The value of shopping local

[Pat]

I wanted to upgrade my cell phone and had been in the bigger community
25 miles or so away a couple of days ago and looked for phones.
Couldn't upgrade then but decided to today. So I went to our local
Radio Shack about 3 miles away -- the only Verizon dealer in the
area.

Their price for the phone was $279 but there $50 "rebate". The my
"new every two" was only worth $50, not $100. So the cost would be
$179. Back in the "big store" out in the bigger city, the same phone
was $249 with the same $50 rebate and my "new every two" was worth
$100; so I could get the phone for $99.

So much for shopping local.

If the Radio Shack goes out of business because locals don't shop
there, I'm going on the record and saying "it ain't my fault". I
tried.

[William]

Post by Pat
I wanted to upgrade my cell phone and had been in the bigger community
25 miles or so away a couple of days ago and looked for phones.
Couldn't upgrade then but decided to today. So I went to our local
Radio Shack about 3 miles away -- the only Verizon dealer in the
area.
Their price for the phone was $279 but there $50 "rebate". The my
"new every two" was only worth $50, not $100. So the cost would be
$179. Back in the "big store" out in the bigger city, the same phone
was $249 with the same $50 rebate and my "new every two" was worth
$100; so I could get the phone for $99.
So much for shopping local.
If the Radio Shack goes out of business because locals don't shop
there, I'm going on the record and saying "it ain't my fault". I
tried.

Do you really think its fair to make a blanket statement about
something very broad using one bad experince?

[Pat]

Post by William

Post by Pat
I wanted to upgrade my cell phone and had been in the bigger community
25 miles or so away a couple of days ago and looked for phones.
Couldn't upgrade then but decided to today. So I went to our local
Radio Shack about 3 miles away -- the only Verizon dealer in the
area.
Their price for the phone was $279 but there $50 "rebate". The my
"new every two" was only worth $50, not $100. So the cost would be
$179. Back in the "big store" out in the bigger city, the same phone
was $249 with the same $50 rebate and my "new every two" was worth
$100; so I could get the phone for $99.
So much for shopping local.
If the Radio Shack goes out of business because locals don't shop
there, I'm going on the record and saying "it ain't my fault". I
tried.

Do you really think its fair to make a blanket statement about
something very broad using one bad experince?

You missed the point. That is one example of trying to buy local. It
is also an example of why Walmart is so successful It is a place you
can go and get things at a reasonable price. You're usually pretty
sure of their selection and you know the price is competitive so it
becomes a one-stop shop. Local store can compete if they provide
better pricing or better service or better selection. But if they
don't, then so what...

In this case, it's unfortunate that Walmart does carry cell phones or
I'd have gone there since I had to go there and pick up some ink
cartridges anyway.They are half the price of what I can buy them for
locally at the pharmacy.

In both cases, the price difference is so big that it was worth the
trip because I needed a few things.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Pat
I wanted to upgrade my cell phone and had been in the bigger community
25 miles or so away a couple of days ago and looked for phones.
Couldn't upgrade then but decided to today. So I went to our local
Radio Shack about 3 miles away -- the only Verizon dealer in the
area.
Their price for the phone was $279 but there $50 "rebate". The my
"new every two" was only worth $50, not $100. So the cost would be
$179. Back in the "big store" out in the bigger city, the same phone
was $249 with the same $50 rebate and my "new every two" was worth
$100; so I could get the phone for $99.
So much for shopping local.

You said you couldn't upgrade then. Why was that?

[Pat]

On Oct 9, 11:55 pm, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat
I wanted to upgrade my cell phone and had been in the bigger community
25 miles or so away a couple of days ago and looked for phones.
Couldn't upgrade then but decided to today. So I went to our local
Radio Shack about 3 miles away -- the only Verizon dealer in the
area.
Their price for the phone was $279 but there $50 "rebate". The my
"new every two" was only worth $50, not $100. So the cost would be
$179. Back in the "big store" out in the bigger city, the same phone
was $249 with the same $50 rebate and my "new every two" was worth
$100; so I could get the phone for $99.
So much for shopping local.

You said you couldn't upgrade then. Why was that?

It's sort of weird situation. My original Motorola died a slow,
agonizing death a month or so ago. I replaced it for $50 because it
was a phone problem, not physical damage or loss. So I got Motorola
#2. I was on a work-site with Motorola #2 a week or so ago and took
some pics to text-message to a partner so he could see a few things
that he needed to see. The images were garbled. Some pics went
through once in a while but most were garbled. So I took that to the
Verizon store to see if they could fix it or find any network settings
that were bad. Well, it was a bad phone so I had to swap that out
under warranty for Motorola #3. So that day I picked up Motorola #3,
which I'm fine with.

Meanwhile, my kid wanted a new handset. The "new every 2" only
applies to the "primary" handset, which is mine. Their system won't
let you replace a phone (M3 replacing M2) and them immediately change
phones again -- you can only do that once a day. So I was ready to
upgrade my kid's phone but can only do that my don't a 3-card monty.
I needed to put the new phone on my line. Then wait a day a switch
the new phone to my son's line and reactivate M3 for my use. In the
end I'm happy with my phone and he gets a $250 phone for $100.

The funny part about cell phones around here is that it is like living
in a Verizon commercial (assuming you've seen one). Around here, you
keep walking around saying "can you hear me now, can you hear me now"
because the service is so spotty.

[Pierre Levesque]

Post by Pat
On Oct 9, 11:55 pm, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat
I wanted to upgrade my cell phone and had been in the bigger community
25 miles or so away a couple of days ago and looked for phones.
Couldn't upgrade then but decided to today. So I went to our local
Radio Shack about 3 miles away -- the only Verizon dealer in the
area.
Their price for the phone was $279 but there $50 "rebate". The my
"new every two" was only worth $50, not $100. So the cost would be
$179. Back in the "big store" out in the bigger city, the same phone
was $249 with the same $50 rebate and my "new every two" was worth
$100; so I could get the phone for $99.
So much for shopping local.

You said you couldn't upgrade then. Why was that?

It's sort of weird situation. My original Motorola died a slow,
agonizing death a month or so ago. I replaced it for $50 because it
was a phone problem, not physical damage or loss. So I got Motorola
#2. I was on a work-site with Motorola #2 a week or so ago and took
some pics to text-message to a partner so he could see a few things
that he needed to see. The images were garbled. Some pics went
through once in a while but most were garbled. So I took that to the
Verizon store to see if they could fix it or find any network settings
that were bad. Well, it was a bad phone so I had to swap that out
under warranty for Motorola #3. So that day I picked up Motorola #3,
which I'm fine with.
Meanwhile, my kid wanted a new handset. The "new every 2" only
applies to the "primary" handset, which is mine. Their system won't
let you replace a phone (M3 replacing M2) and them immediately change
phones again -- you can only do that once a day. So I was ready to
upgrade my kid's phone but can only do that my don't a 3-card monty.
I needed to put the new phone on my line. Then wait a day a switch
the new phone to my son's line and reactivate M3 for my use. In the
end I'm happy with my phone and he gets a $250 phone for $100.
The funny part about cell phones around here is that it is like living
in a Verizon commercial (assuming you've seen one). Around here, you
keep walking around saying "can you hear me now, can you hear me now"
because the service is so spotty.

I've had my Treo 700P for about a year and a half now... some of the
Blackberry phones are getting close to doing what the Treo does...

IMO (still) nothing compares to the Treo yet because of the Palm OS.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Pierre Levesque

Post by Pat
On Oct 9, 11:55 pm, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat
I wanted to upgrade my cell phone and had been in the bigger community
25 miles or so away a couple of days ago and looked for phones.
Couldn't upgrade then but decided to today. So I went to our local
Radio Shack about 3 miles away -- the only Verizon dealer in the
area.
Their price for the phone was $279 but there $50 "rebate". The my
"new every two" was only worth $50, not $100. So the cost would be
$179. Back in the "big store" out in the bigger city, the same phone
was $249 with the same $50 rebate and my "new every two" was worth
$100; so I could get the phone for $99.
So much for shopping local.

You said you couldn't upgrade then. Why was that?

It's sort of weird situation. My original Motorola died a slow,
agonizing death a month or so ago. I replaced it for $50 because it
was a phone problem, not physical damage or loss. So I got Motorola
#2. I was on a work-site with Motorola #2 a week or so ago and took
some pics to text-message to a partner so he could see a few things
that he needed to see. The images were garbled. Some pics went
through once in a while but most were garbled. So I took that to the
Verizon store to see if they could fix it or find any network settings
that were bad. Well, it was a bad phone so I had to swap that out
under warranty for Motorola #3. So that day I picked up Motorola #3,
which I'm fine with.
Meanwhile, my kid wanted a new handset. The "new every 2" only
applies to the "primary" handset, which is mine. Their system won't
let you replace a phone (M3 replacing M2) and them immediately change
phones again -- you can only do that once a day. So I was ready to
upgrade my kid's phone but can only do that my don't a 3-card monty.
I needed to put the new phone on my line. Then wait a day a switch
the new phone to my son's line and reactivate M3 for my use. In the
end I'm happy with my phone and he gets a $250 phone for $100.
The funny part about cell phones around here is that it is like living
in a Verizon commercial (assuming you've seen one). Around here, you
keep walking around saying "can you hear me now, can you hear me now"
because the service is so spotty.

I've had my Treo 700P for about a year and a half now... some of the
Blackberry phones are getting close to doing what the Treo does...

I have a Glofiish. Since it's the first of its generation, it's a little
rough. But when that kind of functionality is fully realized, wow!

[Pat]

On Oct 10, 10:36 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pierre Levesque

Post by Pat
On Oct 9, 11:55 pm, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat
I wanted to upgrade my cell phone and had been in the bigger community
25 miles or so away a couple of days ago and looked for phones.
Couldn't upgrade then but decided to today. So I went to our local
Radio Shack about 3 miles away -- the only Verizon dealer in the
area.
Their price for the phone was $279 but there $50 "rebate". The my
"new every two" was only worth $50, not $100. So the cost would be
$179. Back in the "big store" out in the bigger city, the same phone
was $249 with the same $50 rebate and my "new every two" was worth
$100; so I could get the phone for $99.
So much for shopping local.

You said you couldn't upgrade then. Why was that?

