My Essay on Suburban life and culture.

[Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life]

Hey all so yea I just started become "one of the guys" here on urban
planning but now
I fear I will dash this and become as I was when I first got here. But
anyways, I started today a google documented essay on why I think
Suburbs are bad for the U.S. and I would just like to see what you
guys think about it. In a proof reading sense and what you actally
think of the content. Here goes-


Cities and Suburbs

Why Suburbs are bad for United States health. -by William Mark
Bornhoft

A common definition of a suburb is a community in an outlying
section of a city or, more commonly, a nearby, politically separate
municipality with social and economic ties to the central city. In the
20th cent., particularly in the United States, population growth in
urban areas has spilled increasingly outside the city limits and
concentrated there, resulting in large metropolitan areas where the
populations of the suburbs taken together exceed that of the central
city. As growth of the suburbs continues, cost of labor for common
suburban housing drops increasingly low. Houses are built with
cheaper, less expensive materials and are built with the same model of
construction time and time again. As this does no harm financially,
the western world loses any uniqueness it once had. Meaning their is a
very small amount of difference between Burnsville,Minnesota and Boone
County,Kentucky. Most suburbs are also disliked for their lack of the
grid system. In modern suburbs things like culdesacs and tangle towns
are more common to be designed with. This also makes it virtually
impossible to include a mass transit system into the suburb. Thus,
more driving, more gas use, and more emissions created in the
atmosphere. A common response to this from a suburban residential is
that the city is jam packed with congestion and pollution from stop
and go traffic. Yet with cities, they are more dense, highly populated
and many of the stop and go traffic is created by workers who live in
the suburbs coming into the city at rush hour. An attraction to the
suburbs for someone looking to raise a family is the suburbs generally
contain less crime, less congestion and more isolation from a fast
pace life. In relation to crime in the cities, middle classAmericans
flocking to the suburbs due to high crime rates in the cities produces
more crime with the lack of decent middle class citizens keeping up
otherwise run-down neighborhood ghettos. Also, as cities become more
and more expensive to live in due to high property rates, more and
more poverty will move into the suburbs.


That is all I have for now.

[Pat]

On May 29, 3:44 pm, "Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like)

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
Hey all so yea I just started become "one of the guys" here on urban
planning but now
I fear I will dash this and become as I was when I first got here. But
anyways, I started today a google documented essay on why I think
Suburbs are bad for the U.S. and I would just like to see what you
guys think about it. In a proof reading sense and what you actally
think of the content. Here goes-
Cities and Suburbs
Why Suburbs are bad for United States health. -by William Mark
Bornhoft

Go to google and retract the article before it gets archived. Then
remove your name and repost. No one, esp. a teen, should post their
name -- esp. when you've posted your city and school.

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
A common definition of a suburb is a community in an outlying
section of a city or, more commonly, a nearby, politically separate
municipality with social and economic ties to the central city. In the
20th cent., particularly in the United States, population growth in
urban areas has spilled increasingly outside the city limits and
concentrated there, resulting in large metropolitan areas where the
populations of the suburbs taken together exceed that of the central
city. As growth of the suburbs continues, cost of labor for common
suburban housing drops increasingly low. Houses are built with
cheaper, less expensive materials and are built with the same model of
construction time and time again. As this does no harm financially,
the western world loses any uniqueness it once had. Meaning their is a
very small amount of difference between Burnsville,Minnesota and Boone
County,Kentucky. Most suburbs are also disliked for their lack of the
grid system. In modern suburbs things like culdesacs and tangle towns
are more common to be designed with. This also makes it virtually
impossible to include a mass transit system into the suburb. Thus,
more driving, more gas use, and more emissions created in the
atmosphere. A common response to this from a suburban residential is
that the city is jam packed with congestion and pollution from stop
and go traffic. Yet with cities, they are more dense, highly populated
and many of the stop and go traffic is created by workers who live in
the suburbs coming into the city at rush hour. An attraction to the
suburbs for someone looking to raise a family is the suburbs generally
contain less crime, less congestion and more isolation from a fast
pace life. In relation to crime in the cities, middle classAmericans
flocking to the suburbs due to high crime rates in the cities produces
more crime with the lack of decent middle class citizens keeping up
otherwise run-down neighborhood ghettos. Also, as cities become more
and more expensive to live in due to high property rates, more and
more poverty will move into the suburbs.
That is all I have for now.

[Pat]

Post by Pat
On May 29, 3:44 pm, "Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like)

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
Hey all so yea I just started become "one of the guys" here on urban
planning but now
I fear I will dash this and become as I was when I first got here. But
anyways, I started today a google documented essay on why I think
Suburbs are bad for the U.S. and I would just like to see what you
guys think about it. In a proof reading sense and what you actally
think of the content. Here goes-
Cities and Suburbs
Why Suburbs are bad for United States health. -by William Mark
Bornhoft

Go to google and retract the article before it gets archived. Then
remove your name and repost. No one, esp. a teen, should post their
name -- esp. when you've posted your city and school.

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
A common definition of a suburb is a community in an outlying
section of a city or, more commonly, a nearby, politically separate
municipality with social and economic ties to the central city. In the
20th cent., particularly in the United States, population growth in
urban areas has spilled increasingly outside the city limits and
concentrated there, resulting in large metropolitan areas where the
populations of the suburbs taken together exceed that of the central
city. As growth of the suburbs continues, cost of labor for common
suburban housing drops increasingly low. Houses are built with
cheaper, less expensive materials and are built with the same model of
construction time and time again. As this does no harm financially,
the western world loses any uniqueness it once had. Meaning their is a
very small amount of difference between Burnsville,Minnesota and Boone
County,Kentucky. Most suburbs are also disliked for their lack of the
grid system. In modern suburbs things like culdesacs and tangle towns
are more common to be designed with. This also makes it virtually
impossible to include a mass transit system into the suburb. Thus,
more driving, more gas use, and more emissions created in the
atmosphere. A common response to this from a suburban residential is
that the city is jam packed with congestion and pollution from stop
and go traffic. Yet with cities, they are more dense, highly populated
and many of the stop and go traffic is created by workers who live in
the suburbs coming into the city at rush hour. An attraction to the
suburbs for someone looking to raise a family is the suburbs generally
contain less crime, less congestion and more isolation from a fast
pace life. In relation to crime in the cities, middle classAmericans
flocking to the suburbs due to high crime rates in the cities produces
more crime with the lack of decent middle class citizens keeping up
otherwise run-down neighborhood ghettos. Also, as cities become more
and more expensive to live in due to high property rates, more and
more poverty will move into the suburbs.
That is all I have for now.

Besides, only serial killers use 3 names. (at least your middle name
isn't Wayne)

[Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life]

Post by Pat

Post by Pat
On May 29, 3:44 pm, "Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like)

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
Hey all so yea I just started become "one of the guys" here on urban
planning but now
I fear I will dash this and become as I was when I first got here. But
anyways, I started today a google documented essay on why I think
Suburbs are bad for the U.S. and I would just like to see what you
guys think about it. In a proof reading sense and what you actally
think of the content. Here goes-
Cities and Suburbs
Why Suburbs are bad for United States health. -by William Mark
Bornhoft

Go to google and retract the article before it gets archived. Then
remove your name and repost. No one, esp. a teen, should post their
name -- esp. when you've posted your city and school.

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
A common definition of a suburb is a community in an outlying
section of a city or, more commonly, a nearby, politically separate
municipality with social and economic ties to the central city. In the
20th cent., particularly in the United States, population growth in
urban areas has spilled increasingly outside the city limits and
concentrated there, resulting in large metropolitan areas where the
populations of the suburbs taken together exceed that of the central
city. As growth of the suburbs continues, cost of labor for common
suburban housing drops increasingly low. Houses are built with
cheaper, less expensive materials and are built with the same model of
construction time and time again. As this does no harm financially,
the western world loses any uniqueness it once had. Meaning their is a
very small amount of difference between Burnsville,Minnesota and Boone
County,Kentucky. Most suburbs are also disliked for their lack of the
grid system. In modern suburbs things like culdesacs and tangle towns
are more common to be designed with. This also makes it virtually
impossible to include a mass transit system into the suburb. Thus,
more driving, more gas use, and more emissions created in the
atmosphere. A common response to this from a suburban residential is
that the city is jam packed with congestion and pollution from stop
and go traffic. Yet with cities, they are more dense, highly populated
and many of the stop and go traffic is created by workers who live in
the suburbs coming into the city at rush hour. An attraction to the
suburbs for someone looking to raise a family is the suburbs generally
contain less crime, less congestion and more isolation from a fast
pace life. In relation to crime in the cities, middle classAmericans
flocking to the suburbs due to high crime rates in the cities produces
more crime with the lack of decent middle class citizens keeping up
otherwise run-down neighborhood ghettos. Also, as cities become more
and more expensive to live in due to high property rates, more and
more poverty will move into the suburbs.
That is all I have for now.

Besides, only serial killers use 3 names. (at least your middle name
isn't Wayne)

Haha okay thanks. Heres the ending product.
http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dfrp7npp_0hrg95g

[george conklin]

Post by Pat
On May 29, 3:44 pm, "Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like)

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
Hey all so yea I just started become "one of the guys" here on urban
planning but now
I fear I will dash this and become as I was when I first got here. But
anyways, I started today a google documented essay on why I think
Suburbs are bad for the U.S. and I would just like to see what you
guys think about it. In a proof reading sense and what you actally
think of the content. Here goes-
Cities and Suburbs
Why Suburbs are bad for United States health. -by William Mark
Bornhoft

Go to google and retract the article before it gets archived. Then
remove your name and repost. No one, esp. a teen, should post their
name -- esp. when you've posted your city and school.

Oh come on. Most of us are full identified.

[Pat]

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat
On May 29, 3:44 pm, "Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like)

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
Hey all so yea I just started become "one of the guys" here on urban
planning but now
I fear I will dash this and become as I was when I first got here. But
anyways, I started today a google documented essay on why I think
Suburbs are bad for the U.S. and I would just like to see what you
guys think about it. In a proof reading sense and what you actally
think of the content. Here goes-
Cities and Suburbs
Why Suburbs are bad for United States health. -by William Mark
Bornhoft

Go to google and retract the article before it gets archived. Then
remove your name and repost. No one, esp. a teen, should post their
name -- esp. when you've posted your city and school.

Oh come on. Most of us are full identified.

Yes, George, "we" are, but that doesn't mean a 15-year-old should be.
That's clearly documented in the literature. Teenagers should be
particularly careful on the internet. Who knows, maybe someone with a
fetish for child prodigy-urban planners might hunt him down and stalk
him. He should err on the site of caution.

[Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life]

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat
On May 29, 3:44 pm, "Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like)

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
Hey all so yea I just started become "one of the guys" here on urban
planning but now
I fear I will dash this and become as I was when I first got here. But
anyways, I started today a google documented essay on why I think
Suburbs are bad for the U.S. and I would just like to see what you
guys think about it. In a proof reading sense and what you actally
think of the content. Here goes-
Cities and Suburbs
Why Suburbs are bad for United States health. -by William Mark
Bornhoft

Go to google and retract the article before it gets archived. Then
remove your name and repost. No one, esp. a teen, should post their
name -- esp. when you've posted your city and school.

Oh come on. Most of us are full identified.

Yes, George, "we" are, but that doesn't mean a 15-year-old should be.
That's clearly documented in the literature. Teenagers should be
particularly careful on the internet. Who knows, maybe someone with a
fetish for child prodigy-urban planners might hunt him down and stalk
him. He should err on the site of caution.

thanks btw

[george conklin]

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat
On May 29, 3:44 pm, "Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like)

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
Hey all so yea I just started become "one of the guys" here on urban
planning but now
I fear I will dash this and become as I was when I first got here. But
anyways, I started today a google documented essay on why I think
Suburbs are bad for the U.S. and I would just like to see what you
guys think about it. In a proof reading sense and what you actally
think of the content. Here goes-
Cities and Suburbs
Why Suburbs are bad for United States health. -by William Mark
Bornhoft

Go to google and retract the article before it gets archived. Then
remove your name and repost. No one, esp. a teen, should post their
name -- esp. when you've posted your city and school.

