Discussion:
The Urban Vs Suburban:The War,Whose winning?
(too old to reply)
Mr.Cool
2007-02-27 02:10:32 UTC
Permalink
We all know that devopling town homes,ect is alot less work/cost
efficent then trying to build a urben city. But who wants/needs MORE
suburbs? Cities are alot better looking, last longer and in gereral
alot heck of alot cooler esp with more culture then white middle
class. Well if you agree, what do we do about it? I sure don't need
more boring suberbs and I don't think you do either. But what can we
do? Building or if you perfer ''Developing''[as if they need to be
devloped] suburbs takes a snap of a finger, but cities takes money/and
alot more time. Well what do you think?
Amy Blankenship
2007-02-27 04:16:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr.Cool
We all know that devopling town homes,ect is alot less work/cost
efficent then trying to build a urben city. But who wants/needs MORE
suburbs? Cities are alot better looking, last longer and in gereral
alot heck of alot cooler esp with more culture then white middle
class.
Actually, cities tend to have a higher average temperature than the
surrounding countryside.
George Conklin
2007-02-27 10:40:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Mr.Cool
We all know that devopling town homes,ect is alot less work/cost
efficent then trying to build a urben city. But who wants/needs MORE
suburbs? Cities are alot better looking, last longer and in gereral
alot heck of alot cooler esp with more culture then white middle
class.
Actually, cities tend to have a higher average temperature than the
surrounding countryside.
4 to 8 degrees higher in cities due to thermal lag. Too few trees.
JG
2007-03-29 21:56:09 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 26, 11:16 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Mr.Cool
We all know that devopling town homes,ect is alot less work/cost
efficent then trying to build a urben city. But who wants/needs MORE
suburbs? Cities are alot better looking, last longer and in gereral
alot heck of alot cooler esp with more culture then white middle
class.
Actually, cities tend to have a higher average temperature than the
surrounding countryside.
Does that differential cause tornados to go around cities ??
Amy Blankenship
2007-03-29 22:19:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by JG
On Feb 26, 11:16 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Mr.Cool
We all know that devopling town homes,ect is alot less work/cost
efficent then trying to build a urben city. But who wants/needs MORE
suburbs? Cities are alot better looking, last longer and in gereral
alot heck of alot cooler esp with more culture then white middle
class.
Actually, cities tend to have a higher average temperature than the
surrounding countryside.
Does that differential cause tornados to go around cities ??
Yes, and floods, hurricanes, wars, famines, plagues, and traveling salesmen.
Jack May
2007-02-27 04:35:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr.Cool
We all know that devopling town homes,ect is alot less work/cost
efficent then trying to build a urben city. But who wants/needs MORE
suburbs? Cities are alot better looking, last longer and in gereral
alot heck of alot cooler esp with more culture then white middle
class. Well if you agree, what do we do about it?
Typical mindless cliché crap by boring people.

The research on this subject has shown that what you say is wrong.
George Conklin
2007-02-27 10:41:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack May
Post by Mr.Cool
We all know that devopling town homes,ect is alot less work/cost
efficent then trying to build a urben city. But who wants/needs MORE
suburbs? Cities are alot better looking, last longer and in gereral
alot heck of alot cooler esp with more culture then white middle
class. Well if you agree, what do we do about it?
Typical mindless cliché crap by boring people.
The research on this subject has shown that what you say is wrong.
The above post by Mr. Cool has a name: "The Revanchist City."
Mr.Cool
2007-02-28 01:08:54 UTC
Permalink
Well guys, its irrelivent how warm the city is compared to a suberb,
suberbs just arnt needed right now, but what do we do about it? We
need more city devolpempent but how?
Post by George Conklin
Post by Jack May
Post by Mr.Cool
We all know that devopling town homes,ect is alot less work/cost
efficent then trying to build a urben city. But who wants/needs MORE
suburbs? Cities are alot better looking, last longer and in gereral
alot heck of alot cooler esp with more culture then white middle
class. Well if you agree, what do we do about it?
Typical mindless cliché crap by boring people.
The research on this subject has shown that what you say is wrong.
The above post by Mr. Cool has a name: "The Revanchist City."
George Conklin
2007-02-28 13:30:12 UTC
Permalink
"Mr.Cool" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:***@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com...
Well guys, its irrelivent how warm the city is compared to a suberb,
suberbs just arnt needed right now, but what do we do about it? We
need more city devolpempent but how?


Wrong again. The so-called suburbs ARE city just developed at a
slightly later date than old-fashioned downtowns which serve no useful
purpose in an information society. Downtowns did not exist before
fixed-rail transit and have no particular function today either. Also, as
weak communications were replaced by strong communication patterns, the
function of a central place for communications is dead also. Internet is a
dispersed system not dependent on a downtown telephone exchange. So give it
up: modern cities are what you are against. You are actually anti-city.
Baxter
2007-03-01 01:39:51 UTC
Permalink
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
... Downtowns did not exist before
fixed-rail transit and have no particular function today either.
Bullshit. Cities have had "downtowns" since the first city was built.
Tadej Brezina
2007-03-01 15:53:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr.Cool
Well guys, its irrelivent how warm the city is compared to a suberb,
suberbs just arnt needed right now, but what do we do about it? We
need more city devolpempent but how?
Wrong again. The so-called suburbs ARE city
Legally: maybe.
Functionally: completely wrong.
Suburbs are not a city as they lack the fundamental feature: the
functional mix a city incorporates since the start of cities thousands
of years ago.
Post by Mr.Cool
just developed at a
slightly later date than old-fashioned downtowns which serve no useful
purpose in an information society.
Putting fancy words together doesn't produce sentences with meaning!
So just tell me, why doing business/residing/visiting/... in a downtown
is no usefull need?
In most european cities, the cores are the highest quality and fanciest
places to live/do business of all kinds/do shopping/...
Post by Mr.Cool
Downtowns did not exist before
fixed-rail transit and have no particular function today either. Also, as
weak communications were replaced by strong communication patterns, the
function of a central place for communications is dead also.
So to which extent - maybe completely? - do you think can/will human
beings replace personal interaction by means of modern communication?
And what does sociology say to an idea throwing all over the primary
pattern of human interaction for thousands of years? What implications
does it have?

[intentional spam disposed]

best regards
Tadej
--
"Vergleich es mit einer Pflanze - die wächst auch nur dann gut, wenn du
sie nicht jeden zweiten Tag aus der Erde reißt, um nachzusehen, ob sie
schon Wurzeln geschlagen hat."
<Martina Diel in d.t.r>
George Conklin
2007-03-01 19:19:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tadej Brezina
Post by Mr.Cool
Well guys, its irrelivent how warm the city is compared to a suberb,
suberbs just arnt needed right now, but what do we do about it? We
need more city devolpempent but how?
Wrong again. The so-called suburbs ARE city
Legally: maybe.
Functionally: completely wrong.
Incorrect statement. Today the jobs are in the suburbs and serve the same
purpose of the temporary downtowns of the fixed rail era, now long gone.
Post by Tadej Brezina
Suburbs are not a city as they lack the fundamental feature: the
functional mix a city incorporates since the start of cities thousands
of years ago.
Today's cities are much more alike to the ancient cities than the
industrial city. They were cellular cities, like today's cities.
Post by Tadej Brezina
Post by Mr.Cool
just developed at a
slightly later date than old-fashioned downtowns which serve no useful
purpose in an information society.
Putting fancy words together doesn't produce sentences with meaning!
Downtowns did not exist before the rail system came in. Cities were
cellular in nature, and they have reverted to that earlier form.
Scott en Aztlán
2007-03-02 14:26:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr.Cool
We all know that devopling town homes,ect is alot less work/cost
efficent then trying to build a urben city. But who wants/needs MORE
suburbs? Cities are alot better looking, last longer and in gereral
alot heck of alot cooler esp with more culture then white middle
class. Well if you agree, what do we do about it? I sure don't need
more boring suberbs and I don't think you do either. But what can we
do? Building or if you perfer ''Developing''[as if they need to be
devloped] suburbs takes a snap of a finger, but cities takes money/and
alot more time. Well what do you think?
I think you're a semi-literate moron who wouldn't know "culture" if it
bit him on the ass.
george conklin
2007-03-02 15:14:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott en Aztlán
Post by Mr.Cool
We all know that devopling town homes,ect is alot less work/cost
efficent then trying to build a urben city. But who wants/needs MORE
suburbs? Cities are alot better looking, last longer and in gereral
alot heck of alot cooler esp with more culture then white middle
class. Well if you agree, what do we do about it? I sure don't need
more boring suberbs and I don't think you do either. But what can we
do? Building or if you perfer ''Developing''[as if they need to be
devloped] suburbs takes a snap of a finger, but cities takes money/and
alot more time. Well what do you think?
I think you're a semi-literate moron who wouldn't know "culture" if it
bit him on the ass.
One man who has successfully predicted trends in the past based on
technology now says that people will stop worrying about so-called sprawl
and embrace it because it concentrates the human population in a few places
and this environmentally best.
Mr.Cool
2007-03-05 23:03:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott en Aztlán
Post by Mr.Cool
We all know that devopling town homes,ect is alot less work/cost
efficent then trying to build a urben city. But who wants/needs MORE
suburbs? Cities are alot better looking, last longer and in gereral
alot heck of alot cooler esp with more culture then white middle
class. Well if you agree, what do we do about it? I sure don't need
more boring suberbs and I don't think you do either. But what can we
do? Building or if you perfer ''Developing''[as if they need to be
devloped] suburbs takes a snap of a finger, but cities takes money/and
alot more time. Well what do you think?
I think you're a semi-literate moron who wouldn't know "culture" if it
bit him on the ass.
O yea cause you know how much culture Suberbs have right? NO. Kids who
grow up in the suberbs wouldnt know racisim if it ''bit them on their
ass.'' Suberbs in my opinion are one of the more uglier creations of
construction builder.
George Conklin
2007-03-06 11:19:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott en Aztlán
Post by Mr.Cool
We all know that devopling town homes,ect is alot less work/cost
efficent then trying to build a urben city. But who wants/needs MORE
suburbs? Cities are alot better looking, last longer and in gereral
alot heck of alot cooler esp with more culture then white middle
class. Well if you agree, what do we do about it? I sure don't need
more boring suberbs and I don't think you do either. But what can we
do? Building or if you perfer ''Developing''[as if they need to be
devloped] suburbs takes a snap of a finger, but cities takes money/and
alot more time. Well what do you think?
I think you're a semi-literate moron who wouldn't know "culture" if it
bit him on the ass.
O yea cause you know how much culture Suberbs have right? NO. Kids who
grow up in the suberbs wouldnt know racisim if it ''bit them on their
ass.'' Suberbs in my opinion are one of the more uglier creations of
construction builder.

The lower east side of NYC is the most ugly place in the universe.
Mr.Cool
2007-03-06 22:05:15 UTC
Permalink
Sure, but is that a reason for building suberbs?I don't think it is,
we should avoid suberbs and work harder to make cities better. I think
that is a better plan then to build model homes. Tangent; the suberbs
that I am concerned with are the ones with model, cheap easy to build
homes,that stray away from cutlure. The Suberbs I do like are ones of
the likes of Oak Park, Illinois. Why do I like those kinds better? for
one the desing of the home is differnt for every home instead of 5
differnt models. Also, this suberb does not stray away from culture.
What do I mean by that? Well for starters it does'nt have one huge
Wal*Mart, and a few other huge franchises of shopping centers ect. Oak
Park has alot of for exapmle a coffie shop started owned by a family
or the like, compared to a starbucks or Cariboo. Not just one huge
strip mall were all of the soccer moms go to do thir shopping. Yes I
bet you think I am sounding very cleishe about this,cleishe or not,
this is how it is.
w***@urbantowns.com
2007-03-06 23:21:07 UTC
Permalink
Suburbs are by nature isolating and socially dead environments.

We climb in our cars to move about our daily lives and barely know our
neighbors. The cities and smart growth development are the answer.
Actually, concepts like BOHO centers (http://bohosource.blogspot.com/)
can be applied to help the suburban lifestyle. The cities encourage
meaningful social interaction and if a thoughtfully developed city
area uses green building standards and is near or on a transportation
hub, we can save the earth, the city, and each other!!
George Conklin
2007-03-07 12:56:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Suburbs are by nature isolating and socially dead environments.
This is low-level stupid slander.
Mr.Cool
2007-03-07 22:01:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Conklin
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Suburbs are by nature isolating and socially dead environments.
This is low-level stupid slander.
Okay I am going to just list the things wrong with the suburbs that
the city has right

-The Grid system. I don't think curvy streets and windey roads are the
most planned out road systems avalible.

-Commercialism: Suberbs tend to have one stop shopping centers filled
with huge franchise stores away were everyone who lives there has to
get in there cars to drive all the way to get a stick of butter. This
goes for things like libaries,movie rentes ect.

-Housing Development: Look, I know that building model homes with
cheap industrial materials is inexpencive, but come one. YUCK! I can't
stand that. I love knowing that my house is the only house like it in
the city.

I don't know what makes the suburbs so anti-cultural, maby its all of
the above, your opinions/reactions?
George Conklin
2007-03-07 22:21:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by George Conklin
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Suburbs are by nature isolating and socially dead environments.
This is low-level stupid slander.
Okay I am going to just list the things wrong with the suburbs that
the city has right
-The Grid system. I don't think curvy streets and windey roads are the
most planned out road systems avalible.
The grid system encourages crime. When traffic builds up on any one
street, people don't want it. They want sleeping policemen installed.
Post by Mr.Cool
-Commercialism: Suberbs tend to have one stop shopping centers filled
with huge franchise stores away were everyone who lives there has to
get in there cars to drive all the way to get a stick of butter. This
goes for things like libaries,movie rentes ect.
The downtown libraries which existed required people to get in the ir cars
and drive THERE. You are just destination-limited in your thoughts.
Post by Mr.Cool
-Housing Development: Look, I know that building model homes with
cheap industrial materials is inexpencive, but come one. YUCK! I can't
stand that. I love knowing that my house is the only house like it in
the city.
The cold water flats of the past were mass production of their era. You
are simply in awe of mass production of the past, but not of the present.
Post by Mr.Cool
I don't know what makes the suburbs so anti-cultural, maby its all of
the above, your opinions/reactions?
City museums are not real culture. The are culture which you purchase to
look good with the admission fee.
Baxter
2007-03-08 04:27:59 UTC
Permalink
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by George Conklin
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Suburbs are by nature isolating and socially dead environments.
This is low-level stupid slander.
Nope. It's documented fact. It's also a fact that suburbanites join
fundamentalist churches that claim to offer acceptance and social
interaction.
Mr.Cool
2007-03-09 03:59:59 UTC
Permalink
''The cold water flats of the past were mass production of their
era. You
are simply in awe of mass production of the past, but not of the
present.''

So your saying that new suburbs are differnt? No I think they are much
worse.
Mass production of suburban housing is still in effect.
George Conklin
2007-03-09 12:39:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr.Cool
''The cold water flats of the past were mass production of their
era. You
are simply in awe of mass production of the past, but not of the
present.''
So your saying that new suburbs are differnt? No I think they are much
worse.
Mass production of suburban housing is still in effect.
Both areas are mass production. The era of the craftsman is over. The idea
that older mass production in the city is now somehow cute, but the current
mass production in newer parts of the city is somehow bad, is pretty
strange.
BOHOSource
2007-03-27 22:27:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Conklin
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Suburbs are by nature isolating and socially dead environments.
This is low-level stupid slander.
If this is low-level stupid slander, then tell me how they are not..."
isolating and socially dead environments."
George Conklin
2007-03-28 01:17:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by BOHOSource
Post by George Conklin
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Suburbs are by nature isolating and socially dead environments.
This is low-level stupid slander.
If this is low-level stupid slander, then tell me how they are not..."
isolating and socially dead environments."
Because traditional urbanization, including BOHO, are socially dead
environments.
drydem
2007-04-01 14:23:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Conklin
Post by BOHOSource
Post by George Conklin
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Suburbs are by nature isolating and socially dead environments.
This is low-level stupid slander.
If this is low-level stupid slander, then tell me how they are not..."
isolating and socially dead environments."
Because traditional urbanization, including BOHO, are socially dead
environments.
Traditional urbanized areas are not socially dead environments.
As long as more than one person lives in a environnment,
an environment cannot be *socially dead*
Suburban and urban areas by definition cannot be isolated.
Rural areas by definition are isolated.
Mr.Cool
2007-04-01 20:50:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
Post by BOHOSource
Post by George Conklin
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Suburbs are by nature isolating and socially dead environments.
This is low-level stupid slander.
If this is low-level stupid slander, then tell me how they are not..."
isolating and socially dead environments."
Because traditional urbanization, including BOHO, are socially dead
environments.
Traditional urbanized areas are not socially dead environments.
As long as more than one person lives in a environnment,
an environment cannot be *socially dead*
Suburban and urban areas by definition cannot be isolated.
Rural areas by definition are isolated.
Okay if you want to be literal about it. But if your going to a
suburb, its usally going to be because you live there and your going
to your house. Theres really not much else in suburbs besides a few
strip malls and a lot of houses with crooked, curvy roads.
George Conklin
2007-04-01 23:08:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
Post by BOHOSource
Post by George Conklin
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Suburbs are by nature isolating and socially dead environments.
This is low-level stupid slander.
If this is low-level stupid slander, then tell me how they are not..."
isolating and socially dead environments."
Because traditional urbanization, including BOHO, are socially dead
environments.
Traditional urbanized areas are not socially dead environments.
As long as more than one person lives in a environnment,
an environment cannot be *socially dead*
Suburban and urban areas by definition cannot be isolated.
Rural areas by definition are isolated.
Okay if you want to be literal about it. But if your going to a
suburb, its usally going to be because you live there and your going
to your house. Theres really not much else in suburbs besides a few
strip malls and a lot of houses with crooked, curvy roads.
You really are trying to be serious, or are you just being silly?
Pat
2007-04-02 00:04:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by BOHOSource
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
Post by BOHOSource
Post by George Conklin
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Suburbs are by nature isolating and socially dead environments.
This is low-level stupid slander.
If this is low-level stupid slander, then tell me how they are
not..."
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
Post by BOHOSource
isolating and socially dead environments."
Because traditional urbanization, including BOHO, are socially dead
environments.
Traditional urbanized areas are not socially dead environments.
As long as more than one person lives in a environnment,
an environment cannot be *socially dead*
Suburban and urban areas by definition cannot be isolated.
Rural areas by definition are isolated.
Okay if you want to be literal about it. But if your going to a
suburb, its usally going to be because you live there and your going
to your house. Theres really not much else in suburbs besides a few
strip malls and a lot of houses with crooked, curvy roads.
You really are trying to be serious, or are you just being silly?
He reminds me of a guy who just had sex for the first time. He thinks
it wonderfu. He thinks he invented it. He thinks everyone should be
doing it all the time. He wants to shout from the mountains. But
what he doesn't realize is that there are a lot of people around who
have a lot more knowlege and experience than he does. He'll also find
that his tastes change and mature with time and that eventually he'll
rethink his basic position. Until then, there's not much you can do
with him except ignore him and let his sow his oats.

