"For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple--and wrong." - HL MenkenNo such luck this time. If only there were just wrong and right answers the problems would have ling since been resolved. Density is people in a space. Cut it any finer and planning breaks out and spoils the whole mess.
Today's Plantetizen has an interesting article from the Globe & Mail that shows even whole nations struggle with an identity based upon these arbitrary constructs. Excerpt: Mayors and media pundits insist we're a rapidly citifying nation. Which calls for a radical shift in resources and Canadian identity. But does the proverbial 80/20 split between downtown and down on the farm reflect a new era for a pioneer dominion - or just bad math? Gee, where have we heard the hue and cry that we must do things differently based upon bad science claims? Why is it that it always seems to be pro-urbanists that embrace these tactics? Nevermind for now. We are still laying background. There will be plenty of time to sling the mud after we establish a common language.
The US Census calls places with 1500 persons per square mile urban. The only other choice is rural for everything else. A square mile is pretty big, 640 acres. That's a golf course and 500 houses which would qualify as urban. A square mile is\\can either be a fine or a pretty coarse measure. The smallest cachement is the census block. The next largest is the block group, a logical assemblage of census blocks.
Check out Wendell Cox's decile rankings from the 2000 Census. Hard to imagine Los Angeles as being significantly more compact than Boston eh? That's why the data is more important than the perception. Or is it? Hmmmm.
71 comments:
Let me be the first to congratulate you for surpassing 800,000 visits.
I am surprised at LA being more dense than NY, but I was thinking only Manhatten. The data is interesting, nobody comes close to Manhatten, but the rest of NY isn't all that tight.
More fun with numbers:
Match up average commuting times from the Census Bureau's ACS with Cox's density numbers -- the denser the area, the longer the commute time.
Thanks wagga.
Prop,
That's why I'm going slow. If I were to barge in and start slinging all kinds of claims people wouldn't believe me.
Lex,
Exactly, you "stole" one of my punch lines.
The phone booth photo points to an interesting counter-example: college campuses. College neighborhoods are often (to the chagrin of the other residents) more dense than is typical for the area in which they're located. And yet, that seems to be the preferred state for the students themselves; not only does the high density reduce the cost of living, but the close proximity seems to be preferred.
I suspect that one reason Americans may have an inclination toward isolation (the "cocooning" we've discussed previously) is because they get the communal living thing out of their system in their childhood and college years. Also, many young professionals end up in high density areas for the first few years of their career. By the time you hit 30+ and have been living with family/roommates/random people for your whole life, you may want a little peace and quiet.
Another factor may not be the proximity to other people as much as who those people are. I know for me, being a roommate with some random person is not preferred at all, but a family member (depends on the family member, of course!) is a different story. Americans' preference for isolation from their neighbors does not speak well of their attitudes toward those neighbors.
If this doesn't cause people to lay down tracks for more subways and light rail, nothing will.
What do you think of monorails for LA?
You have to realize that NY was losing population for many years, and some of those blighted cities back east have many, many abandoned and burnt out buildings. Other than the crime, pollution, toxic brownfields -- it is really a developer's paradise, waiting to be reclaimed. Certain parts of LA are like this too.
And city people generally want to get away from other people, but the reverse is true of country people, who seem more friendly. City people vacation in the country, and country people come to the city.
@ Lost Cause:
What do you think of monorails for LA?
The city of Seattle has a monorail development board that they're not using and would surely be more than happy to send south.
I tried to come up with some monorail/carried out of town on a rail joke, but I couldn't make it sound clever.
Rob,
I thought the urban threshold was 1000 /sq mile. It is why NJ is 100% urban, still I see farm field out my back window
PV,
The US has always had a disinclination toward high density but the best explanantion I have seen for the proclivity (which seems to be unusually so compared to much of the world) is that we are not a homogenious population, we never were, and low density allows for less exposure to people different than them.
Ogg,
Seattle has better things than a monorail. Besides LA could not get anything with mass transit done right. The light rails don't make it to the airport and they even have different equipment running on them, and the cost overruns?!!