It's sort of weird situation. My original Motorola died a slow,
agonizing death a month or so ago. I replaced it for $50 because it
was a phone problem, not physical damage or loss. So I got Motorola
#2. I was on a work-site with Motorola #2 a week or so ago and took
some pics to text-message to a partner so he could see a few things
that he needed to see. The images were garbled. Some pics went
through once in a while but most were garbled. So I took that to the
Verizon store to see if they could fix it or find any network settings
that were bad. Well, it was a bad phone so I had to swap that out
under warranty for Motorola #3. So that day I picked up Motorola #3,
which I'm fine with.
Meanwhile, my kid wanted a new handset. The "new every 2" only
applies to the "primary" handset, which is mine. Their system won't
let you replace a phone (M3 replacing M2) and them immediately change
phones again -- you can only do that once a day. So I was ready to
upgrade my kid's phone but can only do that my don't a 3-card monty.
I needed to put the new phone on my line. Then wait a day a switch
the new phone to my son's line and reactivate M3 for my use. In the
end I'm happy with my phone and he gets a $250 phone for $100.
The funny part about cell phones around here is that it is like living
in a Verizon commercial (assuming you've seen one). Around here, you
keep walking around saying "can you hear me now, can you hear me now"
because the service is so spotty.

I've had my Treo 700P for about a year and a half now... some of the
Blackberry phones are getting close to doing what the Treo does...

I have a Glofiish. Since it's the first of its generation, it's a little
rough. But when that kind of functionality is fully realized, wow!

This Motorola is so-so. If I had my way, I'd have kept my Startac.
But then again, I'd have also have kept my 3-watt bag phone. A bag
phone with an external antenna -- not THAT was a phone. You could get
a signal anywhere.

My kids like "cool" phones because they are ... cool. Mine is a work-
item and I'm about as attached to it as I am to my pencil sharpener
(which by the way, is a very fine pencil sharpener).

[++]

Post by Pat
This Motorola is so-so. If I had my way, I'd have kept my Startac.
But then again, I'd have also have kept my 3-watt bag phone. A bag
phone with an external antenna -- not THAT was a phone. You could get
a signal anywhere.
My kids like "cool" phones because they are ... cool. Mine is a work-
item and I'm about as attached to it as I am to my pencil sharpener
(which by the way, is a very fine pencil sharpener).

I keep buying these little german two or three-sided ones for the last
thirty years, every five years or so. Companion point sharpener. Like
things that do the job but take a minimum of personal carry around space.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Pat
On Oct 9, 11:55 pm, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat
I wanted to upgrade my cell phone and had been in the bigger community
25 miles or so away a couple of days ago and looked for phones.
Couldn't upgrade then but decided to today. So I went to our local
Radio Shack about 3 miles away -- the only Verizon dealer in the
area.
Their price for the phone was $279 but there $50 "rebate". The my
"new every two" was only worth $50, not $100. So the cost would be
$179. Back in the "big store" out in the bigger city, the same phone
was $249 with the same $50 rebate and my "new every two" was worth
$100; so I could get the phone for $99.
So much for shopping local.

You said you couldn't upgrade then. Why was that?

It's sort of weird situation. My original Motorola died a slow,
agonizing death a month or so ago. I replaced it for $50 because it
was a phone problem, not physical damage or loss. So I got Motorola
#2. I was on a work-site with Motorola #2 a week or so ago and took
some pics to text-message to a partner so he could see a few things
that he needed to see. The images were garbled. Some pics went
through once in a while but most were garbled. So I took that to the
Verizon store to see if they could fix it or find any network settings
that were bad. Well, it was a bad phone so I had to swap that out
under warranty for Motorola #3. So that day I picked up Motorola #3,
which I'm fine with.
Meanwhile, my kid wanted a new handset. The "new every 2" only
applies to the "primary" handset, which is mine. Their system won't
let you replace a phone (M3 replacing M2) and them immediately change
phones again -- you can only do that once a day. So I was ready to
upgrade my kid's phone but can only do that my don't a 3-card monty.
I needed to put the new phone on my line. Then wait a day a switch
the new phone to my son's line and reactivate M3 for my use. In the
end I'm happy with my phone and he gets a $250 phone for $100.
The funny part about cell phones around here is that it is like living
in a Verizon commercial (assuming you've seen one). Around here, you
keep walking around saying "can you hear me now, can you hear me now"
because the service is so spotty.

I have to say we always order unlocked phones off the internet...

[++]

Post by Amy Blankenship
I have to say we always order unlocked phones off the internet...

Be nice to know how you manage that. We look for one year deals for the
best possible phones, don't mind changing our number to get them (good
security method, anyway), wait out the one year to unlock, meanwhile use
the already unlocked one for international, i.e. carry on two cheap
contracts, then one. Doesn't have to be done every year so there is a
switch to one contract for the period in which there are at least two
free unlocked phones.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by ++

Post by Amy Blankenship
I have to say we always order unlocked phones off the internet...

Be nice to know how you manage that.

Dunno. My husband does it. He develops software for phones and pocket PC.

[++]

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by ++

Post by Amy Blankenship
I have to say we always order unlocked phones off the internet...

Be nice to know how you manage that.

Dunno. My husband does it. He develops software for phones and pocket PC.

Wow. Does he have a webpage?

[george conklin]

Post by ++

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by ++

Post by Amy Blankenship
I have to say we always order unlocked phones off the internet...

Be nice to know how you manage that.

Dunno. My husband does it. He develops software for phones and pocket PC.

Wow. Does he have a webpage?

None of this helps us with the different technical standards on different
networks. Recently I found parts of southern VA which would only allow
Sprint, with no Verizon options at all. I gave up on Sprint in NC because
they did not cover much of the state, and when they analog came on,
connections were refused since the network was always "busy."

[++]

Post by george conklin
None of this helps us with the different technical standards on different
networks. Recently I found parts of southern VA which would only allow
Sprint, with no Verizon options at all. I gave up on Sprint in NC because
they did not cover much of the state, and when they analog came on,
connections were refused since the network was always "busy."

It would be nice to have not only a single standard but a gentleperson's
decision on allowing other networks on your network

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by ++

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by ++

Post by Amy Blankenship
I have to say we always order unlocked phones off the internet...

Be nice to know how you manage that.

Dunno. My husband does it. He develops software for phones and pocket PC.

Wow. Does he have a webpage?

He used to, but we combined when we married. Honestly, I haven't updated it
to reflect his skills (or mine from the past two years or so).
www.magnoliamultimedia.com.

HTH;

Amy

[Michael Bulatovich]

Post by Pat
I wanted to upgrade my cell phone and had been in the bigger community
25 miles or so away a couple of days ago and looked for phones.
Couldn't upgrade then but decided to today. So I went to our local
Radio Shack about 3 miles away -- the only Verizon dealer in the
area.
Their price for the phone was $279 but there $50 "rebate". The my
"new every two" was only worth $50, not $100. So the cost would be
$179. Back in the "big store" out in the bigger city, the same phone
was $249 with the same $50 rebate and my "new every two" was worth
$100; so I could get the phone for $99.
So much for shopping local.
If the Radio Shack goes out of business because locals don't shop
there, I'm going on the record and saying "it ain't my fault". I
tried.

The local 'multiplier effect' comes at a price.

[george conklin]

Post by Michael Bulatovich

Post by Pat
I wanted to upgrade my cell phone and had been in the bigger community
25 miles or so away a couple of days ago and looked for phones.
Couldn't upgrade then but decided to today. So I went to our local
Radio Shack about 3 miles away -- the only Verizon dealer in the
area.
Their price for the phone was $279 but there $50 "rebate". The my
"new every two" was only worth $50, not $100. So the cost would be
$179. Back in the "big store" out in the bigger city, the same phone
was $249 with the same $50 rebate and my "new every two" was worth
$100; so I could get the phone for $99.
So much for shopping local.
If the Radio Shack goes out of business because locals don't shop
there, I'm going on the record and saying "it ain't my fault". I
tried.

The local 'multiplier effect' comes at a price.

The entire Internet shopping craze is based on finding things you CANNOT
find locally.

[Pat]

Post by george conklin

Post by Michael Bulatovich

Post by Pat
I wanted to upgrade my cell phone and had been in the bigger community
25 miles or so away a couple of days ago and looked for phones.
Couldn't upgrade then but decided to today. So I went to our local
Radio Shack about 3 miles away -- the only Verizon dealer in the
area.
Their price for the phone was $279 but there $50 "rebate". The my
"new every two" was only worth $50, not $100. So the cost would be
$179. Back in the "big store" out in the bigger city, the same phone
was $249 with the same $50 rebate and my "new every two" was worth
$100; so I could get the phone for $99.
So much for shopping local.
If the Radio Shack goes out of business because locals don't shop
there, I'm going on the record and saying "it ain't my fault". I
tried.

The local 'multiplier effect' comes at a price.

The entire Internet shopping craze is based on finding things you CANNOT
find locally.

Gee, for once I agree with George. Sound the trumpets!!!

Living in a rural area, our selection is more limited than what you
will find in a urban area. My "local" photo shop is in NYC. My
primary photo lab is outside of Seattle. My bookstore is Amazon,
whereever that is located.

As an interesting aside, I am in rural NY and use a store in NYC. If
I picked a store outside of NY, I'd save 8% sales tax. However, the
service, selection, and price at B&H is so good, that I choose to deal
with them even though their prices are sometimes higher than I can get
it out-of-state (because of the tax). See, William, price isn't
everything -- selection and service are also big factors in the
equation.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Michael Bulatovich

Post by Pat
I wanted to upgrade my cell phone and had been in the bigger community
25 miles or so away a couple of days ago and looked for phones.
Couldn't upgrade then but decided to today. So I went to our local
Radio Shack about 3 miles away -- the only Verizon dealer in the
area.
Their price for the phone was $279 but there $50 "rebate". The my
"new every two" was only worth $50, not $100. So the cost would be
$179. Back in the "big store" out in the bigger city, the same phone
was $249 with the same $50 rebate and my "new every two" was worth
$100; so I could get the phone for $99.
So much for shopping local.
If the Radio Shack goes out of business because locals don't shop
there, I'm going on the record and saying "it ain't my fault". I
tried.

The local 'multiplier effect' comes at a price.

The entire Internet shopping craze is based on finding things you CANNOT
find locally.

Gee, for once I agree with George. Sound the trumpets!!!
Living in a rural area, our selection is more limited than what you
will find in a urban area. My "local" photo shop is in NYC. My
primary photo lab is outside of Seattle. My bookstore is Amazon,
whereever that is located.
As an interesting aside, I am in rural NY and use a store in NYC. If
I picked a store outside of NY, I'd save 8% sales tax. However, the
service, selection, and price at B&H is so good, that I choose to deal
with them even though their prices are sometimes higher than I can get
it out-of-state (because of the tax). See, William, price isn't
everything -- selection and service are also big factors in the
equation.

By the same token we went to Lowe's to buy siding for a little house we're
renovating, and you can have any color you want as long as it is white or
gray. The locally owned siding company had a full range of colors in stock,
at a fantastic price.

