Accomplishing growth without sprawl

greenspun.com : LUSENET : I-695 Thirty Dollar License Tab Initiative : One Thread

The following piece ran a week ago Sunday in the Atlanta Constitution. It is of great importance that everyone reads this. . . especially marsha, zowie, and craigster.

Sunday, 05/07/2000

'TRADITIONAL' NEIGHBORHOODS: Accomplishing growth without sprawl

By David Goldberg/Staff

Before we begin this discussion, let's all take a deep breath and relax. This smart-growth stuff isn't as scary as some would have you think.

First of all, its advocates do not want to force you out of your subdivision and into a high-rise apartment building. And no, they aren't asking you to surrender your car keys and make you ride the bus. What they are trying to do is to answer some of the toughest questions facing modern metropolitan areas. How can cities and suburbs grow in population while avoiding the potentially devastating environmental and other consequences of asphalt-heavy sprawl or of poorly planned density? Is it possible to tame sprawl while preserving the levels of home ownership and private space Americans enjoy? Can cities of the future accommodate reasonable use of the automobile without allowing it to takeover the landscape? Is it possible to create neighborhoods whose character deepens over time, rather than mass-produced suburban pods designed to be disposable?

New urbanists follow old principles

For answers to these questions, smart-growth supporters borrow heavily from the ideas of the New Urbanism. Many of those ideas in turn were developed by Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, the husband-and-wife urban designers noted for their plans for Seaside, Fla., and other developments.

Now the couple, along with Jeff Speck of their design firm, have put their powerful arguments in support of an alternative to sprawl into a new book, called "Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream."

New urbanists are inspired by the neighborhoods built before the automobile conquered the landscape after World War II, and the centuries-old town planning principles that created them. In a sense it is "old" urban is resurrected; the new part comes from the movement's efforts to acknowledge that the automobile is, and likely always will be, with us. The new urbanism accommodates the car, but doesn't allow it to make all the rules.

Rather than the isolated subdivisions, office parks and shopping centers of sprawl, the new urbanists call for traditional urban neighborhoods that embrace all those elements. The ideal density and mix of uses for neighborhoods, they say, can be found in the streetcar suburbs of the 1920s or earlier, which were built around parks or squares and contained a blend of houses and small apartment buildings within walking distance of a small shopping district.

Reverence for public realm

For larger urban centers, their reference is Main Street before the mall: downtowns that saw life after dark thanks to apartments over shops; that invited walking with wide sidewalks, street trees and a rich menu of sights and sounds; where buildings adjoined the street to form an outdoor room rather than lurking across baking acres of asphalt. Although they abhor the single-story box common to suburban architecture, new urbanists also eschew massive high-rises, preferring lower buildings that evoke a more human scale. A core value of new urbanism is a reverence for the public realm --- the streetscapes, parks, civic buildings and plazas --- we share.

What concerns Duany, Plater-Zyberk and Speck most is how people live in the places we build. Their proposals on that score sound wildly radical in today's context: Children ought to able to walk to school or other activities, rather than live as automotive captives --- along with their parents. Schools, therefore, should be small and located so that all their students can walk or bike to them. Running errands a mile from home shouldn't require a five-mile, roundabout drive from cul-de-sac to collector road to highway and back. Going from one store to another across the street shouldn't require you to climb back in the car and wait through two light cycles to traverse the four-lane.

If you want to drive, fine, the authors say. Why can't we also design communities so that those too young, old, poor, infirm or just plain different don't have to?

But these and many other choices are foreclosed to us in vast swaths of our metro regions, particularly in Sunbelt boom towns such as Atlanta, the authors say. It's not mere nostalgia to note it wasn't always that way, and to hope that we can reclaim the traditions that supplied that choice.

The obstacles, however, are huge. In the book's most fascinating chapters, the authors document how the dysfunctions of sprawl are enshrined in the orthodoxies of zoning and road engineering, while traditional neighborhoods are outlawed. Sprawl is so firmly entrenched as the default setting for metropolitan development that suggestions of change meet tremendous resistance.

New market demands

Opponents of the new urbanism usually argue that cul-de-sac subdivisions and strip centers are the work of a free market that is merely meeting demand. They typically contend that any regional planning efforts to make sprawl harder and encourage compact, mixed-use development that can be served by transit will limit home buyers' choice. The presumption, of course, is that a house on a half-acre at the end of a cul-de-sac is the size that fits all. That increasingly is not the case.