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/332081_slut18.html
PV said
>>Americans' preference for isolation from their neighbors does not speak well of their attitudes toward those neighbors.
In my last home (1 acre min lots) I never had any of my neighbors in the house in 15 years. Yet we never had an ill word for any of them. Just didn't have anything in common with them (most were old enough to be my parents)
Where I now live there is a 2 acre min. Here we have monthly dinner parties where we rent a couple teachers for minding the kids and party til midnight. Have a storm and half a dozen neighbors are knocking on the door to ask if they cut help cut the fallen tree, or snowblow your driveway, or invite you to use their warm home for hot showers since they have a generator.
It seems the urban neighbors who live next door to each other sure have a lot of gun play against each other according to the nightly news.
There has not been a shooting never mind a killing in my rural town in the 10 years we have been here. Yet the number of guns per household is probably higher than an urban area as everyone has at least one in the house.
You don't see aggressive driving on the backroads like you do in downtown anywhere.
We expect to help one another and not have some clown from Washington DC coming to take care of us. When you understand you sink or swim together, you tend not to be such an arrogant ass.
Americans are brought up to need space. Our comfort levels demand it. Go West Young Man was not about cramming into Sac Town. Compare American interaction with the Japanese or Singaporians. No way would we put up with their IN YOUR FACE interactions. More room usually means less friction since there is less chance of getting into someones comfort zone.
The streets do not shake with big trucks, as the only sounds are animals in the leaves or trees swayng in the breeze. Less noise is more relaxing and lowers stress.
So is it attitude, culture or environment? I would say it is a bit of all three.
Land costs a lot because it is worth it.. ;>)
h.
In addition to density and commuting time, I can also correlate commuting time and public transit usage, but I'll save some fun for our host.
Lex,
Be my guest. I'm busy on a new correlate; density v. Case-Shiller price declines!
The proposed monorail lines in from Ballard and West Seattle would've been awfully useful in a parallel universe where stuff isn't so expensive, nobody minds having a train running past their window, and Seattle can manage public works projects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Line_(Seattle)
This is the same city that wants billions from the state to build a highway tunnel along the waterfront.
H Simpson said:
There has not been a shooting never mind a killing in my rural town in the 10 years we have been here. Yet the number of guns per household is probably higher than an urban area as everyone has at least one in the house.
-------------------------
A neiiborhood on the upper west side of Manhattan with about a Hhalf a million people can claim the same thing.
I forgot to mention that neighborhood is the densest populated place in the world.
Metroplexual: "The US has always had a disinclination toward high density but the best explanantion I have seen for the proclivity (which seems to be unusually so compared to much of the world) is that we are not a homogenious population, we never were, and low density allows for less exposure to people different than them."
That raises a fascinating question: why do people live in neighborhoods with people who are not like them?
That's not a troll question, it's a serious question: why is personality fit with the neighbors not a factor in purchasing a home? (And as far as I can tell, it's not, despite the fact that it's one of the most critical factors for how happy people are in their home.)
H Simpson: "Go West Young Man was not about cramming into Sac Town. Compare American interaction with the Japanese or Singaporians. No way would we put up with their IN YOUR FACE interactions. More room usually means less friction since there is less chance of getting into someones comfort zone."
Well, it's not often that you hear this perspective, but levels of violence in the West were far, far higher in the 19th Century, when density was at near-historic lows. Granted, much of that was due to the almost complete lack of government authority (the Libertarian fantasy!), but while the legends of the Old West likely overstated the violence somewhat, it was still very much a reality of life there, and far more of it than in the East. Crime rates effectively spiked during Prohibition and the Great Depression, but have dropped since--even as density has risen.
But I know what you're talking about, and I had the same experience in the town I grew up in, even though it was more a small town design than a rural layout: small homes on small lots around a small town center, outlying fields, etc. But what really made the difference was that everyone went to the same churches, and everyone's kids went to the same schools, and the whole town turned out for community events. Yes, all we were missing was "Professor" Harold Hill :).