-Amy

[Don]

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Michael Bulatovich

Post by Pat
I wanted to upgrade my cell phone and had been in the bigger community
25 miles or so away a couple of days ago and looked for phones.
Couldn't upgrade then but decided to today. So I went to our local
Radio Shack about 3 miles away -- the only Verizon dealer in the
area.
Their price for the phone was $279 but there $50 "rebate". The my
"new every two" was only worth $50, not $100. So the cost would be
$179. Back in the "big store" out in the bigger city, the same phone
was $249 with the same $50 rebate and my "new every two" was worth
$100; so I could get the phone for $99.
So much for shopping local.
If the Radio Shack goes out of business because locals don't shop
there, I'm going on the record and saying "it ain't my fault". I
tried.

The local 'multiplier effect' comes at a price.

The entire Internet shopping craze is based on finding things you CANNOT
find locally.

Gee, for once I agree with George. Sound the trumpets!!!
Living in a rural area, our selection is more limited than what you
will find in a urban area. My "local" photo shop is in NYC. My
primary photo lab is outside of Seattle. My bookstore is Amazon,
whereever that is located.
As an interesting aside, I am in rural NY and use a store in NYC. If
I picked a store outside of NY, I'd save 8% sales tax. However, the
service, selection, and price at B&H is so good, that I choose to deal
with them even though their prices are sometimes higher than I can get
it out-of-state (because of the tax). See, William, price isn't
everything -- selection and service are also big factors in the
equation.

By the same token we went to Lowe's to buy siding for a little house we're
renovating, and you can have any color you want as long as it is white or
gray. The locally owned siding company had a full range of colors in
stock, at a fantastic price.

When I bought the white vinyl siding, soffit and fascia for my garage at
Menards they had to *special order* the stuff.
Same with the silver roof.
Seems there isn't alot of white cribs around these parts, just lots of
browns.
Most of the upscale homes I do in FL are white with silver roofs.
Go figure......

[William]

Post by Pat
I wanted to upgrade my cell phone and had been in the bigger community
25 miles or so away a couple of days ago and looked for phones.
Couldn't upgrade then but decided to today. So I went to our local
Radio Shack about 3 miles away -- the only Verizon dealer in the
area.
Their price for the phone was $279 but there $50 "rebate". The my
"new every two" was only worth $50, not $100. So the cost would be
$179. Back in the "big store" out in the bigger city, the same phone
was $249 with the same $50 rebate and my "new every two" was worth
$100; so I could get the phone for $99.
So much for shopping local.
If the Radio Shack goes out of business because locals don't shop
there, I'm going on the record and saying "it ain't my fault". I
tried.

I'm not used to the subject of were to go shopping as such a big
debate. Thats another good thing about living in a big city.
Everything is near by, big stores, small stores, franchises, family
owned its all here. Plus,since the stores are all pretty close
together it keeps the prices low, at least relatively.

[Don]

Post by William
Plus,since the stores are all pretty close
together it keeps the prices low, at least relatively.

Uh, no.
Location has nothing to do with the prices being low.
Good business practices are the reason the prices are low.
Walmart, for example, has reasonable prices regardless of where its located.

[george conklin]

Post by Don

Post by William
Plus,since the stores are all pretty close
together it keeps the prices low, at least relatively.

Uh, no.
Location has nothing to do with the prices being low.
Good business practices are the reason the prices are low.
Walmart, for example, has reasonable prices regardless of where its located.

High density raises costs of doing business.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Don

Post by William
Plus,since the stores are all pretty close
together it keeps the prices low, at least relatively.

Uh, no.
Location has nothing to do with the prices being low.
Good business practices are the reason the prices are low.
Walmart, for example, has reasonable prices regardless of where its located.

Not because of good business practices, though. Cotton plantations in the
mid 19th century had low prices as well.

[Don]

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Don

Post by William
Plus,since the stores are all pretty close
together it keeps the prices low, at least relatively.

Uh, no.
Location has nothing to do with the prices being low.
Good business practices are the reason the prices are low.
Walmart, for example, has reasonable prices regardless of where its located.

Not because of good business practices, though. Cotton plantations in the
mid 19th century had low prices as well.

This ones littered with gray areas.

[Pat]

Post by William

Post by Pat
I wanted to upgrade my cell phone and had been in the bigger community
25 miles or so away a couple of days ago and looked for phones.
Couldn't upgrade then but decided to today. So I went to our local
Radio Shack about 3 miles away -- the only Verizon dealer in the
area.
Their price for the phone was $279 but there $50 "rebate". The my
"new every two" was only worth $50, not $100. So the cost would be
$179. Back in the "big store" out in the bigger city, the same phone
was $249 with the same $50 rebate and my "new every two" was worth
$100; so I could get the phone for $99.
So much for shopping local.
If the Radio Shack goes out of business because locals don't shop
there, I'm going on the record and saying "it ain't my fault". I
tried.

I'm not used to the subject of were to go shopping as such a big
debate. Thats another good thing about living in a big city.
Everything is near by, big stores, small stores, franchises, family
owned its all here. Plus,since the stores are all pretty close
together it keeps the prices low, at least relatively.

That's funny, I thought that "where to go shopping" was first and
foremost in planning. That, and hating Walmart for giving rural
people the opportunity to get lower priced items than city folk.

If shopping isn't important to planners, then why all the hub-bub
abount keeping a central business district vibrant, locating theaters
in the cities, and all of the boutiques that you like selling all of
their over-priced items.

[george conklin]

Post by Pat

Post by William

Post by Pat
I wanted to upgrade my cell phone and had been in the bigger community
25 miles or so away a couple of days ago and looked for phones.
Couldn't upgrade then but decided to today. So I went to our local
Radio Shack about 3 miles away -- the only Verizon dealer in the
area.
Their price for the phone was $279 but there $50 "rebate". The my
"new every two" was only worth $50, not $100. So the cost would be
$179. Back in the "big store" out in the bigger city, the same phone
was $249 with the same $50 rebate and my "new every two" was worth
$100; so I could get the phone for $99.
So much for shopping local.
If the Radio Shack goes out of business because locals don't shop
there, I'm going on the record and saying "it ain't my fault". I
tried.

I'm not used to the subject of were to go shopping as such a big
debate. Thats another good thing about living in a big city.
Everything is near by, big stores, small stores, franchises, family
owned its all here. Plus,since the stores are all pretty close
together it keeps the prices low, at least relatively.

That's funny, I thought that "where to go shopping" was first and
foremost in planning. That, and hating Walmart for giving rural
people the opportunity to get lower priced items than city folk.
If shopping isn't important to planners, then why all the hub-bub
abount keeping a central business district vibrant, locating theaters
in the cities, and all of the boutiques that you like selling all of
their over-priced items.

Correct. Planners worship small stores, high prices, central business
distracts far from your house (but in the Politically Correct place), but
those walkable stores should be small, high-priced, and locally-owned
selling their imported goods at high markups.

[3D Peruna]

Post by george conklin
Correct. Planners worship small stores, high prices, central business
distracts far from your house (but in the Politically Correct place), but
those walkable stores should be small, high-priced, and locally-owned
selling their imported goods at high markups.

Planners don't know crap.

I still haven't found a viable "planned" community any place on the
earth. 99% of planners won't acknowledge human nature in their
planning...the "keeping up with the Joneses", the "I don't want to walk
in the rain", the "I can't afford to pay $25.00 for a book when I can
get it for $15.00 with shipping on Amazon." Sure, they're filled with
lots of theories about why places they like work. They're all wrong.
Why do I say that, because they can't make a new place work like an old
place. The sense of place must happen over a time span.

[++]

Post by 3D Peruna

Post by george conklin
Correct. Planners worship small stores, high prices, central
business distracts far from your house (but in the Politically
Correct place), but those walkable stores should be small,
high-priced, and locally-owned selling their imported goods at high
markups.

Planners don't know crap.

them's fight'n' words ( ]8> |)= (emoticon 4 them's fight'n' words)

Post by 3D Peruna
I still haven't found a viable "planned" community any place on the
earth. 99% of planners won't acknowledge human nature in their
planning...the "keeping up with the Joneses", the "I don't want to
walk in the rain", the "I can't afford to pay $25.00 for a book when I
can get it for $15.00 with shipping on Amazon." Sure, they're filled
with lots of theories about why places they like work. They're all
wrong. Why do I say that, because they can't make a new place work
like an old place. The sense of place must happen over a time span.

pennywise, stripmall foolish....

[george conklin]

Post by ++

Post by 3D Peruna

Post by george conklin
Correct. Planners worship small stores, high prices, central business
distracts far from your house (but in the Politically Correct place),
but those walkable stores should be small, high-priced, and
locally-owned selling their imported goods at high markups.

Planners don't know crap.

them's fight'n' words ( ]8> |)= (emoticon 4 them's fight'n' words)

Post by 3D Peruna
I still haven't found a viable "planned" community any place on the
earth. 99% of planners won't acknowledge human nature in their
planning...the "keeping up with the Joneses", the "I don't want to walk
in the rain", the "I can't afford to pay $25.00 for a book when I can get
it for $15.00 with shipping on Amazon." Sure, they're filled with lots
of theories about why places they like work. They're all wrong. Why do I
say that, because they can't make a new place work like an old place.
The sense of place must happen over a time span.

pennywise, stripmall foolish....

Interesting phrase. Exactly what does it mean?

[++]

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
george conklin wrote: <blockquote cite="***@corp.supernews.com" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">"++" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:***@erols.com">&lt;***@erols.com&gt;</a> wrote in message
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="news:***@rcn.net">news:***@rcn.net</a>...
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
3D Peruna wrote:

</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">george conklin wrote:

</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> Correct. Planners worship small stores, high prices, central business
distracts far from your house (but in the Politically Correct place),
but those walkable stores should be small, high-priced, and
locally-owned selling their imported goods at high markups. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap="">Planners don't know crap. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap="">them's fight'n' words ( ]8&gt; |)= (emoticon 4 them's fight'n' words)

</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I still haven't found a viable "planned" community any place on the
earth. 99% of planners won't acknowledge human nature in their
planning...the "keeping up with the Joneses", the "I don't want to walk
in the rain", the "I can't afford to pay $25.00 for a book when I can get
it for $15.00 with shipping on Amazon." Sure, they're filled with lots
of theories about why places they like work. They're all wrong. Why do I
say that, because they can't make a new place work like an old place.
The sense of place must happen over a time span.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
pennywise, stripmall foolish....
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Interesting phrase. Exactly what does it mean?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
references the first three sentences in ze paragraph above up to the
word Amazon, the attitude at the cheapest price over sustainable
planning with the latter supposedly not factoring in common sense about
peoples' basic greed.  <br>
<br>
You are not looking at the right elements in how people think and feel,
not interested in evolking the best, etc..<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="***@corp.supernews.com" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">


</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>

[Ken S. Tucker]

Post by ++

Post by 3D Peruna

Post by george conklin
Correct. Planners worship small stores, high prices, central
business distracts far from your house (but in the Politically
Correct place), but those walkable stores should be small,
high-priced, and locally-owned selling their imported goods at high
markups.

