Meltdown II: Cognitive Dissonance in 2011

[Florestan]

I think "Frisco" is supposed to refer to [...] San Francisco, California.

Exactly.

How nice! That is, until you realize that the people living there are

a few rich people who can live well of the work of a much larger group of others, or [...] a few people who decide to be totally non-productive within a very productive culture. 

Besides, Mensch nailed it:

Suburban sprawl is death. But suburbs aren't real cities. In fact, suburbs are the result of people [...] who think cities are awful and want to live in the countryside, but of course they're wedded to the service sector jobs and income that can only be had in cities. So the brilliant compromise: suburbs! *Pretend* to live in the country, with lawns and trees and all that nonsense, but actually be living in an antiseptic sprawling dormitory "village" attached to a highway on which you can spend a quarter of your life trying to get to and from work in that city in which you refuse to live but on which you depend for work.

I have it from an absolute trustworthy source that it could take three hours to get home from work in San Francisco.

I'm talking about this San Francisco:



and frankly I don't see any difference between that and

NYC:



Los Angeles:



Chicago:



and Dallas:



When seeing Bucharest, Mensch perceptively noticed the "hideous realist socialist architecture". IMO, the pictures above show its "capitalist" counterpart, equally hideous.

Now a lovely US city where I wouldn't mind living is Burlington, Vermont

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

I'm enjoying this conversation, both the words and the pictures. Urbanism is an interest of mine, probably because I've lived in a lot of places.

I partially sympathize with Eusebistan's POV. I like traditional cities of the European type, and hate the car culture that has disfigured American life. (BTW, this month I celebrate 10 years without a car, an achievement that would be practically impossible in most of the USA.)

That said, in many of these "traditional cities of the European type" the charm is limited to a historic and small central core, and the residential parts radiating outwards can be just as ugly and charmless as any US suburb. This is particularly true of the post-commie part of Europe, but it's also very widespread in the West as well.

And there are a few cities in the US where you can live a Euro-style urban life: New York, Chicago, Boston, SF, a few others that I've left out. College towns (like Burlington, mentioned favorably upthread) provide the refreshing combo of small-town atmosphere with good cultural/intellectual amenities.

However, even the uglier European urban spaces typically have better transport links and lack the stupid zoning laws of US suburbs, so they tend to be laid out in more rational manner.

If Eusebius sees no significant differences among the large American cities, I can only assume he's not very familiar with them. The differences between a walkable, lively city like NY or Chicago and a car-dependent Sunbelt horror like Dallas (or Phoenix, Houston, etc) are stark and make a real difference in quality-of-life issues.

[Florestan]

Eusebistan.

Good one!

Maybe I should adopt it 

I like traditional cities of the European type, and hate the car culture that has disfigured American life. (BTW, this month I celebrate 10 years without a car, an achievement that would be practically impossible in most of the USA.)

BTW, I've noticed that some US suburbs simply don't have sidewalks. Why is that? What if you want to walk? 

I've been living almost two years in Grenoble, France and one year in Eindhoven, Netherlands. The public transportation system was excellent in both cities, but I mostly biked my way. The bike culture is strong in both countries; both cities have extended networks of bike lanes which enable you not only to go anywhere inside the city, but also to reach nearby towns and villages. In traffic, bikes take precedence over cars if not specifically signalled otherwise and a driver can have his licence suspended for not allowing a bike to pass.

That said, in many of these "traditional cities of the European type" the charm is limited to a historic and small central core, and the residential parts radiating outwards can be just as ugly and charmless as any US suburb. This is particularly true of the post-commie part of Europe, but it's also very widespread in the West as well.

Agreed. Paris, Rome, Madrid, Lyon, Marseille, Milan have some horrendous suburbs. But those are large cities, that's why I prefer "provincial small towns". 

If Eusebius sees no significant differences among the large American cities, I can only assume he's not very familiar with them. The differences between a walkable, lively city like NY or Chicago and a car-dependent Sunbelt horror like Dallas (or Phoenix, Houston, etc) are stark and make a real difference in quality-of-life issues.

I see no difference in terms of downtown architecture, not in terms of quality of life which I cannot speak of because I don't know.  0:)

EDIT: Please explain me what are those "zoning laws" about.

[mc ukrneal]

BTW, I've noticed that some US suburbs simply don't have sidewalks. Why is that? What if you want to walk? 