Now no one goes to church and everyone wants to pull their kids out of the schools and no one can be bothered to go to community events when there are reruns on TV to be watched, and we wonder what's wrong with society?
And riots, once again, in the Paris suburbs. Let the debate on the cause begin (again.) Loose immigration policies? No "culture of diversity"? Misguided urban development? The failure of socialism?
Or just the general malaise of the suburbs?
Any escape might help to smooth
The unattractive truth
But the suburbs have no charms to soothe
The restless dreams of youth
PV,
My brother in law told me about some planned communities in CA that market to people to be in a community with like minded people. One he mentioned was themed around a kind of hippie-chic but upscale. And actually Claritas bases its market research on you are where you live and that people self select to their community type (if they have the money for some).
I personally have lived in diverse neighborhoods and find many merits to it. It so happens in my state that those places tend to have bad schools which is why I am in an exurb now.
BTW PV,
Nice Rush reference. But I don't buy the anti-suburban sentiment. It is where I grew up.
Same album different song.
You move me ---
You move me ---
With your buildings and your eyes
Autumn woods and winter skies
You move me ---
You move me ---
Open sea and city lights
Busy streets and dizzy heights
You call me ---
You call me ---
PV -
> why do people live in neighborhoods
> with people who are not like them?
In some ways, we do. People tend to group into neighborhoods based on socio-economic similarities. You can usually classify a neighborhood based on this "working class", "wealthy", "scary", "wouldn't even want to drive through there", etc.
You may not look like your neighbors, may not go to the same church, etc., but I bet 90% fall into a similar financial picture. (your mileage may vary).
Second point - it isn't entirely practical to run around and meet everyone in the neighborhood before buying. Not being felicitous here – but we don’t have signs posted in the front yard advertising religious affiliations, cultural heritage, political party, yearly income, etc. You’d have to take a lot of time to get a really good feel for a neighborhood and likely wouldn’t want to just check one – you’d want to check many and pick the best fit. Few people even bother to check with the local PD to find out crime stats / responses for an area.
Generally, people buy the best they can afford, look for good schools, etc. There are some outward signs, but they are superficial. If you tend to keep a nice yard, you won’t buy in an area that has cars sitting on blocks on the lawn… but then again, that goes back to socio-economic factors.
I wouldn't make too many assumptions about living to the country, based on H Simpson. The average income falls quite fast, and there is a lot of meth drug crime as well, the farther out you go from the city. Many trailers. Of course there are nice places, just like there are nice places in the city. Being that there is so much more country, it is safe to say that you must be even more careful where you live.
I don't think the suburbs of Paris are anything like US suburbs. On the other hand, the inner ring of US suburbs is not what they used to be either.
"...I forgot to mention that neighborhood is the densest populated place in the world."
The upper west side of Manhattan? I doubt Jerry Seinfeld's neighborhood is denser than my old one in what used to be known as Hell's Kitchen. And is NYC more densely populated than Mumbai or Tokyo?
Public transit and commuting times: it’s tempting to overreach and say there is a negative correlation, but I’ll simply say I can’t find a positive one. Take the highest public transit usage (PTU) by mileage and the Census Bureau ACS figures for longest commuting times and you will often find the same suspects in both top ten lists. NYC residents have the absolute worst commuting times (nearly a third longer than LA) with total PTU nearly six times the average of all other urban areas (NYC is also freakishly high in commuter PTU – over 50%; unfortunately, I can’t do a breakout for other cities). Within the ACS report’s margin of error, SF’s commuting time is about the same as LA’s, and worse than that of Dallas and Houston. Seattle and Portland break the trend with spots in the top ten for PTU usage and 16th and 37th in commutes, though both are significantly worse than the axes of evil represented by Fresno, Sacramento, and Bakersfield.