In his world all is wonderful and sunny and can't be beat. He just
doesn't realize that there are hundreds of millions of other worlds
out there and he is only one of them.
Amy Blankenship
2007-04-02 01:30:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat
Post by BOHOSource
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
On Mar 7, 7:56 am, "George Conklin"
Post by George Conklin
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Suburbs are by nature isolating and socially dead
environments.
This is low-level stupid slander.
If this is low-level stupid slander, then tell me how they are
not..."
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
isolating and socially dead environments."
Because traditional urbanization, including BOHO, are socially dead
environments.
Traditional urbanized areas are not socially dead environments.
As long as more than one person lives in a environnment,
an environment cannot be *socially dead*
Suburban and urban areas by definition cannot be isolated.
Rural areas by definition are isolated.
Okay if you want to be literal about it. But if your going to a
suburb, its usally going to be because you live there and your going
to your house. Theres really not much else in suburbs besides a few
strip malls and a lot of houses with crooked, curvy roads.
You really are trying to be serious, or are you just being silly?
He reminds me of a guy who just had sex for the first time. He thinks
it wonderfu. He thinks he invented it. He thinks everyone should be
doing it all the time. He wants to shout from the mountains. But
what he doesn't realize is that there are a lot of people around who
have a lot more knowlege and experience than he does. He'll also find
that his tastes change and mature with time and that eventually he'll
rethink his basic position. Until then, there's not much you can do
with him except ignore him and let his sow his oats.
In his world all is wonderful and sunny and can't be beat. He just
doesn't realize that there are hundreds of millions of other worlds
out there and he is only one of them.
Space. The final front ear...
George Conklin
2007-04-02 11:48:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat
Post by BOHOSource
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
On Mar 7, 7:56 am, "George Conklin"
Post by George Conklin
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Suburbs are by nature isolating and socially dead environments.
This is low-level stupid slander.
If this is low-level stupid slander, then tell me how they are
not..."
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
isolating and socially dead environments."
Because traditional urbanization, including BOHO, are socially dead
environments.
Traditional urbanized areas are not socially dead environments.
As long as more than one person lives in a environnment,
an environment cannot be *socially dead*
Suburban and urban areas by definition cannot be isolated.
Rural areas by definition are isolated.
Okay if you want to be literal about it. But if your going to a
suburb, its usally going to be because you live there and your going
to your house. Theres really not much else in suburbs besides a few
strip malls and a lot of houses with crooked, curvy roads.
You really are trying to be serious, or are you just being silly?
He reminds me of a guy who just had sex for the first time. He thinks
it wonderfu. He thinks he invented it. He thinks everyone should be
doing it all the time. He wants to shout from the mountains.
Really? Smart Growth becomes Smart Sex? I wonder what that would be
like -:)


But
Post by Pat
what he doesn't realize is that there are a lot of people around who
have a lot more knowlege and experience than he does. He'll also find
that his tastes change and mature with time and that eventually he'll
rethink his basic position. Until then, there's not much you can do
with him except ignore him and let his sow his oats.
In his world all is wonderful and sunny and can't be beat. He just
doesn't realize that there are hundreds of millions of other worlds
out there and he is only one of them.
People change as they get older. Those pushing for a single-wide trailer
as the maximum size of an urban apartment are still living in dorm rooms.
drydem
2007-04-02 00:33:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
Post by BOHOSource
Post by George Conklin
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Suburbs are by nature isolating and socially dead environments.
This is low-level stupid slander.
If this is low-level stupid slander, then tell me how they are not..."
isolating and socially dead environments."
Because traditional urbanization, including BOHO, are socially dead
environments.
Traditional urbanized areas are not socially dead environments.
As long as more than one person lives in a environnment,
an environment cannot be *socially dead*
Suburban and urban areas by definition cannot be isolated.
Rural areas by definition are isolated.
Okay if you want to be literal about it. But if your going to a
suburb, its usally going to be because you live there and your going
to your house. Theres really not much else in suburbs besides a few
strip malls and a lot of houses with crooked, curvy roads.-
That depends on how old that suburbs is.

Before 1975, many if not most suburb developments
in the Washington DC greater metro area were
just a group of houses - there was still enough land
near the city and it was cheap. Local governments
made few demands on developers, so most
developer built only bedroom communities.
In the 1980s, land near the city/public transit
started to get scarce. New developments were now
over 12 miles away from the city and commuter
traffic started to get notiable worst, local governments
enacted new zoning requirements for more self
sustainable developments to limit traffic from communities
farther away. Local governments started requiring
those suburb developments to include parks, bikepaths,
club houses, recreation facilities (e.g. tennis courts,
tot lots, swimming pools, etc), schools,
and shopping centers.

However, ISTM how much and the type of
socialization a person has in the Washington
DC greater metro area is not a factor
of how close people are to each other but
how much opportunity and time they have
to socialize. The economic pressures
of living in the DC Area often restricts one's
opportunity to socialize - unless it is at work.
This is more often than true for the working
class and middle class who end up working
most of the time make ends meet - such
that most of the socialization is dependent
on the work environment and not where
the person actually lives. However, for
the upper middle class and the truly
wealthy - there exist more time
and opportunity to socialize (outside of work).
George Conklin
2007-04-02 11:50:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by drydem
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
Post by BOHOSource
Post by George Conklin
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Suburbs are by nature isolating and socially dead
environments.
Post by drydem
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
Post by BOHOSource
Post by George Conklin
This is low-level stupid slander.
If this is low-level stupid slander, then tell me how they are not..."
isolating and socially dead environments."
Because traditional urbanization, including BOHO, are socially dead
environments.
Traditional urbanized areas are not socially dead environments.
As long as more than one person lives in a environnment,
an environment cannot be *socially dead*
Suburban and urban areas by definition cannot be isolated.
Rural areas by definition are isolated.
Okay if you want to be literal about it. But if your going to a
suburb, its usally going to be because you live there and your going
to your house. Theres really not much else in suburbs besides a few
strip malls and a lot of houses with crooked, curvy roads.-
That depends on how old that suburbs is.
Before 1975, many if not most suburb developments
in the Washington DC greater metro area were
just a group of houses - there was still enough land
near the city and it was cheap. Local governments
made few demands on developers, so most
developer built only bedroom communities.
In the 1980s, land near the city/public transit
started to get scarce. New developments were now
over 12 miles away from the city and commuter
traffic started to get notiable worst, local governments
enacted new zoning requirements for more self
sustainable developments to limit traffic from communities
farther away.
If you work in downtown DC, and do not live in the treasury building's
basement, you home community is not sustainable by your convoluted nonsense.
drydem
2007-04-03 02:16:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Post by drydem
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
Post by BOHOSource
Post by George Conklin
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Suburbs are by nature isolating and socially dead
environments.
Post by drydem
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
Post by BOHOSource
Post by George Conklin
This is low-level stupid slander.
If this is low-level stupid slander, then tell me how they are
not..."
Post by drydem
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
Post by BOHOSource
isolating and socially dead environments."
Because traditional urbanization, including BOHO, are socially dead
environments.
Traditional urbanized areas are not socially dead environments.
As long as more than one person lives in a environnment,
an environment cannot be *socially dead*
Suburban and urban areas by definition cannot be isolated.
Rural areas by definition are isolated.
Okay if you want to be literal about it. But if your going to a
suburb, its usally going to be because you live there and your going
to your house. Theres really not much else in suburbs besides a few
strip malls and a lot of houses with crooked, curvy roads.-
That depends on how old that suburbs is.
Before 1975, many if not most suburb developments
in the Washington DC greater metro area were
just a group of houses - there was still enough land
near the city and it was cheap. Local governments
made few demands on developers, so most
developer built only bedroom communities.
In the 1980s, land near the city/public transit
started to get scarce. New developments were now
over 12 miles away from the city and commuter
traffic started to get notiable worst, local governments
enacted new zoning requirements for more self
sustainable developments to limit traffic from communities
farther away.
If you work in downtown DC, and do not live in the treasury building's
basement, you home community is not sustainable by your convoluted nonsense.
You're getting confused again. (9_9)
Not to burst your bubble but, the concept of a
"more self sustainable" community as I understood
it (as the local government planners advocated it ) was not an
economic/employment model nor was it suppose to be a completely
enclosed or isolated. From what I remembered, it was a traffic
mitigation development strategy where the planners were
promising to localize traffic within a particular zone/area
which were normally generated by schools, day to day
shopping (e.g. grocery shopping), trips to the local public faclities
(e.g. post office, library), and recreation.


IMHO even the "New Urbanism" movement doesn't adequally address
how to tightly couple the development of employment sites and
residential units so that they in close proximity. IMHO such a
criteria would require urban planning something akin to a
communist socialistic model ( e.g. Soviet era factory complete with
factory worker apartment) or an religious commune (e.g. Amish
community). Unless one lives in a totalitarian authoritarian
state or a religious state the government cannot mandate
where one chose to live.
George Conklin
2007-04-03 10:41:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by drydem
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Post by drydem
Post by Mr.Cool
On Mar 27, 6:17 pm, "George Conklin"
Post by George Conklin
On Mar 7, 7:56 am, "George Conklin"
Post by George Conklin
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Suburbs are by nature isolating and socially dead
environments.
Post by drydem
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by George Conklin
Post by George Conklin
This is low-level stupid slander.
If this is low-level stupid slander, then tell me how they are
not..."
Post by drydem
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by George Conklin
isolating and socially dead environments."
Because traditional urbanization, including BOHO, are socially dead
environments.
Traditional urbanized areas are not socially dead environments.
As long as more than one person lives in a environnment,
an environment cannot be *socially dead*
Suburban and urban areas by definition cannot be isolated.
Rural areas by definition are isolated.
Okay if you want to be literal about it. But if your going to a
suburb, its usally going to be because you live there and your going
to your house. Theres really not much else in suburbs besides a few
strip malls and a lot of houses with crooked, curvy roads.-
That depends on how old that suburbs is.
Before 1975, many if not most suburb developments
in the Washington DC greater metro area were
just a group of houses - there was still enough land
near the city and it was cheap. Local governments
made few demands on developers, so most
developer built only bedroom communities.
In the 1980s, land near the city/public transit
started to get scarce. New developments were now
over 12 miles away from the city and commuter
traffic started to get notiable worst, local governments
enacted new zoning requirements for more self
sustainable developments to limit traffic from communities
farther away.
If you work in downtown DC, and do not live in the treasury building's
basement, you home community is not sustainable by your convoluted nonsense.
You're getting confused again. (9_9)
Not to burst your bubble but, the concept of a
"more self sustainable" community as I understood
it (as the local government planners advocated it ) was not an
economic/employment model nor was it suppose to be a completely
enclosed or isolated. From what I remembered, it was a traffic
mitigation development strategy where the planners were
promising to localize traffic within a particular zone/area
which were normally generated by schools, day to day
shopping (e.g. grocery shopping), trips to the local public faclities
(e.g. post office, library), and recreation.
As long as employment is not located exactly where you live, there will
be transporation issues. Things like shopping happen at off-hours, and thus
do NOT load up the transporation network the way working does, when most
people have to be at work at the same time. Planners are simply lying about
traffic in order to push their agenda. The only issue is employment.
Mr.Cool
2007-04-02 21:18:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by drydem
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
Post by BOHOSource
Post by George Conklin
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Suburbs are by nature isolating and socially dead environments.
This is low-level stupid slander.
If this is low-level stupid slander, then tell me how they are not..."
isolating and socially dead environments."
Because traditional urbanization, including BOHO, are socially dead
environments.
Traditional urbanized areas are not socially dead environments.
As long as more than one person lives in a environnment,
an environment cannot be *socially dead*
Suburban and urban areas by definition cannot be isolated.
Rural areas by definition are isolated.
Okay if you want to be literal about it. But if your going to a
suburb, its usally going to be because you live there and your going
to your house. Theres really not much else in suburbs besides a few
strip malls and a lot of houses with crooked, curvy roads.-
That depends on how old that suburbs is.
Before 1975, many if not most suburb developments
in the Washington DC greater metro area were
just a group of houses - there was still enough land
near the city and it was cheap. Local governments
made few demands on developers, so most
developer built only bedroom communities.
In the 1980s, land near the city/public transit
started to get scarce. New developments were now
over 12 miles away from the city and commuter
traffic started to get notiable worst, local governments
enacted new zoning requirements for more self
sustainable developments to limit traffic from communities
farther away. Local governments started requiring
those suburb developments to include parks, bikepaths,
club houses, recreation facilities (e.g. tennis courts,
tot lots, swimming pools, etc), schools,
and shopping centers.
However, ISTM how much and the type of
socialization a person has in the Washington
DC greater metro area is not a factor
of how close people are to each other but
how much opportunity and time they have
to socialize. The economic pressures
of living in the DC Area often restricts one's
opportunity to socialize - unless it is at work.
This is more often than true for the working
class and middle class who end up working
most of the time make ends meet - such
that most of the socialization is dependent
on the work environment and not where
the person actually lives. However, for
the upper middle class and the truly
wealthy - there exist more time
and opportunity to socialize (outside of work).
Okay everyone if your so set on disagreeing with me lets just get its
all straight what were are arguing about

Tell me if you dissagree, what is wrong with the following sentences,
explain.
-Suburbs tend to have alot of model housing relitivly to cities.
-Cities tend to have more culture, by culture I mean faimly owned
shops,resturants, more varied races and religions/traditions
-Suburbs tend to be more insipid, meaning more residentual housing and
less bars,coffie shopts, stadiums, night clubs,parks things of that
order.

These are my statements if you dissagree with them please remember
that I am not saying all suburbs are like this,just more of a general
statement.-
Amy Blankenship
2007-04-02 22:12:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by drydem
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
On Mar 7, 7:56 am, "George Conklin"
Post by George Conklin
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Suburbs are by nature isolating and socially dead
environments.
This is low-level stupid slander.
If this is low-level stupid slander, then tell me how they are not..."
isolating and socially dead environments."
Because traditional urbanization, including BOHO, are socially dead
environments.
Traditional urbanized areas are not socially dead environments.
As long as more than one person lives in a environnment,
an environment cannot be *socially dead*
Suburban and urban areas by definition cannot be isolated.
Rural areas by definition are isolated.
Okay if you want to be literal about it. But if your going to a
suburb, its usally going to be because you live there and your going
to your house. Theres really not much else in suburbs besides a few
strip malls and a lot of houses with crooked, curvy roads.-
That depends on how old that suburbs is.
Before 1975, many if not most suburb developments
in the Washington DC greater metro area were
just a group of houses - there was still enough land
near the city and it was cheap. Local governments
made few demands on developers, so most
developer built only bedroom communities.
In the 1980s, land near the city/public transit
started to get scarce. New developments were now
over 12 miles away from the city and commuter
traffic started to get notiable worst, local governments
enacted new zoning requirements for more self
sustainable developments to limit traffic from communities
farther away. Local governments started requiring
those suburb developments to include parks, bikepaths,
club houses, recreation facilities (e.g. tennis courts,
tot lots, swimming pools, etc), schools,
and shopping centers.
However, ISTM how much and the type of
socialization a person has in the Washington
DC greater metro area is not a factor
of how close people are to each other but
how much opportunity and time they have
to socialize. The economic pressures
of living in the DC Area often restricts one's
opportunity to socialize - unless it is at work.
This is more often than true for the working
class and middle class who end up working
most of the time make ends meet - such
that most of the socialization is dependent
on the work environment and not where
the person actually lives. However, for
the upper middle class and the truly
wealthy - there exist more time
and opportunity to socialize (outside of work).
Okay everyone if your so set on disagreeing with me lets just get its
all straight what were are arguing about
Tell me if you dissagree, what is wrong with the following sentences,
explain.
-Suburbs tend to have alot of model housing relitivly to cities.
-Cities tend to have more culture, by culture I mean faimly owned
shops,resturants, more varied races and religions/traditions
-Suburbs tend to be more insipid, meaning more residentual housing and
less bars,coffie shopts, stadiums, night clubs,parks things of that
order.
These are my statements if you dissagree with them please remember
that I am not saying all suburbs are like this,just more of a general
statement.-
If you went to school in a city, your spelling is a clear indicator that
anyone with school age children should steer clear of them. If you're going
to attempt to engage in debate, you should at least try to act like you're
literate.
George Conklin
2007-04-02 23:16:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by drydem
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
On Mar 7, 7:56 am, "George Conklin"
Post by George Conklin
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Suburbs are by nature isolating and socially dead
environments.
This is low-level stupid slander.
If this is low-level stupid slander, then tell me how they are
not..."
isolating and socially dead environments."
Because traditional urbanization, including BOHO, are socially dead
environments.
Traditional urbanized areas are not socially dead environments.
As long as more than one person lives in a environnment,
an environment cannot be *socially dead*
Suburban and urban areas by definition cannot be isolated.
Rural areas by definition are isolated.
Okay if you want to be literal about it. But if your going to a
suburb, its usally going to be because you live there and your going
to your house. Theres really not much else in suburbs besides a few
strip malls and a lot of houses with crooked, curvy roads.-
That depends on how old that suburbs is.
Before 1975, many if not most suburb developments
in the Washington DC greater metro area were
just a group of houses - there was still enough land
near the city and it was cheap. Local governments
made few demands on developers, so most
developer built only bedroom communities.
In the 1980s, land near the city/public transit
started to get scarce. New developments were now
over 12 miles away from the city and commuter
traffic started to get notiable worst, local governments
enacted new zoning requirements for more self
sustainable developments to limit traffic from communities
farther away. Local governments started requiring
those suburb developments to include parks, bikepaths,
club houses, recreation facilities (e.g. tennis courts,
tot lots, swimming pools, etc), schools,
and shopping centers.
However, ISTM how much and the type of
socialization a person has in the Washington
DC greater metro area is not a factor
of how close people are to each other but
how much opportunity and time they have
to socialize. The economic pressures
of living in the DC Area often restricts one's
opportunity to socialize - unless it is at work.
This is more often than true for the working
class and middle class who end up working
most of the time make ends meet - such
that most of the socialization is dependent
on the work environment and not where
the person actually lives. However, for
the upper middle class and the truly
wealthy - there exist more time
and opportunity to socialize (outside of work).
Okay everyone if your so set on disagreeing with me lets just get its
all straight what were are arguing about
Tell me if you dissagree, what is wrong with the following sentences,
explain.
-Suburbs tend to have alot of model housing relitivly to cities.
-Cities tend to have more culture, by culture I mean faimly owned
shops,resturants, more varied races and religions/traditions
-Suburbs tend to be more insipid, meaning more residentual housing and
less bars,coffie shopts, stadiums, night clubs,parks things of that
order.
These are my statements if you dissagree with them please remember
that I am not saying all suburbs are like this,just more of a general
statement.-
If you went to school in a city, your spelling is a clear indicator that
anyone with school age children should steer clear of them. If you're going
to attempt to engage in debate, you should at least try to act like you're
literate.
Typing skills are not rated on Usenet. As long as U can understand what is
said, it is ok.
George Conklin
2007-04-02 23:15:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by drydem
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
On Mar 7, 7:56 am, "George Conklin"
Post by George Conklin
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Suburbs are by nature isolating and socially dead environments.
This is low-level stupid slander.
If this is low-level stupid slander, then tell me how they are not..."
isolating and socially dead environments."
Because traditional urbanization, including BOHO, are socially dead
environments.
Traditional urbanized areas are not socially dead environments.
As long as more than one person lives in a environnment,
an environment cannot be *socially dead*
Suburban and urban areas by definition cannot be isolated.
Rural areas by definition are isolated.
Okay if you want to be literal about it. But if your going to a
suburb, its usally going to be because you live there and your going
to your house. Theres really not much else in suburbs besides a few
strip malls and a lot of houses with crooked, curvy roads.-
That depends on how old that suburbs is.
Before 1975, many if not most suburb developments
in the Washington DC greater metro area were
just a group of houses - there was still enough land
near the city and it was cheap. Local governments
made few demands on developers, so most
developer built only bedroom communities.
In the 1980s, land near the city/public transit
started to get scarce. New developments were now
over 12 miles away from the city and commuter
traffic started to get notiable worst, local governments
enacted new zoning requirements for more self
sustainable developments to limit traffic from communities
farther away. Local governments started requiring
those suburb developments to include parks, bikepaths,
club houses, recreation facilities (e.g. tennis courts,
tot lots, swimming pools, etc), schools,
and shopping centers.
However, ISTM how much and the type of
socialization a person has in the Washington
DC greater metro area is not a factor
of how close people are to each other but
how much opportunity and time they have
to socialize. The economic pressures
of living in the DC Area often restricts one's
opportunity to socialize - unless it is at work.
This is more often than true for the working
class and middle class who end up working
most of the time make ends meet - such
that most of the socialization is dependent
on the work environment and not where
the person actually lives. However, for
the upper middle class and the truly
wealthy - there exist more time
and opportunity to socialize (outside of work).
Okay everyone if your so set on disagreeing with me lets just get its
all straight what were are arguing about
Tell me if you dissagree, what is wrong with the following sentences,
explain.
-Suburbs tend to have alot of model housing relitivly to cities.
Not true. Cities have tons of mass-produced housing. It is just mass
production of an earlier era, which looks cute today because a lot of it has
been torn down.
Post by Mr.Cool
-Cities tend to have more culture, by culture I mean faimly owned
shops,resturants, more varied races and religions/traditions
Cities in the past had segregated neighborhoods known as ghettos. This
made sure that people did NOT interact with others. Survivors today are
Chinatown and other areas of self-isolation and segregation. Little Italy.
And Orthodox Jews had to walk to the temple, making that also a neighborhood
which tended to concentrate people of one religion in one place. Today
immigrants move directly to where they want to go. The so-called suburbs
today have more poor people than cities, and there are no "little Indias"
for example.
Post by Mr.Cool
-Suburbs tend to be more insipid, meaning more residentual housing and
less bars,coffie shopts, stadiums, night clubs,parks things of that
order.
Suburbs also have lawns, where children can play. Parks are dangerous.
They are always controlled by some gang and dangerous at night. There are
many shops in suburbia, and that includes the popular malls.
Post by Mr.Cool
These are my statements if you dissagree with them please remember
that I am not saying all suburbs are like this,just more of a general
statement.-
Even if what you posted is true, and most of it is not, that does not mean
what you say it does.
Pat
2007-04-03 03:02:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by drydem
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
On Mar 7, 7:56 am, "George Conklin"
Post by George Conklin
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Suburbs are by nature isolating and socially dead
environments.
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by drydem
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
Post by George Conklin
This is low-level stupid slander.
If this is low-level stupid slander, then tell me how they are
not..."
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by drydem
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
isolating and socially dead environments."
Because traditional urbanization, including BOHO, are socially
dead
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by drydem
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
environments.
Traditional urbanized areas are not socially dead environments.
As long as more than one person lives in a environnment,
an environment cannot be *socially dead*
Suburban and urban areas by definition cannot be isolated.
Rural areas by definition are isolated.
Okay if you want to be literal about it. But if your going to a
suburb, its usally going to be because you live there and your going
to your house. Theres really not much else in suburbs besides a few
strip malls and a lot of houses with crooked, curvy roads.-
That depends on how old that suburbs is.
Before 1975, many if not most suburb developments
in the Washington DC greater metro area were
just a group of houses - there was still enough land
near the city and it was cheap. Local governments
made few demands on developers, so most
developer built only bedroom communities.
In the 1980s, land near the city/public transit
started to get scarce. New developments were now
over 12 miles away from the city and commuter
traffic started to get notiable worst, local governments
enacted new zoning requirements for more self
sustainable developments to limit traffic from communities
farther away. Local governments started requiring
those suburb developments to include parks, bikepaths,
club houses, recreation facilities (e.g. tennis courts,
tot lots, swimming pools, etc), schools,
and shopping centers.
However, ISTM how much and the type of
socialization a person has in the Washington
DC greater metro area is not a factor
of how close people are to each other but
how much opportunity and time they have
to socialize. The economic pressures
of living in the DC Area often restricts one's
opportunity to socialize - unless it is at work.
This is more often than true for the working
class and middle class who end up working
most of the time make ends meet - such
that most of the socialization is dependent
on the work environment and not where
the person actually lives. However, for
the upper middle class and the truly
wealthy - there exist more time
and opportunity to socialize (outside of work).
Okay everyone if your so set on disagreeing with me lets just get its
all straight what were are arguing about
Tell me if you dissagree, what is wrong with the following sentences,
explain.
-Suburbs tend to have alot of model housing relitivly to cities.
Not true. Cities have tons of mass-produced housing. It is just mass
production of an earlier era, which looks cute today because a
lot of it has
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
been torn down.
What are you talking about. When they build all of those 40 story
apartment buildings -- with floor after floor being exactly the same
-- there is a uniqueness to the housing that transends well being the
concept of "mass produced". The sameness somehow makes them
different, better, cultural. A hundred years from now, the sameness
will make them almost zen-like.
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Post by Mr.Cool
-Cities tend to have more culture, by culture I mean faimly owned
shops,resturants, more varied races and religions/traditions
Cities in the past had segregated neighborhoods known as ghettos. This
made sure that people did NOT interact with others. Survivors today are
Chinatown and other areas of self-isolation and segregation. Little Italy.
And Orthodox Jews had to walk to the temple, making that also a neighborhood
which tended to concentrate people of one religion in one place. Today
immigrants move directly to where they want to go. The so-called suburbs
today have more poor people than cities, and there are no "little Indias"
for example.
Post by Mr.Cool
-Suburbs tend to be more insipid, meaning more residentual housing and
less bars,coffie shopts, stadiums, night clubs,parks things of that
order.
Suburbs also have lawns, where children can play. Parks are dangerous.
They are always controlled by some gang and dangerous at night. There are
many shops in suburbia, and that includes the popular malls.
Post by Mr.Cool
These are my statements if you dissagree with them please remember
that I am not saying all suburbs are like this,just more of a general
statement.-
Even if what you posted is true, and most of it is not, that does not mean
what you say it does.
George Conklin
2007-04-03 10:45:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Conklin
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by drydem
Post by Mr.Cool
On Mar 27, 6:17 pm, "George Conklin"
Post by George Conklin
On Mar 7, 7:56 am, "George Conklin"
Post by George Conklin
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Suburbs are by nature isolating and socially dead
environments.
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by drydem
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by George Conklin
Post by George Conklin
This is low-level stupid slander.
If this is low-level stupid slander, then tell me how they are
not..."
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by drydem
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by George Conklin
isolating and socially dead environments."
Because traditional urbanization, including BOHO, are socially
dead
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by drydem
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by George Conklin
environments.
Traditional urbanized areas are not socially dead environments.
As long as more than one person lives in a environnment,
an environment cannot be *socially dead*
Suburban and urban areas by definition cannot be isolated.
Rural areas by definition are isolated.
Okay if you want to be literal about it. But if your going to a
suburb, its usally going to be because you live there and your going
to your house. Theres really not much else in suburbs besides a few
strip malls and a lot of houses with crooked, curvy roads.-
That depends on how old that suburbs is.
Before 1975, many if not most suburb developments
in the Washington DC greater metro area were
just a group of houses - there was still enough land
near the city and it was cheap. Local governments
made few demands on developers, so most
developer built only bedroom communities.
In the 1980s, land near the city/public transit
started to get scarce. New developments were now
over 12 miles away from the city and commuter
traffic started to get notiable worst, local governments
enacted new zoning requirements for more self
sustainable developments to limit traffic from communities
farther away. Local governments started requiring
those suburb developments to include parks, bikepaths,
club houses, recreation facilities (e.g. tennis courts,
tot lots, swimming pools, etc), schools,
and shopping centers.
However, ISTM how much and the type of
socialization a person has in the Washington
DC greater metro area is not a factor
of how close people are to each other but
how much opportunity and time they have
to socialize. The economic pressures
of living in the DC Area often restricts one's
opportunity to socialize - unless it is at work.
This is more often than true for the working
class and middle class who end up working
most of the time make ends meet - such
that most of the socialization is dependent
on the work environment and not where
the person actually lives. However, for
the upper middle class and the truly
wealthy - there exist more time
and opportunity to socialize (outside of work).
Okay everyone if your so set on disagreeing with me lets just get its
all straight what were are arguing about
Tell me if you dissagree, what is wrong with the following sentences,
explain.
-Suburbs tend to have alot of model housing relitivly to cities.
Not true. Cities have tons of mass-produced housing. It is
just mass
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
production of an earlier era, which looks cute today because a
lot of it has
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
been torn down.
What are you talking about. When they build all of those 40 story
apartment buildings -- with floor after floor being exactly the same
Yes. This is correct. The apartment my parents had was identical to
those above it. We knew someone who lived 4 floors up. Identical. Only
the furniture was different. Yet the same dwellers in those buildings
complained that Levittown was identical.
Pat
2007-04-03 01:11:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by drydem
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
Post by BOHOSource
Post by George Conklin
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Suburbs are by nature isolating and socially dead environments.
This is low-level stupid slander.
If this is low-level stupid slander, then tell me how they are not..."
isolating and socially dead environments."
Because traditional urbanization, including BOHO, are socially dead
environments.
Traditional urbanized areas are not socially dead environments.
As long as more than one person lives in a environnment,
an environment cannot be *socially dead*
Suburban and urban areas by definition cannot be isolated.
Rural areas by definition are isolated.
Okay if you want to be literal about it. But if your going to a
suburb, its usally going to be because you live there and your going
to your house. Theres really not much else in suburbs besides a few
strip malls and a lot of houses with crooked, curvy roads.-
That depends on how old that suburbs is.
Before 1975, many if not most suburb developments
in the Washington DC greater metro area were
just a group of houses - there was still enough land
near the city and it was cheap. Local governments
made few demands on developers, so most
developer built only bedroom communities.
In the 1980s, land near the city/public transit
started to get scarce. New developments were now
over 12 miles away from the city and commuter
traffic started to get notiable worst, local governments
enacted new zoning requirements for more self
sustainable developments to limit traffic from communities
farther away. Local governments started requiring
those suburb developments to include parks, bikepaths,
club houses, recreation facilities (e.g. tennis courts,
tot lots, swimming pools, etc), schools,
and shopping centers.
However, ISTM how much and the type of
socialization a person has in the Washington
DC greater metro area is not a factor
of how close people are to each other but
how much opportunity and time they have
to socialize. The economic pressures
of living in the DC Area often restricts one's
opportunity to socialize - unless it is at work.
This is more often than true for the working
class and middle class who end up working
most of the time make ends meet - such
that most of the socialization is dependent
on the work environment and not where
the person actually lives. However, for
the upper middle class and the truly
wealthy - there exist more time
and opportunity to socialize (outside of work).
Okay everyone if your so set on disagreeing with me lets just get its
all straight what were are arguing about
Tell me if you dissagree, what is wrong with the following sentences,
explain.
-Suburbs tend to have alot of model housing relitivly to cities.
I don't know what you mean by "model housing". In cities, you get 100
or 200 apts in the same building with the same floor plan. That's
much more mass produced than any suburb. Take a look at Red House, a
suburb of where I live.