You walk in the street (to the side). We're talking about streets where kids can play in the street without a car coming by every 5 seconds. Many suburb streets in the US are wide enough to allow two moving cars to pass next to two parked cars. Some are narrower and would only allow one car at a time (with one or two parked cars). You do need to be careful, although speed limits are quite low in these areas and people tend to report problems quickly - which is when speed bumps or stop signs get added in.

[Florestan]

From Wikipedia's Urban Sprawl article:

Single-use zoning

This refers to a situation where commercial, residential, institutional and industrial areas are separated from one another. Consequently, large tracts of land are devoted to a single use and are segregated from one another by open space, infrastructure, or other barriers. As a result, the places where people live, work, shop, and recreate are far from one another, usually to the extent that walking, transit use and bicycling are impractical, so all these activities generally require an automobile.[2]

Areas of urban sprawl are also characterized as highly dependent on automobiles for transportation, a condition known as automobile dependency. Most activities, such as shopping and commuting to work, require the use of a car as a result of both the area's isolation from the city and the isolation the area's residential zones have from its industrial and commercial zones. Walking and other methods of transit are not practical; therefore, many of these areas have few or no sidewalks. In many suburban communities, stores and activities that are in close proximity "as the crow flies" require automobiles, because the different areas are separated by fences, walls, and drainage ditches. Some critics argue that excessive parking requirements exacerbate car dependency.


Is this a frequent situation in the US? Does it mean that if I want to buy two beers, a bottle of mineral water and a bread I have to use my car? Or if I want to meet my friends in a pub I have to use my car?

[Florestan]

You walk in the street (to the side). We're talking about streets where kids can play in the street without a car coming by every 5 seconds. Many suburb streets in the US are wide enough to allow two moving cars to pass next to two parked cars. Some are narrower and would only allow one car at a time (with one or two parked cars). You do need to be careful, although speed limits are quite low in these areas and people tend to report problems quickly - which is when speed bumps or stop signs get added in.

I see, yet I don't understand. 

Wouldn't it have been easier and safer to have sidewalks? This way cars pass their way and pedestrians walk their way without ever intersecting and having to be careful not to collide. 

[mc ukrneal]

I see, yet I don't understand. 

Wouldn't it have been easier and safer to have sidewalks? This way cars pass their way and pedestrians walk their way without ever intersecting and having to be careful not to collide. 

The streets are wide. Most suburbs have few cars parked in the road. It's pretty safe. I don't know that you would get enough use out of a sidewalk in a suburb, and surely it would be more costly.  In suburbs, you expect to see kids playing in the street, catching balls, etc. It really isn't a big deal (you just get used to it).

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Good one!

Maybe I should adopt it 

Sure...if you don't mind sounding like an obscure Central Asian country 

I've been living almost two years in Grenoble, France and one year in Eindhoven, Netherlands. The public transportation system was excellent in both cities, but I mostly biked my way.

I biked everywhere when I was living in Chicago (warning: big scary American city) - throughout the neighborhood, up and down the lakefront, etc. The administration of King Richard [Daley] II was very bike-friendly and put paths all over the place. And when it was too cold to bike I took public transport. Bikes rule - and they're not just for Europeans and Asians!

I see no difference in terms of downtown architecture, not in terms of quality of life which I cannot speak of because I don't know.  0:)

Actually there are some significant differences - but it's a complex subject and I'm too lazy to get into it right now.

From Wikipedia's Urban Sprawl article:

[quote snipped]

Is this a frequent situation in the US? Does it mean that if I want to buy two beers, a bottle of mineral water and a bread I have to use my car? Or if I want to meet my friends in a pub I have to use my car?

Yes to all your questions. It's very common (and is one of the curses of American life IMHO). In most of the country, if you want to buy bread, meet your friends in the pub etc., you have to drive. (This also puts a damper on drinking and fun in most cases, since people have to drive home.)

This development is connected to the massive growth of suburbs that occurred after WW2 (and all the related phenomena - growth of the auto industry, abundance of cheap oil, and so forth). The older type of suburb, closer to the city and often connected to it in various ways, tends to be much more traditional in layout.

[Szykneij]

In traffic, bikes take precedence over cars if not specifically signalled otherwise and a driver can have his licence suspended for not allowing a bike to pass.