Oh come on. Most of us are full identified.

Yes, George, "we" are, but that doesn't mean a 15-year-old should be.

If he posts here, he should be identified.

[Pat]

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat
On May 29, 3:44 pm, "Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like)

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
Hey all so yea I just started become "one of the guys" here on urban
planning but now
I fear I will dash this and become as I was when I first got here. But
anyways, I started today a google documented essay on why I think
Suburbs are bad for the U.S. and I would just like to see what you
guys think about it. In a proof reading sense and what you actally
think of the content. Here goes-
Cities and Suburbs
Why Suburbs are bad for United States health. -by William Mark
Bornhoft

Go to google and retract the article before it gets archived. Then
remove your name and repost. No one, esp. a teen, should post their
name -- esp. when you've posted your city and school.

Oh come on. Most of us are full identified.

Yes, George, "we" are, but that doesn't mean a 15-year-old should be.

If he posts here, he should be identified.

Yes. He should be identified and Mr. Cool is great handle. But a
teenager shouldn't be posting his friggin name and address on the
internet, not now and not ever. Duh. Just plain common sense. Don't
you follow the news or do you just wait for someone to publish it is
some third-rate journal.

[Pat]

A few comments to for when you repost

On May 29, 3:44 pm, "Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like)

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
Hey all so yea I just started become "one of the guys" here on urban
planning but now
I fear I will dash this and become as I was when I first got here. But
anyways, I started today a google documented essay on why I think
Suburbs are bad for the U.S. and I would just like to see what you
guys think about it. In a proof reading sense and what you actally
think of the content. Here goes-
Cities and Suburbs
Why Suburbs are bad for United States health. -b
A common definition of a suburb is a community in an outlying
section of a city or, more commonly, a nearby, politically separate
municipality with social and economic ties to the central city.

So, in Yonker's, NY (the 4th largest city in NYS and located just
north of NYC but in Westchester County) a suburb on NYC or an
independent community. (Hint: I think it depends who you ask)

In the

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
20th cent., particularly in the United States, population growth in
urban areas has spilled increasingly outside the city limits and
concentrated there, resulting in large metropolitan areas where the
populations of the suburbs taken together exceed that of the central
city. As growth of the suburbs continues, cost of labor for common
suburban housing drops increasingly low. (I'm not sure I follow this) Houses are built with
cheaper, less expensive materials (materials cost what materials cost. they are built using a less expensive design) and are built with the same model of
construction time and time again. As this does no harm financially (financially, it is benefital),
the western world ("western world" is a stretch. besides, don't they have subsurbs in other places?)loses any uniqueness it once had.(it doesn't lose anything, but it may not gain more. There is a difference) Meaning their is a
very small amount of difference between Burnsville,Minnesota and Boone
County,Kentucky. Most suburbs are also disliked (by whom? The increasing population in them probably love it) for their lack of the
grid system. In modern suburbs things like culdesacs (spelling) and tangle towns
are more common to be designed with. This also makes it virtually
impossible to include a mass transit system into the suburb. (no, cause they would stick to the arterials anyway. It is the development pattern that limits it -- people don't go into the downtown. it becomes a network, not a web going to the core) Thus,
more driving, more gas use, and more emissions created in the
atmosphere.(if you're referenceing, prove that) A common response to this from a suburban residential is
that the city is jam packed with congestion and pollution from stop
and go traffic. Yet with cities, they are more dense, highly populated
and many of the stop and go traffic is created by workers who live in
the suburbs coming into the city at rush hour. An attraction to the
suburbs for someone looking to raise a family is the suburbs generally
contain less crime, less congestion and more isolation from a fast
pace life ("fast paced" is a value judgement). In relation to crime in the cities, middle classAmericans
flocking to the suburbs due to high crime rates in the cities produces
more crime with the lack of decent middle class citizens keeping up
otherwise run-down neighborhood ghettos. Also, as cities become more
and more expensive to live in due to high property rates (that ain't the only reason), more and
more poverty will move into the suburbs.(they have high taxes too)
That is all I have for now.

break it up into paragraphs to make it easier to read.

It's a start.

Good luck.

[george conklin]

"Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life"

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
Hey all so yea I just started become "one of the guys" here on urban
planning but now
I fear I will dash this and become as I was when I first got here. But
anyways, I started today a google documented essay on why I think
Suburbs are bad for the U.S. and I would just like to see what you
guys think about it. In a proof reading sense and what you actally
think of the content. Here goes-
Cities and Suburbs
Why Suburbs are bad for United States health. -by William Mark
Bornhoft
A common definition of a suburb is a community in an outlying
section of a city or, more commonly, a nearby, politically separate
municipality with social and economic ties to the central city.

This defintion of suburb does not even work in New York City. What else
do you have in mind?
These days "suburbs" are self-sufficient. Few go into the center of old
cities. They move from so-called suburb to suburb.

[Pat]

Post by george conklin

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
Hey all so yea I just started become "one of the guys" here on urban
planning but now
I fear I will dash this and become as I was when I first got here. But
anyways, I started today a google documented essay on why I think
Suburbs are bad for the U.S. and I would just like to see what you
guys think about it. In a proof reading sense and what you actally
think of the content. Here goes-
Cities and Suburbs
Why Suburbs are bad for United States health. -by William Mark
Bornhoft
A common definition of a suburb is a community in an outlying
section of a city or, more commonly, a nearby, politically separate
municipality with social and economic ties to the central city.

This defintion of suburb does not even work in New York City. What else
do you have in mind?
These days "suburbs" are self-sufficient. Few go into the center of old
cities. They move from so-called suburb to suburb.

I agree with George on this one. "Suburb" is a vague concept. You
should look into what definitions are available. Maybe you could even
contribute a definition to "the liturature".

Back to my Yonker's example. If you live in NYC, then you probably
think of Yonkers as a suburb. But if you live in Yonkers, you
probably don't think you live in "the suburbs".

So the first question you have to answer is "Is this suburbia"
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=40+S+Broadway,+Yonkers,+NY&sll=40.932741,-73.898184&sspn=0.002732,0.006405&ie=UTF8&ll=40.932936,-73.896854&spn=0.005463,0.01281&t=h&z=16&om=1

[Clark F Morris]

Post by george conklin
"Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life"

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
Hey all so yea I just started become "one of the guys" here on urban
planning but now
I fear I will dash this and become as I was when I first got here. But
anyways, I started today a google documented essay on why I think
Suburbs are bad for the U.S. and I would just like to see what you
guys think about it. In a proof reading sense and what you actally
think of the content. Here goes-
Cities and Suburbs
Why Suburbs are bad for United States health. -by William Mark
Bornhoft
A common definition of a suburb is a community in an outlying
section of a city or, more commonly, a nearby, politically separate
municipality with social and economic ties to the central city.

This defintion of suburb does not even work in New York City. What else
do you have in mind?
These days "suburbs" are self-sufficient. Few go into the center of old
cities. They move from so-called suburb to suburb.

Most suburbs try to zone so that the lower paid workers cn't afford to
live there. The planners I find most objectionable are those who
enable communities to attract office complexes and shopping malls, yet
only have high priced housing (Bedminster Far Hills or Summit in New
Jersey despite the Mount Laurel decision).

[george conklin]

Post by Clark F Morris

Post by george conklin
"Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life"

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
Hey all so yea I just started become "one of the guys" here on urban
planning but now
I fear I will dash this and become as I was when I first got here. But
anyways, I started today a google documented essay on why I think
Suburbs are bad for the U.S. and I would just like to see what you
guys think about it. In a proof reading sense and what you actally
think of the content. Here goes-
Cities and Suburbs
Why Suburbs are bad for United States health. -by William Mark
Bornhoft
A common definition of a suburb is a community in an outlying
section of a city or, more commonly, a nearby, politically separate
municipality with social and economic ties to the central city.

This defintion of suburb does not even work in New York City. What else
do you have in mind?
These days "suburbs" are self-sufficient. Few go into the center of old
cities. They move from so-called suburb to suburb.

Most suburbs try to zone so that the lower paid workers cn't afford to
live there.

Like Manhattan, right? Manhattan has pushed the middle class into the
suburbs on purpose. It never wanted them.

[Amy Blankenship]

"Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life"

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
Hey all so yea I just started become "one of the guys" here on urban
planning but now
I fear I will dash this and become as I was when I first got here. But
anyways, I started today a google documented essay on why I think
Suburbs are bad for the U.S. and I would just like to see what you
guys think about it. In a proof reading sense and what you actally
think of the content. Here goes-
Cities and Suburbs
Why Suburbs are bad for United States health. -by William Mark
Bornhoft

First comment: Title has nothing to do with the content of the article other
than both contain the word "suburb." I know George has set an example where
you think that you can just make random assertions and somehow they will all
come together to "prove" your point, but in fact no one will take your essay
seriously unless all the statements in it work together--and work together
to actually make the point you said you were going to make.

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
A common definition of a suburb is a community in an outlying
section of a city or, more commonly, a nearby, politically separate
municipality with social and economic ties to the central city. In the
20th cent., particularly in the United States, population growth in
urban areas has spilled increasingly outside the city limits and
concentrated there, resulting in large metropolitan areas where the
populations of the suburbs taken together exceed that of the central
city. As growth of the suburbs continues, cost of labor for common
suburban housing drops increasingly low.

How did you draw this conclusion? Do you have any statistics for this?

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
Houses are built with
cheaper, less expensive materials and are built with the same model of
construction time and time again.

Cheaper and less expensive are the same thing, so you don't need both. And
this is a blanket statement that can easily be disproved by pointing to a
suburban house made with more expensive materials and a different model of
construction. You need to get some actual information related to this
statement so that you can craft something that is actually true.

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
As this does no harm financially,
the western world loses any uniqueness it once had.

This needs to be changed to "no financial harm that is immediately obvious."
AFAIK, there haven't been any studies that compare the financial
consequences of "stick built" construction to something like post and beam
or even brick vs. vinyl in terms of initial cost vs. total cost of ownership
or how often they must be replaced and the costs involved in doing so.

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
Meaning their is a
very small amount of difference between Burnsville,Minnesota and Boone
County,Kentucky.

This actually isn't a complete sentence, and "their" should be "there." I
suspect there is at least some difference in the *housing* of these two
places due to the climate differences. The fact that two such
geographically separated places may well have similar flavors is more likely
because they both have a Wal-Mart, a Home Depot, a Bed Bath and Beyond, and
four McDonald's. How did you select these two communities and are they
actually that much alike?

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
Most suburbs are also disliked for their lack of the
grid system.

By using the passive voice here, you avoid having to take responsibility for
"who" dislikes "most suburbs." I don't think it is a given that most
suburbs _are_ disliked, though you could well have said "I dislike most
suburbs because those suburbs lack a grid system." However, Edinburgh,
Scotland _also_ lacks a grid system, and it is one of the most beloved
cities in Europe.

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
In modern suburbs things like culdesacs and tangle towns
are more common to be designed with.

First, the expression "to be designed with" does not make any real sense.
You could, perhaps, have said something more like

"Culdesacs and tangle towns are common in the design of modern suburbs."

However, just stating it does not lead logically to the next sentence.
Remember, just because George makes a habit of stringing random thoughts
together as if they were somehow related to his point does not mean that
doing so in any way proves anything.

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
This also makes it virtually
impossible to include a mass transit system into the suburb.

Mass transit does not work in most suburbs for two reasons:

1) Distance between houses. It is impractical to put bus stops
frequently enough to serve everyone
2) Lack of any sort of destinations where enough people would gather to
make it cost-effective to serve it with transit.

Again, Edinburgh lacks a grid system, yet its transit system works just
fine.

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
Thus,
more driving, more gas use, and more emissions created in the
atmosphere.

There is more driving in the suburbs due to the relative lack of
destinations in proximity to the housing. Additionally, the fact that many
subdivisions have only one or two entrances/exits for hundreds of houses
mean that a significant number of the people in that subdivision have to
drive way out of their way to even get onto the main street system to go to
those destinations.

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
A common response to this from a suburban residential is
that the city is jam packed with congestion and pollution from stop
and go traffic.

What is a "suburban residential" and how many did you interview to arrive at
this statement?

