Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Headpigeons!Follow

#102 Jan 10 2012 at 9:00 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
I know plenty of people behind the wheel that aren't to be trusted.

Like women.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#103 Jan 11 2012 at 1:03 AM Rating: Good
This has got to be one of the sillier arguments I've seen. And that's saying something, considering how long I've been coming to the forum.

No matter where you live, you're "chained" to something. You're both wrong. And you're both right.
#104 Jan 11 2012 at 3:01 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
We need Anna, right about...now.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#105 Jan 11 2012 at 3:03 AM Rating: Good
Friar Bijou wrote:
We need Anna, right about...now.


Why? Is this actually a discussion on whether a ****** or a ***** is better? I thought it was about cars vs. walking.
#106 Jan 11 2012 at 6:58 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Belkira wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
We need Anna, right about...now.


Why?
Becvause trolling Anna never got old for me.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#107 Jan 11 2012 at 7:11 AM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
I have no idea what this argument is about. gbaji's upset because someone doesn't drive? Smiley: confused


Anyone who doesn't drive is not to be trusted! Smiley: nod
This coming from the guy who once said that the public upkeep of roads was immoral.
#108 Jan 11 2012 at 7:16 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Off road vehicles work as well.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#109 Jan 11 2012 at 10:50 AM Rating: Good
lolgaxe wrote:
I know plenty of people behind the wheel that aren't to be trusted.

Like women.


Last night I had to drive home in the rain, in the dark, surrounded by impatient people. Here I am driving a 40MPH because of the fog and the rain and people (mostly men) are skidding by me at 65 MPH. On a dark, rainy highway.

I kept waiting for one of them to slide right off into the ditch.
#110 Jan 11 2012 at 10:52 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
You were trying to prove him wrong, right?

You may ahve helped his case though.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#111 Jan 11 2012 at 12:32 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
I know plenty of people behind the wheel that aren't to be trusted.

Like women.
Inoright. Also, auto insurance premiums for men are more because men have more money.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#112 Jan 11 2012 at 3:01 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
I have no idea what this argument is about. gbaji's upset because someone doesn't drive? Smiley: confused


Anyone who doesn't drive is not to be trusted! Smiley: nod
This coming from the guy who once said that the public upkeep of roads was immoral.


Er? When the hell did I ever say that?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#113 Jan 13 2012 at 7:03 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,512 posts
Olorinus wrote:
Sweetums wrote:

Clueless white dude brags about living in expensive downtown tourist traps

Film at 11



I'm not a dude. I think it is funny that you accuse me of being privileged and gbaji accuses me of being poor, all because I choose to live in a walkable neighborhood.
Anyway, back to this, yes I'm calling you privileged. I know this might be shocking, but I'm not gbaji.

Are you honestly calling $1000 apartments affordable? I'm not comparing your cute little walkable neighborhood to the suburbs. I'm comparing it to the 'hood, which is where my friend lives. In fact, I said that my transport options from the suburbs are better than hers. By public transit, it takes us both 40 minutes to get to the main transit hub.


I live 26 miles from it. She lives 6.

This does not even take the fact that my bus leaves every five minutes during peak commute times (there's simply always a bus there), and hers leaves around every 20-30 minutes on a rather irregular schedule.

Hell, I don't even need to compare the 'hood. I can compare it to my old apartment which was within the city limits, but at least half of the price of rent in the more desirable, walkable areas. It required driving to commute, since biking is just plain unsafe when you live off of the interstate. However, I was so close to town, that my transport costs weren't expensive at all and were certainly cheaper than rent.

Yes, this includes maintenance.

Edited, Jan 13th 2012 7:18pm by Sweetums
#114 Jan 13 2012 at 7:20 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
I'd hate to live within walking or biking distance of the place I work. (Automotive Factory).

Hell, I'd hate to live within walking or biking distance of any place of work. Except maybe a small convenience store. I guess technically I'm within biking distance of a couple, but they are 3-4 miles away. I could (and have, when I was younger) biked that distance and piked up some stuff. But it's definitely not a convenience at that time. We just did it because it was an "Oh, we get to go to the store and buy stuff! Without our parents driving us!" moment.

I'd say a comfortable "walking distance" would be, for me, probably 10-15 minutes (no more than half hour to travel there and back). Which means, for a normal walking speed, about 1/2 to 3/4 mile. I cannot say I'd like to live anywhere where there was a grocery store, bank, place to work, etc. all within a mile of where I lived. Unless it was some small one intersection town, it would just seem way to cramped for me.