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?_event=Search&geo_id=01000US&_geoContext=01000US&_street=&_county=red+house&_cityTown=red+house&_state=04000US36&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=geoSelect&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=010&_submenuId=factsheet_1&ds_name=ACS_2005_SAFF&_ci_nbr=null&qr_name=null&reg=null%3Anull&_keyword=&_industry=&show_2003_tab=&redirect=Y

I think you will find every house in the town to be unique and it's
one of those towns where everyone knows everyone.
Post by Mr.Cool
-Cities tend to have more culture, by culture I mean faimly owned
shops,resturants, more varied races and religions/traditions
That is a arrogent, self-centered, and simplistic view of culture.
Shopping is not culture. Eating out is not culture. Having various
races around you, by itself, is not culture. Putting a privately
owned food service inside a racial diverse prison does not give it
culture. By the way, a huge amount of McDonalds are family owned. So
does that make the adding to your view of culture.

Your definition of culture also left out family and friends.

Under your definition, if you pick up a cheeseburge at a family owned
McDonalds on the way to a movie to sit in the dark by yourself. you've
had a cultureful evening. Maybe for you but not for me. On the other
hand, if you pack up your family in a car and drive to the next
Reservation over to watch your kids play lacrosse with all of their
friends, and take a picnic lunch. Then somehow that is not
cultureful. Come on, the problem with your sentence is that your idea
of culture is stupid, stupid, stupid.
Post by Mr.Cool
-Suburbs tend to be more insipid, meaning more residentual housing and
less bars,coffie shopts, stadiums, night clubs,parks things of that
order.
You say that like it's a bad thing to have less bars, less coffee
shops, less night clubs and things like that. Haven't you ever heard
of a family??? Wouldn't it be better to stay at home with your
family??? I haven't been to a bar or night club or such since ...
uh ... man ... I can't remember. I'm not sure I ever was in a coffee
shop, but I must have been because I remember how bad the coffee
was ... way too bitter. ... hmmm, couldn't figure out why anyone
would pay for such lowsy coffee.
Post by Mr.Cool
These are my statements if you dissagree with them please remember
that I am not saying all suburbs are like this,just more of a general
statement.-
Let me turn the question around on you.

You say that cities have more bars, coffee shops, night clubs, pocket
parks (hint, the park nearest to me is 65,000 acres, so your parks are
tiny), theaters, restaurants, high rises, transit opportunities,etc.
etc. Okay, I agree with that. You have more of all of that. So
here's your question: Why would I want to live near all of that crap
when my family and I can live in a nice, peaceful community out in the
middle of nowhere?

Here's another hint for you: often the best times are when you are
with your family, not in some bar or nightclub or coffee shop or
theater. If we are doing something, I would rather grab a gun and go
squirrel hunting or go fishing or something than sit in a theater,
face forward, and ignore everyone around me.
George Conklin
2007-04-03 10:44:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat
Here's another hint for you: often the best times are when you are
with your family, not in some bar or nightclub or coffee shop or
theater.
This is correct, but please remember that planners are basically hostile
to family life and view street life as culture. Family life is always
defined as boring, something you want to escape from, not cherish. Our
local planner has no family at all. You can guess why!!!!
George Conklin
2007-04-01 23:08:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
Post by BOHOSource
Post by George Conklin
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Suburbs are by nature isolating and socially dead environments.
This is low-level stupid slander.
If this is low-level stupid slander, then tell me how they are not..."
isolating and socially dead environments."
Because traditional urbanization, including BOHO, are socially dead
environments.
Traditional urbanized areas are not socially dead environments.
As long as more than one person lives in a environnment,
an environment cannot be *socially dead*
Suburban and urban areas by definition cannot be isolated.
Rural areas by definition are isolated.
Physical isolation does not lead to social isolation. Physical closeness
also decreases socialization, as in urban vs. suburban comparisons.
drydem
2007-04-01 23:58:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Conklin
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
Post by BOHOSource
Post by George Conklin
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Suburbs are by nature isolating and socially dead environments.
This is low-level stupid slander.
If this is low-level stupid slander, then tell me how they are not..."
isolating and socially dead environments."
Because traditional urbanization, including BOHO, are socially dead
environments.
Traditional urbanized areas are not socially dead environments.
As long as more than one person lives in a environnment,
an environment cannot be *socially dead*
Suburban and urban areas by definition cannot be isolated.
Rural areas by definition are isolated.
Physical isolation does not lead to social isolation. Physical closeness
also decreases socialization, as in urban vs. suburban comparisons.
I disagree.
Physical isolation restricts physical aspects of social interactions.
Physical closeness does not unto itself decrease socialization,
physical closeness and
physical proximity is often a (socialization) requirement,
e.g. a man and women
dancing, a family sitting around a table having dinner.

However,. physical proximity cannot guarantee socialization.
The socialization is more a function of the society itself.
For example, a jew would find his socialization options restricted if
not lethal in Nazi Germany
regardless of whether he was in a urban or suburban area.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make the horse drink the
water.
George Conklin
2007-04-02 11:49:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
Post by BOHOSource
Post by George Conklin
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Suburbs are by nature isolating and socially dead
environments.
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
Post by BOHOSource
Post by George Conklin
This is low-level stupid slander.
If this is low-level stupid slander, then tell me how they are not..."
isolating and socially dead environments."
Because traditional urbanization, including BOHO, are socially dead
environments.
Traditional urbanized areas are not socially dead environments.
As long as more than one person lives in a environnment,
an environment cannot be *socially dead*
Suburban and urban areas by definition cannot be isolated.
Rural areas by definition are isolated.
Physical isolation does not lead to social isolation. Physical closeness
also decreases socialization, as in urban vs. suburban comparisons.
I disagree.
Physical isolation restricts physical aspects of social interactions.
Physical closeness does not unto itself decrease socialization,
physical closeness and
physical proximity is often a (socialization) requirement,
e.g. a man and women
dancing, a family sitting around a table having dinner.
However,. physical proximity cannot guarantee socialization.
Too much phsical proximity pretty much guarantees LESS socialization.
drydem
2007-04-03 01:43:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
Post by BOHOSource
Post by George Conklin
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Suburbs are by nature isolating and socially dead
environments.
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
Post by BOHOSource
Post by George Conklin
This is low-level stupid slander.
If this is low-level stupid slander, then tell me how they are
not..."
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
Post by BOHOSource
isolating and socially dead environments."
Because traditional urbanization, including BOHO, are socially dead
environments.
Traditional urbanized areas are not socially dead environments.
As long as more than one person lives in a environnment,
an environment cannot be *socially dead*
Suburban and urban areas by definition cannot be isolated.
Rural areas by definition are isolated.
Physical isolation does not lead to social isolation. Physical
closeness
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
also decreases socialization, as in urban vs. suburban comparisons.
I disagree.
Physical isolation restricts physical aspects of social interactions.
Physical closeness does not unto itself decrease socialization,
physical closeness and
physical proximity is often a (socialization) requirement,
e.g. a man and women
dancing, a family sitting around a table having dinner.
However,. physical proximity cannot guarantee socialization.
Too much phsical proximity pretty much guarantees LESS socialization.
Your response doesn't make much sense.
IYO how much is close too?
What type of socialization are you talking about?
George Conklin
2007-04-03 10:39:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by drydem
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
On Mar 27, 6:17 pm, "George Conklin"
Post by George Conklin
On Mar 7, 7:56 am, "George Conklin"
Post by George Conklin
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Suburbs are by nature isolating and socially dead
environments.
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
Post by George Conklin
Post by George Conklin
This is low-level stupid slander.
If this is low-level stupid slander, then tell me how they are
not..."
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
Post by George Conklin
isolating and socially dead environments."
Because traditional urbanization, including BOHO, are socially dead
environments.
Traditional urbanized areas are not socially dead environments.
As long as more than one person lives in a environnment,
an environment cannot be *socially dead*
Suburban and urban areas by definition cannot be isolated.
Rural areas by definition are isolated.
Physical isolation does not lead to social isolation. Physical
closeness
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
also decreases socialization, as in urban vs. suburban comparisons.
I disagree.
Physical isolation restricts physical aspects of social interactions.
Physical closeness does not unto itself decrease socialization,
physical closeness and
physical proximity is often a (socialization) requirement,
e.g. a man and women
dancing, a family sitting around a table having dinner.
However,. physical proximity cannot guarantee socialization.
Too much phsical proximity pretty much guarantees LESS
socialization.
Post by drydem
Your response doesn't make much sense.
IYO how much is close too?
What type of socialization are you talking about?
As density goes up, people interact less. They ignore each other.
Pat
2007-04-03 03:07:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Conklin
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
Post by BOHOSource
Post by George Conklin
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Suburbs are by nature isolating and socially dead environments.
This is low-level stupid slander.
If this is low-level stupid slander, then tell me how they are not..."
isolating and socially dead environments."
Because traditional urbanization, including BOHO, are socially dead
environments.
Traditional urbanized areas are not socially dead environments.
As long as more than one person lives in a environnment,
an environment cannot be *socially dead*
Suburban and urban areas by definition cannot be isolated.
Rural areas by definition are isolated.
Physical isolation does not lead to social isolation. Physical closeness
also decreases socialization, as in urban vs. suburban comparisons.
FWIW, I remember reading an article a few years ago about a study of
people talking. They put two people in a room and let them talk.
They varied it from a small room to a football stadium. They found
that the smaller the room, the farther away from each other that the
people stood.
George Conklin
2007-04-03 10:46:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat
Post by George Conklin
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
Post by BOHOSource
Post by George Conklin
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Suburbs are by nature isolating and socially dead
environments.
Post by Pat
Post by George Conklin
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
Post by BOHOSource
Post by George Conklin
This is low-level stupid slander.
If this is low-level stupid slander, then tell me how they are not..."
isolating and socially dead environments."
Because traditional urbanization, including BOHO, are socially dead
environments.
Traditional urbanized areas are not socially dead environments.
As long as more than one person lives in a environnment,
an environment cannot be *socially dead*
Suburban and urban areas by definition cannot be isolated.
Rural areas by definition are isolated.
Physical isolation does not lead to social isolation. Physical closeness
also decreases socialization, as in urban vs. suburban comparisons.
FWIW, I remember reading an article a few years ago about a study of
people talking. They put two people in a room and let them talk.
They varied it from a small room to a football stadium. They found
that the smaller the room, the farther away from each other that the
people stood.
That was noted too in Walden.
Mr.Cool
2007-04-03 21:34:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Post by Pat
Post by George Conklin
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
Post by BOHOSource
Post by George Conklin
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Suburbs are by nature isolating and socially dead
environments.
Post by Pat
Post by George Conklin
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
Post by BOHOSource
Post by George Conklin
This is low-level stupid slander.
If this is low-level stupid slander, then tell me how they are
not..."
Post by Pat
Post by George Conklin
Post by drydem
Post by George Conklin
Post by BOHOSource
isolating and socially dead environments."
Because traditional urbanization, including BOHO, are socially dead
environments.
Traditional urbanized areas are not socially dead environments.
As long as more than one person lives in a environnment,
an environment cannot be *socially dead*
Suburban and urban areas by definition cannot be isolated.
Rural areas by definition are isolated.
Physical isolation does not lead to social isolation. Physical
closeness
Post by Pat
Post by George Conklin
also decreases socialization, as in urban vs. suburban comparisons.
FWIW, I remember reading an article a few years ago about a study of
people talking. They put two people in a room and let them talk.
They varied it from a small room to a football stadium. They found
that the smaller the room, the farther away from each other that the
people stood.
That was noted too in Walden.
What are you guys arguing about? Sure cities have some mass
production. Its not possible
to have a city without having some. But when I say Mass production in
the suburbs I am
talk about THIS ---> Loading Image...
And its like this for miles. I never said you couldnt have faimly
memories in suburb. That would be ridiculis.
But I don't want american to turn into miles and miles and miles of
the picture I have showed you. No.
And I have not said one bad thing about rual anything either. And I
know everyones gonna start ripping on me again after I say this but,
Most suburbs suck remaning the culture we have! When I think of
suburbs I think of white middle to upper class people that live their
so they can send their kids to a private school. And thats fine with
me, they can do that, I admit public schools don't really help all
that much when it comes to education. Its noone's spicific fault. It
just happens. Take another look at that picture and tell me thats what
you want more of in America.
RJ
2007-04-03 23:56:11 UTC
Permalink
to have a city without having some. But when I say Mass production in the
suburbs I am talk about THIS --->
http://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/lehrer/isaacsphotomed.jpg And
its like this for miles.
Row houses look like this (aerial photo) and they go for miles and
miles:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=North%20Philadelphia&gbv=2&ndsp=20&svnum=1
0&hl=en&sa=N&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&tab=il

and here is more excitingly diverse urban architecture:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=North%20Philadelphia&gbv=2&ndsp=20&svnum=1
0&hl=en&sa=N&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&tab=il
George Conklin
2007-04-04 00:06:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Post by Pat
Post by George Conklin
On Mar 27, 6:17 pm, "George Conklin"
Post by George Conklin
On Mar 7, 7:56 am, "George Conklin"
Post by George Conklin
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Suburbs are by nature isolating and socially dead
environments.
Post by Pat
Post by George Conklin
Post by George Conklin
Post by George Conklin
This is low-level stupid slander.
If this is low-level stupid slander, then tell me how they are
not..."
Post by Pat
Post by George Conklin
Post by George Conklin
isolating and socially dead environments."
Because traditional urbanization, including BOHO, are socially dead
environments.
Traditional urbanized areas are not socially dead environments.
As long as more than one person lives in a environnment,
an environment cannot be *socially dead*
Suburban and urban areas by definition cannot be isolated.
Rural areas by definition are isolated.
Physical isolation does not lead to social isolation. Physical
closeness
Post by Pat
Post by George Conklin
also decreases socialization, as in urban vs. suburban comparisons.
FWIW, I remember reading an article a few years ago about a study of
people talking. They put two people in a room and let them talk.
They varied it from a small room to a football stadium. They found
that the smaller the room, the farther away from each other that the
people stood.
That was noted too in Walden.
What are you guys arguing about? Sure cities have some mass
production. Its not possible
to have a city without having some. But when I say Mass production in
the suburbs I am
talk about THIS --->
http://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/lehrer/isaacsphotomed.jpg