Planners don't know crap.

them's fight'n' words ( ]8> |)= (emoticon 4 them's fight'n' words)

Post by 3D Peruna
I still haven't found a viable "planned" community any place on the
earth. 99% of planners won't acknowledge human nature in their
planning...the "keeping up with the Joneses", the "I don't want to
walk in the rain", the "I can't afford to pay $25.00 for a book when I
can get it for $15.00 with shipping on Amazon." Sure, they're filled
with lots of theories about why places they like work. They're all
wrong. Why do I say that, because they can't make a new place work
like an old place. The sense of place must happen over a time span.

pennywise, stripmall foolish....

I'm inclined to agree with everybody.
A community is not static, it evolves and is
dynamic and flexible. The best "pre-planning"
can do is respect that.
It's variables of economics, demographics etc.
That's why I respect trailer parks, they're
adaptable, and permit mobility at low cost,
but of course I'm a bit of gyspy.
Ken

[Don]

Post by Ken S. Tucker
A community is not static, it evolves and is
dynamic and flexible. The best "pre-planning"
can do is respect that.
It's variables of economics, demographics etc.

The best thing planners can do is first recognize whats been said here, and
elsewhere many times, and pay attention to it.
Then get out of the way and go find some real productive things to do, with
their own money.

[++]

Post by Don

Post by Ken S. Tucker
A community is not static, it evolves and is
dynamic and flexible. The best "pre-planning"
can do is respect that.
It's variables of economics, demographics etc.

The best thing planners can do is first recognize whats been said here, and
elsewhere many times, and pay attention to it.
Then get out of the way and go find some real productive things to do, with
their own money.

You are all discussing bad planning

[george conklin]

Post by Ken S. Tucker

Post by ++

Post by 3D Peruna

Post by george conklin
Correct. Planners worship small stores, high prices, central
business distracts far from your house (but in the Politically
Correct place), but those walkable stores should be small,
high-priced, and locally-owned selling their imported goods at high
markups.

Planners don't know crap.

them's fight'n' words ( ]8> |)= (emoticon 4 them's fight'n' words)

Post by 3D Peruna
I still haven't found a viable "planned" community any place on the
earth. 99% of planners won't acknowledge human nature in their
planning...the "keeping up with the Joneses", the "I don't want to
walk in the rain", the "I can't afford to pay $25.00 for a book when I
can get it for $15.00 with shipping on Amazon." Sure, they're filled
with lots of theories about why places they like work. They're all
wrong. Why do I say that, because they can't make a new place work
like an old place. The sense of place must happen over a time span.

pennywise, stripmall foolish....

I'm inclined to agree with everybody.
A community is not static, it evolves and is
dynamic and flexible. The best "pre-planning"
can do is respect that.
It's variables of economics, demographics etc.
That's why I respect trailer parks, they're
adaptable, and permit mobility at low cost,
but of course I'm a bit of gyspy.
Ken

One-third of new housing in NC is what we used to call trailers. They are
cost-effective for many people.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by george conklin

Post by Ken S. Tucker
I'm inclined to agree with everybody.
A community is not static, it evolves and is
dynamic and flexible. The best "pre-planning"
can do is respect that.
It's variables of economics, demographics etc.
That's why I respect trailer parks, they're
adaptable, and permit mobility at low cost,
but of course I'm a bit of gyspy.
Ken

One-third of new housing in NC is what we used to call trailers. They are
cost-effective for many people.

No, they are presented in such a way that people believe they are
cost-effective, which is not the same thing. Then, five years out, they
realize their trailer they are paying an extra 5% interest rate to own is
worth about half what they owe on it.

-Amy

[george conklin]

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by george conklin

Post by Ken S. Tucker
I'm inclined to agree with everybody.
A community is not static, it evolves and is
dynamic and flexible. The best "pre-planning"
can do is respect that.
It's variables of economics, demographics etc.
That's why I respect trailer parks, they're
adaptable, and permit mobility at low cost,
but of course I'm a bit of gyspy.
Ken

One-third of new housing in NC is what we used to call trailers. They
are cost-effective for many people.

No, they are presented in such a way that people believe they are
cost-effective, which is not the same thing. Then, five years out, they
realize their trailer they are paying an extra 5% interest rate to own is
worth about half what they owe on it.
-Amy

I know you are emotional on this point, but it beats rent in the opinion of
the buyers.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by george conklin

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by george conklin

Post by Ken S. Tucker
I'm inclined to agree with everybody.
A community is not static, it evolves and is
dynamic and flexible. The best "pre-planning"
can do is respect that.
It's variables of economics, demographics etc.
That's why I respect trailer parks, they're
adaptable, and permit mobility at low cost,
but of course I'm a bit of gyspy.
Ken

One-third of new housing in NC is what we used to call trailers. They
are cost-effective for many people.

No, they are presented in such a way that people believe they are
cost-effective, which is not the same thing. Then, five years out, they
realize their trailer they are paying an extra 5% interest rate to own is
worth about half what they owe on it.
-Amy

I know you are emotional on this point, but it beats rent in the opinion
of the buyers.

In most places that you could put a trailer, you could have a better house
for the same monthly payment. A house that would appreciate.

[Pat]

On Oct 11, 8:18 pm, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by george conklin

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by george conklin

Post by Ken S. Tucker
I'm inclined to agree with everybody.
A community is not static, it evolves and is
dynamic and flexible. The best "pre-planning"
can do is respect that.
It's variables of economics, demographics etc.
That's why I respect trailer parks, they're
adaptable, and permit mobility at low cost,
but of course I'm a bit of gyspy.
Ken

One-third of new housing in NC is what we used to call trailers. They
are cost-effective for many people.

No, they are presented in such a way that people believe they are
cost-effective, which is not the same thing. Then, five years out, they
realize their trailer they are paying an extra 5% interest rate to own is
worth about half what they owe on it.
-Amy

I know you are emotional on this point, but it beats rent in the opinion
of the buyers.

In most places that you could put a trailer, you could have a better house
for the same monthly payment. A house that would appreciate.

Trailers don't do too well around here, but modular homes appreciate
that same as site-built homes -- in fact they may appreciates more
because they cost less to start with.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Pat
On Oct 11, 8:18 pm, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by george conklin

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by george conklin

Post by Ken S. Tucker
I'm inclined to agree with everybody.
A community is not static, it evolves and is
dynamic and flexible. The best "pre-planning"
can do is respect that.
It's variables of economics, demographics etc.
That's why I respect trailer parks, they're
adaptable, and permit mobility at low cost,
but of course I'm a bit of gyspy.
Ken

One-third of new housing in NC is what we used to call trailers.
They
are cost-effective for many people.

No, they are presented in such a way that people believe they are
cost-effective, which is not the same thing. Then, five years out, they
realize their trailer they are paying an extra 5% interest rate to own is
worth about half what they owe on it.
-Amy

I know you are emotional on this point, but it beats rent in the opinion
of the buyers.

In most places that you could put a trailer, you could have a better house
for the same monthly payment. A house that would appreciate.

Trailers don't do too well around here, but modular homes appreciate
that same as site-built homes -- in fact they may appreciates more
because they cost less to start with.

Modular homes are not the same as trailers, either in quality or the
financials involved.

[Don]

Post by Amy Blankenship
In most places that you could put a trailer, you could have a better house
for the same monthly payment. A house that would appreciate.

I always heard there were unsurmountable zoning obstacles to building a SFR
in a mobile home community.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Don

Post by Amy Blankenship
In most places that you could put a trailer, you could have a better
house for the same monthly payment. A house that would appreciate.

I always heard there were unsurmountable zoning obstacles to building a
SFR in a mobile home community.

I meant in the general area (part of town or rural community) not literally
in the trailer park.

[++]

Post by george conklin
One-third of new housing in NC is what we used to call trailers. They are
cost-effective for many people.

Nothing wrong with trailers or nomadic existences.

[Don]

Post by ++

Post by george conklin
One-third of new housing in NC is what we used to call trailers. They are
cost-effective for many people.

Nothing wrong with trailers or nomadic existences.

Just yesterday I was starring in awe at a 55' motorized trailer that had the
name *Prevost* plastered across the front in gold.
It was every bit of $500k's worth.
It even had a little retractable garage in the bottom with a brand new red
Mercedes (Kompressor) 2 seater in it and a refurbished-mint BMW R45.

[Don]

Post by george conklin

Post by Ken S. Tucker

Post by ++

Post by 3D Peruna

Post by george conklin
Correct. Planners worship small stores, high prices, central
business distracts far from your house (but in the Politically
Correct place), but those walkable stores should be small,
high-priced, and locally-owned selling their imported goods at high
markups.

Planners don't know crap.

them's fight'n' words ( ]8> |)= (emoticon 4 them's fight'n' words)

Post by 3D Peruna
I still haven't found a viable "planned" community any place on the
earth. 99% of planners won't acknowledge human nature in their
planning...the "keeping up with the Joneses", the "I don't want to
walk in the rain", the "I can't afford to pay $25.00 for a book when I
can get it for $15.00 with shipping on Amazon." Sure, they're filled
with lots of theories about why places they like work. They're all
wrong. Why do I say that, because they can't make a new place work
like an old place. The sense of place must happen over a time span.

pennywise, stripmall foolish....

I'm inclined to agree with everybody.
A community is not static, it evolves and is
dynamic and flexible. The best "pre-planning"
can do is respect that.
It's variables of economics, demographics etc.
That's why I respect trailer parks, they're
adaptable, and permit mobility at low cost,
but of course I'm a bit of gyspy.
Ken

One-third of new housing in NC is what we used to call trailers. They are
cost-effective for many people.

There's much of that around here too, but they call it modular housing.
Looks alot like a mobile home but no wheels.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Ken S. Tucker

Post by ++

Post by 3D Peruna

Post by george conklin
Correct. Planners worship small stores, high prices, central
business distracts far from your house (but in the Politically
Correct place), but those walkable stores should be small,
high-priced, and locally-owned selling their imported goods at high
markups.

Planners don't know crap.

them's fight'n' words ( ]8> |)= (emoticon 4 them's fight'n' words)

Post by 3D Peruna
I still haven't found a viable "planned" community any place on the
earth. 99% of planners won't acknowledge human nature in their
planning...the "keeping up with the Joneses", the "I don't want to
walk in the rain", the "I can't afford to pay $25.00 for a book when I
can get it for $15.00 with shipping on Amazon." Sure, they're filled
with lots of theories about why places they like work. They're all
wrong. Why do I say that, because they can't make a new place work
like an old place. The sense of place must happen over a time span.

pennywise, stripmall foolish....

I'm inclined to agree with everybody.
A community is not static, it evolves and is
dynamic and flexible. The best "pre-planning"
can do is respect that.
It's variables of economics, demographics etc.
That's why I respect trailer parks, they're
adaptable, and permit mobility at low cost,
but of course I'm a bit of gyspy.