Not in Brazil:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/shocking-vid-car-plows-through-pack-of-brazilian-bike-riders/

[mc ukrneal]

I have to admit, I'm pretty pessimistic when it comes to biking on the roads (though it sounds good in theory), at least in the US (though I would put much of Europe in there too). The reason is 1) Too many drivers are clueless on how to deal with bikers. 2) Too many bikers don't follow the rules that they ought to follow. This is especialluy true in congested areas.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

If you want to learn about America's sprawl disaster in detail, this book gets my highest recommendation:

http://www.amazon.com/Suburban-Nation-Sprawl-Decline-American/dp/0865476063

[mc ukrneal]

Back to sidewalks, it occurs to me that we may not have the same picture in our mind, so I include this example:


You can see that main roads DO have sidewalks (the one in the middle of this picture), but that the smaller side streets (to the left) do not. This is also pretty typical. To imply that suburbs do not have sidewalks gives the wrong imprression (in case I did give that impression). Inside the housing developments that tends to be true (few sidewalks), but only because they are off the main roads.

[Florestan]

Yes to all your questions. It's very common (and is one of the curses of American life IMHO). In most of the country, if you want to buy bread, meet your friends in the pub etc., you have to drive. (This also puts a damper on drinking and fun in most cases, since people have to drive home.)

This is insane. No, I mean insane!

Whoever had the idea of strictly separating residential, commercial and business areas must have been either an imbecile or a sadist.

For all my love of greenery and backyards, if faced with the choice between (a) having them at the price of having to use the car everytime I need/want to get out of the house and (b) living in a "damn" block of flats in the "damn" city, I wouldn't hesitate to opt for the latter.

This development is connected to the massive growth of suburbs that occurred after WW2 (and all the related phenomena - growth of the auto industry, abundance of cheap oil, and so forth). The older type of suburb, closer to the city and often connected to it in various ways, tends to be much more traditional in layout.

Anyway, in Europe this insanity is far less present. I've lived in or visited more than 25 cities in a dozen countries and nowhere, but nowhere, be it in a large capital or in a small town did I have to walk more than a hundred meters to encounter a grocery store, or a bakery, or a pub. 

I have to admit, I'm pretty pessimistic when it comes to biking on the roads (though it sounds good in theory), at least in the US (though I would put much of Europe in there too). The reason is 1) Too many drivers are clueless on how to deal with bikers. 2) Too many bikers don't follow the rules that they ought to follow. This is especialluy true in congested areas.

That's why you need separate lanes for bikers. And at least in The Netherlands case, drivers are very well trained about "how to deal with bikers". Unless one handles perfectly the car / bike crossings and interactions the chances of getting a driver licence are nil.

Back to sidewalks, it occurs to me that we may not have the same picture in our mind, so I include this example:

Yes, exactly. But now I see there is another reason for the absence of sidewalks: no one would use them anyway, because they wouldn't take you anywhere. 

[Florestan]

If you want to learn about America's sprawl disaster in detail, this book gets my highest recommendation:

http://www.amazon.com/Suburban-Nation-Sprawl-Decline-American/dp/0865476063

Thanks, will check it out.

[Florestan]

Somewhere in Florida:

[Scarpia]

Somewhere in Florida:

We get it.  You feel qualified to critique places you have never been by showing pictures of these places which you have presumably found with google. 

What basis do you have for claiming that isn't a pleasant place to live?  I think a person could comfortably listen to Brahms, read a novel by Thomas Hardy, or make a wonderful carrot cake in any of those houses.  That neighborhood seems dense enough to support a nearby town center with some shops and a place to get a cup of coffee (maybe even a dreaded Starbucks).  I grant you, your soul would be crushed there, that goes without saying.  But frankly, I think the problem is your soul, not any of these places.  If you had lived an any of the miraculous epochs of the past you would be complaining just as persistently at the oppression of your soul due to the necessity of digging potatoes all day.

[Florestan]

We get it. 

Others perhaps, you definitely not.

[Bulldog]

Somewhere in Florida:

Looks like a great place to be anonymous and hide.

[DavidRoss]

This discussion offers a terrifically clear example of typically dysfunctional human interactions, applicable to any subject, the more controversial the better.  (Though as demonstrated here, inherent controversy is not necessary to generate conflict and misunderstanding.)

One party attacks a class of people with claims based on prejudice, not knowledge.  To support the claims, he cites worst-case examples of his foe and contrasts them with best-case examples of his allies.  He resists all efforts to inform him.  Instead of making an effort to understand others' points of view and to adjust his own to incorporate the information they offer, he merely steps up his attacks, presenting more "worst-case v best-case" examples that he believes prove his point and justify his prejudice.

Must we add "housing density" to politics, religion, and global warming as subjects best avoided in polite company?

By the way, Eusebius, just so you know, "Frisco" is not regarded favorably by residents of San Francisco. 

[Florestan]

One party attacks a class of people 

David, please feel free to quote extensively from my posts in order to specify which "class of people" I attacked.