What you have a picture of here is Smart Growth density. And that
picture is something generated to make fun of something too. Tom Lehrer is
a commedian. Didn't you know that? His songs are pure sarcasm and yes, I
have his compete collection on CD and reel-to-reel from the earlier days.
Mr.Cool
2007-04-04 00:50:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Post by Pat
Post by George Conklin
On Mar 27, 6:17 pm, "George Conklin"
Post by George Conklin
On Mar 7, 7:56 am, "George Conklin"
Post by George Conklin
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Suburbs are by nature isolating and socially dead
environments.
Post by Pat
Post by George Conklin
Post by George Conklin
Post by George Conklin
This is low-level stupid slander.
If this is low-level stupid slander, then tell me how they are
not..."
Post by Pat
Post by George Conklin
Post by George Conklin
isolating and socially dead environments."
Because traditional urbanization, including BOHO, are socially
dead
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Post by Pat
Post by George Conklin
Post by George Conklin
environments.
Traditional urbanized areas are not socially dead environments.
As long as more than one person lives in a environnment,
an environment cannot be *socially dead*
Suburban and urban areas by definition cannot be isolated.
Rural areas by definition are isolated.
Physical isolation does not lead to social isolation. Physical
closeness
Post by Pat
Post by George Conklin
also decreases socialization, as in urban vs. suburban comparisons.
FWIW, I remember reading an article a few years ago about a study of
people talking. They put two people in a room and let them talk.
They varied it from a small room to a football stadium. They found
that the smaller the room, the farther away from each other that the
people stood.
That was noted too in Walden.
What are you guys arguing about? Sure cities have some mass
production. Its not possible
to have a city without having some. But when I say Mass production in
the suburbs I am
talk about THIS --->
http://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/lehrer/isaacsphotomed.jpg
What you have a picture of here is Smart Growth density. And that
picture is something generated to make fun of something too. Tom Lehrer is
a commedian. Didn't you know that? His songs are pure sarcasm and yes, I
have his compete collection on CD and reel-to-reel from the earlier days.
No I didnt know that. But here is another picture of my basis for not
liking suburbs.
----------> Loading Image...
George Conklin
2007-04-04 11:45:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Post by Pat
Post by George Conklin
On Mar 27, 6:17 pm, "George Conklin"
Post by George Conklin
On Mar 7, 7:56 am, "George Conklin"
Post by George Conklin
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Suburbs are by nature isolating and socially dead
environments.
Post by Pat
Post by George Conklin
Post by George Conklin
Post by George Conklin
This is low-level stupid slander.
If this is low-level stupid slander, then tell me how they are
not..."
Post by Pat
Post by George Conklin
Post by George Conklin
isolating and socially dead environments."
Because traditional urbanization, including BOHO, are socially
dead
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Post by Pat
Post by George Conklin
Post by George Conklin
environments.
Traditional urbanized areas are not socially dead
environments.
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Post by Pat
Post by George Conklin
As long as more than one person lives in a environnment,
an environment cannot be *socially dead*
Suburban and urban areas by definition cannot be isolated.
Rural areas by definition are isolated.
Physical isolation does not lead to social isolation. Physical
closeness
Post by Pat
Post by George Conklin
also decreases socialization, as in urban vs. suburban comparisons.
FWIW, I remember reading an article a few years ago about a study of
people talking. They put two people in a room and let them talk.
They varied it from a small room to a football stadium. They found
that the smaller the room, the farther away from each other that the
people stood.
That was noted too in Walden.
What are you guys arguing about? Sure cities have some mass
production. Its not possible
to have a city without having some. But when I say Mass production in
the suburbs I am
talk about THIS --->
http://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/lehrer/isaacsphotomed.jpg
What you have a picture of here is Smart Growth density. And that
picture is something generated to make fun of something too. Tom Lehrer is
a commedian. Didn't you know that? His songs are pure sarcasm and yes, I
have his compete collection on CD and reel-to-reel from the earlier days.
No I didnt know that. But here is another picture of my basis for not
liking suburbs.
---------->
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cincinnati-suburbs-tract-housing.jpg
Another unrefereed source.
Try taking a picture of West Philadelphia. Miles and miles of identical
houses.
Mr.Cool
2007-04-04 14:00:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Mr.Cool
No I didnt know that. But here is another picture of my basis for not
liking suburbs.
---------->
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cincinnati-suburbs-tract-housing.jpg
Another unrefereed source.
Try taking a picture of West Philadelphia. Miles and miles of identical
houses.
West Philadelphia's population expanded significantly in the 1900s and
the area was home to a large part of Philadelphia's middle-class
population commuting into the Central Business District a few miles to
the East. The Western portion of the neighborhood was once home to
some of the most expensive real estate in the country, but over the
last 50 years has declined. This is due to increasing crime rates,
that led much of the city's middle and upper classes to migrate to the
suburbs and other parts of the city. Look here, you all do not have a
case against me with this. The Suburbs have more identical model
housing then the city! Its a well known fact. Dont try to argure. Sure
theres isolated cities like Philly that have some of it, but suburbs
has a ridiculis amount of more. Does anyone here honestly does not
think that Model housing like in this picture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cincinnati-suburbs-tract-housing.jpg
is ugly? Do you not want to get ride of it?
George Conklin
2007-04-04 20:26:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Mr.Cool
No I didnt know that. But here is another picture of my basis for not
liking suburbs.
---------->
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cincinnati-suburbs-tract-housing.jpg
Another unrefereed source.
Try taking a picture of West Philadelphia. Miles and miles of identical
houses.
West Philadelphia's population expanded significantly in the 1900s and
the area was home to a large part of Philadelphia's middle-class
population commuting into the Central Business District a few miles to
the East. The Western portion of the neighborhood was once home to
some of the most expensive real estate in the country, but over the
last 50 years has declined.
It was mostly row houses, all identical. If you are talking about
Mainline, that was different. West Philadelphia was a typical mass produced
city. Pretty dreary, but it kept prices down. Its current state is
irrelevant.
Forget that unrefereed source you keep citing. It is worthless.
Mr.Cool
2007-04-04 22:31:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Mr.Cool
No I didnt know that. But here is another picture of my basis for not
liking suburbs.
---------->
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cincinnati-suburbs-tract-housing.jpg
Another unrefereed source.
Try taking a picture of West Philadelphia. Miles and miles of identical
houses.
West Philadelphia's population expanded significantly in the 1900s and
the area was home to a large part of Philadelphia's middle-class
population commuting into the Central Business District a few miles to
the East. The Western portion of the neighborhood was once home to
some of the most expensive real estate in the country, but over the
last 50 years has declined.
It was mostly row houses, all identical. If you are talking about
Mainline, that was different. West Philadelphia was a typical mass produced
city. Pretty dreary, but it kept prices down. Its current state is
irrelevant.
Forget that unrefereed source you keep citing. It is worthless.
Do you people not get what I am saying? Am I talking to wall? Fine
whatever with Philly I dont care.
That is one city. One City. It is not tipical for cities to have that!
SUBURBS HAVE MORE
ROW IDENTICAL HOUSING THEN CITIES DO! ALOT MORE! Dont bring up some
other random city and use it against me that has a few identical
houses. There are suburbs that are not like that sure. Im in favor of
those.
But Cities have more diverse housing. End of story. Do you people even
know what your arguing for?
You all seem to be angrey at me for some reason or another. Iam sorry
for the statemenst I said in the first paragragh. I did not realizle
so many people actally like living in boring suburbia. Forget whatever
statments I said earlier about no diversity/culture in suburbs. Theres
too many of you to argue against for all that.
Now I am saying that we should wipe model,identical,cheap material
housing out of western civilazation suburbs.
I know bold statement right? But I think identical model housing is
one of the ugliest creations of western modern man ever built. Is
there anybody who would rather live in a diverse house then one that
is the same exact as the Johnson's house do a mile away?
George Conklin
2007-04-04 23:48:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool
No I didnt know that. But here is another picture of my basis for not
liking suburbs.
---------->
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cincinnati-suburbs-tract-housing.jpg
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by George Conklin
Another unrefereed source.
Try taking a picture of West Philadelphia. Miles and miles of identical
houses.
West Philadelphia's population expanded significantly in the 1900s and
the area was home to a large part of Philadelphia's middle-class
population commuting into the Central Business District a few miles to
the East. The Western portion of the neighborhood was once home to
some of the most expensive real estate in the country, but over the
last 50 years has declined.
It was mostly row houses, all identical. If you are talking about
Mainline, that was different. West Philadelphia was a typical mass produced
city. Pretty dreary, but it kept prices down. Its current state is
irrelevant.
Forget that unrefereed source you keep citing. It is worthless.
Do you people not get what I am saying? Am I talking to wall? Fine
whatever with Philly I dont care.
Yes, it was typical of mass production of its era. And so forth with
dozen of other places, hundreds acutally. You are putting for needless
romance. Check the book "Mainstreet Revisted" by Richard V. Francaviglia
(University of Iowa Press) for more details.
Pat
2007-04-05 00:51:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Mr.Cool
No I didnt know that. But here is another picture of my basis for not
liking suburbs.
---------->
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cincinnati-suburbs-tract-housing.jpg
Another unrefereed source.
Try taking a picture of West Philadelphia. Miles and miles of identical
houses.
West Philadelphia's population expanded significantly in the 1900s and
the area was home to a large part of Philadelphia's middle-class
population commuting into the Central Business District a few miles to
the East. The Western portion of the neighborhood was once home to
some of the most expensive real estate in the country, but over the
last 50 years has declined.
It was mostly row houses, all identical. If you are talking about
Mainline, that was different. West Philadelphia was a typical mass produced
city. Pretty dreary, but it kept prices down. Its current state is
irrelevant.
Forget that unrefereed source you keep citing. It is worthless.
Do you people not get what I am saying? Am I talking to wall? Fine
whatever with Philly I dont care.
That is one city. One City. It is not tipical for cities to have that!
SUBURBS HAVE MORE
ROW IDENTICAL HOUSING THEN CITIES DO! ALOT MORE! Dont bring up some
other random city and use it against me that has a few identical
houses. There are suburbs that are not like that sure. Im in favor of
those.
But Cities have more diverse housing. End of story. Do you people even
know what your arguing for?
You all seem to be angrey at me for some reason or another. Iam sorry
for the statemenst I said in the first paragragh. I did not realizle
so many people actally like living in boring suburbia. Forget whatever
statments I said earlier about no diversity/culture in suburbs. Theres
too many of you to argue against for all that.
Now I am saying that we should wipe model,identical,cheap material
housing out of western civilazation suburbs.
I know bold statement right? But I think identical model housing is
one of the ugliest creations of western modern man ever built. Is
there anybody who would rather live in a diverse house then one that
is the same exact as the Johnson's house do a mile away?- Hide quoted text -
Show quoted text -
Okay, here's what you don't get and it's why you think people are
ganging up one you. It's what YOU don't understand:

Let's assume a city where there are a million suburban homes and a
million urban ones. All of the units are full and the market is in
balance. And ALL of the suburban homes have one design and NONE of
the urban ones have the same design. That's your ideal city and your
ultimate suburban hell.

If all of the people in the suburbs are happy with their homes and
their families and their lifestyles, where do you get off telling them
that their lives suck. They don't, they're happy living the suburban
lifestyle and buying their suburban homes. They are happy.
Meanwhile, you're upset that they can be happy living their version of
the American Dream. The problem isn't with them or their houses, it's
that you are just so arogant that you can't accept that other people
can like different things. Grow up and get over it.

Also, you think "culture" is synonomous with spending money: bars,
nightclubs, shopping. It's not. What you think of as culture is
entertainment -- unless that's culture in your Disney world. Culture
is handing down your family values and traditions to your children.
If you are Irish, and occasional trip to an Irish theater might be in
order. Maybe getting drunk might be in order. Who knows. But leaving
them along (or with the nanny) while you go out teaches them the
culture of abandonment and consumerism. That's what they will hand
down to their children. This weekend, instead of going out, why not
go have dinner with your parents and discuss your family's culture --
if you have any culture worth sharing.
Amy Blankenship
2007-04-05 01:42:37 UTC
Permalink
"Pat" <***@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message news:***@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

<stuff snipped>
Post by Pat
If all of the people in the suburbs are happy with their homes and
their families and their lifestyles, where do you get off telling them
that their lives suck. They don't, they're happy living the suburban
lifestyle and buying their suburban homes. They are happy.
Meanwhile, you're upset that they can be happy living their version of
the American Dream. The problem isn't with them or their houses, it's
that you are just so arogant that you can't accept that other people
can like different things. Grow up and get over it.
Also, you think "culture" is synonomous with spending money: bars,
nightclubs, shopping. It's not. What you think of as culture is
entertainment -- unless that's culture in your Disney world. Culture
is handing down your family values and traditions to your children.
If you are Irish, and occasional trip to an Irish theater might be in
order. Maybe getting drunk might be in order. Who knows. But leaving
them along (or with the nanny) while you go out teaches them the
culture of abandonment and consumerism. That's what they will hand
down to their children. This weekend, instead of going out, why not
go have dinner with your parents and discuss your family's culture --
if you have any culture worth sharing.
In Ireland you could take them to the pub with you.
Pat
2007-04-06 02:42:11 UTC
Permalink
On Apr 4, 9:42 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
<stuff snipped>
Post by Pat
If all of the people in the suburbs are happy with their homes and
their families and their lifestyles, where do you get off telling them
that their lives suck. They don't, they're happy living the suburban
lifestyle and buying their suburban homes. They are happy.
Meanwhile, you're upset that they can be happy living their version of
the American Dream. The problem isn't with them or their houses, it's
that you are just so arogant that you can't accept that other people
can like different things. Grow up and get over it.
Also, you think "culture" is synonomous with spending money: bars,
nightclubs, shopping. It's not. What you think of as culture is
entertainment -- unless that's culture in your Disney world. Culture
is handing down your family values and traditions to your children.
If you are Irish, and occasional trip to an Irish theater might be in
order. Maybe getting drunk might be in order. Who knows. But leaving
them along (or with the nanny) while you go out teaches them the
culture of abandonment and consumerism. That's what they will hand
down to their children. This weekend, instead of going out, why not
go have dinner with your parents and discuss your family's culture --
if you have any culture worth sharing.
In Ireland you could take them to the pub with you.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You know, that's an excellent point. If you take the kids with you to
the pub or whereever, you are introducing them to that culture.
Taking them to a seedy strip joint might not be a good culture to
introduce them to, but an Irishman taking them to the local pub is
part of the culture. So in that instance, yes it is a cultural
"event" and probably a good thing. I see nothing wrong with it. It
is part of the culture. Of course, I'm of Irish descent so what can I
say....