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
Yet with cities, they are more dense, highly populated
and many of the stop and go traffic is created by workers who live in
the suburbs coming into the city at rush hour.

This sentence is a complete mess gramatically.

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
An attraction to the
suburbs for someone looking to raise a family is the suburbs generally
contain less crime, less congestion and more isolation from a fast
pace life. In relation to crime in the cities, middle classAmericans
flocking to the suburbs due to high crime rates in the cities produces
more crime with the lack of decent middle class citizens keeping up
otherwise run-down neighborhood ghettos.

Does this actually produce more crime, or does it merely remove the dilution
factor of having residents in place who have cultural and financial motives
that mean that they are less likely to exhibit criminal behavior?

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
Also, as cities become more
and more expensive to live in due to high property rates, more and
more poverty will move into the suburbs.

What are "high property rates"? Assuming your assertion is true, do you see
the movement of poverty as a good or a bad thing? What does it have to do
with the title you've given your essay?

The essay you posted a link to also asserts that a suburban environment is
less "real" than an urban one. What are your measures of how "real" a given
situation is?

-Amy

[Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life]

On May 29, 4:32 pm, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
Hey all so yea I just started become "one of the guys" here on urban
planning but now
I fear I will dash this and become as I was when I first got here. But
anyways, I started today a google documented essay on why I think
Suburbs are bad for the U.S. and I would just like to see what you
guys think about it. In a proof reading sense and what you actally
think of the content. Here goes-
Cities and Suburbs
Why Suburbs are bad for United States health. -by William Mark
Bornhoft

First comment: Title has nothing to do with the content of the article other
than both contain the word "suburb." I know George has set an example where
you think that you can just make random assertions and somehow they will all
come together to "prove" your point, but in fact no one will take your essay
seriously unless all the statements in it work together--and work together
to actually make the point you said you were going to make.

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
A common definition of a suburb is a community in an outlying
section of a city or, more commonly, a nearby, politically separate
municipality with social and economic ties to the central city. In the
20th cent., particularly in the United States, population growth in
urban areas has spilled increasingly outside the city limits and
concentrated there, resulting in large metropolitan areas where the
populations of the suburbs taken together exceed that of the central
city. As growth of the suburbs continues, cost of labor for common
suburban housing drops increasingly low.

How did you draw this conclusion? Do you have any statistics for this?

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
Houses are built with
cheaper, less expensive materials and are built with the same model of
construction time and time again.

Cheaper and less expensive are the same thing, so you don't need both. And
this is a blanket statement that can easily be disproved by pointing to a
suburban house made with more expensive materials and a different model of
construction. You need to get some actual information related to this
statement so that you can craft something that is actually true.

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
As this does no harm financially,
the western world loses any uniqueness it once had.

This needs to be changed to "no financial harm that is immediately obvious."
AFAIK, there haven't been any studies that compare the financial
consequences of "stick built" construction to something like post and beam
or even brick vs. vinyl in terms of initial cost vs. total cost of ownership
or how often they must be replaced and the costs involved in doing so.

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
Meaning their is a
very small amount of difference between Burnsville,Minnesota and Boone
County,Kentucky.

This actually isn't a complete sentence, and "their" should be "there." I
suspect there is at least some difference in the *housing* of these two
places due to the climate differences. The fact that two such
geographically separated places may well have similar flavors is more likely
because they both have a Wal-Mart, a Home Depot, a Bed Bath and Beyond, and
four McDonald's. How did you select these two communities and are they
actually that much alike?

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
Most suburbs are also disliked for their lack of the
grid system.

By using the passive voice here, you avoid having to take responsibility for
"who" dislikes "most suburbs." I don't think it is a given that most
suburbs _are_ disliked, though you could well have said "I dislike most
suburbs because those suburbs lack a grid system." However, Edinburgh,
Scotland _also_ lacks a grid system, and it is one of the most beloved
cities in Europe.

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
In modern suburbs things like culdesacs and tangle towns
are more common to be designed with.

First, the expression "to be designed with" does not make any real sense.
You could, perhaps, have said something more like
"Culdesacs and tangle towns are common in the design of modern suburbs."
However, just stating it does not lead logically to the next sentence.
Remember, just because George makes a habit of stringing random thoughts
together as if they were somehow related to his point does not mean that
doing so in any way proves anything.

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
This also makes it virtually
impossible to include a mass transit system into the suburb.

1) Distance between houses. It is impractical to put bus stops
frequently enough to serve everyone
2) Lack of any sort of destinations where enough people would gather to
make it cost-effective to serve it with transit.
Again, Edinburgh lacks a grid system, yet its transit system works just
fine.

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
Thus,
more driving, more gas use, and more emissions created in the
atmosphere.

There is more driving in the suburbs due to the relative lack of
destinations in proximity to the housing. Additionally, the fact that many
subdivisions have only one or two entrances/exits for hundreds of houses
mean that a significant number of the people in that subdivision have to
drive way out of their way to even get onto the main street system to go to
those destinations.

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
A common response to this from a suburban residential is
that the city is jam packed with congestion and pollution from stop
and go traffic.

What is a "suburban residential" and how many did you interview to arrive at
this statement?

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
Yet with cities, they are more dense, highly populated
and many of the stop and go traffic is created by workers who live in
the suburbs coming into the city at rush hour.

This sentence is a complete mess gramatically.

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
An attraction to the
suburbs for someone looking to raise a family is the suburbs generally
contain less crime, less congestion and more isolation from a fast
pace life. In relation to crime in the cities, middle classAmericans
flocking to the suburbs due to high crime rates in the cities produces
more crime with the lack of decent middle class citizens keeping up
otherwise run-down neighborhood ghettos.

Does this actually produce more crime, or does it merely remove the dilution
factor of having residents in place who have cultural and financial motives
that mean that they are less likely to exhibit criminal behavior?

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
Also, as cities become more
and more expensive to live in due to high property rates, more and
more poverty will move into the suburbs.

What are "high property rates"? Assuming your assertion is true, do you see
the movement of poverty as a good or a bad thing? What does it have to do
with the title you've given your essay?
The essay you posted a link to also asserts that a suburban environment is
less "real" than an urban one. What are your measures of how "real" a given
situation is?
-Amy

The movement of poverty exposes the bad decision the middle class
familys
made when they migrated from the cities to suburbs on account of too
much poverty, crime etc....

[Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life]

On May 29, 4:32 pm, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
Hey all so yea I just started become "one of the guys" here on urban
planning but now
I fear I will dash this and become as I was when I first got here. But
anyways, I started today a google documented essay on why I think
Suburbs are bad for the U.S. and I would just like to see what you
guys think about it. In a proof reading sense and what you actally
think of the content. Here goes-
Cities and Suburbs
Why Suburbs are bad for United States health. -by William Mark
Bornhoft

First comment: Title has nothing to do with the content of the article other
than both contain the word "suburb." I know George has set an example where
you think that you can just make random assertions and somehow they will all
come together to "prove" your point, but in fact no one will take your essay
seriously unless all the statements in it work together--and work together
to actually make the point you said you were going to make.

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
A common definition of a suburb is a community in an outlying
section of a city or, more commonly, a nearby, politically separate
municipality with social and economic ties to the central city. In the
20th cent., particularly in the United States, population growth in
urban areas has spilled increasingly outside the city limits and
concentrated there, resulting in large metropolitan areas where the
populations of the suburbs taken together exceed that of the central
city. As growth of the suburbs continues, cost of labor for common
suburban housing drops increasingly low.

How did you draw this conclusion? Do you have any statistics for this?

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
Houses are built with
cheaper, less expensive materials and are built with the same model of
construction time and time again.

Cheaper and less expensive are the same thing, so you don't need both. And
this is a blanket statement that can easily be disproved by pointing to a
suburban house made with more expensive materials and a different model of
construction. You need to get some actual information related to this
statement so that you can craft something that is actually true.

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
As this does no harm financially,
the western world loses any uniqueness it once had.

This needs to be changed to "no financial harm that is immediately obvious."
AFAIK, there haven't been any studies that compare the financial
consequences of "stick built" construction to something like post and beam
or even brick vs. vinyl in terms of initial cost vs. total cost of ownership
or how often they must be replaced and the costs involved in doing so.

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
Meaning their is a
very small amount of difference between Burnsville,Minnesota and Boone
County,Kentucky.

This actually isn't a complete sentence, and "their" should be "there." I
suspect there is at least some difference in the *housing* of these two
places due to the climate differences. The fact that two such
geographically separated places may well have similar flavors is more likely
because they both have a Wal-Mart, a Home Depot, a Bed Bath and Beyond, and
four McDonald's. How did you select these two communities and are they
actually that much alike?

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
Most suburbs are also disliked for their lack of the
grid system.

By using the passive voice here, you avoid having to take responsibility for
"who" dislikes "most suburbs." I don't think it is a given that most
suburbs _are_ disliked, though you could well have said "I dislike most
suburbs because those suburbs lack a grid system." However, Edinburgh,
Scotland _also_ lacks a grid system, and it is one of the most beloved
cities in Europe.

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
In modern suburbs things like culdesacs and tangle towns
are more common to be designed with.

First, the expression "to be designed with" does not make any real sense.
You could, perhaps, have said something more like
"Culdesacs and tangle towns are common in the design of modern suburbs."
However, just stating it does not lead logically to the next sentence.
Remember, just because George makes a habit of stringing random thoughts
together as if they were somehow related to his point does not mean that
doing so in any way proves anything.

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
This also makes it virtually
impossible to include a mass transit system into the suburb.

1) Distance between houses. It is impractical to put bus stops
frequently enough to serve everyone
2) Lack of any sort of destinations where enough people would gather to
make it cost-effective to serve it with transit.
Again, Edinburgh lacks a grid system, yet its transit system works just
fine.

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
Thus,
more driving, more gas use, and more emissions created in the
atmosphere.

There is more driving in the suburbs due to the relative lack of
destinations in proximity to the housing. Additionally, the fact that many
subdivisions have only one or two entrances/exits for hundreds of houses
mean that a significant number of the people in that subdivision have to
drive way out of their way to even get onto the main street system to go to
those destinations.

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
A common response to this from a suburban residential is
that the city is jam packed with congestion and pollution from stop
and go traffic.

What is a "suburban residential" and how many did you interview to arrive at
this statement?

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
Yet with cities, they are more dense, highly populated
and many of the stop and go traffic is created by workers who live in
the suburbs coming into the city at rush hour.

This sentence is a complete mess gramatically.

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
An attraction to the
suburbs for someone looking to raise a family is the suburbs generally
contain less crime, less congestion and more isolation from a fast
pace life. In relation to crime in the cities, middle classAmericans
flocking to the suburbs due to high crime rates in the cities produces
more crime with the lack of decent middle class citizens keeping up
otherwise run-down neighborhood ghettos.

Does this actually produce more crime, or does it merely remove the dilution
factor of having residents in place who have cultural and financial motives
that mean that they are less likely to exhibit criminal behavior?

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
Also, as cities become more
and more expensive to live in due to high property rates, more and
more poverty will move into the suburbs.

What are "high property rates"? Assuming your assertion is true, do you see
the movement of poverty as a good or a bad thing? What does it have to do
with the title you've given your essay?
The essay you posted a link to also asserts that a suburban environment is
less "real" than an urban one. What are your measures of how "real" a given
situation is?
-Amy

Suburbs are mainly filled with middle to upper class harmless
familys. Do you think a place
that is considered "real" is just filled with harmless middle to upper
class familys?