Trailers are not a low cost housing alternative unless you get one that is
old enough to be paid off.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Oct 11, 12:54 pm, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Ken S. Tucker

Post by ++

Post by 3D Peruna

Post by george conklin
Correct. Planners worship small stores, high prices, central
business distracts far from your house (but in the Politically
Correct place), but those walkable stores should be small,
high-priced, and locally-owned selling their imported goods at high
markups.

Planners don't know crap.

them's fight'n' words ( ]8> |)= (emoticon 4 them's fight'n' words)

Post by 3D Peruna
I still haven't found a viable "planned" community any place on the
earth. 99% of planners won't acknowledge human nature in their
planning...the "keeping up with the Joneses", the "I don't want to
walk in the rain", the "I can't afford to pay $25.00 for a book when I
can get it for $15.00 with shipping on Amazon." Sure, they're filled
with lots of theories about why places they like work. They're all
wrong. Why do I say that, because they can't make a new place work
like an old place. The sense of place must happen over a time span.

pennywise, stripmall foolish....

I'm inclined to agree with everybody.
A community is not static, it evolves and is
dynamic and flexible. The best "pre-planning"
can do is respect that.
It's variables of economics, demographics etc.
That's why I respect trailer parks, they're
adaptable, and permit mobility at low cost,
but of course I'm a bit of gyspy.

Trailers are not a low cost housing alternative unless you get one that is
old enough to be paid off.

America, meaning continental USA is unique.
American's are very mobile and flexible and
that labor flux lubricates the national economy.

I recently watched "How the West was Won"
with the "praire ships" aka "covered wagons",
and that mobility seems to still be a cultural
part of America today. It's seems a bit pricey
to flip McMansions, you know, all that re-
decorating 4000 sq.ft and all, so I think trailer
parks serves an important niche to the wander-
ing American and it's economy.

Next, having travelled America, I do respect
it's uniformity of standards. A Wendys in
Seattle is like a Wendy's in Florida with some
nice local variations, but at least I can speak
english or just point and nod.

America is great, I'd like to respect that, and
then criticize what's wrong with that, carefully.
Smoochies
Ken

[Don]

Post by Ken S. Tucker
On Oct 11, 12:54 pm, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Ken S. Tucker

Post by ++

Post by 3D Peruna

Post by george conklin
Correct. Planners worship small stores, high prices, central
business distracts far from your house (but in the Politically
Correct place), but those walkable stores should be small,
high-priced, and locally-owned selling their imported goods at high
markups.

Planners don't know crap.

them's fight'n' words ( ]8> |)= (emoticon 4 them's fight'n' words)

Post by 3D Peruna
I still haven't found a viable "planned" community any place on the
earth. 99% of planners won't acknowledge human nature in their
planning...the "keeping up with the Joneses", the "I don't want to
walk in the rain", the "I can't afford to pay $25.00 for a book when I
can get it for $15.00 with shipping on Amazon." Sure, they're filled
with lots of theories about why places they like work. They're all
wrong. Why do I say that, because they can't make a new place work
like an old place. The sense of place must happen over a time span.

pennywise, stripmall foolish....

I'm inclined to agree with everybody.
A community is not static, it evolves and is
dynamic and flexible. The best "pre-planning"
can do is respect that.
It's variables of economics, demographics etc.
That's why I respect trailer parks, they're
adaptable, and permit mobility at low cost,
but of course I'm a bit of gyspy.

Trailers are not a low cost housing alternative unless you get one that is
old enough to be paid off.

America, meaning continental USA is unique.
American's are very mobile and flexible and
that labor flux lubricates the national economy.
I recently watched "How the West was Won"
with the "praire ships" aka "covered wagons",
and that mobility seems to still be a cultural
part of America today. It's seems a bit pricey
to flip McMansions, you know, all that re-
decorating 4000 sq.ft and all, so I think trailer
parks serves an important niche to the wander-
ing American and it's economy.
Next, having travelled America, I do respect
it's uniformity of standards. A Wendys in
Seattle is like a Wendy's in Florida with some
nice local variations, but at least I can speak
english or just point and nod.
America is great, I'd like to respect that, and
then criticize what's wrong with that, carefully.
Smoochies
Ken

I've been known to partake of their value menu on occaision.
Salad w/ Ranch: $.99
Baked Potato: $.99
Small Chili: $.99
Water: Free
Total: $3.15
Now where else, besides home, can you tear up that much grub for that kinda
coin?

[Ken S. Tucker]

Post by Don

Post by Ken S. Tucker
On Oct 11, 12:54 pm, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Ken S. Tucker

Post by ++

Post by 3D Peruna

Post by george conklin
Correct. Planners worship small stores, high prices, central
business distracts far from your house (but in the Politically
Correct place), but those walkable stores should be small,
high-priced, and locally-owned selling their imported goods at high
markups.

Planners don't know crap.

them's fight'n' words ( ]8> |)= (emoticon 4 them's fight'n' words)

Post by 3D Peruna
I still haven't found a viable "planned" community any place on the
earth. 99% of planners won't acknowledge human nature in their
planning...the "keeping up with the Joneses", the "I don't want to
walk in the rain", the "I can't afford to pay $25.00 for a book when I
can get it for $15.00 with shipping on Amazon." Sure, they're filled
with lots of theories about why places they like work. They're all
wrong. Why do I say that, because they can't make a new place work
like an old place. The sense of place must happen over a time span.

pennywise, stripmall foolish....

I'm inclined to agree with everybody.
A community is not static, it evolves and is
dynamic and flexible. The best "pre-planning"
can do is respect that.
It's variables of economics, demographics etc.
That's why I respect trailer parks, they're
adaptable, and permit mobility at low cost,
but of course I'm a bit of gyspy.

Trailers are not a low cost housing alternative unless you get one that is
old enough to be paid off.

America, meaning continental USA is unique.
American's are very mobile and flexible and
that labor flux lubricates the national economy.
I recently watched "How the West was Won"
with the "praire ships" aka "covered wagons",
and that mobility seems to still be a cultural
part of America today. It's seems a bit pricey
to flip McMansions, you know, all that re-
decorating 4000 sq.ft and all, so I think trailer
parks serves an important niche to the wander-
ing American and it's economy.
Next, having travelled America, I do respect
it's uniformity of standards. A Wendys in
Seattle is like a Wendy's in Florida with some
nice local variations, but at least I can speak
english or just point and nod.
America is great, I'd like to respect that, and
then criticize what's wrong with that, carefully.
Smoochies
Ken

I've been known to partake of their value menu on occaision.
Salad w/ Ranch: $.99
Baked Potato: $.99
Small Chili: $.99
Water: Free
Total: $3.15
Now where else, besides home, can you tear up that much grub for that kinda
coin?

There's a lot to be said in favor of "fast food"
diners where efficiency is concerned, I look
at them as a common cafeteria. Why have
10 people making 10 meals in 10 kitchens
when you can have 1 person making 10
meals in one kitchen, straight numbers,
and it's good for the community too.
Ken

[EDS]

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Ken S. Tucker

Post by ++

Post by 3D Peruna

Post by george conklin
Correct. Planners worship small stores, high prices, central
business distracts far from your house (but in the Politically
Correct place), but those walkable stores should be small,
high-priced, and locally-owned selling their imported goods at high
markups.

Planners don't know crap.

them's fight'n' words ( ]8> |)= (emoticon 4 them's fight'n' words)

Post by 3D Peruna
I still haven't found a viable "planned" community any place on the
earth. 99% of planners won't acknowledge human nature in their
planning...the "keeping up with the Joneses", the "I don't want to
walk in the rain", the "I can't afford to pay $25.00 for a book when I
can get it for $15.00 with shipping on Amazon." Sure, they're filled
with lots of theories about why places they like work. They're all
wrong. Why do I say that, because they can't make a new place work
like an old place. The sense of place must happen over a time span.

pennywise, stripmall foolish....

I'm inclined to agree with everybody.
A community is not static, it evolves and is
dynamic and flexible. The best "pre-planning"
can do is respect that.
It's variables of economics, demographics etc.
That's why I respect trailer parks, they're
adaptable, and permit mobility at low cost,
but of course I'm a bit of gyspy.

Trailers are not a low cost housing alternative unless you get one that is
old enough to be paid off.

I did some work for the dept. of energy about improving the r-value and
structural integrity of mobile homes. The structure of most of them was
cheap and shoddy with some made of flake board ("heavier means stronger"
according to the manufacturer). The insulation was poor to invisible. The
draft resistance was nil. Modular homes were much better. I visited quit a
few modular homes up in the North country of Maine, Vermont, and NH. Many
units that sat on their own land had been up-graded with new exterior walls,
peaked roofs, insulation, and frost walls below the units. These owners
spent as much again on improving their trailer as it cost originally. Where
were the savings for the Owners?
EDS

[EDS]

Post by EDS

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Ken S. Tucker

Post by ++

Post by 3D Peruna

Post by george conklin
Correct. Planners worship small stores, high prices, central
business distracts far from your house (but in the Politically
Correct place), but those walkable stores should be small,
high-priced, and locally-owned selling their imported goods at high
markups.

Planners don't know crap.

them's fight'n' words ( ]8> |)= (emoticon 4 them's fight'n' words)

Post by 3D Peruna
I still haven't found a viable "planned" community any place on the
earth. 99% of planners won't acknowledge human nature in their
planning...the "keeping up with the Joneses", the "I don't want to
walk in the rain", the "I can't afford to pay $25.00 for a book when I
can get it for $15.00 with shipping on Amazon." Sure, they're filled
with lots of theories about why places they like work. They're all
wrong. Why do I say that, because they can't make a new place work
like an old place. The sense of place must happen over a time span.

pennywise, stripmall foolish....

I'm inclined to agree with everybody.
A community is not static, it evolves and is
dynamic and flexible. The best "pre-planning"
can do is respect that.
It's variables of economics, demographics etc.
That's why I respect trailer parks, they're
adaptable, and permit mobility at low cost,
but of course I'm a bit of gyspy.

Trailers are not a low cost housing alternative unless you get one that
is old enough to be paid off.

I did some work for the dept. of energy about improving the r-value and
structural integrity of mobile homes. The structure of most of them was
cheap and shoddy with some made of flake board ("heavier means stronger"
according to the manufacturer). The insulation was poor to invisible. The
draft resistance was nil. Modular homes were much better. I visited quit a
few modular homes up in the North country of Maine, Vermont, and NH. Many
units that sat on their own land had been up-graded with new exterior
walls, peaked roofs, insulation, and frost walls below the units. These
owners spent as much again on improving their trailer as it cost
originally. Where were the savings for the Owners?
EDS

Oops, Should have said "I visited quite a few mobile homes..."
EDS

[Don]

Post by ++

Post by 3D Peruna

Post by george conklin
Correct. Planners worship small stores, high prices, central business
distracts far from your house (but in the Politically Correct place),
but those walkable stores should be small, high-priced, and
locally-owned selling their imported goods at high markups.