The population is aging, couples are delaying children and the proportion of households with children is shrinking. The high-tech firms drawn to metro Atlanta are searching for "cool" buildings in funky old neighborhoods to lure 20-something programmers. Many of these workers are attracted to more urban settings, and may not go gently into that cul-de-sac world when they marry and have children.

In today's "smart" world, in which computers make it possible to work at home and live at work, variety and flexibility would seem to be the watchwords. But under most zoning codes --- which are, in fact, the DNA of sprawl --- entrepreneurial developers are actually stifled in attempts to meet this demand. In many markets there is a demand for live/work units that allow professionals, say accountants or massage therapists, to operate a business downstairs and live upstairs. But they're outlawed by zoning in most jurisdictions. In a few years, aging boomers may cherish compact areas where they can take a comfortable stroll and be among people and shops, but there are precious few of these neighborhoods to go around and making new ones is all but illegal. Exceptions to build such neighborhoods requires enormous effort to persuade local officials, banks, utilities, road engineers and others.

Regional planning is key

The way to reduce obstacles to the diversity and density, the authors contend, is likely to be regionally coordinated planning. This is less of a big-government scheme than you might think.

Though difficult to pull off, the concept is relatively simple. With generous helpings of public input, local governments from throughout the metro area sit down together to identify the places that will be villages, town centers and more-intensive regional "downtowns." Those are the areas where density goes, and as centers of population and economic activity should get the heaviest investment in roads, rail and other transportation. With, say, 30 percent of the region thus identified, the neighborhoods in the other 70 percent can pretty much stay as they are.

Within these centers, the locals should scrap zoning codes that merely proscribe what they don't want and develop visions for what they do want, Duany, Plater-Zyberk and Speck say. Then they should make it easy for developers to do it. Local governments, particularly in the inner suburbs, also should add incentives to develop new urban-style centers on the parking lots of underused shopping centers. Because they occupy huge tracts, these "greyfields" present a great opportunity to add a grid of streets, some apartments over shops, and voila, a town center. All with no single-family neighborhood disturbed.

The result of these measures, the authors believe, will be great variety and choice within the metropolitan region, and even within neighborhoods. They draw an analogy to a traditional New England town where "One can live above the store, next to the store, a five-minute walk from the store or nowhere near the store. In new suburbs, there is only one available lifestyle: to own a car and need it for everything." In addition, not just one car, but a car for every licensed driver.

Many metropolitan regions, such as Atlanta, are discussing this kind of planning approach, but few are close to implementing it. New urbanism seems destined to be limited in impact until more areas have designated the logical spots for density to go, and legalized it.

Tough choices for designers

Until then, new urbanist practitioners are open to criticism when they design developments on green fields at the metropolitan fringe, a point the authors acknowledge. To those who want to stop sprawl, it's cold comfort that the same plot of land might otherwise be built as a conventional subdivision.

"Conscientious designers are faced with a difficult choice," the authors write, "to allow sprawl to continue without intervention, or to reshape new growth into the most benevolent form possible. . . . Unless unjustified greenfield development is stopped --- an unlikely prospect ---designers should endeavor to ensure that what gets built on the urban fringe is as environmentally sound, economically efficient and socially just as possible."

The choice is actually even tougher than the authors acknowledge. New urbanist practitioners have to earn a living, after all, and they might not survive until they've persuaded enough metro areas to better manage growth. They are all but compelled, then, to accept commissions for some developments they might consider poorly placed. If residents have to drive to meet most of their daily needs, new urbanism can't prove its merit with such projects, and can only provide fuel to detractors.

Finally, there's an alternative

Atlanta's first model of new urbanism, Post Properties' Riverside in northwest Atlanta, got similar knocks when it opened. Centered on a Belgian-style plaza with ground floor retail, apartments above, across from an office building containing Post's corporate headquarters, it was a good illustration of what can be done with design. But with a single driveway from U.S. 41 the only way in or out, it hardly seemed to qualify as new urbanism. Still, the mixed-use design was so popular, apartments rented 40 percent above market rates.