[Pat]

On May 29, 3:44 pm, "Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like)

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
Hey all so yea I just started become "one of the guys" here on urban
planning but now
I fear I will dash this and become as I was when I first got here. But
anyways, I started today a google documented essay on why I think
Suburbs are bad for the U.S. and I would just like to see what you
guys think about it. In a proof reading sense and what you actally
think of the content. Here goes-
Cities and Suburbs
Why Suburbs are bad for United States health. -by William Mark
Bornhoft
A common definition of a suburb is a community in an outlying
section of a city or, more commonly, a nearby, politically separate
municipality with social and economic ties to the central city. In the
20th cent., particularly in the United States, population growth in
urban areas has spilled increasingly outside the city limits and
concentrated there, resulting in large metropolitan areas where the
populations of the suburbs taken together exceed that of the central
city. As growth of the suburbs continues, cost of labor for common
suburban housing drops increasingly low. Houses are built with
cheaper, less expensive materials and are built with the same model of
construction time and time again. As this does no harm financially,
the western world loses any uniqueness it once had. Meaning their is a
very small amount of difference between Burnsville,Minnesota and Boone
County,Kentucky. Most suburbs are also disliked for their lack of the
grid system. In modern suburbs things like culdesacs and tangle towns
are more common to be designed with. This also makes it virtually
impossible to include a mass transit system into the suburb. Thus,
more driving, more gas use, and more emissions created in the
atmosphere. A common response to this from a suburban residential is
that the city is jam packed with congestion and pollution from stop
and go traffic. Yet with cities, they are more dense, highly populated
and many of the stop and go traffic is created by workers who live in
the suburbs coming into the city at rush hour. An attraction to the
suburbs for someone looking to raise a family is the suburbs generally
contain less crime, less congestion and more isolation from a fast
pace life. In relation to crime in the cities, middle classAmericans
flocking to the suburbs due to high crime rates in the cities produces
more crime with the lack of decent middle class citizens keeping up
otherwise run-down neighborhood ghettos. Also, as cities become more
and more expensive to live in due to high property rates, more and
more poverty will move into the suburbs.
That is all I have for now.

Here's a mind-bending thought for you. What if one argues that most
suburbs have wonderfully efficient mass-transit systems that move
people very cost-effectively and are uniquely tailor to the needs of
the riders?

In suburbs, most people have cars, but only if you define "people" as
"adults". Kids are the largest class of car-less people. However it
the suburbs, kids have a custom-tailor transportation system that runs
5-days a week to get them to their equivalent of "work". It just
happens that their public transporation is yellow and has flashing
lights.

Maybe the reason that there's no need for tradiitional public
transportation is that the school bus system operates so efficiently
in the burbs.

Hmmmmm.

[Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life]

Post by Pat
On May 29, 3:44 pm, "Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like)

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
Hey all so yea I just started become "one of the guys" here on urban
planning but now
I fear I will dash this and become as I was when I first got here. But
anyways, I started today a google documented essay on why I think
Suburbs are bad for the U.S. and I would just like to see what you
guys think about it. In a proof reading sense and what you actally
think of the content. Here goes-
Cities and Suburbs
Why Suburbs are bad for United States health. -by William Mark
Bornhoft
A common definition of a suburb is a community in an outlying
section of a city or, more commonly, a nearby, politically separate
municipality with social and economic ties to the central city. In the
20th cent., particularly in the United States, population growth in
urban areas has spilled increasingly outside the city limits and
concentrated there, resulting in large metropolitan areas where the
populations of the suburbs taken together exceed that of the central
city. As growth of the suburbs continues, cost of labor for common
suburban housing drops increasingly low. Houses are built with
cheaper, less expensive materials and are built with the same model of
construction time and time again. As this does no harm financially,
the western world loses any uniqueness it once had. Meaning their is a
very small amount of difference between Burnsville,Minnesota and Boone
County,Kentucky. Most suburbs are also disliked for their lack of the
grid system. In modern suburbs things like culdesacs and tangle towns
are more common to be designed with. This also makes it virtually
impossible to include a mass transit system into the suburb. Thus,
more driving, more gas use, and more emissions created in the
atmosphere. A common response to this from a suburban residential is
that the city is jam packed with congestion and pollution from stop
and go traffic. Yet with cities, they are more dense, highly populated
and many of the stop and go traffic is created by workers who live in
the suburbs coming into the city at rush hour. An attraction to the
suburbs for someone looking to raise a family is the suburbs generally
contain less crime, less congestion and more isolation from a fast
pace life. In relation to crime in the cities, middle classAmericans
flocking to the suburbs due to high crime rates in the cities produces
more crime with the lack of decent middle class citizens keeping up
otherwise run-down neighborhood ghettos. Also, as cities become more
and more expensive to live in due to high property rates, more and
more poverty will move into the suburbs.
That is all I have for now.

Here's a mind-bending thought for you. What if one argues that most
suburbs have wonderfully efficient mass-transit systems that move
people very cost-effectively and are uniquely tailor to the needs of
the riders?
In suburbs, most people have cars, but only if you define "people" as
"adults". Kids are the largest class of car-less people. However it
the suburbs, kids have a custom-tailor transportation system that runs
5-days a week to get them to their equivalent of "work". It just
happens that their public transporation is yellow and has flashing
lights.
Maybe the reason that there's no need for tradiitional public
transportation is that the school bus system operates so efficiently
in the burbs.
Hmmmmm.

Wait a minute, what about the rest of adults who drive alone in their
big suburbans everyday to work?
Thats not so efficent.............

[Pat]

On May 29, 11:57 pm, "Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like)

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life

Post by Pat
On May 29, 3:44 pm, "Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like)

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
Hey all so yea I just started become "one of the guys" here on urban
planning but now
I fear I will dash this and become as I was when I first got here. But
anyways, I started today a google documented essay on why I think
Suburbs are bad for the U.S. and I would just like to see what you
guys think about it. In a proof reading sense and what you actally
think of the content. Here goes-
Cities and Suburbs
Why Suburbs are bad for United States health. -by William Mark
Bornhoft
A common definition of a suburb is a community in an outlying
section of a city or, more commonly, a nearby, politically separate
municipality with social and economic ties to the central city. In the
20th cent., particularly in the United States, population growth in
urban areas has spilled increasingly outside the city limits and
concentrated there, resulting in large metropolitan areas where the
populations of the suburbs taken together exceed that of the central
city. As growth of the suburbs continues, cost of labor for common
suburban housing drops increasingly low. Houses are built with
cheaper, less expensive materials and are built with the same model of
construction time and time again. As this does no harm financially,
the western world loses any uniqueness it once had. Meaning their is a
very small amount of difference between Burnsville,Minnesota and Boone
County,Kentucky. Most suburbs are also disliked for their lack of the
grid system. In modern suburbs things like culdesacs and tangle towns
are more common to be designed with. This also makes it virtually
impossible to include a mass transit system into the suburb. Thus,
more driving, more gas use, and more emissions created in the
atmosphere. A common response to this from a suburban residential is
that the city is jam packed with congestion and pollution from stop
and go traffic. Yet with cities, they are more dense, highly populated
and many of the stop and go traffic is created by workers who live in
the suburbs coming into the city at rush hour. An attraction to the
suburbs for someone looking to raise a family is the suburbs generally
contain less crime, less congestion and more isolation from a fast
pace life. In relation to crime in the cities, middle classAmericans
flocking to the suburbs due to high crime rates in the cities produces
more crime with the lack of decent middle class citizens keeping up
otherwise run-down neighborhood ghettos. Also, as cities become more
and more expensive to live in due to high property rates, more and
more poverty will move into the suburbs.
That is all I have for now.

Here's a mind-bending thought for you. What if one argues that most
suburbs have wonderfully efficient mass-transit systems that move
people very cost-effectively and are uniquely tailor to the needs of
the riders?
In suburbs, most people have cars, but only if you define "people" as
"adults". Kids are the largest class of car-less people. However it
the suburbs, kids have a custom-tailor transportation system that runs
5-days a week to get them to their equivalent of "work". It just
happens that their public transporation is yellow and has flashing
lights.
Maybe the reason that there's no need for tradiitional public
transportation is that the school bus system operates so efficiently
in the burbs.
Hmmmmm.

Wait a minute, what about the rest of adults who drive alone in their
big suburbans everyday to work?
Thats not so efficent.............

Public transportation is usually used by people who "need" it --
either because they are poor or because of conjected roads/bad parking/
long commutes. Few people use it who don't "need" to. In the
suburbs, I think the mentality is "if you CAN take your car, than you
DO take your car". That will continue until gas prices go up or
conjection gets too bad or there's another reason why people "need" to
ride the bus.

If that's the case, and I think that it's likely, then school busses
are probably a very efficient mass transit system and they cover a
huge percentage of people who would be riding any given transit
system.

As for efficiency, well I guess it all depends on efficiency.
Efficiency of time or efficiency of money. Efficient to the
individual or efficient to the community.

In economics there's a term called "utility". It is roughly like
"benefit". If you parents go to work, it's because the utility of the
job is higher than the utility of staying home. If you go to the
store and buy a candy bar, the utility of the candy bar is higher than
the utility of the money. If you dn't buy it, it's because the money
has more utility for you. Utility allows you to compare trades of
dissimilar items such as time for money.

Why would a person work an hour of overtime but still pay a poolperson
to spend an hour cleaning the pool. Because of the person spent the
hour time working either way, but valued the money of overtime over
the sunshine of vaccuming.

So there you are, standing at the bus stop waiting for the 5:13 to
pick you up and take you home. You wait for 7 minutes and it takes an
extra 8 minutes to get home. So you've commuted an extra 15 minutes.
The cost of owning and insuring your car are fixed, so the marginal
cost of driving it was, say, 40 cents/mile for 10 miles: $4.00. So
the question becomes, it the utility of saving $4.00 more than the
utility of an extra 15 minutes. That's a question for the individual
and you can't answer for them (but you can make estimates for large
numbers). If you are 16 and earning $7.50 an hour, it might be worth
it. If you are 40 and you've got to get home, change your cloths, pop
something into the microwave, and get the brats out to soccer
practice, that extra 15 minutes might be very valuable. So in this
case, it is efficient to drive a car because time is the most precious
commodity.

Put another way, just wait until your Prom. I'll willing to be $5
that YOU WILL NOT RIDE A BUS. Heck, you might even splurge for a
limo. How efficient is that? Well, it's probably quite efficient.

[William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)]

Okay first of all before I read the rest of this I have to say this
"Public transportation is usually used by people who "need" it --
either because they are poor or because of conjected roads/bad
parking/
long commutes. Few people use it who don't "need" to. In the
suburbs, I think the mentality is "if you CAN take your car, than you
DO take your car". That will continue until gas prices go up or
conjection gets too bad or there's another reason why people "need" to
ride the bus. " is complete bull shit.

-Reasons WHY people would rather take the bus and not their big
honking SUV

1st.-Public Transport costs about 1$ to 3$ max. Hmm I wonder how much
gas you could buy with 3$ theses days?

2nd.-When you ride in public transport, without the call for your
focus on driving you have time to do other things such as read the
newspaper, work on some report for your boss that you did'nt get to
etc etc. My Aunt who lives in Oak Park Ill hated
when she had to drive her car because it calls for you full undivided
attention, when you could just be relaxing.

3rd.-When you drive you car, theres always a risk that you might get
into an accedent, no need to
say how much stress car accedents create.

4th- When you take public transport there is virtually no traffic
unless your taking the bus but even then their
tipicaly are bus lanes designated on the freeway.

-This is my own personal opinion but I think the only real reason
someone would not want to take the bus even when it is very convenient
is for social reasons. When your in your car, you don't have to deal
other people. Aka the reason why
you moved into the suburbs in the first place. But if you don't agree
with that, thats fine, just keep in mind the reasons I stated above.

And the reasons you stated about the time wating for the bus are true,
but I think
the fact that you can aways have car trouble and be stranded much
longer then wating for the bus
balences it out.

And whats the crap with the prom thing? On, Prom night, your night
exactly thinking
about being efficeint are you? I must say that was one of the most
pointless paragraphs I have ever read.
You only have two Proms in your life, but you go to work more then
anything else. Taking a limo to
the prom isnt wasteful, but taking a limo everyday to work, well thats
alot of wasted money.

[Pat]

On May 31, 1:31 pm, "William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)"

Post by William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)
Okay first of all before I read the rest of this I have to say this
"Public transportation is usually used by people who "need" it --
either because they are poor or because of conjected roads/bad
parking/
long commutes. Few people use it who don't "need" to. In the
suburbs, I think the mentality is "if you CAN take your car, than you
DO take your car". That will continue until gas prices go up or
conjection gets too bad or there's another reason why people "need" to
ride the bus. " is complete bull shit.
-Reasons WHY people would rather take the bus and not their big
honking SUV
1st.-Public Transport costs about 1$ to 3$ max. Hmm I wonder how much
gas you could buy with 3$ theses days?