But leaving the kids home while you go bar-hopping is another
situation altogether. That is entertainment not culture -- unles one
want to argure that that is the person's culture. Then it's just
plain sad.
Amy Blankenship
2007-04-06 03:02:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat
On Apr 4, 9:42 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
<stuff snipped>
Post by Pat
If all of the people in the suburbs are happy with their homes and
their families and their lifestyles, where do you get off telling them
that their lives suck. They don't, they're happy living the suburban
lifestyle and buying their suburban homes. They are happy.
Meanwhile, you're upset that they can be happy living their version of
the American Dream. The problem isn't with them or their houses, it's
that you are just so arogant that you can't accept that other people
can like different things. Grow up and get over it.
Also, you think "culture" is synonomous with spending money: bars,
nightclubs, shopping. It's not. What you think of as culture is
entertainment -- unless that's culture in your Disney world. Culture
is handing down your family values and traditions to your children.
If you are Irish, and occasional trip to an Irish theater might be in
order. Maybe getting drunk might be in order. Who knows. But leaving
them along (or with the nanny) while you go out teaches them the
culture of abandonment and consumerism. That's what they will hand
down to their children. This weekend, instead of going out, why not
go have dinner with your parents and discuss your family's culture --
if you have any culture worth sharing.
In Ireland you could take them to the pub with you.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You know, that's an excellent point. If you take the kids with you to
the pub or whereever, you are introducing them to that culture.
Taking them to a seedy strip joint might not be a good culture to
introduce them to, but an Irishman taking them to the local pub is
part of the culture. So in that instance, yes it is a cultural
"event" and probably a good thing. I see nothing wrong with it. It
is part of the culture. Of course, I'm of Irish descent so what can I
say....
But leaving the kids home while you go bar-hopping is another
situation altogether. That is entertainment not culture -- unles one
want to argure that that is the person's culture. Then it's just
plain sad.
I've seen worse. I once saw two little elementary age girls on the sidewalk
outside Pat O's in New Orleans. We went inside and found their parents, but
I don't think they realized how _very_ lucky they were that we found them
and interrupted their fun rather than some random stranger making off with
them!
George Conklin
2007-04-06 11:45:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat
On Apr 4, 9:42 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
<stuff snipped>
Post by Pat
If all of the people in the suburbs are happy with their homes and
their families and their lifestyles, where do you get off telling them
that their lives suck. They don't, they're happy living the suburban
lifestyle and buying their suburban homes. They are happy.
Meanwhile, you're upset that they can be happy living their version of
the American Dream. The problem isn't with them or their houses, it's
that you are just so arogant that you can't accept that other people
can like different things. Grow up and get over it.
Also, you think "culture" is synonomous with spending money: bars,
nightclubs, shopping. It's not. What you think of as culture is
entertainment -- unless that's culture in your Disney world. Culture
is handing down your family values and traditions to your children.
If you are Irish, and occasional trip to an Irish theater might be in
order. Maybe getting drunk might be in order. Who knows. But leaving
them along (or with the nanny) while you go out teaches them the
culture of abandonment and consumerism. That's what they will hand
down to their children. This weekend, instead of going out, why not
go have dinner with your parents and discuss your family's culture --
if you have any culture worth sharing.
In Ireland you could take them to the pub with you.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You know, that's an excellent point. If you take the kids with you to
the pub or whereever, you are introducing them to that culture.
Taking them to a seedy strip joint might not be a good culture to
introduce them to, but an Irishman taking them to the local pub is
part of the culture. So in that instance, yes it is a cultural
"event" and probably a good thing. I see nothing wrong with it. It
is part of the culture. Of course, I'm of Irish descent so what can I
say....
But leaving the kids home while you go bar-hopping is another
situation altogether. That is entertainment not culture -- unles one
want to argure that that is the person's culture. Then it's just
plain sad.
In the south public drinking has been forbidden so long by custom that
it is associated with violence and anti-family positions.
George Conklin
2007-04-05 10:55:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool
No I didnt know that. But here is another picture of my basis for not
liking suburbs.
---------->
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cincinnati-suburbs-tract-housing.jpg
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by George Conklin
Another unrefereed source.
Try taking a picture of West Philadelphia. Miles and miles of identical
houses.
West Philadelphia's population expanded significantly in the 1900s and
the area was home to a large part of Philadelphia's middle-class
population commuting into the Central Business District a few miles to
the East. The Western portion of the neighborhood was once home to
some of the most expensive real estate in the country, but over the
last 50 years has declined.
It was mostly row houses, all identical. If you are talking about
Mainline, that was different. West Philadelphia was a typical mass produced
city. Pretty dreary, but it kept prices down. Its current state is
irrelevant.
Forget that unrefereed source you keep citing. It is worthless.
Do you people not get what I am saying? Am I talking to wall? Fine
whatever with Philly I dont care.
That is one city. One City. It is not tipical for cities to have that!
SUBURBS HAVE MORE
ROW IDENTICAL HOUSING THEN CITIES DO! ALOT MORE! Dont bring up some
other random city and use it against me that has a few identical
houses. There are suburbs that are not like that sure. Im in favor of
those.
But Cities have more diverse housing. End of story. Do you people even
know what your arguing for?
You all seem to be angrey at me for some reason or another. Iam sorry
for the statemenst I said in the first paragragh. I did not realizle
so many people actally like living in boring suburbia. Forget whatever
statments I said earlier about no diversity/culture in suburbs. Theres
too many of you to argue against for all that.
Now I am saying that we should wipe model,identical,cheap material
housing out of western civilazation suburbs.
I know bold statement right? But I think identical model housing is
one of the ugliest creations of western modern man ever built. Is
there anybody who would rather live in a diverse house then one that
is the same exact as the Johnson's house do a mile away?- Hide quoted text -
Show quoted text -
Okay, here's what you don't get and it's why you think people are
Let's assume a city where there are a million suburban homes and a
million urban ones. All of the units are full and the market is in
balance. And ALL of the suburban homes have one design and NONE of
the urban ones have the same design. That's your ideal city and your
ultimate suburban hell.
If all of the people in the suburbs are happy with their homes and
their families and their lifestyles, where do you get off telling them
that their lives suck. They don't, they're happy living the suburban
lifestyle and buying their suburban homes. They are happy.
Meanwhile, you're upset that they can be happy living their version of
the American Dream. The problem isn't with them or their houses, it's
that you are just so arogant that you can't accept that other people
can like different things. Grow up and get over it.
Also, you think "culture" is synonomous with spending money: bars,
nightclubs, shopping. It's not.
This point has come up on alt.planning.urban in the past in relation to
Portland. Someone posted the names of about 35 bars in the downtown area.
But why is public drinking a sign of good culture? The urban militant
always thinks it is. I am not sure why. It sure does not fit the southern
idea of how to live.
Amy Blankenship
2007-04-05 12:17:47 UTC
Permalink
"George Conklin" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:tA4Rh.18556$***@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
<stuff snipped>
Post by George Conklin
Post by Pat
Let's assume a city where there are a million suburban homes and a
million urban ones. All of the units are full and the market is in
balance. And ALL of the suburban homes have one design and NONE of
the urban ones have the same design. That's your ideal city and your
ultimate suburban hell.
If all of the people in the suburbs are happy with their homes and
their families and their lifestyles, where do you get off telling them
that their lives suck. They don't, they're happy living the suburban
lifestyle and buying their suburban homes. They are happy.
Meanwhile, you're upset that they can be happy living their version of
the American Dream. The problem isn't with them or their houses, it's
that you are just so arogant that you can't accept that other people
can like different things. Grow up and get over it.
Also, you think "culture" is synonomous with spending money: bars,
nightclubs, shopping. It's not.
This point has come up on alt.planning.urban in the past in relation to
Portland. Someone posted the names of about 35 bars in the downtown area.
But why is public drinking a sign of good culture? The urban militant
always thinks it is. I am not sure why. It sure does not fit the southern
idea of how to live.
There are as many drinkers in the South as anywhere, and probably more
drunks. When you make anything forbidden (or just a little seedy, as it is
in the South), the people who do it are the ones who do things to excess.
And when you put bars where people can't walk to and from them, you make
drunk driving inevitable. Who's going to drive all that way for just one
drink?
George Conklin
2007-04-05 21:15:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amy Blankenship
<stuff snipped>
Post by George Conklin
Post by Pat
Let's assume a city where there are a million suburban homes and a
million urban ones. All of the units are full and the market is in
balance. And ALL of the suburban homes have one design and NONE of
the urban ones have the same design. That's your ideal city and your
ultimate suburban hell.
If all of the people in the suburbs are happy with their homes and
their families and their lifestyles, where do you get off telling them
that their lives suck. They don't, they're happy living the suburban
lifestyle and buying their suburban homes. They are happy.
Meanwhile, you're upset that they can be happy living their version of
the American Dream. The problem isn't with them or their houses, it's
that you are just so arogant that you can't accept that other people
can like different things. Grow up and get over it.
Also, you think "culture" is synonomous with spending money: bars,
nightclubs, shopping. It's not.
This point has come up on alt.planning.urban in the past in relation to
Portland. Someone posted the names of about 35 bars in the downtown area.
But why is public drinking a sign of good culture? The urban militant
always thinks it is. I am not sure why. It sure does not fit the southern
idea of how to live.
There are as many drinkers in the South as anywhere, and probably more
drunks.
Totally irrelevant comment about public drinking.
Amy Blankenship
2007-04-05 23:08:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Conklin
Post by Amy Blankenship
<stuff snipped>
Post by George Conklin
Post by Pat
Let's assume a city where there are a million suburban homes and a
million urban ones. All of the units are full and the market is in
balance. And ALL of the suburban homes have one design and NONE of
the urban ones have the same design. That's your ideal city and your
ultimate suburban hell.
If all of the people in the suburbs are happy with their homes and
their families and their lifestyles, where do you get off telling them
that their lives suck. They don't, they're happy living the suburban
lifestyle and buying their suburban homes. They are happy.
Meanwhile, you're upset that they can be happy living their version of
the American Dream. The problem isn't with them or their houses, it's
that you are just so arogant that you can't accept that other people
can like different things. Grow up and get over it.
Also, you think "culture" is synonomous with spending money: bars,
nightclubs, shopping. It's not.
This point has come up on alt.planning.urban in the past in relation
to
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by George Conklin
Portland. Someone posted the names of about 35 bars in the downtown
area.
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by George Conklin
But why is public drinking a sign of good culture? The urban militant
always thinks it is. I am not sure why. It sure does not fit the southern
idea of how to live.
There are as many drinkers in the South as anywhere, and probably more
drunks.
Totally irrelevant comment about public drinking.
True, but then so was your question.
George Conklin
2007-04-05 23:54:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by George Conklin
Post by Amy Blankenship
<stuff snipped>
Post by George Conklin
Post by Pat
Let's assume a city where there are a million suburban homes and a
million urban ones. All of the units are full and the market is in
balance. And ALL of the suburban homes have one design and NONE of
the urban ones have the same design. That's your ideal city and your
ultimate suburban hell.
If all of the people in the suburbs are happy with their homes and
their families and their lifestyles, where do you get off telling them
that their lives suck. They don't, they're happy living the suburban
lifestyle and buying their suburban homes. They are happy.
Meanwhile, you're upset that they can be happy living their version of
the American Dream. The problem isn't with them or their houses, it's
that you are just so arogant that you can't accept that other people
can like different things. Grow up and get over it.
Also, you think "culture" is synonomous with spending money: bars,
nightclubs, shopping. It's not.
This point has come up on alt.planning.urban in the past in relation
to
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by George Conklin
Portland. Someone posted the names of about 35 bars in the downtown
area.
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by George Conklin
But why is public drinking a sign of good culture? The urban militant
always thinks it is. I am not sure why. It sure does not fit the southern
idea of how to live.
There are as many drinkers in the South as anywhere, and probably more
drunks.
Totally irrelevant comment about public drinking.
True, but then so was your question.
Public drinking is seen as a sign of culture for the urban militant, and
they have frequently posted that in the past. They are wrong.
Amy Blankenship
2007-04-06 01:31:49 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by George Conklin
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by George Conklin
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by George Conklin
But why is public drinking a sign of good culture? The urban
militant
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by George Conklin
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by George Conklin
always thinks it is. I am not sure why. It sure does not fit the southern
idea of how to live.
There are as many drinkers in the South as anywhere, and probably more
drunks.
Totally irrelevant comment about public drinking.
True, but then so was your question.
Public drinking is seen as a sign of culture for the urban militant, and
they have frequently posted that in the past. They are wrong.
So your irrelevant assertion is ok, but mine is not?
George Conklin
2007-04-06 11:42:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amy Blankenship
...
Post by George Conklin
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by George Conklin
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by George Conklin
But why is public drinking a sign of good culture? The urban
militant
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by George Conklin
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by George Conklin
always thinks it is. I am not sure why. It sure does not fit the southern
idea of how to live.
There are as many drinkers in the South as anywhere, and probably more
drunks.
Totally irrelevant comment about public drinking.
True, but then so was your question.
Public drinking is seen as a sign of culture for the urban militant, and
they have frequently posted that in the past. They are wrong.
So your irrelevant assertion is ok, but mine is not?
Public drinking in Durham led to such violence downtown the police get an
order to close the bars. No one wants to see any more of that. It just
does not fit into the local culture. Do you support shootings as part of
your urbanist dream too?
Amy Blankenship
2007-04-06 13:07:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Conklin
Post by Amy Blankenship
...
Post by George Conklin
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by George Conklin
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by George Conklin
But why is public drinking a sign of good culture? The urban
militant
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by George Conklin
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by George Conklin
always thinks it is. I am not sure why. It sure does not fit
the
southern
idea of how to live.
There are as many drinkers in the South as anywhere, and probably
more
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by George Conklin
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by George Conklin
Post by Amy Blankenship
drunks.
Totally irrelevant comment about public drinking.
True, but then so was your question.
Public drinking is seen as a sign of culture for the urban militant, and
they have frequently posted that in the past. They are wrong.
So your irrelevant assertion is ok, but mine is not?
Public drinking in Durham led to such violence downtown the police get an
order to close the bars. No one wants to see any more of that. It just
does not fit into the local culture. Do you support shootings as part of
your urbanist dream too?
Public soccer matches have led to the same. Are you in favor of banning
public sports?
Mr.Cool
2007-04-06 13:42:26 UTC
Permalink
Although there is one thing that I didnt difine what I meant by it
very well.
By culture in the city, I do not mean bar hopping, getting drunk,
going to some rap concert.
I mean outside the bland. Here are a few examples of what I mean, I
live in Minneapolis and Im not sure if
youv heard of it but theres this Walker Art center sculpture garden
and it has alot of cool creations.
Like for example the big spoon with the cherry, and just alot of cool
things. Another example is there is a very cool
Ice cream shop that just opend up a few blocks away from my house were
the whole neighborhood hangs out alot.
Thats what I mean by culture-
George Conklin
2007-04-06 19:46:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr.Cool
Although there is one thing that I didnt difine what I meant by it
very well.
By culture in the city, I do not mean bar hopping, getting drunk,
going to some rap concert.
I mean outside the bland. Here are a few examples of what I mean, I
live in Minneapolis and Im not sure if
youv heard of it but theres this Walker Art center sculpture garden
and it has alot of cool creations.
Like for example the big spoon with the cherry, and just alot of cool
things. Another example is there is a very cool
Ice cream shop that just opend up a few blocks away from my house were
the whole neighborhood hangs out alot.
Thats what I mean by culture-
What you have just given us two defintions of culture. Culture with a
capital "C," is the culture you get by viewing someone else's work. This is
the old gesellschaft notion of Tonnies. It is not what we produce
ourselves, but what we purchase. The second is culture with a little c,
what we produce more of our own effort, sometime called geselleschaft. You
quickly get tired of what you purchase, just as we get tired of a CD or a
downloaded track. How many times can you visit a museum anyway? A few? A
few dozen? But we are all producers of culture too, and it is not dependent
on being an urban resident. Not at all. In church we sing and participate
and that is culture too...those old hymns are real turn-ons to many of us.
If you want local culture, try the merry-go-round on WPAQ, now on the
internet as www.wpaq740.com Real history there, with Benton Flippen making
the first broadcast there in 1948 AND, at 86, the first internet broadcast
this week. A cultural icon of the folk tradition (he is a retired mill
worker).
RJ
2007-04-06 14:52:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by George Conklin
Public drinking in Durham led to such violence downtown the police get an
order to close the bars. No one wants to see any more of that. It just
does not fit into the local culture. Do you support shootings as part of
your urbanist dream too?
Public soccer matches have led to the same. Are you in favor of banning
public sports?
Soccer violence worldwide is justification enough for banning the sport.
George Conklin
2007-04-06 19:41:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by George Conklin
Post by Amy Blankenship
...
Post by George Conklin
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by George Conklin
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by George Conklin
But why is public drinking a sign of good culture? The urban
militant
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by George Conklin
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by George Conklin
always thinks it is. I am not sure why. It sure does not fit
the
southern
idea of how to live.
There are as many drinkers in the South as anywhere, and probably
more
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by George Conklin
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by George Conklin
Post by Amy Blankenship
drunks.
Totally irrelevant comment about public drinking.
True, but then so was your question.
Public drinking is seen as a sign of culture for the urban militant, and
they have frequently posted that in the past. They are wrong.
So your irrelevant assertion is ok, but mine is not?
Public drinking in Durham led to such violence downtown the police get an
order to close the bars. No one wants to see any more of that. It just
does not fit into the local culture. Do you support shootings as part of
your urbanist dream too?
Public soccer matches have led to the same. Are you in favor of banning
public sports?
Are you?
Mr.Cool
2007-04-06 00:33:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Mr.Cool
No I didnt know that. But here is another picture of my basis for not
liking suburbs.
---------->
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cincinnati-suburbs-tract-housing.jpg
Another unrefereed source.
Try taking a picture of West Philadelphia. Miles and miles of identical
houses.
West Philadelphia's population expanded significantly in the 1900s and
the area was home to a large part of Philadelphia's middle-class
population commuting into the Central Business District a few miles to
the East. The Western portion of the neighborhood was once home to
some of the most expensive real estate in the country, but over the
last 50 years has declined.
It was mostly row houses, all identical. If you are talking about
Mainline, that was different. West Philadelphia was a typical mass produced
city. Pretty dreary, but it kept prices down. Its current state is
irrelevant.
Forget that unrefereed source you keep citing. It is worthless.
Do you people not get what I am saying? Am I talking to wall? Fine
whatever with Philly I dont care.
That is one city. One City. It is not tipical for cities to have that!
SUBURBS HAVE MORE
ROW IDENTICAL HOUSING THEN CITIES DO! ALOT MORE! Dont bring up some
other random city and use it against me that has a few identical
houses. There are suburbs that are not like that sure. Im in favor of
those.
But Cities have more diverse housing. End of story. Do you people even
know what your arguing for?
You all seem to be angrey at me for some reason or another. Iam sorry
for the statemenst I said in the first paragragh. I did not realizle
so many people actally like living in boring suburbia. Forget whatever
statments I said earlier about no diversity/culture in suburbs. Theres
too many of you to argue against for all that.
Now I am saying that we should wipe model,identical,cheap material
housing out of western civilazation suburbs.
I know bold statement right? But I think identical model housing is
one of the ugliest creations of western modern man ever built. Is
there anybody who would rather live in a diverse house then one that
is the same exact as the Johnson's house do a mile away?- Hide quoted text -
Show quoted text -
Okay, here's what you don't get and it's why you think people are
Let's assume a city where there are a million suburban homes and a
million urban ones. All of the units are full and the market is in
balance. And ALL of the suburban homes have one design and NONE of
the urban ones have the same design. That's your ideal city and your
ultimate suburban hell.
If all of the people in the suburbs are happy with their homes and
their families and their lifestyles, where do you get off telling them
that their lives suck. They don't, they're happy living the suburban
lifestyle and buying their suburban homes. They are happy.
Meanwhile, you're upset that they can be happy living their version of
the American Dream. The problem isn't with them or their houses, it's
that you are just so arogant that you can't accept that other people
can like different things. Grow up and get over it.
Also, you think "culture" is synonomous with spending money: bars,
nightclubs, shopping. It's not. What you think of as culture is
entertainment -- unless that's culture in your Disney world. Culture
is handing down your family values and traditions to your children.
If you are Irish, and occasional trip to an Irish theater might be in
order. Maybe getting drunk might be in order. Who knows. But leaving
them along (or with the nanny) while you go out teaches them the
culture of abandonment and consumerism. That's what they will hand
down to their children. This weekend, instead of going out, why not
go have dinner with your parents and discuss your family's culture --
if you have any culture worth sharing.
I never said anything about people who live in the suburbs having
crapy lives.
But you know what whatever Ill give you the bennifit of the doubt.
What is
so diserable about the suburbs that you may live in that you can't
find in the country or city...?
PLease im not trying to be sarcastic Im just agree with you guys for
alittle bit and see where it takes me.
Pat
2007-04-06 02:49:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Mr.Cool
No I didnt know that. But here is another picture of my basis for not
liking suburbs.
---------->
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cincinnati-suburbs-tract-housing.jpg
Another unrefereed source.
Try taking a picture of West Philadelphia. Miles and miles of identical
houses.
West Philadelphia's population expanded significantly in the 1900s and
the area was home to a large part of Philadelphia's middle-class
population commuting into the Central Business District a few miles to
the East. The Western portion of the neighborhood was once home to
some of the most expensive real estate in the country, but over the
last 50 years has declined.
It was mostly row houses, all identical. If you are talking about
Mainline, that was different. West Philadelphia was a typical mass produced
city. Pretty dreary, but it kept prices down. Its current state is
irrelevant.
Forget that unrefereed source you keep citing. It is worthless.
Do you people not get what I am saying? Am I talking to wall? Fine
whatever with Philly I dont care.
That is one city. One City. It is not tipical for cities to have that!
SUBURBS HAVE MORE
ROW IDENTICAL HOUSING THEN CITIES DO! ALOT MORE! Dont bring up some
other random city and use it against me that has a few identical
houses. There are suburbs that are not like that sure. Im in favor of
those.
But Cities have more diverse housing. End of story. Do you people even
know what your arguing for?
You all seem to be angrey at me for some reason or another. Iam sorry
for the statemenst I said in the first paragragh. I did not realizle
so many people actally like living in boring suburbia. Forget whatever
statments I said earlier about no diversity/culture in suburbs. Theres
too many of you to argue against for all that.
Now I am saying that we should wipe model,identical,cheap material
housing out of western civilazation suburbs.
I know bold statement right? But I think identical model housing is
one of the ugliest creations of western modern man ever built. Is
there anybody who would rather live in a diverse house then one that
is the same exact as the Johnson's house do a mile away?- Hide quoted text -
Show quoted text -
Okay, here's what you don't get and it's why you think people are
Let's assume a city where there are a million suburban homes and a
million urban ones. All of the units are full and the market is in
balance. And ALL of the suburban homes have one design and NONE of
the urban ones have the same design. That's your ideal city and your
ultimate suburban hell.
If all of the people in the suburbs are happy with their homes and
their families and their lifestyles, where do you get off telling them
that their lives suck. They don't, they're happy living the suburban
lifestyle and buying their suburban homes. They are happy.
Meanwhile, you're upset that they can be happy living their version of
the American Dream. The problem isn't with them or their houses, it's
that you are just so arogant that you can't accept that other people
can like different things. Grow up and get over it.
Also, you think "culture" is synonomous with spending money: bars,
nightclubs, shopping. It's not. What you think of as culture is
entertainment -- unless that's culture in your Disney world. Culture
is handing down your family values and traditions to your children.
If you are Irish, and occasional trip to an Irish theater might be in
order. Maybe getting drunk might be in order. Who knows. But leaving
them along (or with the nanny) while you go out teaches them the
culture of abandonment and consumerism. That's what they will hand
down to their children. This weekend, instead of going out, why not
go have dinner with your parents and discuss your family's culture --
if you have any culture worth sharing.
I never said anything about people who live in the suburbs having
crapy lives.
But you know what whatever Ill give you the bennifit of the doubt.
What is
so diserable about the suburbs that you may live in that you
can't
Post by Mr.Cool
find in the country or city...?
What is so desireable in the suburbs that you can' find in the country
or city? Turn the question around: What is so desireable about the
city that you can't find in the suburbs? Or more realistically ;-)
"What is in the city or suburbs that you can't find in the country?