Post's more recent stab at new urbanism, Parkside in Midtown, is closer to the mark. The "infill" apartment development builds on Midtown's existing fabric, and adds life to the streetscape with retail on the ground floor. The high prices --- with most rents well in excess of $1,000 --- for both these developments bring up the other rap on new urbanism, that while it talks a good game about incorporating affordable housing, it more typically caters to the well-to-do.

Duany, Plater-Zyberk and Speck counter that the Congress for the New Urbanism inspired and helped implement the U.S. Housing and Urban Development Department's scheme to redevelop public housing projects as mixed-income "villages." As for non-subsidized housing, the authors contend that affordable units will become more common now that new urbanism has proved itself in the upscale market. After reading the arguments the book offers, you may wonder why the ideas in it have received such a hostile reaction from some local officials, architecture critics, house builders and think tanks. It may be that the movement makes some people nervous because it presents a serious challenge to the status quo. Until the new urbanism, sprawl could be seen as "an innocent error," as the authors put it, with no readily available alternative. But now the neotraditionalists have articulated why the same problems keep appearing in the sprawlscape, and they've offered an alternative. If we continue to sprawl, it will be by conscious choice.

David Goldberg is an editorial writer for The Atlanta Constitution.



-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), May 19, 2000

Answers

CS-

I have little doubt that I've read dozens of New Urban editorials more than you have. They were unconvincing. So is this one.

When the conservatives express nostalgia for the fifties, they are derided for wanting "Leave it to Beaver," back, and told it will never happen.

When the liberals want the thirties back, it's avant garde.

Go figure.

the craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), May 19, 2000.


CS,

If that is what people want, fine. It isn't my idea of home. I prefer my 5 acres in the woods that contribute to sprawl, and I am inclined not to be nimby. Any body who moves in as my neighbor is welcome to the same peace and tranquility I enjoy.

No stray dogs pooping in my yard. No screaming neighbors and domestic violence. No salesman at the door. No drive by shootings. I can leave my car unlocked.

You can have your new urban community, just don't try to force me to live there.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), May 19, 2000.


The difference, craigster, is that the TV-land of "Leave it to Beaver" never existed in the real world. Not ever. Thus, we can't go back to a social -- yes I said SOCIAL -- pattern of white-bread existence that never really happened in the first place.

On the other hand, human-scale neighborhoods did indeed exist: From before the time of the Greeks, and right up in America until roughly 1947.

Since 1947, we have built primarily UNhuman scale neighborhoods in the US. But that doesn't mean we must continue to do so. You see?

Oh, and your smarmy "I've read more than you" comment smacks of childishness. Honestly, I didn't figure you'd ever resort to a "My brother is bigger than YOUR brother" stance. But perhaps I misjudged you. So I'll retort in a language I know know you understand: "I've read everything that you've read PLUS ONE! Tthhhhbbbpppp!!!" :-)

-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), May 19, 2000.


The problem, Marsha, is that YOUR choice of lifestyle (invading the countryside for your own "ranch in the woods") is not self-sustaining: Sooner or later, your "ranch in the woods" will become "a ranch surrounded by other ranches" (notice no woods). Then to get your next "ranch in the woods", you'll have to move farther out into virgin countryside, and so on, and so on. . .

Another problem with YOUR choice of lifestyle (invading the countryside for your own "ranch in the woods") is that it's terrible for the environment, ecology, etc. etc. It's wasteful, and anti-social. But I won't dwell here, because I don't want to sound like one of those granola-chomping liberals that give sensible planning a bad name.

Yet another problem with YOUR choice of lifestyle (invading the countryside for your own "ranch in the woods") is that you expect the REST of us to pay for it, in the form of building roads out to your ranch (and all the other ranches), increased cost of transporting goods and services (which are shared by us all, no matter if we individually contribute to this factor or not), etc. etc.

Oh yeah, and those who live in YOUR choice of lifestyle often are the cause of the very problems you're trying to escape (increased traffic, loss of cohesive neighborhoods etc.). And you often show your ignorance about urban life when you stereotype city neighborhoods as crime-ridden and dirty. Puh-lease. Why don't I just start calling all you rural dwellers "hicks" and "cowards"? I won't, because I know better. And so should you.

-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), May 19, 2000.