The PT advocate’s answer is always one more subway, light rail, or bike path will solve the problem. Unfortunately, the bucks to do so can’t be generated by market forces, and the public till is getting mighty thin.
When they say Paris "suburbs" I imagine they are employing the same euphemisms as Paris "youths".
I suppose they are a suburb, and I suppose they are youths, but it seems not to be an entirely encompassing term. Would Watts be called a "suburb"? It's as far from downtown LA as Burbank is.
The FOAMers (forces of antimobility) have had carte blanche for near 30 years and have filed near every time in near every performance metric. In LA more than 3/4ths of the MTA budget is spent on transit that serves 2.5% of the population. ransit is such a miserable failure that even its' most vocal supporters are horrified at the prospect of paying anything close to the true costs.
Lex,
The area I am calling out is north of there. It is in the vicinity of the opera house and a bit north, like 20 blocks (in Manhattan that means a mile folks). BTW why do you think they call it hell's kitchen, is it supposed to be nice? In an urban environment neighborhoods mean everything.
As for NYC commute times all I have to say if you saw the caliber of passenger traveling you would lose it. The women who travel around Manhattan can only be compared to the Hollywood women in the US. The only difference is the NYC babes are business dressed. But no less beautiful.
Rebecca -- Watts is part of the City of Los Angeles, Burbank is incorporated. Burbank is also separated from LA proper by a mountain range. So, no, Watts isn't considered a suburb. Strictly urban.
@H. Simpson
New Hampshire resident?
I am totally digging the Rush. Love the nerd rock. Keep it coming!
It's understood
By every single person
Who'd be elsewhere if they could
So far so good
And life's not unpleasant
In their little neighborhood
Hehe. "Hollywood women" are usually pushing a shopping cart, or a syringe.
WWTF: thanks for the clarification. I was looking at the map without regard for boundaries, and remembering Watts burning as Paris is now. Somewhat. Sometimes a suburb is just a suburb.
How about some punk rock?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi81DkeTkLo
Hmmm, I was in Paris during the last riots - and found it interesting that while the late 19th century Haussmann influence was very much a part of large 20th Century U.S. cities, the concept of suburbia and exurbia - for that matter - is entirely different.
Anyone who doesn't think the Paris suburbs suck should walk to the airport from the city.
Take the highest public transit usage (PTU) by mileage and the Census Bureau ACS figures for longest commuting times and you will often find the same suspects in both top ten lists.
So would commuting times in New York decrease if we removed public transit there? I think the correlation is explained by transit being most viable when other commuting methods are at their most inefficient.
L'etranger: "So would commuting times in New York decrease if we removed public transit there? I think the correlation is explained by transit being most viable when other commuting methods are at their most inefficient."
Very good point. But there's another facet to consider: the supply and demand of jobs.
When I lived in Brattleboro VT (lovely place by the way, and not quite as odd as the press thinks it is), commutes were either very short--as in ten minutes--or extremely long--as in half a day. You see, there's this thing about the supply of jobs--for all intents and purposes, Brattleboro doesn't really have any. That means you're either checker at the grocery store (ten minutes) or an independent artist (zero minutes) or a hippie (zero minutes, as you live on the commune); or, you're an investment banker or a college professor, in which case your commute is the drive to the local airport and the ride on the short-hop plane in to New York (three hours or more.)
The problem isn't just with the urban design--it's that jobs tend to cluster in higher concentrations than would allow for ready commutes. IF Google wanted to be located in the middle of nowhere, its employees would have an easy commute--but Google wants to be close to its competitors (so that it can steal their employees, etc.), and the competitors want to be close to it, and voila, Silicon Valley and its nightmarish commutes. Ditto New York and the finance industry, Washington and government/law, Houston and oil, L.A. and . . . what does L.A. do exactly? oh yeah, entertainment and some archaic aerospace stuff.
Show me one area with a significant concentration of jobs that does not have heavy traffic congestion--just one.
L'etranger,
You beat me to it.
"So would commuting times in New York decrease if we removed public transit there?"