You question is unanswerable, but I'll try anyway. Why do they make
chocolate chip ice cream. I mean, they have vanilla ice cream and
they have chocolate ice cream so does the world really need chocoate
chip? And cookies and cream -- you have milk and cookies at home, so
why do you need that as an ice cream flavor? My point (if I have one)
is that there are a lot of people out there who like a lot of
different things. You can't change them and maybe you can't even
understand them. But try to accept them. They like something
different than you do. It's that simple. Now, is there really much
of a difference between Coke and Pepsi???????
Post by Mr.Cool
PLease im not trying to be sarcastic Im just agree with you guys for
alittle bit and see where it takes me.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Amy Blankenship
2007-04-06 03:04:12 UTC
Permalink
Now, is there really much
Post by Pat
of a difference between Coke and Pepsi???????
Durn tootin. But Dew is where it's at.
George Conklin
2007-04-06 11:44:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat
Now, is there really much
Post by Pat
of a difference between Coke and Pepsi???????
Durn tootin. But Dew is where it's at.
Dr. Pepper is misunderstood.
Mr.Cool
2007-04-06 13:31:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Mr.Cool
No I didnt know that. But here is another picture of my basis for not
liking suburbs.
---------->
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cincinnati-suburbs-tract-housing.jpg
Another unrefereed source.
Try taking a picture of West Philadelphia. Miles and miles of identical
houses.
West Philadelphia's population expanded significantly in the 1900s and
the area was home to a large part of Philadelphia's middle-class
population commuting into the Central Business District a few miles to
the East. The Western portion of the neighborhood was once home to
some of the most expensive real estate in the country, but over the
last 50 years has declined.
It was mostly row houses, all identical. If you are talking about
Mainline, that was different. West Philadelphia was a typical mass produced
city. Pretty dreary, but it kept prices down. Its current state is
irrelevant.
Forget that unrefereed source you keep citing. It is worthless.
Do you people not get what I am saying? Am I talking to wall? Fine
whatever with Philly I dont care.
That is one city. One City. It is not tipical for cities to have that!
SUBURBS HAVE MORE
ROW IDENTICAL HOUSING THEN CITIES DO! ALOT MORE! Dont bring up some
other random city and use it against me that has a few identical
houses. There are suburbs that are not like that sure. Im in favor of
those.
But Cities have more diverse housing. End of story. Do you people even
know what your arguing for?
You all seem to be angrey at me for some reason or another. Iam sorry
for the statemenst I said in the first paragragh. I did not realizle
so many people actally like living in boring suburbia. Forget whatever
statments I said earlier about no diversity/culture in suburbs. Theres
too many of you to argue against for all that.
Now I am saying that we should wipe model,identical,cheap material
housing out of western civilazation suburbs.
I know bold statement right? But I think identical model housing is
one of the ugliest creations of western modern man ever built. Is
there anybody who would rather live in a diverse house then one that
is the same exact as the Johnson's house do a mile away?- Hide quoted text -
Show quoted text -
Okay, here's what you don't get and it's why you think people are
Let's assume a city where there are a million suburban homes and a
million urban ones. All of the units are full and the market is in
balance. And ALL of the suburban homes have one design and NONE of
the urban ones have the same design. That's your ideal city and your
ultimate suburban hell.
If all of the people in the suburbs are happy with their homes and
their families and their lifestyles, where do you get off telling them
that their lives suck. They don't, they're happy living the suburban
lifestyle and buying their suburban homes. They are happy.
Meanwhile, you're upset that they can be happy living their version of
the American Dream. The problem isn't with them or their houses, it's
that you are just so arogant that you can't accept that other people
can like different things. Grow up and get over it.
Also, you think "culture" is synonomous with spending money: bars,
nightclubs, shopping. It's not. What you think of as culture is
entertainment -- unless that's culture in your Disney world. Culture
is handing down your family values and traditions to your children.
If you are Irish, and occasional trip to an Irish theater might be in
order. Maybe getting drunk might be in order. Who knows. But leaving
them along (or with the nanny) while you go out teaches them the
culture of abandonment and consumerism. That's what they will hand
down to their children. This weekend, instead of going out, why not
go have dinner with your parents and discuss your family's culture --
if you have any culture worth sharing.
I never said anything about people who live in the suburbs having
crapy lives.
But you know what whatever Ill give you the bennifit of the doubt.
What is
so diserable about the suburbs that you may live in that you
can't
Post by Mr.Cool
find in the country or city...?
What is so desireable in the suburbs that you can' find in the country
or city? Turn the question around: What is so desireable about the
city that you can't find in the suburbs? Or more realistically ;-)
"What is in the city or suburbs that you can't find in the country?
You question is unanswerable, but I'll try anyway. Why do they make
chocolate chip ice cream. I mean, they have vanilla ice cream and
they have chocolate ice cream so does the world really need chocoate
chip? And cookies and cream -- you have milk and cookies at home, so
why do you need that as an ice cream flavor? My point (if I have one)
is that there are a lot of people out there who like a lot of
different things. You can't change them and maybe you can't even
understand them. But try to accept them. They like something
different than you do. It's that simple. Now, is there really much
of a difference between Coke and Pepsi???????
Post by Mr.Cool
PLease im not trying to be sarcastic Im just agree with you guys for
alittle bit and see where it takes me.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
OKay then, I see what you mean.
Theres different lifestyles for different people.
Okay thanks then.
George Conklin
2007-04-06 19:48:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool
No I didnt know that. But here is another picture of my basis for not
liking suburbs.
---------->
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cincinnati-suburbs-tract-housing.jpg
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by George Conklin
Another unrefereed source.
Try taking a picture of West Philadelphia. Miles and miles of identical
houses.
West Philadelphia's population expanded significantly in the 1900s and
the area was home to a large part of Philadelphia's middle-class
population commuting into the Central Business District a few miles to
the East. The Western portion of the neighborhood was once home to
some of the most expensive real estate in the country, but over the
last 50 years has declined.
It was mostly row houses, all identical. If you are talking about
Mainline, that was different. West Philadelphia was a typical mass produced
city. Pretty dreary, but it kept prices down. Its current state is
irrelevant.
Forget that unrefereed source you keep citing. It is worthless.
Do you people not get what I am saying? Am I talking to wall? Fine
whatever with Philly I dont care.
That is one city. One City. It is not tipical for cities to have that!
SUBURBS HAVE MORE
ROW IDENTICAL HOUSING THEN CITIES DO! ALOT MORE! Dont bring up some
other random city and use it against me that has a few identical
houses. There are suburbs that are not like that sure. Im in favor of
those.
But Cities have more diverse housing. End of story. Do you people even
know what your arguing for?
You all seem to be angrey at me for some reason or another. Iam sorry
for the statemenst I said in the first paragragh. I did not realizle
so many people actally like living in boring suburbia. Forget whatever
statments I said earlier about no diversity/culture in suburbs. Theres
too many of you to argue against for all that.
Now I am saying that we should wipe model,identical,cheap material
housing out of western civilazation suburbs.
I know bold statement right? But I think identical model housing is
one of the ugliest creations of western modern man ever built. Is
there anybody who would rather live in a diverse house then one that
is the same exact as the Johnson's house do a mile away?- Hide quoted text -
Show quoted text -
Okay, here's what you don't get and it's why you think people are
Let's assume a city where there are a million suburban homes and a
million urban ones. All of the units are full and the market is in
balance. And ALL of the suburban homes have one design and NONE of
the urban ones have the same design. That's your ideal city and your
ultimate suburban hell.
If all of the people in the suburbs are happy with their homes and
their families and their lifestyles, where do you get off telling them
that their lives suck. They don't, they're happy living the suburban
lifestyle and buying their suburban homes. They are happy.
Meanwhile, you're upset that they can be happy living their version of
the American Dream. The problem isn't with them or their houses, it's
that you are just so arogant that you can't accept that other people
can like different things. Grow up and get over it.
Also, you think "culture" is synonomous with spending money: bars,
nightclubs, shopping. It's not. What you think of as culture is
entertainment -- unless that's culture in your Disney world.
Culture
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
is handing down your family values and traditions to your children.
If you are Irish, and occasional trip to an Irish theater might be in
order. Maybe getting drunk might be in order. Who knows. But leaving
them along (or with the nanny) while you go out teaches them the
culture of abandonment and consumerism. That's what they will hand
down to their children. This weekend, instead of going out, why not
go have dinner with your parents and discuss your family's culture --
if you have any culture worth sharing.
I never said anything about people who live in the suburbs having
crapy lives.
But you know what whatever Ill give you the bennifit of the doubt.
What is
so diserable about the suburbs that you may live in that you
can't
Post by Mr.Cool
find in the country or city...?
What is so desireable in the suburbs that you can' find in the country
or city? Turn the question around: What is so desireable about the
city that you can't find in the suburbs? Or more realistically ;-)
"What is in the city or suburbs that you can't find in the country?
You question is unanswerable, but I'll try anyway. Why do they make
chocolate chip ice cream. I mean, they have vanilla ice cream and
they have chocolate ice cream so does the world really need chocoate
chip? And cookies and cream -- you have milk and cookies at home, so
why do you need that as an ice cream flavor? My point (if I have one)
is that there are a lot of people out there who like a lot of
different things. You can't change them and maybe you can't even
understand them. But try to accept them. They like something
different than you do. It's that simple. Now, is there really much
of a difference between Coke and Pepsi???????
Post by Mr.Cool
PLease im not trying to be sarcastic Im just agree with you guys for
alittle bit and see where it takes me.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
OKay then, I see what you mean.
Theres different lifestyles for different people.
Okay thanks then.
I just posted about local cultures being important too. Culture is not
what we consume. We are all producers of culture too. Folk culture is
important (and not urban based).

Mr.Cool
2007-03-28 20:47:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by BOHOSource
Post by George Conklin
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Suburbs are by nature isolating and socially dead environments.
This is low-level stupid slander.
If this is low-level stupid slander, then tell me how they are not..."
isolating and socially dead environments."
Yea, you can't really say the suburbs have much else besides a lot of
model houses and a few chain restraunts, strip malls ect...
Also , I think that the mass production era was more back in the 70s
and 80s and now that gernation is no longer in control. Sure their is
some mass production in the city, but were I live, In Minneapolis,MN I
see fast condo development but thats about it.
George Conklin
2007-03-28 23:12:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by BOHOSource
Post by George Conklin
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Suburbs are by nature isolating and socially dead environments.
This is low-level stupid slander.
If this is low-level stupid slander, then tell me how they are not..."
isolating and socially dead environments."
Yea, you can't really say the suburbs have much else besides a lot of
model houses and a few chain restraunts, strip malls ect...
This more cheap slander, and you know it.
Post by Mr.Cool
Also , I think that the mass production era was more back in the 70s
and 80s and now that gernation is no longer in control. Sure their is
some mass production in the city, but were I live, In Minneapolis,MN I
see fast condo development but thats about it.
All urban development for over 150 years is a pure example of mass
production of its era. Because today most of it has been torn down, what is
left behind seems romatic to you. Please read Richard V. Francavigila's
"Main
Street Revisited," published by The University of Iowa Press to see how your
romantic view of the city is simply wrong. You worship mass production, but
just that of another era.
Mr.Cool
2007-03-30 20:59:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by BOHOSource
Post by George Conklin
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Suburbs are by nature isolating and socially dead environments.
This is low-level stupid slander.
If this is low-level stupid slander, then tell me how they are not..."
isolating and socially dead environments."
Yea, you can't really say the suburbs have much else besides a lot of
model houses and a few chain restraunts, strip malls ect...
This more cheap slander, and you know it.
Post by Mr.Cool
Also , I think that the mass production era was more back in the 70s
and 80s and now that gernation is no longer in control. Sure their is
some mass production in the city, but were I live, In Minneapolis,MN I
see fast condo development but thats about it.
All urban development for over 150 years is a pure example of mass
production of its era. Because today most of it has been torn down, what is
left behind seems romatic to you. Please read Richard V. Francavigila's
"Main
Street Revisited," published by The University of Iowa Press to see how your
romantic view of the city is simply wrong. You worship mass production, but
just that of another era
Sure theres aways "mass production" but look, my house I currently
live in is about 100 years old, not that that changes anything, but my
house is wood but the next house beside me is completly old brown
stone brick.
I don't think that could be called "mass production". Mass production
is when there is one kind of a model for a house and it gets used
about 300 times over again with cheap materials. You can't avoid mass
production, its just a heck of a lot more in Suburbs. There are plenty
of suburbs that are Unique for example Oak Park, Illi. Oak park is a
good example of a suburb I would not mind to live in. Not shut off
from society but not in the heart of the city either.
Pat
2007-03-30 21:45:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by BOHOSource
Post by George Conklin
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Suburbs are by nature isolating and socially dead environments.
This is low-level stupid slander.
If this is low-level stupid slander, then tell me how they are not..."
isolating and socially dead environments."
Yea, you can't really say the suburbs have much else besides a lot of
model houses and a few chain restraunts, strip malls ect...
This more cheap slander, and you know it.
Post by Mr.Cool
Also , I think that the mass production era was more back in the 70s
and 80s and now that gernation is no longer in control. Sure their is
some mass production in the city, but were I live, In Minneapolis,MN I
see fast condo development but thats about it.
All urban development for over 150 years is a pure example of mass
production of its era. Because today most of it has been torn down, what is
left behind seems romatic to you. Please read Richard V. Francavigila's
"Main
Street Revisited," published by The University of Iowa Press to see how your
romantic view of the city is simply wrong. You worship mass production, but
just that of another era
Sure theres aways "mass production" but look, my house I currently
live in is about 100 years old, not that that changes anything, but my
house is wood but the next house beside me is completly old brown
stone brick.
I don't think that could be called "mass production". Mass production
is when there is one kind of a model for a house and it gets used
about 300 times over again with cheap materials. You can't avoid mass
production, its just a heck of a lot more in Suburbs. There are plenty
of suburbs that are Unique for example Oak Park, Illi. Oak park is a
good example of a suburb I would not mind to live in. Not shut off
from society but not in the heart of the city either.
Oh, threads like this are getting ridiculus. Look at your original
post that says"

*But who wants/needs MORE
suburbs? Cities are alot better looking, last longer and in gereral
alot heck of alot cooler esp with more culture then white middle
class. Well if you agree, what do we do about it? I sure don't need
more boring suberbs and I don't think you do either. But what can we
do?*

This is the most egocentrical thing imaginable. "Cities are alot
better looking". No. The mountains out my window are much better
looking. "Cooler", no. Cool is living next to the Rez, knowing your
neighbors, and knowing where my 15-year-old is". Tempurature wise,
cities are hotter and waste a lot of $$$ on AC.
"More culture than white middle class". Sorry, but who drives
"culture". The white middle class. Culture is relative. Nice
lacrosse game 2 days ago. My son's team one by a big margin. That is
the culture of this community. You view is MUCH too narrow. "Who
wants/needs more suburbs" -- the many, many people who are moving
there to escape the city. The flow is out, not in.

I couldn't be happier for you that you like cities and want to live
there. Great. Go knock yourself out. But that fact that YOU like it
doesn't mean everyone/anyone else should. I thoroughly enjoy living
out in the boonies.

I don't have digital
I don't have diddly squat
It's not having what you want
It's wanting what you've got
from "Soak Up The Sun" by Sheryl Crow

It is interesting that my only fear is that people like you will come
out here and ruin my booniness. But you guys want us to go to your
area and cause more problems. Seems weird.

Bike on. Go take transit just because you can. Go do you urban
thing. Maybe even go see a show (I went to concert last week -- the
6th grade was great). Go do all of those thing out of some sense of
wanting or whatever. I'll stay home with my family and maybe walk the
dog. What could be better than that? Who could want/need more than
that? We don't need any more, boring cities. We need nice
communities like this. They are great place to live.
George Conklin
2007-03-30 23:22:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by BOHOSource
Post by George Conklin
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Suburbs are by nature isolating and socially dead
environments.
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by BOHOSource
Post by George Conklin
This is low-level stupid slander.
If this is low-level stupid slander, then tell me how they are not..."
isolating and socially dead environments."
Yea, you can't really say the suburbs have much else besides a lot of
model houses and a few chain restraunts, strip malls ect...
This more cheap slander, and you know it.
Post by Mr.Cool
Also , I think that the mass production era was more back in the 70s
and 80s and now that gernation is no longer in control. Sure their is
some mass production in the city, but were I live, In Minneapolis,MN I
see fast condo development but thats about it.
All urban development for over 150 years is a pure example of mass
production of its era. Because today most of it has been torn down, what is
left behind seems romatic to you. Please read Richard V.
Francavigila's
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by George Conklin
"Main
Street Revisited," published by The University of Iowa Press to see how your
romantic view of the city is simply wrong. You worship mass production, but
just that of another era
Sure theres aways "mass production" but look, my house I currently
live in is about 100 years old, not that that changes anything, but my
house is wood but the next house beside me is completly old brown
stone brick.
I don't think that could be called "mass production". Mass production
is when there is one kind of a model for a house and it gets used
about 300 times over again with cheap materials. You can't avoid mass
production, its just a heck of a lot more in Suburbs. There are plenty
of suburbs that are Unique for example Oak Park, Illi. Oak park is a
good example of a suburb I would not mind to live in. Not shut off
from society but not in the heart of the city either.
Oh, threads like this are getting ridiculus. Look at your original
post that says"
*But who wants/needs MORE
suburbs? Cities are alot better looking, last longer and in gereral
alot heck of alot cooler esp with more culture then white middle
class. Well if you agree, what do we do about it? I sure don't need
more boring suberbs and I don't think you do either. But what can we
do?*
This is the most egocentrical thing imaginable. "Cities are alot
better looking". No. The mountains out my window are much better
looking. "Cooler", no. Cool is living next to the Rez, knowing your
neighbors, and knowing where my 15-year-old is". Tempurature wise,
cities are hotter and waste a lot of $$$ on AC.
Actually it is well-known that cities are 4-8 degrees hotter than the
suburbs due to all the excess stone, brick and paving. They set up a wind
around themselves and the tall buildings. Temperature pollution is one
problem with cities.
Post by Pat
"More culture than white middle class". Sorry, but who drives
"culture". The white middle class. Culture is relative.
Culture vultures assume culture comes from Europe.