"Oh, and your smarmy "I've read more than you" comment smacks of childishness. " The intent of that was simply to inform me that you needn't post this for my benefit, I already have read this literature fairly extensively, not for one-upsmanship. If you wish to continue to post it for other people, it's a free world.

But since the second sentence of your posting read "It is of great importance that everyone reads this. . . especially marsha, zowie, and CRAIGSTER. " (emphasis added), I simply wanted to let you know that you didn't have to go to the effort on my part. Simple courtesy, not "childishness."

Please accept my apologies if that comment inadvertently offended you. But I assure you it was inadvertent. I truly lack subtlety when I intend to offend people. But childishness aside, what you are asking is a return to a bygone era that, I suspect, looks much better through the retrospectoscope than it did at the time. I lived in Europe for awhile, where they still do largely use this model, but even they are getting away from it.

But I remain as skeptical of the New Urbanism, when it takes Urban Growth Management Acts and restrictive rural zoning to enforce it, just as I was skeptical that East Berlin was a "workers paradise" when it required barb wire and mine fields to keep the workers in the paradise.

If the New Urbanism stands a chance in a democracy, it ought to be able to allow people to live where they want, and compete for their presence in a free market.

Seems like whenever it does that, we get more suburbs.

Not a ringing indorsement of the New Urbanism in the marketplace of ideas.



-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), May 19, 2000.


Thanks craig for that clarification on your intent.

But there you go again with another idea you haven't fully researched: >"If the New Urbanism stands a chance in a democracy, it ought to be able to allow people to live where they want, and compete for their presence in a free market."

The problem, as you may know, is that in many places it is ILLEGAL to build New Urbanist neighborhoods because auto-centric Zoning Codes won't allow it - - or at least they discourage it.

For example, in many places, it is ILLEGAL to build apartments over a retail shop. In other places, the law only REQUIRES a 6-foot sidewalk (if any at all), so developers don't build them because they don't have to! Then when residents move in and ASK for a sidewalk, the developer is long gone, or the city doesn't have enough money to build the sidewalk (retrofitting is more expensive).

That's just the tip of the iceburg.

Bottom line: New Urbanist neighborhoods are in demand, but not enough developers are interested in them because building codes and zoning laws favor strip-malls and sprawl development.

But that's changing. Slowly, but surely!

-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), May 19, 2000.


CS,

My choice is correct. And it is my Legal Right.

NA NA NA NA NA NA! I am not subject to your socialist ideals as yet. And I will defend my freedom to choose where and how I live by any means necessary. And so will my hick neighbors.

-- Marsha (acorn-nut@hotmail.com), May 19, 2000.


Then do so, Marsha. But where would you be without the SOCIALIST pratcices in this country that subsidize YOUR way of life, but not mine? Hmmmm??

Oh, and zowie: I LOVE this country. I LOVE America so much that I'm actually working to prevent us from ruining it. If I really DIDN'T give a damn, I'd be long gone by now, wouldn't I? But I DO give a damn - - so much so that I've dedicated my life (and a five-year tour in the US Navy!) to make this country great. What have YOU done lately, other than write knee-jerk diatribes on this forum? It seems to me that YOU are the one who doesn't love this country, because you're content to just let it dissappear into a cesspool of sprawl. I'm part of what makes this country great. You're part of the problem. Sorry for my harshness, but I didn't come back from Desert Storm just to hear some candy-ass person like you tell me that I don't love my country! How dare you.

-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), May 19, 2000.


And my husband did not come back from desert storm to see his freedoms stripped away by your socialist-utopian BS.

-- Marsha (acorn-nut@hotmail.com), May 19, 2000.

What Constitutional freedoms am I trying to infringe upon, exactly, Marsha? Please explain, because I think it would be hilarious to see you try to explain them. Really.

-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), May 19, 2000.


In fact, Marsha, I think it is YOUR socialist-utopian BS that's taking away MY freedoms. But before we dive too far into that, I'm STILL waiting to hear YOUR explanation of the exact freedoms that I'm trying to take away from you. Well, where are they? What's the matter, Marsha? Cat got your tongue?

-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), May 19, 2000.

CS,

You are attempting to restrict my freedom to choose where I live.

