The Antiplanner is flying back to Washington today to go to various meetings. Most notably, on Thursday, December 4, I will speak at a conference about transportation. If you are in the area, I hope you can attend.
Despite the brilliant analyses in this blog, some people The device comes with new comfort features and safety viagra super store measures to keep your organ secure as you undertake the process. Many studies and surveys have stated the benefits of chocolates for happy sexual health. purchased this viagra soft This drug can cialis cheap generic render men sexually strong and empower them overcome ED. He allegedly had a blood-alcohol level of 0.184 percent viagra order canada at the time, which is well above the state’s legal limit. still don’t believe that urban planners caused the current financial crisis. If you are one of those people, and will be in DC this Friday, December 5, send me an email and I’ll arrange an invitation for you to attend a brown-bag luncheon to discuss the issue.
The guest list reads like highway lobbyist orgy!
the highwayman said: The guest list reads like highway lobbyist orgy!
JK: Why not? Highways are the most economical, most convenient, and fastest form of local transport. Of course air travel beats roads for safety and speed on longer trips. Rail loses on all accounts while buses shine for intercity economy (but they are also on highways!)
Thanks
JK
VA will be ideologue central this week.
Sorry you’re the last session, Randal. I hope you mention the big British study that showed the relationship between parks and health; ohhhhh, suuuure, rents might be a little cheaper if those ding-dang parks were paved over for ‘affordable housing’, but still.
DS
The only areas that seem to be paved over are in high density areas. I prefer a sprawling neighborhood with lots of open space of my own so, I don’t need to depend on a park.
I prefer a sprawling neighborhood with lots of open space of my own
Do you like invading/destroying wildlife habitat? What you call “open space”, they used to call “home”.
There is lots of wild life in sprawling neighborhoods. The bigger the lots the more there is. My friends farm is so full of migrating birds after he the ground looks like it is moving.
oops I hit send to soon
There is lots of wildlife in sprawling neighborhoods. The bigger the lots the more there is. My friends farm is so full of migrating birds, the ground looks like it is moving. Until you realize it is covered with geese, ducks and all kinds of birds and the occasional predator.
There is lots of wildlife in sprawling neighborhoods. The bigger the lots the more there is. My friends farm is so full of migrating birds, the ground looks like it is moving. Until you realize it is covered with geese, ducks and all kinds of birds and the occasional predator.
One of my specialties is urban ecology.
Your statement is superficially true, until one considers the good chance that there was much higher species diversity before development. And looking at, say, the BIBI before and after development. Chances are excellent that the BIBI was higher before development.
Urban sprawl is also hotter, as the lots generally are not shaded by tree canopy to the degree pre-development, and lawns are semi-pervious – this makes large-lot development generally of lower biological quality than pre-development.
I have a deadline of today for an abstract for a paper detailing how to increase tree canopy in denser developments, so I could talk all day about this topic but won’t bore everyone. But feel free to try to defend large-lot development vis a vis spp richness and diversity.
Lastly there is also preliminary evidence* that such development as in italicized tends toward isolationism, although it is unclear whether folk self-sort to such areas.
DS
* Putnam is rethinking his conclusion from Bowling Alone, but this is complicated by the self-sorting factor [as is the corollary in dense, walkable developments wrt BMI].
Hey, Dan! Were still waiting for you to backup your fantastic claims about global warming.
Where are those peer-reviewed papers proving that CO2 can really cause dangerous warming.
Thanks
JK
I just love it when these planners equate people’s rights with the rights of a squirrel.
They apparently never learned that most wild critters will entirely take over and destroy an environment if given a chance.
As to destroying all the habitat. Get back to me when sprawl populates over more than 2% of Oregon. Or are you going to say we should shut down all the farms to save habitat? Perhaps you will then say there are too many people and we need to get rid of a few. If so, please volunteer now.
Thanks
JK
The Big Station That Couldn’t
“http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/01/opinion/01mon4.html?_r=1”
This is an example of government agencies working at cross purposes (which is their usual M.O.)
Could this train and commuter station have been a success? Perhaps. We will likely never know because they screwed it up.
The form of transportation (TRAIN) is not at fault, the people planning it are. Yet we’ll like hear “trains don’t work, people won’t use them”.
Too bad government agencies aren’t ‘too big to fail’. If a private firm had built this transit system and station on a for-profit basis, it would have had enough parking to make it work. Or if they didn’t, the business would go bankrupt.
Not so government agencies. They don’t go away when they screw up.
Lorianne:
If you are interested in this topic, Flyvberg’s Rationality and Power explores this in excruciating detail. More detail than you ever imagined possible.
DS
Big lots trend toward isolationism? Shit, sounds like some folks haven’t ever lived in the city. I’ve got a building full of isolationists.
JK: Why not? Highways are the most economical, most convenient, and fastest form of local transport. Of course air travel beats roads for safety and speed on longer trips. Rail loses on all accounts while buses shine for intercity economy (but they are also on highways!)
THWM: Karl Marx would be proud of you!
When I’m talking about big lots, I’m not talking about my 1/2 acre, I mean 10 to 20 acre lots.
What is wrong with isolationism?
I love the idea of being far from my neighbors. I rode a bike and transit for 2 years while I parked my car. I have lived in apartments and somewhat dense areas and I don’t like living like that.
I’m working towards living in a sprawling 20 acre neighborhood. The good new DS, is you don’t have to and I don’t care if you ride tranist, your bike in live in a dense area.
The good new DS, is you don’t have to and I don’t care if you ride tranist, your bike in live in a dense area.
That is indeed good news. Unless you support exclusionary zoning that prohibits smaller lots.
When I’m talking about big lots, I’m not talking about my 1/2 acre, I mean 10 to 20 acre lots.
Right, this is still habitat degradation and fragmentation. Parcel size is an indicator of degree of fragmentation. And synanthropic spp. around the bird feeder or the occasional coyote taking Muffin or Fido aren’t good indicators.
DS
Dan said: Right, this is still habitat degradation and fragmentation. Parcel size is an indicator of degree of fragmentation.
JK: You are sooo concerned about the environment but you refuse to prove the basis of one of the things you preach:
Show us the peer-reviewed papers that are the foundation of you belief in global warming!!
Of course I am asking (yet again) for proof that CO2 can cause dangerous global warming.
Absent that we are concluding that all of you beliefs are totally unfounded in rationality.
Thanks
JK
That is indeed good news. Unless you support exclusionary zoning that prohibits smaller lots.
———-
I support the property owners in the different areas to decide how the zoning will change, not the planners,or politicians.
If one area decides to have 100 acre lots and another thinks 20′ X 20′ lots are the way to go. That is fine with me.
I’m also concerned about the habitat that works for my life style not DS’s.
I support diversity for you and me to choose what is best for ourselves, without subsiding anyone’s housing or transportation choice.
Is urban sprawl destroying perfectly good farm land or is it destroying pristine wildlife land?
Is urban sprawl destroying perfectly good farm land or is it destroying pristine wildlife land?
Urban sprawl is destroying perfectly good farmland. Exurban sprawl/second-third homes are fragmenting wildlands.
DS
Some of the best farmland in Portland now sits under light rail and the Airport Urban Renewal District.
Many of my farmer friends tell me they are quitting farming because it makes more since to do nothing and earn the same income.
Also at one time there was a wall where Wall Street is in NYC as that was once the city’s physical limits.