Even at $3 per gallon, time is more important for most people than
money. If busses were free, there would be few additional riders.

Call your local transit agency, tell them you're doing a research
paper, and ask them what impact fuel costs have on ridership.

Post by William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)
2nd.-When you ride in public transport, without the call for your
focus on driving you have time to do other things such as read the
newspaper, work on some report for your boss that you did'nt get to
etc etc. My Aunt who lives in Oak Park Ill hated
when she had to drive her car because it calls for you full undivided
attention, when you could just be relaxing.
3rd.-When you drive you car, theres always a risk that you might get
into an accedent, no need to
say how much stress car accedents create.
4th- When you take public transport there is virtually no traffic
unless your taking the bus but even then their
tipicaly are bus lanes designated on the freeway.

Reasons People Don't Take The Bus:

#1 Busses suck.
#2 Busses suck.
#3 Busses suck.
#4 Busses suck.

You thing other people SHOULD ride a bus, but obviously other people
don't think so or they would be doing it. Instead of trying being
disgusted with humanity, why not go poll a few hundred commuters and
ask them WHY they don't take the bus. If you could fix the "whys",
you might get ridership up.

People do what's in their own self interest, not what's in your self
interest.

Post by William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)
-This is my own personal opinion but I think the only real reason
someone would not want to take the bus even when it is very convenient
is for social reasons. When your in your car, you don't have to deal
other people. Aka the reason why
you moved into the suburbs in the first place. But if you don't agree
with that, thats fine, just keep in mind the reasons I stated above.
And the reasons you stated about the time wating for the bus are true,
but I think
the fact that you can aways have car trouble and be stranded much
longer then wating for the bus
balences it out.
And whats the crap with the prom thing? On, Prom night, your night
exactly thinking
about being efficeint are you? I must say that was one of the most
pointless paragraphs I have ever read.

Naw, that's my point. Everyone defines economy and efficiency
differently. Even you see the need for a car on prom night. Some
people just have a lower tolerance for wanting to drive the car.
That's exactly my point.

Busses don't work for everyone ... maybe not even for most people.

Post by William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)
You only have two Proms in your life, but you go to work more then
anything else. Taking a limo to
the prom isnt wasteful, but taking a limo everyday to work, well thats
alot of wasted money.

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Pat
On May 31, 1:31 pm, "William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)"

Post by William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)
1st.-Public Transport costs about 1$ to 3$ max. Hmm I wonder how much
gas you could buy with 3$ theses days?

Even at $3 per gallon, time is more important for most people than
money. If busses were free, there would be few additional riders.

Actually, it's a matter of "sunk cost". People HAVE to have a car for some
trips - so they use it for all trips -- because that additional trip is
precieved as free or reduced-cost.

Transit can get used, however, to forgo the purchase of that second car -
the first car is still available for the trips necessary by car, but transit
is cheaper than the sunk cost of a second car.

[William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)]

Post by Pat
On May 31, 1:31 pm, "William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)"

Post by William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)
Okay first of all before I read the rest of this I have to say this
"Public transportation is usually used by people who "need" it --
either because they are poor or because of conjected roads/bad parking/
long commutes. Few people use it who don't "need" to. In the
suburbs, I think the mentality is "if you CAN take your car, than you
DO take your car". That will continue until gas prices go up or
conjection gets too bad or there's another reason why people "need" to
ride the bus. " is complete bull shit.
-Reasons WHY people would rather take the bus and not their big
honking SUV
1st.-Public Transport costs about 1$ to 3$ max. Hmm I wonder how much
gas you could buy with 3$ theses days?

Even at $3 per gallon, time is more important for most people than
money. If busses were free, there would be few additional riders.
Call your local transit agency, tell them you're doing a research
paper, and ask them what impact fuel costs have on ridership.

Post by William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)
2nd.-When you ride in public transport, without the call for your
focus on driving you have time to do other things such as read the
newspaper, work on some report for your boss that you did'nt get to
etc etc. My Aunt who lives in Oak Park Ill hated
when she had to drive her car because it calls for you full undivided
attention, when you could just be relaxing.
3rd.-When you drive you car, theres always a risk that you might get
into an accedent, no need to
say how much stress car accedents create.
4th- When you take public transport there is virtually no traffic
unless your taking the bus but even then their
tipicaly are bus lanes designated on the freeway.

#1 Busses suck.
#2 Busses suck.
#3 Busses suck.
#4 Busses suck.

Real mature. Im never said that people *should* take the bus did I?
No, you said that only
people who ride the bus are people who are poor or because of
conjestion. I replied with many other reasons why people chose to ride
the bus.

So what you think is, if the suburb's road system didn't look like
Dr.Seuss designed them, and there was a regular public mass transit
system in suburbs, nobody would use it because theres no poor people
in suburbs(Lie), and theirs no conjestion(Lie)?

[Pat]

On May 31, 2:54 pm, "William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)"

Post by William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)

Post by Pat
On May 31, 1:31 pm, "William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)"

Post by William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)
Okay first of all before I read the rest of this I have to say this
"Public transportation is usually used by people who "need" it --
either because they are poor or because of conjected roads/bad parking/
long commutes. Few people use it who don't "need" to. In the
suburbs, I think the mentality is "if you CAN take your car, than you
DO take your car". That will continue until gas prices go up or
conjection gets too bad or there's another reason why people "need" to
ride the bus. " is complete bull shit.
-Reasons WHY people would rather take the bus and not their big
honking SUV
1st.-Public Transport costs about 1$ to 3$ max. Hmm I wonder how much
gas you could buy with 3$ theses days?

Even at $3 per gallon, time is more important for most people than
money. If busses were free, there would be few additional riders.
Call your local transit agency, tell them you're doing a research
paper, and ask them what impact fuel costs have on ridership.

Post by William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)
2nd.-When you ride in public transport, without the call for your
focus on driving you have time to do other things such as read the
newspaper, work on some report for your boss that you did'nt get to
etc etc. My Aunt who lives in Oak Park Ill hated
when she had to drive her car because it calls for you full undivided
attention, when you could just be relaxing.
3rd.-When you drive you car, theres always a risk that you might get
into an accedent, no need to
say how much stress car accedents create.
4th- When you take public transport there is virtually no traffic
unless your taking the bus but even then their
tipicaly are bus lanes designated on the freeway.

#1 Busses suck.
#2 Busses suck.
#3 Busses suck.
#4 Busses suck.

Real mature. Im never said that people *should* take the bus did I?
No, you said that only
people who ride the bus are people who are poor or because of
conjestion. I replied with many other reasons why people chose to ride
the bus.

No, I said that very few people choose to ride the bus. Those who do
seldom have a choice.

Post by William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)
So what you think is, if the suburb's road system didn't look like
Dr.Seuss designed them, and there was a regular public mass transit
system in suburbs, nobody would use it because theres no poor people
in suburbs(Lie), and theirs no conjestion(Lie)?

I think there will seldom be an effective transit system in the
suburbs but it has nothing to do with what the road system looks like.

The primary reason is that transit works well to bring people into a
central location: whether it be a downtown or a school or a football
game. It doesn't work so well when everyone is going every-which-way
like a tic-tac-toe board. This occurs when people are doing suburb to
suburb commutes or commutes within a suburb. Because the trips are
all going in different directions and the population is spread out,
busses don't work. If busses world work, there would be more of them.

[george conklin]

Post by Pat
On May 31, 2:54 pm, "William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)"

Post by William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)

Post by Pat
On May 31, 1:31 pm, "William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)"

Post by William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)
Okay first of all before I read the rest of this I have to say this
"Public transportation is usually used by people who "need" it --
either because they are poor or because of conjected roads/bad parking/
long commutes. Few people use it who don't "need" to. In the
suburbs, I think the mentality is "if you CAN take your car, than you
DO take your car". That will continue until gas prices go up or
conjection gets too bad or there's another reason why people "need" to
ride the bus. " is complete bull shit.
-Reasons WHY people would rather take the bus and not their big
honking SUV
1st.-Public Transport costs about 1$ to 3$ max. Hmm I wonder how much
gas you could buy with 3$ theses days?

Even at $3 per gallon, time is more important for most people than
money. If busses were free, there would be few additional riders.
Call your local transit agency, tell them you're doing a research
paper, and ask them what impact fuel costs have on ridership.

Post by William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)
2nd.-When you ride in public transport, without the call for your
focus on driving you have time to do other things such as read the
newspaper, work on some report for your boss that you did'nt get to
etc etc. My Aunt who lives in Oak Park Ill hated
when she had to drive her car because it calls for you full undivided
attention, when you could just be relaxing.
3rd.-When you drive you car, theres always a risk that you might get
into an accedent, no need to
say how much stress car accedents create.
4th- When you take public transport there is virtually no traffic
unless your taking the bus but even then their
tipicaly are bus lanes designated on the freeway.

#1 Busses suck.
#2 Busses suck.
#3 Busses suck.
#4 Busses suck.

Real mature. Im never said that people *should* take the bus did I?
No, you said that only
people who ride the bus are people who are poor or because of
conjestion. I replied with many other reasons why people chose to ride
the bus.

No, I said that very few people choose to ride the bus. Those who do
seldom have a choice.

Post by William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)
So what you think is, if the suburb's road system didn't look like
Dr.Seuss designed them, and there was a regular public mass transit
system in suburbs, nobody would use it because theres no poor people
in suburbs(Lie), and theirs no conjestion(Lie)?

I think there will seldom be an effective transit system in the
suburbs but it has nothing to do with what the road system looks like.
The primary reason is that transit works well to bring people into a
central location: whether it be a downtown or a school or a football
game. It doesn't work so well when everyone is going every-which-way
like a tic-tac-toe board. This occurs when people are doing suburb to
suburb commutes or commutes within a suburb. Because the trips are
all going in different directions and the population is spread out,
busses don't work. If busses world work, there would be more of them.

Buses do work, but at a real cost in terms of time. Transit buses don't
save fuel, so using a bus is more of a choice than a necessity. I notice
that the immigrants from south of the border ride together, 6 to a car.
That is really being economical. One contractor told me the problem is that
if the driver is sick, none of the others report for work. Other than that,
it saves money, fuel and congestion.

[William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)]

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat
On May 31, 2:54 pm, "William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)"

Post by William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)

Post by Pat
On May 31, 1:31 pm, "William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)"

Post by William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)
Okay first of all before I read the rest of this I have to say this
"Public transportation is usually used by people who "need" it --
either because they are poor or because of conjected roads/bad parking/
long commutes. Few people use it who don't "need" to. In the
suburbs, I think the mentality is "if you CAN take your car, than you
DO take your car". That will continue until gas prices go up or
conjection gets too bad or there's another reason why people "need" to
ride the bus. " is complete bull shit.
-Reasons WHY people would rather take the bus and not their big
honking SUV
1st.-Public Transport costs about 1$ to 3$ max. Hmm I wonder how much
gas you could buy with 3$ theses days?

Even at $3 per gallon, time is more important for most people than
money. If busses were free, there would be few additional riders.
Call your local transit agency, tell them you're doing a research
paper, and ask them what impact fuel costs have on ridership.

Post by William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)
2nd.-When you ride in public transport, without the call for your
focus on driving you have time to do other things such as read the
newspaper, work on some report for your boss that you did'nt get to
etc etc. My Aunt who lives in Oak Park Ill hated
when she had to drive her car because it calls for you full undivided
attention, when you could just be relaxing.
3rd.-When you drive you car, theres always a risk that you might get
into an accedent, no need to
say how much stress car accedents create.
4th- When you take public transport there is virtually no traffic
unless your taking the bus but even then their
tipicaly are bus lanes designated on the freeway.

#1 Busses suck.
#2 Busses suck.
#3 Busses suck.
#4 Busses suck.

Real mature. Im never said that people *should* take the bus did I?
No, you said that only
people who ride the bus are people who are poor or because of
conjestion. I replied with many other reasons why people chose to ride
the bus.

No, I said that very few people choose to ride the bus. Those who do
seldom have a choice.