The amount of domestic violence, (arrested frequently, still ongoing) stray pets, (my former next door neighbors dog took off a childs face) Drive by shooting across the street, (which turned out to be a case of mistaken identity, they were sttacking the wrong person) and several car prowls/thefts, is why I moved to "the sticks" Not to mention the level of noise, the dirty air, the chemicals added to make the water drinkable. No thanks. You can live the way you want, and I will live mine.

Please tell me what taxes YOU are paying to subsidize my choice? Did you pay for my well? My septic? My electric hookup? Trenching? Road? It's privately owned and maintained. The main access road has been here for nearly 100 years, built by a logging company. You paid squat for my choice. In fact, you benefitted from the sales taxes on each and every dollar I spent to build.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), May 19, 2000.


I think everyone has the right impression of you CS. Including me.

What's the matter, cat got your tongue? How original. Still growing up I see.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), May 19, 2000.


Definition of "cesspool of sprawl"

Clean air, clean water, nearly non existant crime. Peaceful sounds.

Poor CS, I think he is cranky because of his unhealthy urban environment.

Too many rats in the cage start to cause problems eh?

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), May 19, 2000.


"New Urbanist neighborhoods are in demand, but not enough developers are interested in them because building codes and zoning laws favor strip-malls and sprawl development."

Reminds me of a planned neighborhood near my old home. They had a hard time getting buyers for those. And many of the ones who did buy were trying to unload them six months later. What a joke.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), May 19, 2000.



>"You are attempting to restrict my freedom to choose where I live."

I am? Really? . . .Exactly HOW am I doing this, Marsha? You STILL haven't answered my question. What Constitutional provision am I infringing upon? Please use a concise, specific example of how I'm attempting to restrict your freedom, because I still don't see it. Am I coming into your house in the middle of the night and evicting you from your cabin? Am I erecting road barriers to your house? What, exactly, am I doing? Hmmm?

What's the matter, can't think of anything?

Answer the question, Marsha.

-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), May 19, 2000.


"Sorry for my harshness, but I didn't come back from Desert Storm just to hear some candy-ass person like you tell me that I don't love my country! How dare you. " You're a whiner CS, and now you are wrapping yourself in the flag to whine AFTER stating "that has this country so f***ed up. "
Nobody made you make that statement, now I'm a "candy-ass person like you" for posting your quote? And you spent a MEASLY 5 years in the service? So where WERE you in Desert Shield/Storm? I was at Khamis Mushait with the 37th TFW Provisional, being a candy-ass in a bunker. zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), May 19, 2000.

Was I wrong CS? You are not advocating restricting growth? Then you feel I have the legal and moral right to choose where I want to live?

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), May 19, 2000.

Zowie, he was in the navy for pete's sake. He was in severe danger of, well, there were a couple of mines in the water.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), May 19, 2000.

14th Amendment, section one, bonehead.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

It is my priviledge to reside where I want to. You and your growth management agenda violate this provision in my opinion.

First we restrict where people can live. Next we resrict how and when they travel. (per your posted article on road building in Atlanta)

Apparently, this restriction of freedom is not of concern to you.

A loyal Citizen? Or closet socialist trying to control the population?

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), May 19, 2000.


>"Then you feel I have the legal and moral right to choose where I want to live?"

Moral? Well, if you were moral, you wouldn't be building on Mother Nature's disappearing wilderness, would you? Or placing yourself so far into the country that you need to burn a gallon of fossil fuel just to go to the store for a gallon of milk? Or making it ILLEGAL (or at least impossibly difficult) for people to build places in which the rest of us want to live?

You talk about morality, but you must recognize that one person's morals are different from another's. You are content to have others pay for your way of life. I wouldn't consider that moral.

But do you have a Legal right to live where you choose? Yes, you have a legal right in most cases. . .as long as you start PAYING for the COSTS of your way of life. And I mean the FULL COSTS of your way of life, from the cost of raping virgin land and forest because of your choice (believe me, this cost alone would drive most people away from pristine wilderness, if the cost was truely ever assessed, which it unfortunately never is), to the FULL cost of sewage and road treatment to extend out to where you live (if applicable, and most suburbs are, even if your ranch isn't), to the FULL COST that we city-dwellers must pay for widening roads that lead into the central city because you choose to live outside the city, etc. etc. etc. . .