Edited, Jan 13th 2012 8:21pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#115 Jan 13 2012 at 7:26 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,512 posts
The funny thing is I drive much less now that I live in the suburbs, since all of that stuff is within biking distance for me now, and taking public transit is a more realistic (and actually, more desirable) option than driving.

Luxe buses with comfy, reclinable seats that drive past rush hour traffic on the HOV really go a long way Smiley: grin

Edited, Jan 13th 2012 7:27pm by Sweetums
#116 Jan 13 2012 at 7:47 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
TirithRR wrote:
I'd say a comfortable "walking distance" would be, for me, probably 10-15 minutes (no more than half hour to travel there and back). Which means, for a normal walking speed, about 1/2 to 3/4 mile. I cannot say I'd like to live anywhere where there was a grocery store, bank, place to work, etc. all within a mile of where I lived. Unless it was some small one intersection town, it would just seem way to cramped for me.


You're going more with the rural vs (sub)urban angle. Which I can definitely respect. Most suburban neighborhoods do have stores, banks, some places to work, etc within a mile of their homes (usually within 1/2 mile). The difference between urban and suburban really is the layout of the streets and the distribution of those things along the streets. While there's some variation of course, urban settings typically have main streets lined with storefronts and smaller side streets and alleys in between with houses and apartments on them. Suburban neighborhoods have main streets, but they're not lined with stores. The stores are all concentrated in malls at the intersections of main streets. The main streets themselves tend to have sidewalks and the backside of properties (fenced usually so there's no direct access). Instead of side streets laid out in a grid, there are entrances along the main streets into an array of smaller winding streets with cul de sacs.

While it's further by both direct route and road to shops and whatnot, it's only marginally so. The biggest issue isn't distance but cross traffic. The layout of suburban areas is designed to minimize the number of people who will walk/drive near any single home. This reduces noise. It reduces crime. It increases safety. Kids can play in the streets without worrying that someone taking a short cut down a side street will come barreling through. In most surburban neighborhoods you can still bike around if you want. However, the businesses in the area are primarily focused on consumer products, so most people will not work right in the neighborhood.


The range between them can be relatively slight to quite significant. Every case is not exactly the same. Hell. What people call suburbs can vary wildly. Some of the neighborhoods I'd call urban some people might label as the suburbs. To me, it's less about physical location as it is about layout of the area itself. That's what changes the "feel" of the neighborhood the most IMO. YMMV, of course.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#117 Jan 13 2012 at 8:01 PM Rating: Decent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
I haven't been in the downtown area in about... 10 years (last time I was in high school). The downtown area has the main street, with stores, housing streets beyond. Unfortunately the town is based on tourism. The stores on the main street are not ones that are useful for locals living in the area. There are clothing and some hobby shops and a couple smaller restaurants/bars, yes. But there is no bank or store to offer groceries (not counting gas station junk food or overpriced necessities) But beyond the one downtown gas station, much of the "useful" stuff is located 2-3 miles away from the main residential area and beach and down towards the freeway.

So yes, the proximity of the beach and freeway to the town has caused the useful stuff to move out towards the freeway and highway, and the tourist stuff to move towards the beach. Unfortunately for the layout, the residential area is also closer to the beach. Years ago when my parents were growing up in this town, there was things like groceries stores, banks, and movie theaters downtown, but those moved out to the freeway years ago. The buildings now being either empty shells or torn down and condos put up in their place.

But I think it's a much nicer layout than say, the larger towns an hour away where their main street highway has large "useful" places like Lowes, Home Depot, Walmart, large chain restaurants, all lining the main street, and houses in the streets behind them.

I can put up with smaller places catering to small groups of customers living next door, but the large places, I don't like the idea of them being in my "back yard" so to speak.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#118 Jan 13 2012 at 8:42 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
I'm not speaking specifically of "downtown" areas. Frankly, the distinction between "urban" and "suburban" has long since moved beyond that somewhat simplistic measurement. I'm looking more at the differences between neighborhood layouts which are "bike/walking" friendly, versus those which "require you to own a car". Since that's more relevant to the discussion we were having, I'm trying to restrict my comments to just those types of areas.

Most suburban areas don't have big box stores like you're talking about lining their main streets either. While some semi-big stores do sit in the large corner mall areas, they're usually not what I'd call "big box". Again though, my distinction really isn't about what kinds of stores are nearby, but the layout of the streets and houses in the areas in-between.