Post by William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)
So what you think is, if the suburb's road system didn't look like
Dr.Seuss designed them, and there was a regular public mass transit
system in suburbs, nobody would use it because theres no poor people
in suburbs(Lie), and theirs no conjestion(Lie)?

I think there will seldom be an effective transit system in the
suburbs but it has nothing to do with what the road system looks like.
The primary reason is that transit works well to bring people into a
central location: whether it be a downtown or a school or a football
game. It doesn't work so well when everyone is going every-which-way
like a tic-tac-toe board. This occurs when people are doing suburb to
suburb commutes or commutes within a suburb. Because the trips are
all going in different directions and the population is spread out,
busses don't work. If busses world work, there would be more of them.

Buses do work, but at a real cost in terms of time. Transit buses don't
save fuel, so using a bus is more of a choice than a necessity. I notice
that the immigrants from south of the border ride together, 6 to a car.
That is really being economical. One contractor told me the problem is that
if the driver is sick, none of the others report for work. Other than that,
it saves money, fuel and congestion.

Thats the problem with America, everything is handed to us.
If America was less wealthy, we would be *forced* to be more
efficient.
Because more efficient, at least to the consumer, is less expensive.
Example, The BUS. Most people take their own
car to work, but if that same person couldnt affor gas, or didnt have
a car, they would be forced to take the bus,
thus less emisions created in the air, and they could just buy a pass
for the bus and they would save ALOT of money.
Its like ownsers of Cadalac Escalades, or Hummers, Gas for them is
VERY expensive, but the owners of
those cars are usally rich so they can afford the gas.

I can't wait till Global Warming takes total effect so I can
shove it in every single conservative in this country.

[Amy Blankenship]

...

...

Post by William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat
The primary reason is that transit works well to bring people into a
central location: whether it be a downtown or a school or a football
game. It doesn't work so well when everyone is going every-which-way
like a tic-tac-toe board. This occurs when people are doing suburb to
suburb commutes or commutes within a suburb. Because the trips are
all going in different directions and the population is spread out,
busses don't work. If busses world work, there would be more of them.

Buses do work, but at a real cost in terms of time. Transit buses don't
save fuel, so using a bus is more of a choice than a necessity. I notice
that the immigrants from south of the border ride together, 6 to a car.
That is really being economical. One contractor told me the problem is that
if the driver is sick, none of the others report for work. Other than that,
it saves money, fuel and congestion.

Thats the problem with America, everything is handed to us.
If America was less wealthy, we would be *forced* to be more
efficient.
Because more efficient, at least to the consumer, is less expensive.
Example, The BUS. Most people take their own
car to work, but if that same person couldnt affor gas, or didnt have
a car, they would be forced to take the bus,
thus less emisions created in the air, and they could just buy a pass
for the bus and they would save ALOT of money.
Its like ownsers of Cadalac Escalades, or Hummers, Gas for them is
VERY expensive, but the owners of
those cars are usally rich so they can afford the gas.

I don't think you're going to get a lot of buy-in to the idea that making
everyone so poor that they have no choice but to do what you think is right
is a good idea. Besides, there are plenty of countries that are more
well-to-do than the US where transit works great and a Jeep Cherokee is
about the biggest private vehicle you will see (and is rare at that).

Post by William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)
I can't wait till Global Warming takes total effect so I can
shove it in every single conservative in this country.

Not even sure how to interpret that sentence. To me, it sounds obscene...

[george conklin]

Post by Amy Blankenship
...
...

Post by William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat
The primary reason is that transit works well to bring people into a
central location: whether it be a downtown or a school or a football
game. It doesn't work so well when everyone is going every-which-way
like a tic-tac-toe board. This occurs when people are doing suburb to
suburb commutes or commutes within a suburb. Because the trips are
all going in different directions and the population is spread out,
busses don't work. If busses world work, there would be more of them.

Buses do work, but at a real cost in terms of time. Transit buses don't
save fuel, so using a bus is more of a choice than a necessity. I notice
that the immigrants from south of the border ride together, 6 to a car.
That is really being economical. One contractor told me the problem is that
if the driver is sick, none of the others report for work. Other than that,
it saves money, fuel and congestion.

Thats the problem with America, everything is handed to us.
If America was less wealthy, we would be *forced* to be more
efficient.
Because more efficient, at least to the consumer, is less expensive.
Example, The BUS. Most people take their own
car to work, but if that same person couldnt affor gas, or didnt have
a car, they would be forced to take the bus,
thus less emisions created in the air, and they could just buy a pass
for the bus and they would save ALOT of money.
Its like ownsers of Cadalac Escalades, or Hummers, Gas for them is
VERY expensive, but the owners of
those cars are usally rich so they can afford the gas.

I don't think you're going to get a lot of buy-in to the idea that making
everyone so poor that they have no choice but to do what you think is
right is a good idea. Besides, there are plenty of countries that are
more well-to-do than the US where transit works great and a Jeep Cherokee
is about the biggest private vehicle you will see (and is rare at that).

Post by William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)
I can't wait till Global Warming takes total effect so I can
shove it in every single conservative in this country.

Not even sure how to interpret that sentence. To me, it sounds obscene...

What he is saying is that the liberal types are going to use global warming
to prove that capitalism is bad and that we need some kind of socialism to
make people behave the way William would like them to.

[Joe the Aroma]

Post by Amy Blankenship
I don't think you're going to get a lot of buy-in to the idea that making
everyone so poor that they have no choice but to do what you think is
right is a good idea. Besides, there are plenty of countries that are
more well-to-do than the US where transit works great and a Jeep Cherokee
is about the biggest private vehicle you will see (and is rare at that).

Nonsense, the US is the richest country on earth (of any appreciable size)
and nobody here wants to ride your lame transit. Deal with it.

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)
I can't wait till Global Warming takes total effect so I can
shove it in every single conservative in this country.

Not even sure how to interpret that sentence. To me, it sounds obscene...

Sounds like one of your's.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Joe the Aroma

Post by Amy Blankenship
I don't think you're going to get a lot of buy-in to the idea that making
everyone so poor that they have no choice but to do what you think is
right is a good idea. Besides, there are plenty of countries that are
more well-to-do than the US where transit works great and a Jeep Cherokee
is about the biggest private vehicle you will see (and is rare at that).

Nonsense, the US is the richest country on earth (of any appreciable size)
and nobody here wants to ride your lame transit. Deal with it.

Yeah whatever
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gro_nat_inc_pergdp-gross-national-income-per-gdp

[Joe the Aroma]

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Joe the Aroma

Post by Amy Blankenship
I don't think you're going to get a lot of buy-in to the idea that
making everyone so poor that they have no choice but to do what you
think is right is a good idea. Besides, there are plenty of countries
that are more well-to-do than the US where transit works great and a
Jeep Cherokee is about the biggest private vehicle you will see (and is
rare at that).

Nonsense, the US is the richest country on earth (of any appreciable
size) and nobody here wants to ride your lame transit. Deal with it.

Yeah whatever
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gro_nat_inc_pergdp-gross-national-income-per-gdp

Bah:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gro_nat_inc_percap-gross-national-income-per-capita

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/med_tel_percap-media-televisions-per-capita

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/med_per_com_percap-media-personal-computers-per-capita

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/med_rad_percap-media-radios-per-capita

So is this really an America thing to you? You don't like that we don't
live the way you like, and therefor you're going to handpick statistics to
make us look bad? Poor little girl. We don't ride your little trains, we
don't want to live in your little zones. If we could just conform to your
standards everything would just be ok right?

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Joe the Aroma

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Joe the Aroma

Post by Amy Blankenship
I don't think you're going to get a lot of buy-in to the idea that
making everyone so poor that they have no choice but to do what you
think is right is a good idea. Besides, there are plenty of countries
that are more well-to-do than the US where transit works great and a
Jeep Cherokee is about the biggest private vehicle you will see (and is
rare at that).

Nonsense, the US is the richest country on earth (of any appreciable
size) and nobody here wants to ride your lame transit. Deal with it.

Yeah whatever
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gro_nat_inc_pergdp-gross-national-income-per-gdp

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gro_nat_inc_percap-gross-national-income-per-capita
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/med_tel_percap-media-televisions-per-capita
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/med_per_com_percap-media-personal-computers-per-capita
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/med_rad_percap-media-radios-per-capita
So is this really an America thing to you? You don't like that we don't
live the way you like, and therefor you're going to handpick statistics to
make us look bad? Poor little girl. We don't ride your little trains, we
don't want to live in your little zones. If we could just conform to your
standards everything would just be ok right?

I like America fine. But you can't say things don't work at all, just
because we don't choose to make them work here. If you look, the US is #5
in gross national income by your own statistics. The fact that we spend
wastefully as shown in your other statistics does not mean we're wealthier.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Saving.html. If you see saying "America
is not the wealthiest nation in the world" as being "America is bad,"
you've cot some serious comprehension issues that no amount of further
argument will help you resolve.

If you look at the statistics, you'll see that America is actually top of
the list for innovation. So why can't we figure out something other nations
do easily?

[Joe the Aroma]

Post by Amy Blankenship
I like America fine. But you can't say things don't work at all, just
because we don't choose to make them work here. If you look, the US is #5
in gross national income by your own statistics. The fact that we spend
wastefully as shown in your other statistics does not mean we're wealthier.

We spend wastefully? I'd say spending money on technological devices like
computers is far from wasteful. And electronic consumer goods are a real
concrete measure of "wealth", fiat currencies are easily inflated and
deflated.

Post by Amy Blankenship
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Saving.html. If you see saying
"America is not the wealthiest nation in the world" as being "America is
bad," you've cot some serious comprehension issues that no amount of
further argument will help you resolve.

No the whole deal with you is that we don't do things like other countries
this makes us bad or something... but that's what makes us great, because
we'd rather not force people to live by what the government or some pedantic
nitwit says we ought to

Post by Amy Blankenship
If you look at the statistics, you'll see that America is actually top of
the list for innovation. So why can't we figure out something other
nations do easily?

I don't know, perhaps we don't want to.

[george conklin]

Post by Amy Blankenship
If you look at the statistics, you'll see that America is actually top of
the list for innovation. So why can't we figure out something other
nations do easily?

Sticking people into small apartments is simply not the goal of most
Americans.

[george conklin]

Post by Joe the Aroma

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Joe the Aroma

Post by Amy Blankenship
I don't think you're going to get a lot of buy-in to the idea that
making everyone so poor that they have no choice but to do what you
think is right is a good idea. Besides, there are plenty of countries
that are more well-to-do than the US where transit works great and a
Jeep Cherokee is about the biggest private vehicle you will see (and is
rare at that).

Nonsense, the US is the richest country on earth (of any appreciable
size) and nobody here wants to ride your lame transit. Deal with it.

Yeah whatever
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gro_nat_inc_pergdp-gross-national-income-per-gdp

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gro_nat_inc_percap-gross-national-income-per-capita
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/med_tel_percap-media-televisions-per-capita
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/med_per_com_percap-media-personal-computers-per-capita
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/med_rad_percap-media-radios-per-capita
So is this really an America thing to you? You don't like that we don't
live the way you like, and therefor you're going to handpick statistics to
make us look bad? Poor little girl. We don't ride your little trains, we
don't want to live in your little zones. If we could just conform to your
standards everything would just be ok right?

Well, planning is normative today, which means they think their job is
to reform us into what the current fad may be (whatever is fashionable at
the moment.)

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by george conklin
Well, planning is normative today, which means they think their job is
to reform us into what the current fad may be (whatever is fashionable at
the moment.)

Hey, look, George didn't forget how to spell "normative over night. Good
job!

[george conklin]

Post by William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat
On May 31, 2:54 pm, "William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)"

Post by William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)

Post by Pat
On May 31, 1:31 pm, "William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)"

Post by William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)
Okay first of all before I read the rest of this I have to say this
"Public transportation is usually used by people who "need" it --
either because they are poor or because of conjected roads/bad parking/
long commutes. Few people use it who don't "need" to. In the
suburbs, I think the mentality is "if you CAN take your car, than you
DO take your car". That will continue until gas prices go up or
conjection gets too bad or there's another reason why people
"need"
to
ride the bus. " is complete bull shit.
-Reasons WHY people would rather take the bus and not their big
honking SUV
1st.-Public Transport costs about 1$ to 3$ max. Hmm I wonder how much
gas you could buy with 3$ theses days?