Planners don't know crap.

them's fight'n' words ( ]8> |)= (emoticon 4 them's fight'n' words)

Post by 3D Peruna
I still haven't found a viable "planned" community any place on the
earth. 99% of planners won't acknowledge human nature in their
planning...the "keeping up with the Joneses", the "I don't want to walk
in the rain", the "I can't afford to pay $25.00 for a book when I can get
it for $15.00 with shipping on Amazon." Sure, they're filled with lots
of theories about why places they like work. They're all wrong. Why do I
say that, because they can't make a new place work like an old place.
The sense of place must happen over a time span.

pennywise, stripmall foolish....

The market will always have its was, as its created by the aggregate
thinking of millions of people.
Over the past 40 years I've watched 3 downtown redevelopments in Fort Myers,
FL all of which were *planned* by people like what Paul described and each
of them failed to live up to the expectations and fell into quick disrepair.
During this same period I've watched a huge *inside* mall flourish and
several *outside* malls fail.
Again, Paul gets it right.
People do not want to walk long distances outside to spend their money, if
they don't have to.
Strip plazas work because people can drive to them, and walk if they live
close enough, and if 1 of the tenants fails the whole building doesn't fail
and the turnover is pretty quick when a tenant fails.
People, shoppers, have been showing for decades what they prefer yet the
*planners* ignore them and go down a different path thats funded largely by
the taxpayers.
And don't get me started on the dilapidated housing that always lurks within
spitting distance of all these redevelopments.
Seems planners are quite myopic, literally.

[george conklin]

Post by Don

Post by ++

Post by 3D Peruna

Post by george conklin
Correct. Planners worship small stores, high prices, central
business distracts far from your house (but in the Politically Correct
place), but those walkable stores should be small, high-priced, and
locally-owned selling their imported goods at high markups.

Planners don't know crap.

them's fight'n' words ( ]8> |)= (emoticon 4 them's fight'n' words)

Post by 3D Peruna
I still haven't found a viable "planned" community any place on the
earth. 99% of planners won't acknowledge human nature in their
planning...the "keeping up with the Joneses", the "I don't want to walk
in the rain", the "I can't afford to pay $25.00 for a book when I can
get it for $15.00 with shipping on Amazon." Sure, they're filled with
lots of theories about why places they like work. They're all wrong.
Why do I say that, because they can't make a new place work like an old
place. The sense of place must happen over a time span.

pennywise, stripmall foolish....

The market will always have its was, as its created by the aggregate
thinking of millions of people.
Over the past 40 years I've watched 3 downtown redevelopments in Fort
Myers, FL all of which were *planned* by people like what Paul described
and each of them failed to live up to the expectations and fell into quick
disrepair.
During this same period I've watched a huge *inside* mall flourish and
several *outside* malls fail.
Again, Paul gets it right.
People do not want to walk long distances outside to spend their money, if
they don't have to.
Strip plazas work because people can drive to them, and walk if they live
close enough, and if 1 of the tenants fails the whole building doesn't
fail and the turnover is pretty quick when a tenant fails.
People, shoppers, have been showing for decades what they prefer yet the
*planners* ignore them and go down a different path thats funded largely
by the taxpayers.
And don't get me started on the dilapidated housing that always lurks
within spitting distance of all these redevelopments.
Seems planners are quite myopic, literally.

Strip malls are what our local planners cite as one of the things to be
discouraged at all costs. Why? I am not sure.

[3D Peruna]

Post by george conklin
Strip malls are what our local planners cite as one of the things to be
discouraged at all costs. Why? I am not sure.

It's because it's hard to make a strip mall "architectural". We've been
involved with a few of them over the years and they all are dressed up
according the current architectural fashion. It's not too expensive to
remake them, either, when fashion changes.

Planners don't like them because planners have been indoctrinated in
school that the car is evil and the source of all the world's evils.
Get rid of cars and the world will be a happier, better place. A strip
mall is only accessible to cars.

Strip malls are the very definition of capitalism. They exist because
they work in the current economic system.

I've told this story before: Whilst in architecture graduate school I
had a professor who spent several lectures railing against the strip
mall. In all seriousness, I asked him what his alternative would
be--but he had to make the numbers work: the developer of the property
had to make money. He was not happy...I'm surprised I passed the class.
For all his railing and ranting he could not provide us with a viable
economic alternative to a strip mall.

[george conklin]

Post by 3D Peruna

Post by george conklin
Strip malls are what our local planners cite as one of the things to be
discouraged at all costs. Why? I am not sure.

It's because it's hard to make a strip mall "architectural". We've been
involved with a few of them over the years and they all are dressed up
according the current architectural fashion. It's not too expensive to
remake them, either, when fashion changes.
Planners don't like them because planners have been indoctrinated in
school that the car is evil and the source of all the world's evils. Get
rid of cars and the world will be a happier, better place. A strip mall
is only accessible to cars.
Strip malls are the very definition of capitalism. They exist because
they work in the current economic system.
I've told this story before: Whilst in architecture graduate school I had
a professor who spent several lectures railing against the strip mall. In
all seriousness, I asked him what his alternative would be--but he had to
make the numbers work: the developer of the property had to make money.
He was not happy...I'm surprised I passed the class. For all his railing
and ranting he could not provide us with a viable economic alternative to
a strip mall.

Well, yes, it seems that many planners come from an architecture background.
But as you say putting huge amounts of extra money into a building so it
looks pretty to someone who is into fancy buildings does not pay unless you
want to charge the customers huge amounts of extra money. Do you have any
way of estimating how much extra would be required?

[Don]

Post by george conklin

Post by 3D Peruna

Post by george conklin
Strip malls are what our local planners cite as one of the things to be
discouraged at all costs. Why? I am not sure.

It's because it's hard to make a strip mall "architectural". We've been
involved with a few of them over the years and they all are dressed up
according the current architectural fashion. It's not too expensive to
remake them, either, when fashion changes.
Planners don't like them because planners have been indoctrinated in
school that the car is evil and the source of all the world's evils. Get
rid of cars and the world will be a happier, better place. A strip mall
is only accessible to cars.
Strip malls are the very definition of capitalism. They exist because
they work in the current economic system.
I've told this story before: Whilst in architecture graduate school I
had a professor who spent several lectures railing against the strip
mall. In all seriousness, I asked him what his alternative would be--but
he had to make the numbers work: the developer of the property had to
make money. He was not happy...I'm surprised I passed the class. For all
his railing and ranting he could not provide us with a viable economic
alternative to a strip mall.

Well, yes, it seems that many planners come from an architecture
background. But as you say putting huge amounts of extra money into a
building so it looks pretty to someone who is into fancy buildings does
not pay unless you want to charge the customers huge amounts of extra
money. Do you have any way of estimating how much extra would be
required?

Depending on the local prevading rules I'd guess on the high side it could
run up to 20% to 50% of the total cost, maybe more.
Usually the restrictions, er rules, include things like green
beautifications and other parking lot issues as well as the possibility of
altering the footprint to get that oh so presentable *staggered* effect.
In my opinion it should be left entirely up to the owner of the building as
the cost of the building will dictate the prices of the leases and therefore
channel the market as to whom actually uses the individual units.
I've seen situations in Cape Coral, FL where the SS style restrictions
priced the building out of reach of the property owners, who then sold the
properties and moved on.
The trend there lately, for the past few years, has been to make the green
restrictions so severe as to render the entire property unuseable unless the
building is constructed as a 2 or more story, in order get the desired
square footage, which then neccessitates a whole host of additional expenses
to the property owner, elevators, multiples means of egress, ADA, fire
applications and on and on and on.
Sticking a restaurant in a strip mall really slams the parking lot issues.

[++]

Post by george conklin
Strip malls are what our local planners cite as one of the things to be
discouraged at all costs. Why? I am not sure.

Walmart, Dollar Store, Fast Food Chicken, YetAnotherNewBank, Mickey D,
DryCleaner, Brand Name Store, Outlet
Dollar Store, YetAnotherNewBank, Walmart, YetAnotherNewBank,
YetAnotherNewBank, Mickey D, Fast Food Chicken
Dollar Store, Fast Food Chicken, YetAnotherNewBank, DryCleaner, Brand
Name Store, Walmart,Mickey D

etc.

[george conklin]

Post by ++

Post by george conklin
Strip malls are what our local planners cite as one of the things to be
discouraged at all costs. Why? I am not sure.

Walmart, Dollar Store, Fast Food Chicken, YetAnotherNewBank, Mickey D,
DryCleaner, Brand Name Store, Outlet
Dollar Store, YetAnotherNewBank, Walmart, YetAnotherNewBank,
YetAnotherNewBank, Mickey D, Fast Food Chicken
Dollar Store, Fast Food Chicken, YetAnotherNewBank, DryCleaner, Brand Name
Store, Walmart,Mickey D
etc.

What is your problem?

[Pat]

Post by ++

Post by george conklin
Strip malls are what our local planners cite as one of the things to be
discouraged at all costs. Why? I am not sure.

Walmart, Dollar Store, Fast Food Chicken, YetAnotherNewBank, Mickey D,
DryCleaner, Brand Name Store, Outlet
Dollar Store, YetAnotherNewBank, Walmart, YetAnotherNewBank,
YetAnotherNewBank, Mickey D, Fast Food Chicken
Dollar Store, Fast Food Chicken, YetAnotherNewBank, DryCleaner, Brand
Name Store, Walmart,Mickey D
etc.

But obviously that is what a lot of people want. It is the Vox Humana.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Pat

Post by ++

Post by george conklin
Strip malls are what our local planners cite as one of the things to be
discouraged at all costs. Why? I am not sure.

Walmart, Dollar Store, Fast Food Chicken, YetAnotherNewBank, Mickey D,
DryCleaner, Brand Name Store, Outlet
Dollar Store, YetAnotherNewBank, Walmart, YetAnotherNewBank,
YetAnotherNewBank, Mickey D, Fast Food Chicken
Dollar Store, Fast Food Chicken, YetAnotherNewBank, DryCleaner, Brand
Name Store, Walmart,Mickey D
etc.

But obviously that is what a lot of people want. It is the Vox Humana.

A lot of people want to smoke cigarettes, too.

[Sancho Panza]

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat

Post by ++

Post by george conklin
Strip malls are what our local planners cite as one of the things to be
discouraged at all costs. Why? I am not sure.

Walmart, Dollar Store, Fast Food Chicken, YetAnotherNewBank, Mickey D,
DryCleaner, Brand Name Store, Outlet
Dollar Store, YetAnotherNewBank, Walmart, YetAnotherNewBank,
YetAnotherNewBank, Mickey D, Fast Food Chicken
Dollar Store, Fast Food Chicken, YetAnotherNewBank, DryCleaner, Brand
Name Store, Walmart,Mickey D
etc.