Nice
Post by Pat
lacrosse game 2 days ago. My son's team one by a big margin. That is
the culture of this community. You view is MUCH too narrow. "Who
wants/needs more suburbs" -- the many, many people who are moving
there to escape the city. The flow is out, not in.
I couldn't be happier for you that you like cities and want to live
there. Great. Go knock yourself out. But that fact that YOU like it
doesn't mean everyone/anyone else should. I thoroughly enjoy living
out in the boonies.
I don't have digital
You do have computer access, right?!!!
Post by Pat
I don't have diddly squat
It's not having what you want
It's wanting what you've got
from "Soak Up The Sun" by Sheryl Crow
It is interesting that my only fear is that people like you will come
out here and ruin my booniness. But you guys want us to go to your
area and cause more problems. Seems weird.
Bike on. Go take transit just because you can. Go do you urban
thing. Maybe even go see a show (I went to concert last week -- the
6th grade was great). Go do all of those thing out of some sense of
wanting or whatever. I'll stay home with my family and maybe walk the
dog. What could be better than that? Who could want/need more than
that? We don't need any more, boring cities. We need nice
communities like this. They are great place to live.
Great comment.
Mr.Cool
2007-03-31 23:15:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by BOHOSource
Post by George Conklin
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Suburbs are by nature isolating and socially dead environments.
This is low-level stupid slander.
If this is low-level stupid slander, then tell me how they are not..."
isolating and socially dead environments."
Yea, you can't really say the suburbs have much else besides a lot of
model houses and a few chain restraunts, strip malls ect...
This more cheap slander, and you know it.
Post by Mr.Cool
Also , I think that the mass production era was more back in the 70s
and 80s and now that gernation is no longer in control. Sure their is
some mass production in the city, but were I live, In Minneapolis,MN I
see fast condo development but thats about it.
All urban development for over 150 years is a pure example of mass
production of its era. Because today most of it has been torn down, what is
left behind seems romatic to you. Please read Richard V. Francavigila's
"Main
Street Revisited," published by The University of Iowa Press to see how your
romantic view of the city is simply wrong. You worship mass production, but
just that of another era
Sure theres aways "mass production" but look, my house I currently
live in is about 100 years old, not that that changes anything, but my
house is wood but the next house beside me is completly old brown
stone brick.
I don't think that could be called "mass production". Mass production
is when there is one kind of a model for a house and it gets used
about 300 times over again with cheap materials. You can't avoid mass
production, its just a heck of a lot more in Suburbs. There are plenty
of suburbs that are Unique for example Oak Park, Illi. Oak park is a
good example of a suburb I would not mind to live in. Not shut off
from society but not in the heart of the city either.
Oh, threads like this are getting ridiculus. Look at your original
post that says"
*But who wants/needs MORE
suburbs? Cities are alot better looking, last longer and in gereral
alot heck of alot cooler esp with more culture then white middle
class. Well if you agree, what do we do about it? I sure don't need
more boring suberbs and I don't think you do either. But what can we
do?*
This is the most egocentrical thing imaginable. "Cities are alot
better looking". No. The mountains out my window are much better
looking. "Cooler", no. Cool is living next to the Rez, knowing your
neighbors, and knowing where my 15-year-old is". Tempurature wise,
cities are hotter and waste a lot of $$$ on AC.
"More culture than white middle class". Sorry, but who drives
"culture". The white middle class. Culture is relative. Nice
lacrosse game 2 days ago. My son's team one by a big margin. That is
the culture of this community. You view is MUCH too narrow. "Who
wants/needs more suburbs" -- the many, many people who are moving
there to escape the city. The flow is out, not in.
I couldn't be happier for you that you like cities and want to live
there. Great. Go knock yourself out. But that fact that YOU like it
doesn't mean everyone/anyone else should. I thoroughly enjoy living
out in the boonies.
I don't have digital
I don't have diddly squat
It's not having what you want
It's wanting what you've got
from "Soak Up The Sun" by Sheryl Crow
It is interesting that my only fear is that people like you will come
out here and ruin my booniness. But you guys want us to go to your
area and cause more problems. Seems weird.
Bike on. Go take transit just because you can. Go do you urban
thing. Maybe even go see a show (I went to concert last week -- the
6th grade was great). Go do all of those thing out of some sense of
wanting or whatever. I'll stay home with my family and maybe walk the
dog. What could be better than that? Who could want/need more than
that? We don't need any more, boring cities. We need nice
communities like this. They are great place to live.
O Yea cause you know its like that in all surbubs? Fat fricken chance.
Like I said before,
there are some pretty cool suburbs, but as a whole they ARE socially
dead enviroments, there ARE all bland,
for the most part they Do have only chain restrants, and stores in
general. How are you going to tell me that cities are borining? Sure
its nice to be all nice and safe and secure in the suburbs and maby
even know a few people that live close to you right? Yea stay away
from those awlful cities were the houses are all close together and
cars drive by all the time. Its soo much better to seclude yourself
away from diversity and differnces and society. Society? YUCK! What
theres no Walmart? YUCK! Side walks? What? My suburban SUV can't fit
on those? what are sidewalks for? Hahah Im going to take the kids to
soccer practice by walking to the park? Hahahah what a laugh o those
dumb cites and all there conveniences and diversity.....
George Conklin
2007-04-01 00:21:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool
On Mar 7, 7:56 am, "George Conklin"
Post by George Conklin
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Suburbs are by nature isolating and socially dead environments.
This is low-level stupid slander.
If this is low-level stupid slander, then tell me how they are not..."
isolating and socially dead environments."
Yea, you can't really say the suburbs have much else besides a lot of
model houses and a few chain restraunts, strip malls ect...
This more cheap slander, and you know it.
Post by Mr.Cool
Also , I think that the mass production era was more back in the 70s
and 80s and now that gernation is no longer in control. Sure their is
some mass production in the city, but were I live, In
Minneapolis,MN I
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool
see fast condo development but thats about it.
All urban development for over 150 years is a pure example of mass
production of its era. Because today most of it has been torn down, what is
left behind seems romatic to you. Please read Richard V. Francavigila's
"Main
Street Revisited," published by The University of Iowa Press to see how your
romantic view of the city is simply wrong. You worship mass production, but
just that of another era
Sure theres aways "mass production" but look, my house I currently
live in is about 100 years old, not that that changes anything, but my
house is wood but the next house beside me is completly old brown
stone brick.
I don't think that could be called "mass production". Mass production
is when there is one kind of a model for a house and it gets used
about 300 times over again with cheap materials. You can't avoid mass
production, its just a heck of a lot more in Suburbs. There are plenty
of suburbs that are Unique for example Oak Park, Illi. Oak park is a
good example of a suburb I would not mind to live in. Not shut off
from society but not in the heart of the city either.
Oh, threads like this are getting ridiculus. Look at your original
post that says"
*But who wants/needs MORE
suburbs? Cities are alot better looking, last longer and in gereral
alot heck of alot cooler esp with more culture then white middle
class. Well if you agree, what do we do about it? I sure don't need
more boring suberbs and I don't think you do either. But what can we
do?*
This is the most egocentrical thing imaginable. "Cities are alot
better looking". No. The mountains out my window are much better
looking. "Cooler", no. Cool is living next to the Rez, knowing your
neighbors, and knowing where my 15-year-old is". Tempurature wise,
cities are hotter and waste a lot of $$$ on AC.
"More culture than white middle class". Sorry, but who drives
"culture". The white middle class. Culture is relative. Nice
lacrosse game 2 days ago. My son's team one by a big margin. That is
the culture of this community. You view is MUCH too narrow. "Who
wants/needs more suburbs" -- the many, many people who are moving
there to escape the city. The flow is out, not in.
I couldn't be happier for you that you like cities and want to live
there. Great. Go knock yourself out. But that fact that YOU like it
doesn't mean everyone/anyone else should. I thoroughly enjoy living
out in the boonies.
I don't have digital
I don't have diddly squat
It's not having what you want
It's wanting what you've got
from "Soak Up The Sun" by Sheryl Crow
It is interesting that my only fear is that people like you will come
out here and ruin my booniness. But you guys want us to go to your
area and cause more problems. Seems weird.
Bike on. Go take transit just because you can. Go do you urban
thing. Maybe even go see a show (I went to concert last week -- the
6th grade was great). Go do all of those thing out of some sense of
wanting or whatever. I'll stay home with my family and maybe walk the
dog. What could be better than that? Who could want/need more than
that? We don't need any more, boring cities. We need nice
communities like this. They are great place to live.
O Yea cause you know its like that in all surbubs? Fat fricken chance.
Like I said before,
there are some pretty cool suburbs, but as a whole they ARE socially
dead enviroments, there ARE all bland,
This has been proven a lie so many times you should be ashamed to repeat
it. Cities were and are mass production of their era. It only looks great
in retrospect. All those row houses in Philadelphia, for example, are not
romantic; they are all mass production. You even see ads in the paper about
how to make them a tiny bit different by buying more mass-produced fixes.
Pat
2007-04-01 02:45:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by BOHOSource
Post by George Conklin
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Suburbs are by nature isolating and socially dead environments.
This is low-level stupid slander.
If this is low-level stupid slander, then tell me how they are not..."
isolating and socially dead environments."
Yea, you can't really say the suburbs have much else besides a lot of
model houses and a few chain restraunts, strip malls ect...
This more cheap slander, and you know it.
Post by Mr.Cool
Also , I think that the mass production era was more back in the 70s
and 80s and now that gernation is no longer in control. Sure their is
some mass production in the city, but were I live, In Minneapolis,MN I
see fast condo development but thats about it.
All urban development for over 150 years is a pure example of mass
production of its era. Because today most of it has been torn down, what is
left behind seems romatic to you. Please read Richard V. Francavigila's
"Main
Street Revisited," published by The University of Iowa Press to see how your
romantic view of the city is simply wrong. You worship mass production, but
just that of another era
Sure theres aways "mass production" but look, my house I currently
live in is about 100 years old, not that that changes anything, but my
house is wood but the next house beside me is completly old brown
stone brick.
I don't think that could be called "mass production". Mass production
is when there is one kind of a model for a house and it gets used
about 300 times over again with cheap materials. You can't avoid mass
production, its just a heck of a lot more in Suburbs. There are plenty
of suburbs that are Unique for example Oak Park, Illi. Oak park is a
good example of a suburb I would not mind to live in. Not shut off
from society but not in the heart of the city either.
Oh, threads like this are getting ridiculus. Look at your original
post that says"
*But who wants/needs MORE
suburbs? Cities are alot better looking, last longer and in gereral
alot heck of alot cooler esp with more culture then white middle
class. Well if you agree, what do we do about it? I sure don't need
more boring suberbs and I don't think you do either. But what can we
do?*
This is the most egocentrical thing imaginable. "Cities are alot
better looking". No. The mountains out my window are much better
looking. "Cooler", no. Cool is living next to the Rez, knowing your
neighbors, and knowing where my 15-year-old is". Tempurature wise,
cities are hotter and waste a lot of $$$ on AC.
"More culture than white middle class". Sorry, but who drives
"culture". The white middle class. Culture is relative. Nice
lacrosse game 2 days ago. My son's team one by a big margin. That is
the culture of this community. You view is MUCH too narrow. "Who
wants/needs more suburbs" -- the many, many people who are moving
there to escape the city. The flow is out, not in.
I couldn't be happier for you that you like cities and want to live
there. Great. Go knock yourself out. But that fact that YOU like it
doesn't mean everyone/anyone else should. I thoroughly enjoy living
out in the boonies.
I don't have digital
I don't have diddly squat
It's not having what you want
It's wanting what you've got
from "Soak Up The Sun" by Sheryl Crow
It is interesting that my only fear is that people like you will come
out here and ruin my booniness. But you guys want us to go to your
area and cause more problems. Seems weird.
Bike on. Go take transit just because you can. Go do you urban
thing. Maybe even go see a show (I went to concert last week -- the
6th grade was great). Go do all of those thing out of some sense of
wanting or whatever. I'll stay home with my family and maybe walk the
dog. What could be better than that? Who could want/need more than
that? We don't need any more, boring cities. We need nice
communities like this. They are great place to live.
O Yea cause you know its like that in all surbubs? Fat fricken chance.
Like I said before,
there are some pretty cool suburbs, but as a whole they ARE socially
dead enviroments, there ARE all bland,
for the most part they Do have only chain restrants, and stores in
general. How are you going to tell me that cities are borining? Sure
its nice to be all nice and safe and secure in the suburbs and maby
even know a few people that live close to you right? Yea stay away
from those awlful cities were the houses are all close together and
cars drive by all the time. Its soo much better to seclude yourself
away from diversity and differnces and society. Society? YUCK! What
theres no Walmart? YUCK! Side walks? What? My suburban SUV can't fit
on those? what are sidewalks for? Hahah Im going to take the kids to
soccer practice by walking to the park? Hahahah what a laugh o those
dumb cites and all there conveniences and diversity.....
Mr. Cool, your are not "cool", you are "don't know what you're talking
about". You see, I don't live in the suburbs. I hate suburbs nearly
as much as I hate cities. I live out in the middle of nowhere just
off of an Indian Rez, for Pete's sake.

Walking? Our distances are too great. But we like it that way.
About 2 miles to the soccer field and 3 miles to the lacrosse field at
the high school. There first lacrosse game was 2 school districts
over -- about 45 miles away.

Diversity? Oh give me a break. You wouldn't know diversity if it
snuck up behind you and cross-checked you with a lacrosse stick. How
many Longhouses do you have in your city? How many people play
lacrosse as a medicine sport? How many kids do you have to play on 2
different lacrosse teams -- one that is part of the school and one
that is part of the tribe. And yes, they play a different type of
lacrosse for each team -- I bet you, Mr. Diversity, didn't even know
there were 2 types.

Side Walks? Believe it or not, we have sidewalks. and they are well
walked. You see, we don't have any public transportation so the kids
walk and ride bikes.

Chain restaurants? Yeah, we have then down on the west end near the
casino. A McD, a BK, and a Subway!!! The Domino's closed. But all
of the rest of the restaurants are locally owned. Heck, we don't even
have a major chain grocery store.

"Yea stay away from those awlful cities were the houses are all close
together and cars drive by all the time. Its soo much better to
seclude yourself". Yup. Works for me.

Walmart? We dream of having a Walmart. We are too small. Closest
one is about 20 miles away.