If you would even begin to pay for the REAL costs of your way of life, than we would be on closer terms. But you aren't, so we're not.

By the way, did I mention that in many places, it's ILLEGAL (or impossible) for me to live the way I want to live, but legal AND possible for you, in most cases?

NOW who wants to talk about legal and moral?

-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), May 19, 2000.


Now now Marsha- My daddy was in the Navy for 20 years. Got two purple hearts and his cruiser sunk from under him at Savo (or as the Navy calls it, Iron Bottom Sound. Not one of the Navy's better days). Don't knock the Navy, though. My chest swells with pride every time I see the young kids at the Bangor NEX

But obviously, zowie comes from a long line of candy-asses who care about this"f***ed up" country. zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), May 19, 2000.

CS-

Still waiting to hear what part of the theater of operations you were in for Desert Shield/Desert Storm.

zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), May 19, 2000.


If your concern for this planet is so intense, then I suggest you become a fanatic over growth of the population and not try to force humanity to live in cubes stacked on top of each other. Ultimatly, that is the only LOGICAL action one should take, if one wants the planet to be healthy. How many children do YOU have?

I am not the first person to desire a rural lifestyle. People like me have been trying to avoid idiots like you since the beginning of time. It's human nature, it prevents people from killing each other off.

Too many rats in the cage, and some get cranky and don't even know why....

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), May 19, 2000.


I fail to see your connection to the 14th Ammendment, because like I said, I'm not trying to make it ILLEGAL for you to live where you want to live. . .I just want to make sure that you're PAYING your own way, ok?

But if you ARE going to use the 14th Ammendment in that way, than would you please agree to LIFT the legal restrictions that prevent me from building apartments over businesses? Or to bypass the parking-spot requirements for dwelling units and/or commercial properties? Would you be willing to be FAIR, and apply the 14th Ammendment to EVERYONE, and not just where it suits your personal interests? Do that and then we'll talk.

-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), May 19, 2000.


Zowie,

Husband was 20 year Navy man. How else would I know he was in no danger? After 1 trip to Abu Dhabi, he stayed on the boat!

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), May 19, 2000.


BTW, If you're so interested (and I'm pleased that you are) in my military service, I was on board the USS Guardian (MCM 5), which conducted mine countermeasure maneuvers in the Gulf during Desert Storm. I had originally entered the military through my college's ROTC program, and served in the Navy from '89 through '94 before deciding that a civilian life was more my style! Glad you asked.

-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), May 19, 2000.

Common CS- After the diatribe about what a candy-ass I was, while you went to Desert Storm, you can at least tell me where you were stationed. Did you like the MREs? I thought the squeeze cheese in them was wretched, in fact, I was happy when they ran out and sent us some commercial "top shelf" stuff. Did you ever get to use your CWDE? Initially we had the old M-17A1 masks, but theu were able to get us the newer ones after about three weeks. They were a big improvement. Did you get your butt filled full of gamma globulin like I did before you were sent over, or did they figure you'd be on board a Navy ship, sleeping in Navy quarters, eating Navy chow, and decided you didn't need it? Come on CS, tell me where you were stationed; INQUIRING CANDY- ASSES WANT TO KNOW!
Don't EVER wrap your sorry ass in my country's flag again, OK.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), May 19, 2000.

Oh-

Crossing postings.

You at all embarassed to be bad-mouthing your country, or just an inveterate whiner?

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), May 19, 2000.


WHOSE flag? Pardon me, but I don't see YOUR name embroidered anywhere on the flag that I keep at my house. Puh-lease.

-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), May 19, 2000.

CS,

This will be my last response for a bit, I DO have obligations to attend to. You have not identified FOR me, just what services you have provided, that I have not paid for.

The roads were already here, including the private one I live on.

The town was already there, to provide shopping.

The fire department, is mostly volunteer, with quite a good rating I might add.

I have no children in the schools, though I do support them.

Police services have not been increased. There is a large neighborhood watch though, with daily patrols.

There is no water lines you paid for, no sewer service to connect to, and my septic is top of the line, gaurenteed to be safe for the environmnent according to the installer.