Even at $3 per gallon, time is more important for most people than
money. If busses were free, there would be few additional riders.
Call your local transit agency, tell them you're doing a research
paper, and ask them what impact fuel costs have on ridership.

Post by William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)
2nd.-When you ride in public transport, without the call for your
focus on driving you have time to do other things such as read the
newspaper, work on some report for your boss that you did'nt get to
etc etc. My Aunt who lives in Oak Park Ill hated
when she had to drive her car because it calls for you full undivided
attention, when you could just be relaxing.
3rd.-When you drive you car, theres always a risk that you might get
into an accedent, no need to
say how much stress car accedents create.
4th- When you take public transport there is virtually no traffic
unless your taking the bus but even then their
tipicaly are bus lanes designated on the freeway.

#1 Busses suck.
#2 Busses suck.
#3 Busses suck.
#4 Busses suck.

Real mature. Im never said that people *should* take the bus did I?
No, you said that only
people who ride the bus are people who are poor or because of
conjestion. I replied with many other reasons why people chose to ride
the bus.

No, I said that very few people choose to ride the bus. Those who do
seldom have a choice.

Post by William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)
So what you think is, if the suburb's road system didn't look like
Dr.Seuss designed them, and there was a regular public mass transit
system in suburbs, nobody would use it because theres no poor people
in suburbs(Lie), and theirs no conjestion(Lie)?

I think there will seldom be an effective transit system in the
suburbs but it has nothing to do with what the road system looks like.
The primary reason is that transit works well to bring people into a
central location: whether it be a downtown or a school or a football
game. It doesn't work so well when everyone is going every-which-way
like a tic-tac-toe board. This occurs when people are doing suburb to
suburb commutes or commutes within a suburb. Because the trips are
all going in different directions and the population is spread out,
busses don't work. If busses world work, there would be more of them.

Buses do work, but at a real cost in terms of time. Transit buses don't
save fuel, so using a bus is more of a choice than a necessity. I notice
that the immigrants from south of the border ride together, 6 to a car.
That is really being economical. One contractor told me the problem is that
if the driver is sick, none of the others report for work. Other than that,
it saves money, fuel and congestion.

Thats the problem with America, everything is handed to us.

Maybe that applies to you in your short life. The rest of us worked
16-18 hour days for years. And our wives worked those hours too. Mine had
to do paperwork until midnight, and then be at work at 7. You have a
sheltered life.

Post by William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)
If America was less wealthy, we would be *forced* to be more
efficient.
Because more efficient, at least to the consumer, is less expensive.
Example, The BUS. Most people take their own
car to work, but if that same person couldnt affor gas, or didnt have
a car, they would be forced to take the bus,
thus less emisions

You don't listen. Transit buses don't save fuel. They also pollute MORE
because they use (up to now) horribly dirty uncontrolled diesel engines.

[Joe the Aroma]

Post by William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)
I can't wait till Global Warming takes total effect so I can
shove it in every single conservative in this country.

Ya know, I've been waiting for a long time for it too... but please don't
shove it in me.

[William]

Post by Joe the Aroma

Post by William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)
I can't wait till Global Warming takes total effect so I can
shove it in every single conservative in this country.

Ya know, I've been waiting for a long time for it too... but please don't
shove it in me.

Hey, ever noticed how vary smart scientists,adventurers like Will
Stiger and magazines such as Time or National Geographic are pretty
set on Global warming is taking effect thus the Ice caps are melting,
but dumbasses like
George Bush and Dick Chaney think otherwise.

[rotten]

Post by William

Post by Joe the Aroma

Post by William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)
I can't wait till Global Warming takes total effect so I can
shove it in every single conservative in this country.

Ya know, I've been waiting for a long time for it too... but please don't
shove it in me.

Hey, ever noticed how vary smart scientists,adventurers like Will
Stiger and magazines such as Time or National Geographic are pretty
set on Global warming is taking effect thus the Ice caps are melting,
but dumbasses like
George Bush and Dick Chaney think otherwise.

Plenty of very smart scientists think lots of things will happen and
this has been true throughout history... most doomsday predictions do
not come true. I suspect this one will not, either there's some
undiscovered feedback mechanism that exists or we'll engineer a
solution for it and we'll be fine.

[George Conklin]

Post by rotten

Post by William

Post by Joe the Aroma

Post by William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)
I can't wait till Global Warming takes total effect so I can
shove it in every single conservative in this country.

Ya know, I've been waiting for a long time for it too... but please don't
shove it in me.

Hey, ever noticed how vary smart scientists,adventurers like Will
Stiger and magazines such as Time or National Geographic are pretty
set on Global warming is taking effect thus the Ice caps are melting,
but dumbasses like
George Bush and Dick Chaney think otherwise.

Plenty of very smart scientists think lots of things will happen and
this has been true throughout history... most doomsday predictions do
not come true. I suspect this one will not, either there's some
undiscovered feedback mechanism that exists or we'll engineer a
solution for it and we'll be fine.

It should be no surprise since it is obvious we have been in a warming trend
for about 10,000 years now, and about halfway until another expected cool
down. Sea levels have long been known to be much lower than they were in
the past, and can be expected to rise.

[Joe the Aroma]

Post by William

Post by Joe the Aroma

Post by William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)
I can't wait till Global Warming takes total effect so I can
shove it in every single conservative in this country.

Ya know, I've been waiting for a long time for it too... but please don't
shove it in me.

Hey, ever noticed how vary smart scientists,adventurers like Will
Stiger and magazines such as Time or National Geographic are pretty
set on Global warming is taking effect thus the Ice caps are melting,
but dumbasses like
George Bush and Dick Chaney think otherwise.

I think you're simplifying the issue, you can think that global warming is
happening and that humans are causing it, not causing, or somewhere in
between. I'm for the latter option, personally.

[George Conklin]

Post by Joe the Aroma

Post by William

Post by Joe the Aroma

Post by William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)
I can't wait till Global Warming takes total effect so I can
shove it in every single conservative in this country.

Ya know, I've been waiting for a long time for it too... but please don't
shove it in me.

Hey, ever noticed how vary smart scientists,adventurers like Will
Stiger and magazines such as Time or National Geographic are pretty
set on Global warming is taking effect thus the Ice caps are melting,
but dumbasses like
George Bush and Dick Chaney think otherwise.

I think you're simplifying the issue, you can think that global warming is
happening and that humans are causing it, not causing, or somewhere in
between. I'm for the latter option, personally.

Well, back before global warming was political, geologists knew that we were
in the middle of a 10,000 year warming period. How can that be any surprise
to anyone?

[William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)]

Post by Pat
On May 31, 2:54 pm, "William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)"

Post by William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)

Post by Pat
On May 31, 1:31 pm, "William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)"

Post by William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)
Okay first of all before I read the rest of this I have to say this
"Public transportation is usually used by people who "need" it --
either because they are poor or because of conjected roads/bad parking/
long commutes. Few people use it who don't "need" to. In the
suburbs, I think the mentality is "if you CAN take your car, than you
DO take your car". That will continue until gas prices go up or
conjection gets too bad or there's another reason why people "need" to
ride the bus. " is complete bull shit.
-Reasons WHY people would rather take the bus and not their big
honking SUV
1st.-Public Transport costs about 1$ to 3$ max. Hmm I wonder how much
gas you could buy with 3$ theses days?

Even at $3 per gallon, time is more important for most people than
money. If busses were free, there would be few additional riders.
Call your local transit agency, tell them you're doing a research
paper, and ask them what impact fuel costs have on ridership.

Post by William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)
2nd.-When you ride in public transport, without the call for your
focus on driving you have time to do other things such as read the
newspaper, work on some report for your boss that you did'nt get to
etc etc. My Aunt who lives in Oak Park Ill hated
when she had to drive her car because it calls for you full undivided
attention, when you could just be relaxing.
3rd.-When you drive you car, theres always a risk that you might get
into an accedent, no need to
say how much stress car accedents create.
4th- When you take public transport there is virtually no traffic
unless your taking the bus but even then their
tipicaly are bus lanes designated on the freeway.

#1 Busses suck.
#2 Busses suck.
#3 Busses suck.
#4 Busses suck.

Real mature. Im never said that people *should* take the bus did I?
No, you said that only
people who ride the bus are people who are poor or because of
conjestion. I replied with many other reasons why people chose to ride
the bus.

No, I said that very few people choose to ride the bus. Those who do
seldom have a choice.

Post by William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)
So what you think is, if the suburb's road system didn't look like
Dr.Seuss designed them, and there was a regular public mass transit
system in suburbs, nobody would use it because theres no poor people
in suburbs(Lie), and theirs no conjestion(Lie)?

I think there will seldom be an effective transit system in the
suburbs but it has nothing to do with what the road system looks like.
The primary reason is that transit works well to bring people into a
central location: whether it be a downtown or a school or a football
game. It doesn't work so well when everyone is going every-which-way
like a tic-tac-toe board. This occurs when people are doing suburb to
suburb commutes or commutes within a suburb. Because the trips are
all going in different directions and the population is spread out,
busses don't work. If busses world work, there would be more of them.

Few people ride the bus realativly to how many people drive cars, but
there are a lot of people
who take the bus. And The reason why mass transit systems don't work
in the suburbs is because suburbs
moslty consist of small residential only neighborhood streets. A bus
system, light rail, or any sort of train
could never fit into that small of an area. Nor would it need to,
people in the suburbs drive further to work
then anybody, your right, a mass transit system could never fit into
that kind of lifestyle.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)
Few people ride the bus realativly to how many people drive cars, but
there are a lot of people
who take the bus. And The reason why mass transit systems don't work
in the suburbs is because suburbs
moslty consist of small residential only neighborhood streets. A bus
system, light rail, or any sort of train
could never fit into that small of an area. Nor would it need to,
people in the suburbs drive further to work
then anybody, your right, a mass transit system could never fit into
that kind of lifestyle.

I used to ride the bus from Kindsbach, a suburb of Landstuhl, which was
itself a suburb of Ramstein, to both Landstuhl and Ramstein. Though I have
not visited that part of Germany since I was a child, I imagine that the
public transit system still functions at least as well.

-Amy

[george conklin]

Post by William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)

Post by Pat
On May 31, 1:31 pm, "William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)"

Post by William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)
Okay first of all before I read the rest of this I have to say this
"Public transportation is usually used by people who "need" it --
either because they are poor or because of conjected roads/bad parking/
long commutes. Few people use it who don't "need" to. In the
suburbs, I think the mentality is "if you CAN take your car, than you
DO take your car". That will continue until gas prices go up or
conjection gets too bad or there's another reason why people "need" to
ride the bus. " is complete bull shit.
-Reasons WHY people would rather take the bus and not their big
honking SUV
1st.-Public Transport costs about 1$ to 3$ max. Hmm I wonder how much
gas you could buy with 3$ theses days?

Even at $3 per gallon, time is more important for most people than
money. If busses were free, there would be few additional riders.
Call your local transit agency, tell them you're doing a research
paper, and ask them what impact fuel costs have on ridership.

Post by William (Formerly known as Mr.Cool)
2nd.-When you ride in public transport, without the call for your
focus on driving you have time to do other things such as read the
newspaper, work on some report for your boss that you did'nt get to
etc etc. My Aunt who lives in Oak Park Ill hated
when she had to drive her car because it calls for you full undivided
attention, when you could just be relaxing.
3rd.-When you drive you car, theres always a risk that you might get
into an accedent, no need to
say how much stress car accedents create.
4th- When you take public transport there is virtually no traffic
unless your taking the bus but even then their
tipicaly are bus lanes designated on the freeway.

#1 Busses suck.
#2 Busses suck.
#3 Busses suck.
#4 Busses suck.