I said I couldn't find a negative correlation. Please show me a positive one. Or maybe explain why a commute from Bensonhurst to midtown Manhattan on the country's most expensive and comprehensive public transit system takes twice as long as a commute by car from Farmers Branch to downtown Dallas. Or why in the same NYC total subway ridership has not kept up with population, and commuting ridership has fallen in absolute percentage.
"Show me one area with a significant concentration of jobs that does not have heavy traffic congestion--just one"
"traffic congestion" is a meaningless term. The mere sight of an interstate throws the typical Richard Floridian urban fetishist into a froth. If by "traffic congestion" you mean a level of traffic sufficient to cause people to change their behavior, just look to my neck of the woods, the "transit rich" northeast, which the middle class is in the process fo abandoning for the southeast and west. But for the sake of argument, note that Dallas, Atlanta, and Charlotte all have commuting times within the same statistical range as Portland.
BTW, I know VT well. If you want to see a concentration of jobs, check out Burlington or Stowe; just be careful crossing the street lest you get run over by a recent NYC emigrant in a Land Rover.
Lex
Unfortunately I don't know New York or Dallas. I mentioned in an earlier thread I had lived in Toronto and Montreal. Both have excellent transit systems (Montreal probably better than Toronto). I can tell you that Toronto has some of the same issues that New York does (increasing population and falling ridership). I can tell you two factors that have contributed: first an underfunding of public transit over the last 15-20 years. People will move where houses are cheaper, and if transit does not expand to serve them, they drive. The subway in Toronto reflects the growth patterns of the 1950s and 60s, not the current patterns. The second factor is the location of the jobs. Many corporate headquarters fled downtown to the suburbs and exurbs in the 1990s. They were trading sky high rents for low land costs (downtown there sometimes seems as though it is made of banks, lawyers, and gubmint). The company pattern is a chicken/egg problem with the residence pattern of workers, but result is a short commute (now within or between exurbs rather than downtown).
So why does ridership fall as population grows? The subway no longer goes where the new population wants to travel. That having been said, the subway adds a great deal of value. Just look at commercial or residential rents, or residential real estate, and you can see prices spike within walking distance of a subway.
L'Estranger:
I'll grant the first part of your post, and it is why I would argue against sinking vast amounts of money into static forms of transit that are built without the benefit of market discipline, which do not even serve their stated purpose.
As for the value-added argument, I can only say that, based on my experience, it is certainly true in Manhattan, not true in its boroughs, and partially true in DC and Chicago.
I don't know Toronto well; in Montreal and Quebec City the underground I think relates more to the retail/tourist market. They are both beautiful and civilized cities.
I find it somewhat stupid that so many people physically need to be located in an office. Obviously, this will never change for firefighters or ER nurses, but why on earth are technology employees shuffling off to work every day?
Thank god my current company has embraced the "virtual office" and encourages working from home, but many of my prior working arrangements did not and I always found it kind of dumb.
I realize that most corporate cultures frown upon this "working from home" business, but it's just as easy to slack off at work (at my last dot-bomb place, it was downright flagrant), or, alternately, to micromanage using IM...
Seems to me that companies would save on real estate costs/rent, operating costs, recruiting costs, absenteeism, even turnover, if they were less ridiculous about "face time".
And then we could all live where we want, not just where we can afford or what's a reasonable commute...
We've talked about telecommuting before, but my observation is that a minority of people are permanently hard workers, another minority are incurable slackers, and a majority have a productivity that's very dependent on their work environment. That being the case, it still makes sense to bring (most) employees in to a workplace, even if they could potentially work out of home.
My personal experience has been that telecommuters seem to be evenly split between workers and slackers; but in-office workers, for the most part, get work done. Consequently, were I calling the shots, the few employees who had proved themselves would be able to work out of home, while everyone else would be utilizing their transportation medium of choice to be in the office every day.
Lex,
I took the family on vacation to VT last year. There did not seem to be any traffic issues, even in Burlington. But, the speed limit was hilarious. 35 MPH the whole way on the highway in Burlington. It was painful for a Californian.