Trees? I like them more than most people, and that's one reason I moved here. I want the land to be as untouched as possible. I have added some landscaping, only to the extent that I purchased native species of trees and ground cover from the conservation department, to replace ones that had to be removed. Which were few. I use no chemicals, pesticides or herbicides, and am careful what goes in my septic.

I think you cause more harm to the environment than I do. Sustain that.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), May 19, 2000.


"WHOSE flag? Pardon me, but I don't see YOUR name embroidered anywhere on the flag that I keep at my house. Puh-lease. " CS, YOU say the country is "F***ed up"
YOU post a strawman statement alleging that zowie indicated you didn't love this country, when he merely quoted YOUR statement (looks like a straight cut and paste job to me).
YOU then up the ante by alleging that zowie hasn't ever done anything for this country
YOU then call him a candy-ass for not doing anything
YOU state "I'm part of what makes this country great. "
YOU lord it over him with your military service


The reality appears to be he served, his father served, and you were simply wrong all the way around.
You have apparently been hoisted on your own petard, and deservedly so. A person of integrity would have apologized to the man ................. HMM, I guess we won't hold our breath waiting for that though. Mikey

-- (m_alworth@olympusnet.com), May 19, 2000.

"I think you cause more harm to the environment than I do. Sustain that. " I continue to be amazed by those who believe a dispersed lifestyle is more harmful to the environment than a concentrated lifestyle. You are right, the reality is just the opposite.

In terms of disposal of sewage, it is clearly much easier and environmentally friendly to have a septic tank, the sewer equivalent of composting, than it is to build sewer systems requiring energy sources and chemicals to make them work (or than just dumping your raw sewage into the Strait like Victoria, BC does).

In terms of water, it is clearly simpler and less environmentally impacting for you to have a well, drawing your household needs from the aquifer under your five acre recharge zone (at least in Western Washington) compared to building dams, and distribution systems.

In terms of energy use, your car is actually more efficient per passenger mile than a transit bus in practice, since it goes to where it's going and stops, while the transit bus starts, stops, starts, accelerating and decelerating 30 tons repeatedly. Not saying that a full bus couldn't be more efficient, it clearly could. But in practice with the load factors that transit buses are running nationwide, they aren't, and the further out of its niche we expand the system, the lower the load factors get.

Now I would concede that it probably takes more energy to heat your house than an equivalent amount of living space in an apartment house, since the exterior apartments decrease your effective exposure to the elements if you are in an internal apartment, but as the one-time owner of a 2 bedroom top floor corner Condo near Northgate, I can tell you that the heating expenses were more than a much larger (although well insulated) place I'm living now, although a high efficiency gas fireplace may have something to do with that.

It is really only in the realm of road miles per capita that the city has much of an advantage, but that advantage is also over-stated. Right of way costs are very much lower in rural and even suburban areas, compared to cities. Chances are I could talk Marsha into going from a five acre place to a four acre place, giving up the right of way for a road for $8000 or so. Not like buying up land in town. Maintenance is lower to. Absent the rare 30 ton transit bus or 25 ton school bus, rural roads don't usually see real heavy vehicles, except for major roads.

With telecommuting, cell phones, e-commerce, the Internet (thanks, Al!), cities are becoming LESS essential all the time. Even Major universities like the UW teach a fair number of their courses on-line.

So I'm with you, Marsha. Low density is the way to go. the craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), May 19, 2000.

Craig and Marsha's posts bring up a great question: Why are there cities? Historically, these were centers of communications and commerce, even in the pre-auto era. They were usually situated on a river (water comes out, poop goes in, and later as an energy source after the industrial era) or natural harbors (ships go in and out, so does the sewer. Did you know that the toilets flushed backwards twice a day in old Seattle? That's why the underground was raised). Later, after the development of the train, it became possible to have commerce apart from natural transport systems, and a variety of "railroad towns" sprung up. But I think Craig's probably right. The present (and certainly the future) hold fewer NEEDS for cities for these traditional functions because of technology. CS and his fellow New Urbanists may be able to make the case that the cities new function ought to be storing the surplus population, to avoid cluttering up the landscape, but it seems a hard sell to me at least. Even in China with a long history of obedience/subservience and crushing poverty, the people didn't tolerate communal living very well. My guess is that you won't be able to implement these policies in a contrary democracy like ours.

Mikey

-- (m_alworth@olympusnet.com), May 19, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