Here's the problem. I've lived in cities. I've lived in suburbs.
Heck, technically I live in a city right now, but YOU wouldn't
recognize it as such. After sampling the city life, the suburban
life, and the rural life, I can tell you unqualifiedly, that this is
the best life for me. If you like the city, good for you. Go do your
city-slicker thing. Go see shows and ride subways. Great. Have
fun. Plus you'll probably make an oodle more money doing it than I
will. But so what. This is a great lifestyle for me but it's not for
you. So what.about that too. I'll never convert you and you'll never
convert me. But so what. The major difference is that I accept that
there are different strokes for different folks. You however, are
just friggin arrogent thinking that your lifestyle is best and should
be emulated. Loosen up, man, and accept that people are different and
not everyone wants to live in a city
Mr.Cool
2007-04-01 03:29:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by BOHOSource
Post by George Conklin
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Suburbs are by nature isolating and socially dead environments.
This is low-level stupid slander.
If this is low-level stupid slander, then tell me how they are not..."
isolating and socially dead environments."
Yea, you can't really say the suburbs have much else besides a lot of
model houses and a few chain restraunts, strip malls ect...
This more cheap slander, and you know it.
Post by Mr.Cool
Also , I think that the mass production era was more back in the 70s
and 80s and now that gernation is no longer in control. Sure their is
some mass production in the city, but were I live, In Minneapolis,MN I
see fast condo development but thats about it.
All urban development for over 150 years is a pure example of mass
production of its era. Because today most of it has been torn down, what is
left behind seems romatic to you. Please read Richard V. Francavigila's
"Main
Street Revisited," published by The University of Iowa Press to see how your
romantic view of the city is simply wrong. You worship mass production, but
just that of another era
Sure theres aways "mass production" but look, my house I currently
live in is about 100 years old, not that that changes anything, but my
house is wood but the next house beside me is completly old brown
stone brick.
I don't think that could be called "mass production". Mass production
is when there is one kind of a model for a house and it gets used
about 300 times over again with cheap materials. You can't avoid mass
production, its just a heck of a lot more in Suburbs. There are plenty
of suburbs that are Unique for example Oak Park, Illi. Oak park is a
good example of a suburb I would not mind to live in. Not shut off
from society but not in the heart of the city either.
Oh, threads like this are getting ridiculus. Look at your original
post that says"
*But who wants/needs MORE
suburbs? Cities are alot better looking, last longer and in gereral
alot heck of alot cooler esp with more culture then white middle
class. Well if you agree, what do we do about it? I sure don't need
more boring suberbs and I don't think you do either. But what can we
do?*
This is the most egocentrical thing imaginable. "Cities are alot
better looking". No. The mountains out my window are much better
looking. "Cooler", no. Cool is living next to the Rez, knowing your
neighbors, and knowing where my 15-year-old is". Tempurature wise,
cities are hotter and waste a lot of $$$ on AC.
"More culture than white middle class". Sorry, but who drives
"culture". The white middle class. Culture is relative. Nice
lacrosse game 2 days ago. My son's team one by a big margin. That is
the culture of this community. You view is MUCH too narrow. "Who
wants/needs more suburbs" -- the many, many people who are moving
there to escape the city. The flow is out, not in.
I couldn't be happier for you that you like cities and want to live
there. Great. Go knock yourself out. But that fact that YOU like it
doesn't mean everyone/anyone else should. I thoroughly enjoy living
out in the boonies.
I don't have digital
I don't have diddly squat
It's not having what you want
It's wanting what you've got
from "Soak Up The Sun" by Sheryl Crow
It is interesting that my only fear is that people like you will come
out here and ruin my booniness. But you guys want us to go to your
area and cause more problems. Seems weird.
Bike on. Go take transit just because you can. Go do you urban
thing. Maybe even go see a show (I went to concert last week -- the
6th grade was great). Go do all of those thing out of some sense of
wanting or whatever. I'll stay home with my family and maybe walk the
dog. What could be better than that? Who could want/need more than
that? We don't need any more, boring cities. We need nice
communities like this. They are great place to live.
O Yea cause you know its like that in all surbubs? Fat fricken chance.
Like I said before,
there are some pretty cool suburbs, but as a whole they ARE socially
dead enviroments, there ARE all bland,
for the most part they Do have only chain restrants, and stores in
general. How are you going to tell me that cities are borining? Sure
its nice to be all nice and safe and secure in the suburbs and maby
even know a few people that live close to you right? Yea stay away
from those awlful cities were the houses are all close together and
cars drive by all the time. Its soo much better to seclude yourself
away from diversity and differnces and society. Society? YUCK! What
theres no Walmart? YUCK! Side walks? What? My suburban SUV can't fit
on those? what are sidewalks for? Hahah Im going to take the kids to
soccer practice by walking to the park? Hahahah what a laugh o those
dumb cites and all there conveniences and diversity.....
Mr. Cool, your are not "cool", you are "don't know what you're talking
about". You see, I don't live in the suburbs. I hate suburbs nearly
as much as I hate cities. I live out in the middle of nowhere just
off of an Indian Rez, for Pete's sake.
Walking? Our distances are too great. But we like it that way.
About 2 miles to the soccer field and 3 miles to the lacrosse field at
the high school. There first lacrosse game was 2 school districts
over -- about 45 miles away.
Diversity? Oh give me a break. You wouldn't know diversity if it
snuck up behind you and cross-checked you with a lacrosse stick. How
many Longhouses do you have in your city? How many people play
lacrosse as a medicine sport? How many kids do you have to play on 2
different lacrosse teams -- one that is part of the school and one
that is part of the tribe. And yes, they play a different type of
lacrosse for each team -- I bet you, Mr. Diversity, didn't even know
there were 2 types.
Side Walks? Believe it or not, we have sidewalks. and they are well
walked. You see, we don't have any public transportation so the kids
walk and ride bikes.
Chain restaurants? Yeah, we have then down on the west end near the
casino. A McD, a BK, and a Subway!!! The Domino's closed. But all
of the rest of the restaurants are locally owned. Heck, we don't even
have a major chain grocery store.
"Yea stay away from those awlful cities were the houses are all close
together and cars drive by all the time. Its soo much better to
seclude yourself". Yup. Works for me.
Walmart? We dream of having a Walmart. We are too small. Closest
one is about 20 miles away.
Here's the problem. I've lived in cities. I've lived in suburbs.
Heck, technically I live in a city right now, but YOU wouldn't
recognize it as such. After sampling the city life, the suburban
life, and the rural life, I can tell you unqualifiedly, that this is
the best life for me. If you like the city, good for you. Go do your
city-slicker thing. Go see shows and ride subways. Great. Have
fun. Plus you'll probably make an oodle more money doing it than I
will. But so what. This is a great lifestyle for me but it's not for
you. So what.about that too. I'll never convert you and you'll never
convert me. But so what. The major difference is that I accept that
there are different strokes for different folks. You however, are
just friggin arrogent thinking that your lifestyle is best and should
be emulated. Loosen up, man, and accept that people are different and
not everyone wants to live in a city
Umm thats all fine and dandy, mostly beacause im not talking about
anything related to rural. So could you please stop posting in this
article if your not going to talk about the related subject? Thankyou.
George Conklin
2007-04-01 13:07:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool
On Mar 7, 7:56 am, "George Conklin"
Post by George Conklin
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Suburbs are by nature isolating and socially dead environments.
This is low-level stupid slander.
If this is low-level stupid slander, then tell me how they are not..."
isolating and socially dead environments."
Yea, you can't really say the suburbs have much else besides a lot of
model houses and a few chain restraunts, strip malls ect...
This more cheap slander, and you know it.
Post by Mr.Cool
Also , I think that the mass production era was more back in the 70s
and 80s and now that gernation is no longer in control. Sure their is
some mass production in the city, but were I live, In Minneapolis,MN I
see fast condo development but thats about it.
All urban development for over 150 years is a pure example of mass
production of its era. Because today most of it has been torn down, what is
left behind seems romatic to you. Please read Richard V. Francavigila's
"Main
Street Revisited," published by The University of Iowa Press to see how your
romantic view of the city is simply wrong. You worship mass production, but
just that of another era
Sure theres aways "mass production" but look, my house I currently
live in is about 100 years old, not that that changes anything, but my
house is wood but the next house beside me is completly old brown
stone brick.
I don't think that could be called "mass production". Mass production
is when there is one kind of a model for a house and it gets used
about 300 times over again with cheap materials. You can't avoid mass
production, its just a heck of a lot more in Suburbs. There are plenty
of suburbs that are Unique for example Oak Park, Illi. Oak park is a
good example of a suburb I would not mind to live in. Not shut off
from society but not in the heart of the city either.
Oh, threads like this are getting ridiculus. Look at your original
post that says"
*But who wants/needs MORE
suburbs? Cities are alot better looking, last longer and in gereral
alot heck of alot cooler esp with more culture then white middle
class. Well if you agree, what do we do about it? I sure don't need
more boring suberbs and I don't think you do either. But what can we
do?*
This is the most egocentrical thing imaginable. "Cities are alot
better looking". No. The mountains out my window are much better
looking. "Cooler", no. Cool is living next to the Rez, knowing your
neighbors, and knowing where my 15-year-old is". Tempurature wise,
cities are hotter and waste a lot of $$$ on AC.
"More culture than white middle class". Sorry, but who drives
"culture". The white middle class. Culture is relative. Nice
lacrosse game 2 days ago. My son's team one by a big margin. That is
the culture of this community. You view is MUCH too narrow. "Who
wants/needs more suburbs" -- the many, many people who are moving
there to escape the city. The flow is out, not in.
I couldn't be happier for you that you like cities and want to live
there. Great. Go knock yourself out. But that fact that YOU like it
doesn't mean everyone/anyone else should. I thoroughly enjoy living
out in the boonies.
I don't have digital
I don't have diddly squat
It's not having what you want
It's wanting what you've got
from "Soak Up The Sun" by Sheryl Crow
It is interesting that my only fear is that people like you will come
out here and ruin my booniness. But you guys want us to go to your
area and cause more problems. Seems weird.
Bike on. Go take transit just because you can. Go do you urban
thing. Maybe even go see a show (I went to concert last week -- the
6th grade was great). Go do all of those thing out of some sense of
wanting or whatever. I'll stay home with my family and maybe walk the
dog. What could be better than that? Who could want/need more than
that? We don't need any more, boring cities. We need nice
communities like this. They are great place to live.
O Yea cause you know its like that in all surbubs? Fat fricken chance.
Like I said before,
there are some pretty cool suburbs, but as a whole they ARE socially
dead enviroments, there ARE all bland,
for the most part they Do have only chain restrants, and stores in
general. How are you going to tell me that cities are borining? Sure
its nice to be all nice and safe and secure in the suburbs and maby
even know a few people that live close to you right? Yea stay away
from those awlful cities were the houses are all close together and
cars drive by all the time. Its soo much better to seclude yourself
away from diversity and differnces and society. Society? YUCK! What
theres no Walmart? YUCK! Side walks? What? My suburban SUV can't fit
on those? what are sidewalks for? Hahah Im going to take the kids to
soccer practice by walking to the park? Hahahah what a laugh o those
dumb cites and all there conveniences and diversity.....
Mr. Cool, your are not "cool", you are "don't know what you're talking
about". You see, I don't live in the suburbs. I hate suburbs nearly
as much as I hate cities. I live out in the middle of nowhere just
off of an Indian Rez, for Pete's sake.
Walking? Our distances are too great. But we like it that way.
About 2 miles to the soccer field and 3 miles to the lacrosse field at
the high school. There first lacrosse game was 2 school districts
over -- about 45 miles away.
Diversity? Oh give me a break. You wouldn't know diversity if it
snuck up behind you and cross-checked you with a lacrosse stick. How
many Longhouses do you have in your city? How many people play
lacrosse as a medicine sport? How many kids do you have to play on 2
different lacrosse teams -- one that is part of the school and one
that is part of the tribe. And yes, they play a different type of
lacrosse for each team -- I bet you, Mr. Diversity, didn't even know
there were 2 types.
Side Walks? Believe it or not, we have sidewalks. and they are well
walked. You see, we don't have any public transportation so the kids
walk and ride bikes.
Chain restaurants? Yeah, we have then down on the west end near the
casino. A McD, a BK, and a Subway!!! The Domino's closed. But all
of the rest of the restaurants are locally owned. Heck, we don't even
have a major chain grocery store.
"Yea stay away from those awlful cities were the houses are all close
together and cars drive by all the time. Its soo much better to
seclude yourself". Yup. Works for me.
Walmart? We dream of having a Walmart. We are too small. Closest
one is about 20 miles away.
Here's the problem. I've lived in cities. I've lived in suburbs.
Heck, technically I live in a city right now, but YOU wouldn't
recognize it as such. After sampling the city life, the suburban
life, and the rural life, I can tell you unqualifiedly, that this is
the best life for me. If you like the city, good for you. Go do your
city-slicker thing. Go see shows and ride subways. Great. Have
fun. Plus you'll probably make an oodle more money doing it than I
will. But so what. This is a great lifestyle for me but it's not for
you. So what.about that too. I'll never convert you and you'll never
convert me. But so what. The major difference is that I accept that
there are different strokes for different folks. You however, are
just friggin arrogent thinking that your lifestyle is best and should
be emulated. Loosen up, man, and accept that people are different and
not everyone wants to live in a city
Umm thats all fine and dandy, mostly beacause im not talking about
anything related to rural. So could you please stop posting in this
article if your not going to talk about the related subject? Thankyou.
She posted exactly what is wrong with your fears.
Pat
2007-04-01 16:13:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool
On Mar 7, 7:56 am, "George Conklin"
Post by George Conklin
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Suburbs are by nature isolating and socially dead
environments.
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by George Conklin
This is low-level stupid slander.
If this is low-level stupid slander, then tell me how they
are not..."
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool
isolating and socially dead environments."
Yea, you can't really say the suburbs have much else besides a
lot of
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool
model houses and a few chain restraunts, strip malls ect...
This more cheap slander, and you know it.
Post by Mr.Cool
Also , I think that the mass production era was more back in
the 70s
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool
and 80s and now that gernation is no longer in control. Sure
their is
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool
some mass production in the city, but were I live, In
Minneapolis,MN I
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool
see fast condo development but thats about it.
All urban development for over 150 years is a pure example of
mass
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by George Conklin
production of its era. Because today most of it has been torn
down, what is
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by George Conklin
left behind seems romatic to you. Please read Richard V.
Francavigila's
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by George Conklin
"Main
Street Revisited," published by The University of Iowa Press to
see how your
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by George Conklin
romantic view of the city is simply wrong. You worship mass
production, but
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by George Conklin
just that of another era
Sure theres aways "mass production" but look, my house I
currently
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
live in is about 100 years old, not that that changes anything,
but my
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
house is wood but the next house beside me is completly old brown
stone brick.
I don't think that could be called "mass production". Mass
production
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
is when there is one kind of a model for a house and it gets used
about 300 times over again with cheap materials. You can't avoid
mass
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
production, its just a heck of a lot more in Suburbs. There are
plenty
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
of suburbs that are Unique for example Oak Park, Illi. Oak park is
a
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
good example of a suburb I would not mind to live in. Not shut off
from society but not in the heart of the city either.
Oh, threads like this are getting ridiculus. Look at your original
post that says"
*But who wants/needs MORE
suburbs? Cities are alot better looking, last longer and in gereral
alot heck of alot cooler esp with more culture then white middle
class. Well if you agree, what do we do about it? I sure don't need
more boring suberbs and I don't think you do either. But what can we
do?*
This is the most egocentrical thing imaginable. "Cities are alot
better looking". No. The mountains out my window are much better
looking. "Cooler", no. Cool is living next to the Rez, knowing
your
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
neighbors, and knowing where my 15-year-old is". Tempurature wise,
cities are hotter and waste a lot of $$$ on AC.
"More culture than white middle class". Sorry, but who drives
"culture". The white middle class. Culture is relative. Nice
lacrosse game 2 days ago. My son's team one by a big margin. That
is
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
the culture of this community. You view is MUCH too narrow. "Who
wants/needs more suburbs" -- the many, many people who are moving
there to escape the city. The flow is out, not in.
I couldn't be happier for you that you like cities and want to live
there. Great. Go knock yourself out. But that fact that YOU like
it
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
doesn't mean everyone/anyone else should. I thoroughly enjoy living
out in the boonies.
I don't have digital
I don't have diddly squat
It's not having what you want
It's wanting what you've got
from "Soak Up The Sun" by Sheryl Crow
It is interesting that my only fear is that people like you will
come
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
out here and ruin my booniness. But you guys want us to go to your
area and cause more problems. Seems weird.
Bike on. Go take transit just because you can. Go do you urban
thing. Maybe even go see a show (I went to concert last week -- the
6th grade was great). Go do all of those thing out of some sense of
wanting or whatever. I'll stay home with my family and maybe walk
the
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
dog. What could be better than that? Who could want/need more than
that? We don't need any more, boring cities. We need nice
communities like this. They are great place to live.
O Yea cause you know its like that in all surbubs? Fat fricken chance.
Like I said before,
there are some pretty cool suburbs, but as a whole they ARE socially
dead enviroments, there ARE all bland,
for the most part they Do have only chain restrants, and stores in
general. How are you going to tell me that cities are borining? Sure
its nice to be all nice and safe and secure in the suburbs and maby
even know a few people that live close to you right? Yea stay away
from those awlful cities were the houses are all close together and
cars drive by all the time. Its soo much better to seclude yourself
away from diversity and differnces and society. Society? YUCK! What
theres no Walmart? YUCK! Side walks? What? My suburban SUV can't fit
on those? what are sidewalks for? Hahah Im going to take the kids to
soccer practice by walking to the park? Hahahah what a laugh o those
dumb cites and all there conveniences and diversity.....
Mr. Cool, your are not "cool", you are "don't know what you're talking
about". You see, I don't live in the suburbs. I hate suburbs nearly
as much as I hate cities. I live out in the middle of nowhere just
off of an Indian Rez, for Pete's sake.
Walking? Our distances are too great. But we like it that way.
About 2 miles to the soccer field and 3 miles to the lacrosse field at
the high school. There first lacrosse game was 2 school districts
over -- about 45 miles away.
Diversity? Oh give me a break. You wouldn't know diversity if it
snuck up behind you and cross-checked you with a lacrosse stick. How
many Longhouses do you have in your city? How many people play
lacrosse as a medicine sport? How many kids do you have to play on 2
different lacrosse teams -- one that is part of the school and one
that is part of the tribe. And yes, they play a different type of
lacrosse for each team -- I bet you, Mr. Diversity, didn't even know
there were 2 types.
Side Walks? Believe it or not, we have sidewalks. and they are well
walked. You see, we don't have any public transportation so the kids
walk and ride bikes.
Chain restaurants? Yeah, we have then down on the west end near the
casino. A McD, a BK, and a Subway!!! The Domino's closed. But all
of the rest of the restaurants are locally owned. Heck, we don't even
have a major chain grocery store.
"Yea stay away from those awlful cities were the houses are all close
together and cars drive by all the time. Its soo much better to
seclude yourself". Yup. Works for me.
Walmart? We dream of having a Walmart. We are too small. Closest
one is about 20 miles away.
Here's the problem. I've lived in cities. I've lived in suburbs.
Heck, technically I live in a city right now, but YOU wouldn't
recognize it as such. After sampling the city life, the suburban
life, and the rural life, I can tell you unqualifiedly, that this is
the best life for me. If you like the city, good for you. Go do your
city-slicker thing. Go see shows and ride subways. Great. Have
fun. Plus you'll probably make an oodle more money doing it than I
will. But so what. This is a great lifestyle for me but it's not for
you. So what.about that too. I'll never convert you and you'll never
convert me. But so what. The major difference is that I accept that
there are different strokes for different folks. You however, are
just friggin arrogent thinking that your lifestyle is best and should
be emulated. Loosen up, man, and accept that people are different and
not everyone wants to live in a city
Umm thats all fine and dandy, mostly beacause im not talking about
anything related to rural. So could you please stop posting in this
article if your not going to talk about the related subject? Thankyou.
She posted exactly what is wrong with your fears.
Ummm, unless I've missed something lately, it's "he" not "she". I'd
better go look .........
Pat
2007-04-01 16:53:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by BOHOSource
Post by George Conklin
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Suburbs are by nature isolating and socially dead environments.
This is low-level stupid slander.
If this is low-level stupid slander, then tell me how they are not..."
isolating and socially dead environments."
Yea, you can't really say the suburbs have much else besides a lot of
model houses and a few chain restraunts, strip malls ect...
This more cheap slander, and you know it.
Post by Mr.Cool
Also , I think that the mass production era was more back in the 70s
and 80s and now that gernation is no longer in control. Sure their is
some mass production in the city, but were I live, In Minneapolis,MN I
see fast condo development but thats about it.
All urban development for over 150 years is a pure example of mass
production of its era. Because today most of it has been torn down, what is
left behind seems romatic to you. Please read Richard V. Francavigila's
"Main
Street Revisited," published by The University of Iowa Press to see how your
romantic view of the city is simply wrong. You worship mass production, but
just that of another era
Sure theres aways "mass production" but look, my house I currently
live in is about 100 years old, not that that changes anything, but my
house is wood but the next house beside me is completly old brown
stone brick.
I don't think that could be called "mass production". Mass production
is when there is one kind of a model for a house and it gets used
about 300 times over again with cheap materials. You can't avoid mass
production, its just a heck of a lot more in Suburbs. There are plenty
of suburbs that are Unique for example Oak Park, Illi. Oak park is a
good example of a suburb I would not mind to live in. Not shut off
from society but not in the heart of the city either.
Oh, threads like this are getting ridiculus. Look at your original
post that says"
*But who wants/needs MORE
suburbs? Cities are alot better looking, last longer and in gereral
alot heck of alot cooler esp with more culture then white middle
class. Well if you agree, what do we do about it? I sure don't need
more boring suberbs and I don't think you do either. But what can we
do?*
This is the most egocentrical thing imaginable. "Cities are alot
better looking". No. The mountains out my window are much better
looking. "Cooler", no. Cool is living next to the Rez, knowing your
neighbors, and knowing where my 15-year-old is". Tempurature wise,
cities are hotter and waste a lot of $$$ on AC.
"More culture than white middle class". Sorry, but who drives
"culture". The white middle class. Culture is relative. Nice
lacrosse game 2 days ago. My son's team one by a big margin. That is
the culture of this community. You view is MUCH too narrow. "Who
wants/needs more suburbs" -- the many, many people who are moving
there to escape the city. The flow is out, not in.
I couldn't be happier for you that you like cities and want to live
there. Great. Go knock yourself out. But that fact that YOU like it
doesn't mean everyone/anyone else should. I thoroughly enjoy living
out in the boonies.
I don't have digital
I don't have diddly squat
It's not having what you want
It's wanting what you've got
from "Soak Up The Sun" by Sheryl Crow
It is interesting that my only fear is that people like you will come
out here and ruin my booniness. But you guys want us to go to your
area and cause more problems. Seems weird.
Bike on. Go take transit just because you can. Go do you urban
thing. Maybe even go see a show (I went to concert last week -- the
6th grade was great). Go do all of those thing out of some sense of
wanting or whatever. I'll stay home with my family and maybe walk the
dog. What could be better than that? Who could want/need more than
that? We don't need any more, boring cities. We need nice
communities like this. They are great place to live.
O Yea cause you know its like that in all surbubs? Fat fricken chance.
Like I said before,
there are some pretty cool suburbs, but as a whole they ARE socially
dead enviroments, there ARE all bland,
for the most part they Do have only chain restrants, and stores in
general. How are you going to tell me that cities are borining? Sure
its nice to be all nice and safe and secure in the suburbs and maby
even know a few people that live close to you right? Yea stay away
from those awlful cities were the houses are all close together and
cars drive by all the time. Its soo much better to seclude yourself
away from diversity and differnces and society. Society? YUCK! What
theres no Walmart? YUCK! Side walks? What? My suburban SUV can't fit
on those? what are sidewalks for? Hahah Im going to take the kids to
soccer practice by walking to the park? Hahahah what a laugh o those
dumb cites and all there conveniences and diversity.....
Mr. Cool, your are not "cool", you are "don't know what you're talking
about". You see, I don't live in the suburbs. I hate suburbs nearly
as much as I hate cities. I live out in the middle of nowhere just
off of an Indian Rez, for Pete's sake.
Walking? Our distances are too great. But we like it that way.
About 2 miles to the soccer field and 3 miles to the lacrosse field at
the high school. There first lacrosse game was 2 school districts
over -- about 45 miles away.
Diversity? Oh give me a break. You wouldn't know diversity if it
snuck up behind you and cross-checked you with a lacrosse stick. How
many Longhouses do you have in your city? How many people play
lacrosse as a medicine sport? How many kids do you have to play on 2
different lacrosse teams -- one that is part of the school and one
that is part of the tribe. And yes, they play a different type of
lacrosse for each team -- I bet you, Mr. Diversity, didn't even know
there were 2 types.
Side Walks? Believe it or not, we have sidewalks. and they are well
walked. You see, we don't have any public transportation so the kids
walk and ride bikes.
Chain restaurants? Yeah, we have then down on the west end near the
casino. A McD, a BK, and a Subway!!! The Domino's closed. But all
of the rest of the restaurants are locally owned. Heck, we don't even
have a major chain grocery store.
"Yea stay away from those awlful cities were the houses are all close
together and cars drive by all the time. Its soo much better to
seclude yourself". Yup. Works for me.
Walmart? We dream of having a Walmart. We are too small. Closest
one is about 20 miles away.
Here's the problem. I've lived in cities. I've lived in suburbs.
Heck, technically I live in a city right now, but YOU wouldn't
recognize it as such. After sampling the city life, the suburban
life, and the rural life, I can tell you unqualifiedly, that this is
the best life for me. If you like the city, good for you. Go do your
city-slicker thing. Go see shows and ride subways. Great. Have
fun. Plus you'll probably make an oodle more money doing it than I
will. But so what. This is a great lifestyle for me but it's not for
you. So what.about that too. I'll never convert you and you'll never
convert me. But so what. The major difference is that I accept that
there are different strokes for different folks. You however, are
just friggin arrogent thinking that your lifestyle is best and should
be emulated. Loosen up, man, and accept that people are different and
not everyone wants to live in a city
Umm thats all fine and dandy, mostly beacause im not talking about
anything related to rural. So could you please stop posting in this
article if your not going to talk about the related subject? Thankyou.
Yes, this is a rural area but I live in a city -- you know, it has a
mayor and such. Heck, we even have those new-fangled things called
police cars and fire trucks. We have the TWO tallest buildings in our
county -- one of which is a parking ramp (go figure that out, a
parking ramp on a Rez).

But you wouldn't recognize this as urban or a city because of your
inability to recognize anything that you don't agree with (or more
precisely that doesn't agree with you).

Here's the city. Check it out.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=salamanca,+ny&layer=&ie=UTF8&om=1&z=12&ll=42.148387,-78.720818&spn=0.088326,0.343323&t=h
The whole area to the south is a state park that goes to the state
border. then National Forest south of that in PA. Even notice that
city people come to the park to camp and 'get away" but rural people
don't go to the city to camp and "get to it". Funny, isn't it.


Plus, this just opened this weekend.
http://www.senecaalleganycasino.com/about-news_newHotel.cfm

This might also interest you.
http://www.sni.org/

Here's my older son.
http://www.artisticphotography.us/localsports/2006_Allegany_Arrows_Lacrosse/pages/2006%2005%2013%20Allegany%20Arrows088.htm

This is my younger son, doing what kids should be doning during the
summer, not being in a city where you worry about violence.
http://www.artisticphotography.us/localsports/2006_Allegany_Arrows_Lacrosse/pages/IMG_6309.htm
RJ
2007-03-30 23:16:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr.Cool
I don't think that could be called "mass production". Mass production
is when there is one kind of a model for a house and it gets used
about 300 times over again with cheap materials. You can't avoid mass
production, its just a heck of a lot more in Suburbs.
All of the trim for the victorian houses that people like so much was
mass produced. They look better now because most of the junky ones are
gone.

And mass production of housing has squat to do with cities and suburbs.

If you think brick isn't a mass production environment, take a look at
the brick rowhouses in northeastern cities. (The sheer ugliness of
those row houses was a major spur for people to move to the suburbs.)
George Conklin
2007-03-30 23:22:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by RJ
Post by Mr.Cool
I don't think that could be called "mass production". Mass production
is when there is one kind of a model for a house and it gets used
about 300 times over again with cheap materials. You can't avoid mass
production, its just a heck of a lot more in Suburbs.
All of the trim for the victorian houses that people like so much was
mass produced. They look better now because most of the junky ones are
gone.
And mass production of housing has squat to do with cities and suburbs.
If you think brick isn't a mass production environment, take a look at
the brick rowhouses in northeastern cities. (The sheer ugliness of
those row houses was a major spur for people to move to the suburbs.)
Example: West Philadelphia.
George Conklin
2007-03-30 23:19:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool
Post by BOHOSource
Post by George Conklin
Post by w***@urbantowns.com
Suburbs are by nature isolating and socially dead environments.
This is low-level stupid slander.
If this is low-level stupid slander, then tell me how they are not..."
isolating and socially dead environments."
Yea, you can't really say the suburbs have much else besides a lot of
model houses and a few chain restraunts, strip malls ect...
This more cheap slander, and you know it.
Post by Mr.Cool
Also , I think that the mass production era was more back in the 70s
and 80s and now that gernation is no longer in control. Sure their is
some mass production in the city, but were I live, In Minneapolis,MN I
see fast condo development but thats about it.
All urban development for over 150 years is a pure example of mass
production of its era. Because today most of it has been torn down, what is
left behind seems romatic to you. Please read Richard V. Francavigila's
"Main
Street Revisited," published by The University of Iowa Press to see how your
romantic view of the city is simply wrong. You worship mass production, but
just that of another era
Sure theres aways "mass production" but look, my house I currently
live in is about 100 years old, not that that changes anything, but my
house is wood but the next house beside me is completly old brown
stone brick.
I don't think that could be called "mass production". Mass production
is when there is one kind of a model for a house and it gets used
about 300 times over again with cheap materials.
Brownstones were mass production of their era.


You can't avoid mass
Post by Mr.Cool
production, its just a heck of a lot more in Suburbs.
Cities were mass production of their era and they just look cute because
that era is over. There are stores for sale around here which look cute,
but the fronts are cast iron which was a standard add-on of their era,
complete with builder's plates from a foundary in Ohio. They were standard
add-ons for otherwise common wood buildings but mass production all the way.
Amy Blankenship
2007-03-06 23:27:39 UTC
Permalink
You'd be more credible if you learned how to spell "cliché" or even
"suburb."
Post by Mr.Cool
Sure, but is that a reason for building suberbs?I don't think it is,
we should avoid suberbs and work harder to make cities better. I think
that is a better plan then to build model homes. Tangent; the suberbs
that I am concerned with are the ones with model, cheap easy to build
homes,that stray away from cutlure. The Suberbs I do like are ones of
the likes of Oak Park, Illinois. Why do I like those kinds better? for
one the desing of the home is differnt for every home instead of 5
differnt models. Also, this suberb does not stray away from culture.
What do I mean by that? Well for starters it does'nt have one huge
Wal*Mart, and a few other huge franchises of shopping centers ect. Oak
Park has alot of for exapmle a coffie shop started owned by a family
or the like, compared to a starbucks or Cariboo. Not just one huge
strip mall were all of the soccer moms go to do thir shopping. Yes I
bet you think I am sounding very cleishe about this,cleishe or not,
this is how it is.
George Conklin
2007-03-07 12:56:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr.Cool
Sure, but is that a reason for building suberbs?I don't think it is,
we should avoid suberbs and work harder to make cities better.
So-called suburbanization today IS urbanization. Further, are you not
aware that urban density has been declining since 1840 in places like London
and several American cities? And in cities as a group since at least 1910?
We cannot have an industrial city with pre-industrial densities.
Loading...