But obviously that is what a lot of people want. It is the Vox Humana.

A lot of people want to smoke cigarettes, too.

Which cancer, or similar catastrophic disease, do strip malls cause?

[george conklin]

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat

Post by ++

Post by george conklin
Strip malls are what our local planners cite as one of the things to be
discouraged at all costs. Why? I am not sure.

Walmart, Dollar Store, Fast Food Chicken, YetAnotherNewBank, Mickey D,
DryCleaner, Brand Name Store, Outlet
Dollar Store, YetAnotherNewBank, Walmart, YetAnotherNewBank,
YetAnotherNewBank, Mickey D, Fast Food Chicken
Dollar Store, Fast Food Chicken, YetAnotherNewBank, DryCleaner, Brand
Name Store, Walmart,Mickey D
etc.

But obviously that is what a lot of people want. It is the Vox Humana.

A lot of people want to smoke cigarettes, too.

Which cancer, or similar catastrophic disease, do strip malls cause?

Strip malls cause the usual urban planner to get high blood pressure and
therefore must be banned as a health hazard.

[Don]

Post by george conklin

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat

Post by ++

Post by george conklin
Strip malls are what our local planners cite as one of the things to be
discouraged at all costs. Why? I am not sure.

Walmart, Dollar Store, Fast Food Chicken, YetAnotherNewBank, Mickey D,
DryCleaner, Brand Name Store, Outlet
Dollar Store, YetAnotherNewBank, Walmart, YetAnotherNewBank,
YetAnotherNewBank, Mickey D, Fast Food Chicken
Dollar Store, Fast Food Chicken, YetAnotherNewBank, DryCleaner, Brand
Name Store, Walmart,Mickey D
etc.

But obviously that is what a lot of people want. It is the Vox Humana.

A lot of people want to smoke cigarettes, too.

Which cancer, or similar catastrophic disease, do strip malls cause?

Strip malls cause the usual urban planner to get high blood pressure and
therefore must be banned as a health hazard.

LOL

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat

Post by ++

Post by george conklin
Strip malls are what our local planners cite as one of the things to be
discouraged at all costs. Why? I am not sure.

Walmart, Dollar Store, Fast Food Chicken, YetAnotherNewBank, Mickey D,
DryCleaner, Brand Name Store, Outlet
Dollar Store, YetAnotherNewBank, Walmart, YetAnotherNewBank,
YetAnotherNewBank, Mickey D, Fast Food Chicken
Dollar Store, Fast Food Chicken, YetAnotherNewBank, DryCleaner, Brand
Name Store, Walmart,Mickey D
etc.

But obviously that is what a lot of people want. It is the Vox Humana.

A lot of people want to smoke cigarettes, too.

Which cancer, or similar catastrophic disease, do strip malls cause?

They cause excessive fuel consumption, which has been associated with many
health problems, including asthma.

[Pat]

On Oct 12, 9:52 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat

Post by ++

Post by george conklin
Strip malls are what our local planners cite as one of the things to be
discouraged at all costs. Why? I am not sure.

Walmart, Dollar Store, Fast Food Chicken, YetAnotherNewBank, Mickey D,
DryCleaner, Brand Name Store, Outlet
Dollar Store, YetAnotherNewBank, Walmart, YetAnotherNewBank,
YetAnotherNewBank, Mickey D, Fast Food Chicken
Dollar Store, Fast Food Chicken, YetAnotherNewBank, DryCleaner, Brand
Name Store, Walmart,Mickey D
etc.

But obviously that is what a lot of people want. It is the Vox Humana.

A lot of people want to smoke cigarettes, too.

Which cancer, or similar catastrophic disease, do strip malls cause?

They cause excessive fuel consumption, which has been associated with many
health problems, including asthma.

I would think, considering the number of people who live in the
suburbs, that having multiple, smaller, strip malls at decentralized
locations would significantly cut down on gas consumption; rather than
having everyone drive to a centralized location for shopping. Why
travel to pick up milk or dry cleaning, or videos, or to bank when you
can conveniently do it right around the corner.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Pat
On Oct 12, 9:52 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat

Post by ++

Post by george conklin
Strip malls are what our local planners cite as one of the things
to
be
discouraged at all costs. Why? I am not sure.

Walmart, Dollar Store, Fast Food Chicken, YetAnotherNewBank, Mickey D,
DryCleaner, Brand Name Store, Outlet
Dollar Store, YetAnotherNewBank, Walmart, YetAnotherNewBank,
YetAnotherNewBank, Mickey D, Fast Food Chicken
Dollar Store, Fast Food Chicken, YetAnotherNewBank, DryCleaner, Brand
Name Store, Walmart,Mickey D
etc.

But obviously that is what a lot of people want. It is the Vox Humana.

A lot of people want to smoke cigarettes, too.

Which cancer, or similar catastrophic disease, do strip malls cause?

They cause excessive fuel consumption, which has been associated with many
health problems, including asthma.

I would think, considering the number of people who live in the
suburbs, that having multiple, smaller, strip malls at decentralized
locations would significantly cut down on gas consumption; rather than
having everyone drive to a centralized location for shopping. Why
travel to pick up milk or dry cleaning, or videos, or to bank when you
can conveniently do it right around the corner.

I'm all for local shopping, but the strip mall form enforces driving to
them. I thought you hated local shops close to your home due to the high
prices?

[Pat]

On Oct 12, 10:05 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat
On Oct 12, 9:52 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat

Post by ++

Post by george conklin
Strip malls are what our local planners cite as one of the things
to
be
discouraged at all costs. Why? I am not sure.

Walmart, Dollar Store, Fast Food Chicken, YetAnotherNewBank, Mickey D,
DryCleaner, Brand Name Store, Outlet
Dollar Store, YetAnotherNewBank, Walmart, YetAnotherNewBank,
YetAnotherNewBank, Mickey D, Fast Food Chicken
Dollar Store, Fast Food Chicken, YetAnotherNewBank, DryCleaner, Brand
Name Store, Walmart,Mickey D
etc.

But obviously that is what a lot of people want. It is the Vox Humana.

A lot of people want to smoke cigarettes, too.

Which cancer, or similar catastrophic disease, do strip malls cause?

They cause excessive fuel consumption, which has been associated with many
health problems, including asthma.

I would think, considering the number of people who live in the
suburbs, that having multiple, smaller, strip malls at decentralized
locations would significantly cut down on gas consumption; rather than
having everyone drive to a centralized location for shopping. Why
travel to pick up milk or dry cleaning, or videos, or to bank when you
can conveniently do it right around the corner.

I'm all for local shopping, but the strip mall form enforces driving to
them. I thought you hated local shops close to your home due to the high
prices?

I was talking about suburbs, convenience, and gasoline. I'll all for
choice. I'll frequent local shops (what few we have) when they are
reasonable. For example, I go to the local grocery store much more
than Walmart because it isn't worth the time/money to go to Walmart
for just a few things. For couple of things, it would be much more
expensive (ie burn more gas) to have to go to a centralized location
for everything than to go down the street.

Choice is a good thing. Planners getting off telling us what is good
for us is quite another story. If people want strip malls, they
should have the right to have strip malls -- they shouldn't be force
to go somewhere just because some planner thinks its a good idea.

[Sancho Panza]

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat

Post by ++

Post by george conklin
Strip malls are what our local planners cite as one of the things to be
discouraged at all costs. Why? I am not sure.

Walmart, Dollar Store, Fast Food Chicken, YetAnotherNewBank, Mickey D,
DryCleaner, Brand Name Store, Outlet
Dollar Store, YetAnotherNewBank, Walmart, YetAnotherNewBank,
YetAnotherNewBank, Mickey D, Fast Food Chicken
Dollar Store, Fast Food Chicken, YetAnotherNewBank, DryCleaner, Brand
Name Store, Walmart,Mickey D
etc.

But obviously that is what a lot of people want. It is the Vox Humana.

A lot of people want to smoke cigarettes, too.

Which cancer, or similar catastrophic disease, do strip malls cause?

They cause excessive fuel consumption, which has been associated with many
health problems, including asthma.

Equalizing cancer and asthma is really doing a disservice to cancer.

[george conklin]

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat

Post by ++

Post by george conklin
Strip malls are what our local planners cite as one of the things to be
discouraged at all costs. Why? I am not sure.

Walmart, Dollar Store, Fast Food Chicken, YetAnotherNewBank, Mickey D,
DryCleaner, Brand Name Store, Outlet
Dollar Store, YetAnotherNewBank, Walmart, YetAnotherNewBank,
YetAnotherNewBank, Mickey D, Fast Food Chicken
Dollar Store, Fast Food Chicken, YetAnotherNewBank, DryCleaner, Brand
Name Store, Walmart,Mickey D
etc.

But obviously that is what a lot of people want. It is the Vox Humana.

A lot of people want to smoke cigarettes, too.

It is amazing how many people think that high prices are the solution to
social issues.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by george conklin

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat

Post by ++

Post by george conklin
Strip malls are what our local planners cite as one of the things to be
discouraged at all costs. Why? I am not sure.

Walmart, Dollar Store, Fast Food Chicken, YetAnotherNewBank, Mickey D,
DryCleaner, Brand Name Store, Outlet
Dollar Store, YetAnotherNewBank, Walmart, YetAnotherNewBank,
YetAnotherNewBank, Mickey D, Fast Food Chicken
Dollar Store, Fast Food Chicken, YetAnotherNewBank, DryCleaner, Brand
Name Store, Walmart,Mickey D
etc.

But obviously that is what a lot of people want. It is the Vox Humana.

A lot of people want to smoke cigarettes, too.

It is amazing how many people think that high prices are the solution to
social issues.

It is amazing how many people think social issues can be solved by doing
nothing and pretending there is no problem.

[3D Peruna]

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by george conklin

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat

Post by ++

Post by george conklin
Strip malls are what our local planners cite as one of the things to be
discouraged at all costs. Why? I am not sure.

Walmart, Dollar Store, Fast Food Chicken, YetAnotherNewBank, Mickey D,
DryCleaner, Brand Name Store, Outlet
Dollar Store, YetAnotherNewBank, Walmart, YetAnotherNewBank,
YetAnotherNewBank, Mickey D, Fast Food Chicken
Dollar Store, Fast Food Chicken, YetAnotherNewBank, DryCleaner, Brand
Name Store, Walmart,Mickey D
etc.

But obviously that is what a lot of people want. It is the Vox Humana.

A lot of people want to smoke cigarettes, too.

It is amazing how many people think that high prices are the solution to
social issues.

It is amazing how many people think social issues can be solved by doing
nothing and pretending there is no problem.

Its even more amazing how many people still think planning and
architecture are solutions to social problems.