Consequently, were I calling the shots, the few employees who had proved themselves would be able to work out of home, while everyone else would be utilizing their transportation medium of choice to be in the office every day.
pv, In a few years time you'll be lucky if you can get anyone to do any work at all. Our monetary system is heading down the toilet.
Who did this?
http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/7523/caseydidnm3.jpg
Man, sometimes I just need Casey to kick around.
Rob, you still did not reply.
>=1000 is urban
>6<1000 is rural
<6 is frontier
Oh, sorry. Really, really busy. Of course, 1000/sq mi has always been the threshold. I've only been using 1000 for a generation. Insipience of senility? . "1500" was typo/brain fart. In my busy I thought it was all cleared up and I was exposed as the idiot I am.
Real quick. Transit slows commutes for all not just users. The billions freed up by eliminating transit subsidies would reduce POV commute congestion. Additionally the transit subsides distort jobs/housing distributions. Those would remodel towards lower commute times as well.
Not making accusations. I just wanted to make sure we were speaking the same language.
BTW is your stuff from Pisarski? I seem to remember something like this in "Stuck in Traffic".
Pisarski has been modifying his model for years to AVOID my criticisms. The worst was two years ago when the TTI RCI was changed and the formula hidden to conceal the truth.
> The billions freed up by eliminating
> transit subsidies would reduce POV commute congestion.
To a point. At some level, you run out of places to put the blacktop. Certain levels of density are not possible on roads alone. Can you imagine Manhatten without the subway?
> Additionally the transit subsides distort
> jobs/housing distributions.
Absolutely.
> Those would remodel towards lower
> commute times as well.
Very true.
The efficiencies in rail are hard to dispute. Besides, these systems were built out as private ventures, and only later operated by the government. (Certainly more recent systems bypass the private stage.) LA is spread out as a result of the trains built by Mr. Huntington et al. Now many tax dollars are needed to rebuild the system demolished by GM, Texaco and Firestone. What are you complaining about, exactly?
The efficiencies in rail are hard to dispute.
No, the efficiencies in rail bulk transport are hard to dispute. The inefficiencies in rail transit are hard to dispute.
@Rob Dawg,
What's your Walk Score?
2, why it isn't 1 I have no idea.
Inefficiencies in rail transit? By way of costs, perhaps; although much of that is real estate or initial construction costs. Another HUGE factor is artificially inflated wages due to union contracts, which are a ball and chain on many of the older transit systems (but not on newer systems in right-to-work states.)
But energy efficiency is a different story--moving a thousand people in one train vs moving a thousand people in individual vehicles? No contest.
That means that rail transit is more cost-efficient above a certain break-even point in energy costs. $1/gallon gas, I'm not sure why anybody would take the train. $10/gallon gas--well, I think we're going to find out.
Akubi -
Interesting site, though it missed quite a bit. We have a large (for a city park) park one block down from us, missed it completely. Listed the closest as .75 miles away (nice, but smaller park).
Also missed a lot of the neighborhood restaraunts. Looks like it only got 3/4 or so of them. Not bad, but...
Scored a 58, should have been higher.
Scored a 17, but it should have been lower, as my neighborhood has no sidewalks. Playing in traffic while trying to go for a walk or for a run--exciting!
But the effort to limit mass transit in favor of roads has one very amusing side effect--it means that the "help" (who can rarely afford long car commutes) will simply have to live that much closer to the places where they do the yardwork, cook the food, raise the children, etc. Of course, that would have been nearly impossible twenty or so years ago, but now, with all those McMansions sitting vacant and available for rentals . . .
Vacant Housing + Limited Public Transit + High Gas Costs = Guess Who's Moving In Next Door!
Ahh, the Law of Unintended Consequences, it always warms my heart.
At 1:46 PM, Rob Dawg said...
2, why it isn't 1 I have no idea
I figured as much. I'm a 78.