Real mature. Im never said that people *should* take the bus did I?
No, you said that only
people who ride the bus are people who are poor or because of
conjestion. I replied with many other reasons why people chose to ride
the bus.
So what you think is, if the suburb's road system didn't look like
Dr.Seuss designed them, and there was a regular public mass transit
system in suburbs, nobody would use it because theres no poor people
in suburbs(Lie), and theirs no conjestion(Lie)?

People don't take transit because it takes a long time to get from
door-to-door. The poor often double up on rides, even illegally. It is
cheaper than transit when you are paid by the hour.

[rotten]

Post by Pat
On May 29, 11:57 pm, "Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like)

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life

Post by Pat
On May 29, 3:44 pm, "Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like)

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
Hey all so yea I just started become "one of the guys" here on urban
planning but now
I fear I will dash this and become as I was when I first got here. But
anyways, I started today a google documented essay on why I think
Suburbs are bad for the U.S. and I would just like to see what you
guys think about it. In a proof reading sense and what you actally
think of the content. Here goes-
Cities and Suburbs
Why Suburbs are bad for United States health. -by William Mark
Bornhoft
A common definition of a suburb is a community in an outlying
section of a city or, more commonly, a nearby, politically separate
municipality with social and economic ties to the central city. In the
20th cent., particularly in the United States, population growth in
urban areas has spilled increasingly outside the city limits and
concentrated there, resulting in large metropolitan areas where the
populations of the suburbs taken together exceed that of the central
city. As growth of the suburbs continues, cost of labor for common
suburban housing drops increasingly low. Houses are built with
cheaper, less expensive materials and are built with the same model of
construction time and time again. As this does no harm financially,
the western world loses any uniqueness it once had. Meaning their is a
very small amount of difference between Burnsville,Minnesota and Boone
County,Kentucky. Most suburbs are also disliked for their lack of the
grid system. In modern suburbs things like culdesacs and tangle towns
are more common to be designed with. This also makes it virtually
impossible to include a mass transit system into the suburb. Thus,
more driving, more gas use, and more emissions created in the
atmosphere. A common response to this from a suburban residential is
that the city is jam packed with congestion and pollution from stop
and go traffic. Yet with cities, they are more dense, highly populated
and many of the stop and go traffic is created by workers who live in
the suburbs coming into the city at rush hour. An attraction to the
suburbs for someone looking to raise a family is the suburbs generally
contain less crime, less congestion and more isolation from a fast
pace life. In relation to crime in the cities, middle classAmericans
flocking to the suburbs due to high crime rates in the cities produces
more crime with the lack of decent middle class citizens keeping up
otherwise run-down neighborhood ghettos. Also, as cities become more
and more expensive to live in due to high property rates, more and
more poverty will move into the suburbs.
That is all I have for now.

Here's a mind-bending thought for you. What if one argues that most
suburbs have wonderfully efficient mass-transit systems that move
people very cost-effectively and are uniquely tailor to the needs of
the riders?
In suburbs, most people have cars, but only if you define "people" as
"adults". Kids are the largest class of car-less people. However it
the suburbs, kids have a custom-tailor transportation system that runs
5-days a week to get them to their equivalent of "work". It just
happens that their public transporation is yellow and has flashing
lights.
Maybe the reason that there's no need for tradiitional public
transportation is that the school bus system operates so efficiently
in the burbs.
Hmmmmm.

Wait a minute, what about the rest of adults who drive alone in their
big suburbans everyday to work?
Thats not so efficent.............

Public transportation is usually used by people who "need" it --
either because they are poor or because of conjected roads/bad parking/
long commutes. Few people use it who don't "need" to. In the
suburbs, I think the mentality is "if you CAN take your car, than you
DO take your car". That will continue until gas prices go up or
conjection gets too bad or there's another reason why people "need" to
ride the bus.
If that's the case, and I think that it's likely, then school busses
are probably a very efficient mass transit system and they cover a
huge percentage of people who would be riding any given transit
system.
As for efficiency, well I guess it all depends on efficiency.
Efficiency of time or efficiency of money. Efficient to the
individual or efficient to the community.
In economics there's a term called "utility". It is roughly like
"benefit". If you parents go to work, it's because the utility of the
job is higher than the utility of staying home. If you go to the
store and buy a candy bar, the utility of the candy bar is higher than
the utility of the money. If you dn't buy it, it's because the money
has more utility for you. Utility allows you to compare trades of
dissimilar items such as time for money.
Why would a person work an hour of overtime but still pay a poolperson
to spend an hour cleaning the pool. Because of the person spent the
hour time working either way, but valued the money of overtime over
the sunshine of vaccuming.
So there you are, standing at the bus stop waiting for the 5:13 to
pick you up and take you home. You wait for 7 minutes and it takes an
extra 8 minutes to get home. So you've commuted an extra 15 minutes.
The cost of owning and insuring your car are fixed, so the marginal
cost of driving it was, say, 40 cents/mile for 10 miles: $4.00. So
the question becomes, it the utility of saving $4.00 more than the
utility of an extra 15 minutes. That's a question for the individual
and you can't answer for them (but you can make estimates for large
numbers). If you are 16 and earning $7.50 an hour, it might be worth
it. If you are 40 and you've got to get home, change your cloths, pop
something into the microwave, and get the brats out to soccer
practice, that extra 15 minutes might be very valuable. So in this
case, it is efficient to drive a car because time is the most precious
commodity.
Put another way, just wait until your Prom. I'll willing to be $5
that YOU WILL NOT RIDE A BUS. Heck, you might even splurge for a
limo. How efficient is that? Well, it's probably quite efficient.

I believe the US government has figured out that it's 18 cents per
mile, not 40.

[rotten]

On May 29, 3:44 pm, "Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like)

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
Hey all so yea I just started become "one of the guys" here on urban
planning but now
I fear I will dash this and become as I was when I first got here. But
anyways, I started today a google documented essay on why I think
Suburbs are bad for the U.S. and I would just like to see what you
guys think about it. In a proof reading sense and what you actally
think of the content. Here goes-
Cities and Suburbs
Why Suburbs are bad for United States health. -by William Mark
Bornhoft
A common definition of a suburb is a community in an outlying
section of a city or, more commonly, a nearby, politically separate
municipality with social and economic ties to the central city. In the
20th cent., particularly in the United States, population growth in
urban areas has spilled increasingly outside the city limits and
concentrated there, resulting in large metropolitan areas where the
populations of the suburbs taken together exceed that of the central
city. As growth of the suburbs continues, cost of labor for common
suburban housing drops increasingly low. Houses are built with
cheaper, less expensive materials and are built with the same model of
construction time and time again. As this does no harm financially,
the western world loses any uniqueness it once had. Meaning their is a
very small amount of difference between Burnsville,Minnesota and Boone
County,Kentucky. Most suburbs are also disliked for their lack of the
grid system. In modern suburbs things like culdesacs and tangle towns
are more common to be designed with. This also makes it virtually
impossible to include a mass transit system into the suburb. Thus,
more driving, more gas use, and more emissions created in the
atmosphere. A common response to this from a suburban residential is
that the city is jam packed with congestion and pollution from stop
and go traffic. Yet with cities, they are more dense, highly populated
and many of the stop and go traffic is created by workers who live in
the suburbs coming into the city at rush hour. An attraction to the
suburbs for someone looking to raise a family is the suburbs generally
contain less crime, less congestion and more isolation from a fast
pace life. In relation to crime in the cities, middle classAmericans
flocking to the suburbs due to high crime rates in the cities produces
more crime with the lack of decent middle class citizens keeping up
otherwise run-down neighborhood ghettos. Also, as cities become more
and more expensive to live in due to high property rates, more and
more poverty will move into the suburbs.
That is all I have for now.

If nobody liked suburbs, I woulda' figured nobody would live in them.
Especially if they have the freedom of transportation that a car
affords.

[William ( http://psychologytoday.com/rss/pto-20050322-000002.htmll )]

Post by Pat
On May 29, 3:44 pm, "Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like)

Post by Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like) Defender of a complex life
Hey all so yea I just started become "one of the guys" here on urban
planning but now
I fear I will dash this and become as I was when I first got here. But
anyways, I started today a google documented essay on why I think
Suburbs are bad for the U.S. and I would just like to see what you
guys think about it. In a proof reading sense and what you actally
think of the content. Here goes-
Cities and Suburbs
Why Suburbs are bad for United States health. -by William Mark
Bornhoft
A common definition of a suburb is a community in an outlying
section of a city or, more commonly, a nearby, politically separate
municipality with social and economic ties to the central city. In the
20th cent., particularly in the United States, population growth in
urban areas has spilled increasingly outside the city limits and
concentrated there, resulting in large metropolitan areas where the
populations of the suburbs taken together exceed that of the central
city. As growth of the suburbs continues, cost of labor for common
suburban housing drops increasingly low. Houses are built with
cheaper, less expensive materials and are built with the same model of
construction time and time again. As this does no harm financially,
the western world loses any uniqueness it once had. Meaning their is a
very small amount of difference between Burnsville,Minnesota and Boone
County,Kentucky. Most suburbs are also disliked for their lack of the
grid system. In modern suburbs things like culdesacs and tangle towns
are more common to be designed with. This also makes it virtually
impossible to include a mass transit system into the suburb. Thus,
more driving, more gas use, and more emissions created in the
atmosphere. A common response to this from a suburban residential is
that the city is jam packed with congestion and pollution from stop
and go traffic. Yet with cities, they are more dense, highly populated
and many of the stop and go traffic is created by workers who live in
the suburbs coming into the city at rush hour. An attraction to the
suburbs for someone looking to raise a family is the suburbs generally
contain less crime, less congestion and more isolation from a fast
pace life. In relation to crime in the cities, middle classAmericans
flocking to the suburbs due to high crime rates in the cities produces
more crime with the lack of decent middle class citizens keeping up
otherwise run-down neighborhood ghettos. Also, as cities become more
and more expensive to live in due to high property rates, more and
more poverty will move into the suburbs.
That is all I have for now.

If nobody liked suburbs, I woulda' figured nobody would live in them.
Especially if they have the freedom of transportation that a car
affords.

Umm sure but I never said nobody liked them did I?
And their are some suburbs I love more then some cities. Such as Oak
Park, Ill.
I love the layout of it, the very old houses that Frank Lloyd Wright
designed, it has diversity, and it
does not have windy curvy roads filled with cul-de-sacs. Although
expensive, I think all suburbs should be like Oak Park. Its a
residential area that was not built just so it could be in-expensive.
The houses were designed to look nice, not to be cheap and easy to
build.

[Amy Blankenship]

"William ( http://psychologytoday.com/rss/pto-20050322-000002.htmll )"

Post by William ( http://psychologytoday.com/rss/pto-20050322-000002.htmll )

Post by Pat
On May 29, 3:44 pm, "Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like)
If nobody liked suburbs, I woulda' figured nobody would live in them.
Especially if they have the freedom of transportation that a car
affords.

Umm sure but I never said nobody liked them did I?

You asked for a critique on your essay, and when I gave you mine I pointed
out that

"Most suburbs are also disliked for their lack of the
grid system."

Does not take responsibility for anyone in particular disliking the suburbs.
One interpretation that is possible is that you think that everyone dislikes
the suburbs. This is why you should avoid the passive voice unless your use
of it is deliberate (sometimes the passive voice is more diplomatic, when
someone has made a mistake).

HTH;

Amy

[William ( http://psychologytoday.com/rss/pto-20050322-000002.htmll )]

On Jun 7, 4:55 pm, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by William ( http://psychologytoday.com/rss/pto-20050322-000002.htmll )

Post by Pat
On May 29, 3:44 pm, "Mr.Cool (Call me William if you would like)
If nobody liked suburbs, I woulda' figured nobody would live in them.
Especially if they have the freedom of transportation that a car
affords.

Umm sure but I never said nobody liked them did I?

You asked for a critique on your essay, and when I gave you mine I pointed
out that
"Most suburbs are also disliked for their lack of the
grid system."
Does not take responsibility for anyone in particular disliking the suburbs.
One interpretation that is possible is that you think that everyone dislikes
the suburbs. This is why you should avoid the passive voice unless your use
of it is deliberate (sometimes the passive voice is more diplomatic, when
someone has made a mistake).
HTH;
Amy

Yea thats what my Latin teacher told me. I'll be sure to change that.