what slows people down is narrow streets, curviness doesn't matter. An ideal suburban street is one where you don't have room for more than one parked car on one side of the road, and maybe not even that (and no parking on the side of the road at all, but you want the allowance for deliveries and service vehicles and such).
With dead-end streets and minimal interconnections, if you have to do road work near one of those entrances, traffic is a nightmare and everyone gets pissed off. Where in any system with cross-connections (it doesn't have to be a grid if straight lines bother you), you just skip to the next exit street over.
That's a comparison showing how far a one-mile walk could take you from the point at the star, in both design concepts. The same principles apply to vehicle traffic, too. The practice generally contributes to the idea that everyone stays in their house and drives everywhere they need to go, rather than walking to the corner store or the like. Because in the suburb, it's way more likely that cornerstore is an hour's walk away. If there even is one, because nobody designs for that, because you're expected to drive everywhere.
Again, that's the antithesis of a "community". The direct opposite. It's you stating how much you appreciate not being part of a community, not you lauding a particular community.
- - - Updated - - -
In every apartment complex I've lived in, I ran into neighbours in the hallways constantly. Plus, some have communal services like pools or workout rooms, or make even greater efforts to build a community in the building.
So no. You're just wrong about what a "community" is.