Urban areas are generally laid out to maximize the direct routes between points when walking, biking, or driving. Suburban areas are generally laid out to minimize those routes. Most importantly, they're laid out to minimize cross traffic. No one's (usually) going to cut through a suburban neighborhood to get to somewhere on the other side. But you do that in urban neighborhoods all the time. In many cases, it's easier and faster to drive down the smaller residential streets than the business lined main streets, with their buses, traffic lights, and people pulling in and out of businesses along the full length of the road. Businesses in the suburbs are generally in single points at the intersections of major streets and are offset in malls. Thus, traffic along the main streets is fast with fewer lights and stops. It's much faster to travel past a suburban neighborhood on the main street.


Point being that everything about the suburban design is to discourage people from stopping and going into the areas where the houses are unless they have a specific reason to go there. And this reduces noise and crime dramatically. Everything else being equal, you can take two identical grid lines of major streets say a half mile on a side and reduce crime and noise simply by changing the street layout of the smaller streets inside that grid. It's not a bad thing. It's a very good thing and represents an evolution in the understanding of how to design neighborhoods. And yes, it does make those living within more dependent on owning a car to get around. However, people choose to live in those areas because they are "better". The costs are well worth it IMO.

Edited, Jan 13th 2012 6:44pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#119 Jan 13 2012 at 8:58 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
Sweetums wrote:
Are you honestly calling $1000 apartments affordable? ...

Hell, I don't even need to compare the 'hood. I can compare it to my old apartment which was within the city limits, but at least half of the price of rent in the more desirable, walkable areas. It required driving to commute, since biking is just plain unsafe when you live off of the interstate. However, I was so close to town, that my transport costs weren't expensive at all and were certainly cheaper than rent.

Everything is relative. The minimum wage Australia wide is $15.51 per hour or $589.30 per week. At which a $1000 per month rent is completely affordable. Technically banks and the government here don't see paying almost half your income on housing as affordable, but practically speaking I've done it as a student and felt completely comfortable. How much is minimum where Olorinous lives? Unemployment benefits here are $200 per week... which would make that apartment totally unaffordable except you get rent assistance up to a certain amount on unemployment if you are renting.

As for rental being half the price of rent in the more desirable, walkable areas, yes that tends to happen over here. Walkability and good public transport make for desirability in Ozzie residential districts, whether inner, middle or outer urban.
#120 Jan 13 2012 at 9:03 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Yet New York is statistically safer area to live in than California. And, you know ... much of the south. Smiley: laugh
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#121 Jan 13 2012 at 9:18 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
Yeah, it pisses me off that there is a very widely and entrenched idea in country peoples' heads that cities are crime ridden and an unsafe place to bring up children. Yet if you look at the statistical data in Australia, there are more crimes per capita in country areas than in cities, including the serious crimes. And the suicide rate per capita is off the charts in the country compared to the cities. Sure, you feel safe enough to leave your doors unlocked outside the cities...and yet you have a greater chance of being robbed. Or killed. Or raped.

My theory on that is that there is simply a wider range of activities (and services) in the cities compared to country areas. Simply more choices/alternatives to crime and suicide or driving around in the dark with/without your mates because you want to get out of the house away from your parents/family. I've lived in a regional "city" of 60,000 people, and despite there being a few nightclubs and restaurants open after dark, it seemed like the majority of the teenage population hung laps for hours in the city's largest carpark at nighttime. In smaller towns or farming districts there'd be even less alternatives to nighttime car haunting if you wanted to get out of the house.

Edited, Jan 13th 2012 10:22pm by Aripyanfar
#122 Jan 13 2012 at 9:18 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Yet New York is statistically safer area to live in than California. And, you know ... much of the south. Smiley: laugh


I'm unsure how you think this is relevant to the topic at hand.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#123 Jan 13 2012 at 9:20 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
Yeah, it pisses me off that there is a very widely and entrenched idea in country peoples' heads that cities are crime ridden and an unsafe place to bring up children. Yet if you look at the statistical data in Australia, there are more crimes per capita in country areas than in cities, including the serious crimes. And the suicide rate per capita is off the charts in the country compared to the cities.


Stop measuring by per capita, and measure by "per square mile" and the reverse is true, right?

Now ask yourself which is more relevant if you're walking X distance home by yourself late at night.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#124 Jan 13 2012 at 9:23 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Or just ask yourself are you more likely to get mugged while walking home at night or while driving home at night?
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#125 Jan 13 2012 at 9:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
$15 an hour is minimum in Oz? Wow. It's $7.25 here.
#126 Jan 13 2012 at 9:38 PM Rating: Decent
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm unsure how you think this is relevant to the topic at hand.
That has less to do with what I posted and more to do with your inability to correctly correlate information.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 263 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (263)