@Property Flopper,
Yes, they seem to mainly include chain restaurants and stores.
For example, I am .28 miles from both a Jamba Juice and a Starbucks.
I got a score of 32. The system appeared to identify everything in my town as within walking distance, but there are a *lot* of quirks. Under "Schools" it listed a day care center but missed a major university. It identified the local Democratic Party headquarters as a movie theater. It also factored a theater 25 miles away into the score. It missed a lot of businesses which would have yielded a higher score.
On the other hand, it ignores topography. Factoring in the terrain would reduce the score, since most people aren't willing to carry their groceries as far uphill as on flat ground.
The system appears to weigh distance very heavily. Choosing an address a mile and a half away gave me the same set of results but raised the score to 92.
In current dollars, $10/gallon gasoline + recession = end of public transit funding in this country. Without the mass transit portion of the already-weakened highway trust fund, no mo' money for pink ponies or light rail.
My score is 52. Under "Bars" they got Jamba (Whatever that is) & missed an excellent micro-brewery - my pub. Newest data is about a year old, and some older data is just plain bad.
I'm surrounded by stores, etc, but all are at least a third of a mile distant in any direction. It's perfect - I get my quiet for working, plus a mild workout when I walk to any store.
I got 66, which is the reason I like this hood. Can walk to lots of places. I would not like to live anyplace where walk or bike is not easy.
Bait & Tackle shop == bookstore? Chiropractic == fitness? Video rental == movie theater??? Used Cisco eqpt == hardware?
Rodney King's walk score is 72, according to the phone book address.
Good thing too, considering the DUI convictions and the buckshot in the ass won't make riding the bike any easier.
Rob Dawg: 2, why it isn't 1 I have no idea
Akubi: I figured as much. I'm a 78.
I had this discussion I think a year ago maybe more. At that time the test was labeled a sustainability measure. The reason it isn't called that anymore is because they got caught in a classic pro-urbanist lie. Here's the deal. Pro-urbanists have only one goal; density. Everything revolves around density. The more you can pack into a space the better your 'score.' Doesn't matter what you measure, a higher score is better. Notice that they don't measure proximity to crime, incidence of asthma, tax burden, commute times, school scores or golf courses. yeah, that's the ticket. rather than restaurants I think I'll measure golf courses. Sterling Hills 500 yds. Spanish Hills, 1 mile, Saticoy 3 miles, oh and Las Posas Country Club. How far away is it when you live on the 7th tee?
rather than restaurants I think I'll measure golf courses. Sterling Hills 500 yds.
Don't they have a restaurant at the golf course?
How far away is it when you live on the 7th tee?
I think it depends on the length of your driveway. *g,d&r*
@Dawg,
Actually, I live in a suburb with low crime and good schools. Not that I personally care about schools (yet vote for the education of the breeder's spawn for the sake of the overall good - despite the taxes), but I do work late on occasion and like to walk home without being hassled. Live is easier when one can safely walk from point A to point B.
Golf bores the hell out of me so I don't know what to make of that.
How many miles do you drive a day?
Thanks for that walk score site --
some numbers:
Al Gore's mansion and
zinc mine in Carthage, TN: 0
Rob Dawg's whatever: 2
Rob & Laura Petrie's home
in New Rochelle, NY: 38
water view SFH in Sea Cliff
section of San Francisco: 78
3rd-floor walkup on
s****y street in Bushwick
Brooklyn: 94
My house has been variously described as Predialian Manse, Exurban Dystopia, Casa Del Crazy, Ass End of the Universe, and several others.
Google Map: 34.2515, -119.080
Both the Country Club and Sterling Hills have nice restaurants but like I said, the sustainability calculator isn't about measuring it is about supporting a conclusion.
So the sweet spot in the Walk Score spectrum is something like:
Walk Score/C
where C = 12 gauge or my favorite 10 or 9mm or .357/.38/.44/.45/.50, etc.
And the eponymous Rodney just hates buckshot.
Post a Comment