[Don]

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat

Post by ++

Post by george conklin
Strip malls are what our local planners cite as one of the things to be
discouraged at all costs. Why? I am not sure.

Walmart, Dollar Store, Fast Food Chicken, YetAnotherNewBank, Mickey D,
DryCleaner, Brand Name Store, Outlet
Dollar Store, YetAnotherNewBank, Walmart, YetAnotherNewBank,
YetAnotherNewBank, Mickey D, Fast Food Chicken
Dollar Store, Fast Food Chicken, YetAnotherNewBank, DryCleaner, Brand
Name Store, Walmart,Mickey D
etc.

But obviously that is what a lot of people want. It is the Vox Humana.

A lot of people want to smoke cigarettes, too.

And they should not be restricted from doing so.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Don

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat

Post by ++

Post by george conklin
Strip malls are what our local planners cite as one of the things to be
discouraged at all costs. Why? I am not sure.

Walmart, Dollar Store, Fast Food Chicken, YetAnotherNewBank, Mickey D,
DryCleaner, Brand Name Store, Outlet
Dollar Store, YetAnotherNewBank, Walmart, YetAnotherNewBank,
YetAnotherNewBank, Mickey D, Fast Food Chicken
Dollar Store, Fast Food Chicken, YetAnotherNewBank, DryCleaner, Brand
Name Store, Walmart,Mickey D
etc.

But obviously that is what a lot of people want. It is the Vox Humana.

A lot of people want to smoke cigarettes, too.

And they should not be restricted from doing so.

Sure, if they are willing _and able_ to foot the bill for their own medical
expenses and as long as they don't smoke where they pollute the air where
others who have not chosen to smoke are breathing, they can do what they
want. However, most smokers can't do the first and won't do the second.

[Don]

Post by george conklin

Post by Don

Post by ++

Post by 3D Peruna

Post by george conklin
Correct. Planners worship small stores, high prices, central
business distracts far from your house (but in the Politically Correct
place), but those walkable stores should be small, high-priced, and
locally-owned selling their imported goods at high markups.

Planners don't know crap.

them's fight'n' words ( ]8> |)= (emoticon 4 them's fight'n' words)

Post by 3D Peruna
I still haven't found a viable "planned" community any place on the
earth. 99% of planners won't acknowledge human nature in their
planning...the "keeping up with the Joneses", the "I don't want to walk
in the rain", the "I can't afford to pay $25.00 for a book when I can
get it for $15.00 with shipping on Amazon." Sure, they're filled with
lots of theories about why places they like work. They're all wrong.
Why do I say that, because they can't make a new place work like an old
place. The sense of place must happen over a time span.

pennywise, stripmall foolish....

The market will always have its was, as its created by the aggregate
thinking of millions of people.
Over the past 40 years I've watched 3 downtown redevelopments in Fort
Myers, FL all of which were *planned* by people like what Paul described
and each of them failed to live up to the expectations and fell into
quick disrepair.
During this same period I've watched a huge *inside* mall flourish and
several *outside* malls fail.
Again, Paul gets it right.
People do not want to walk long distances outside to spend their money,
if they don't have to.
Strip plazas work because people can drive to them, and walk if they live
close enough, and if 1 of the tenants fails the whole building doesn't
fail and the turnover is pretty quick when a tenant fails.
People, shoppers, have been showing for decades what they prefer yet the
*planners* ignore them and go down a different path thats funded largely
by the taxpayers.
And don't get me started on the dilapidated housing that always lurks
within spitting distance of all these redevelopments.
Seems planners are quite myopic, literally.

Strip malls are what our local planners cite as one of the things to be
discouraged at all costs. Why? I am not sure.

The worst things I can say about strip malls deals primarily with the
signage, or lack of.
Safe access to the parking lot is another issue that could be cleaned up
too.
In Port Charlotte, FL there consists of miles of strip malls along US 41 but
there is also an access road that runs parallel to 41 with turnoffs at all
redlights and a few in between.
They also have large towering signs at each strip with clearly printed logos
for each tenant, easily readible from 41 in a speeding CO2 emitter.
Now THATS the way to do a strip mall.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Don

Post by ++

Post by 3D Peruna

Post by george conklin
Correct. Planners worship small stores, high prices, central
business distracts far from your house (but in the Politically Correct
place), but those walkable stores should be small, high-priced, and
locally-owned selling their imported goods at high markups.

Planners don't know crap.

them's fight'n' words ( ]8> |)= (emoticon 4 them's fight'n' words)

Post by 3D Peruna
I still haven't found a viable "planned" community any place on the
earth. 99% of planners won't acknowledge human nature in their
planning...the "keeping up with the Joneses", the "I don't want to walk
in the rain", the "I can't afford to pay $25.00 for a book when I can
get it for $15.00 with shipping on Amazon." Sure, they're filled with
lots of theories about why places they like work. They're all wrong.
Why do I say that, because they can't make a new place work like an old
place. The sense of place must happen over a time span.

pennywise, stripmall foolish....

The market will always have its was, as its created by the aggregate
thinking of millions of people.
Over the past 40 years I've watched 3 downtown redevelopments in Fort
Myers, FL all of which were *planned* by people like what Paul described
and each of them failed to live up to the expectations and fell into quick
disrepair.
During this same period I've watched a huge *inside* mall flourish and
several *outside* malls fail.
Again, Paul gets it right.
People do not want to walk long distances outside to spend their money, if
they don't have to.

Tell that to the people of Copenhagen, or all the people who flock there to
do just that. If the place is designed properly, people _will_ walk large
distances, inside or out. The trick is to make it intimate so you don't
feel like you're going a long way. Probably the outdoor ones that failed
are like the one near me, where it is _possible_ to walk outside, if you're
willing to cross acres of empty parking lots with no sidewalks anywhere.
Inside malls work because they get the scale right.

Post by Don
Strip plazas work because people can drive to them, and walk if they live
close enough, and if 1 of the tenants fails the whole building doesn't
fail and the turnover is pretty quick when a tenant fails.
People, shoppers, have been showing for decades what they prefer yet the
*planners* ignore them and go down a different path thats funded largely
by the taxpayers.

They really haven't had the option of well-designed walkable spaces because
zoning actually has prohibited it in many places for about half a century.

Post by Don
And don't get me started on the dilapidated housing that always lurks
within spitting distance of all these redevelopments.
Seems planners are quite myopic, literally.

So, if you put nice developments within walking distance of the poor, you're
myopic? I suppose only the well-to-do deserve to have any place worth
shopping close to them.

[george conklin]

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Don

Post by ++

Post by 3D Peruna

Post by george conklin
Correct. Planners worship small stores, high prices, central
business distracts far from your house (but in the Politically Correct
place), but those walkable stores should be small, high-priced, and
locally-owned selling their imported goods at high markups.

Planners don't know crap.

them's fight'n' words ( ]8> |)= (emoticon 4 them's fight'n' words)

Post by 3D Peruna
I still haven't found a viable "planned" community any place on the
earth. 99% of planners won't acknowledge human nature in their
planning...the "keeping up with the Joneses", the "I don't want to walk
in the rain", the "I can't afford to pay $25.00 for a book when I can
get it for $15.00 with shipping on Amazon." Sure, they're filled with
lots of theories about why places they like work. They're all wrong.
Why do I say that, because they can't make a new place work like an old
place. The sense of place must happen over a time span.

pennywise, stripmall foolish....

The market will always have its was, as its created by the aggregate
thinking of millions of people.
Over the past 40 years I've watched 3 downtown redevelopments in Fort
Myers, FL all of which were *planned* by people like what Paul described
and each of them failed to live up to the expectations and fell into
quick disrepair.
During this same period I've watched a huge *inside* mall flourish and
several *outside* malls fail.
Again, Paul gets it right.
People do not want to walk long distances outside to spend their money,
if they don't have to.

Tell that to the people of Copenhagen, or all the people who flock there
to do just that. If the place is designed properly, people _will_ walk
large distances, inside or out. The trick is to make it intimate so you
don't feel like you're going a long way.

Intimate? A crowded city is the opposite of intimate. Remember the
first public transit, horses pulling street cars on rails at walking speeds,
were popular because even in 1830 people did NOT like to walk, and still
don't.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by george conklin

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Don

Post by ++

Post by 3D Peruna

Post by george conklin
Correct. Planners worship small stores, high prices, central
business distracts far from your house (but in the Politically
Correct place), but those walkable stores should be small,
high-priced, and locally-owned selling their imported goods at high
markups.

Planners don't know crap.

them's fight'n' words ( ]8> |)= (emoticon 4 them's fight'n' words)

Post by 3D Peruna
I still haven't found a viable "planned" community any place on the
earth. 99% of planners won't acknowledge human nature in their
planning...the "keeping up with the Joneses", the "I don't want to
walk in the rain", the "I can't afford to pay $25.00 for a book when I
can get it for $15.00 with shipping on Amazon." Sure, they're filled
with lots of theories about why places they like work. They're all
wrong. Why do I say that, because they can't make a new place work
like an old place. The sense of place must happen over a time span.

pennywise, stripmall foolish....

The market will always have its was, as its created by the aggregate
thinking of millions of people.
Over the past 40 years I've watched 3 downtown redevelopments in Fort
Myers, FL all of which were *planned* by people like what Paul described
and each of them failed to live up to the expectations and fell into
quick disrepair.
During this same period I've watched a huge *inside* mall flourish and
several *outside* malls fail.
Again, Paul gets it right.
People do not want to walk long distances outside to spend their money,
if they don't have to.

Tell that to the people of Copenhagen, or all the people who flock there
to do just that. If the place is designed properly, people _will_ walk
large distances, inside or out. The trick is to make it intimate so you
don't feel like you're going a long way.

Intimate? A crowded city is the opposite of intimate. Remember the
first public transit, horses pulling street cars on rails at walking
speeds, were popular because even in 1830 people did NOT like to walk, and
still don't.

The shopping district of Copenhagen IS intimate. What is NOT intimate is
acres of parking lots surrounding stores that actively discourage walking to
them.

[Sancho Panza]

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by george conklin

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Don

Post by ++

Post by 3D Peruna

Post by george conklin
Correct. Planners worship small stores, high prices, central
business distracts far from your house (but in the Politically
Correct place), but those walkable stores should be small,
high-priced, and locally-owned selling their imported goods at high
markups.

Planners don't know crap.

them's fight'n' words ( ]8> |)= (emoticon 4 them's fight'n' words)

Post by 3D Peruna
I still haven't found a viable "planned" community any place on the
earth. 99% of planners won't acknowledge human nature in their
planning...the "keeping up with the Joneses", the "I don't want to
walk in the rain", the "I can't afford to pay $25.00 for a book when
I can get it for $15.00 with shipping on Amazon." Sure, they're
filled with lots of theories about why places they like work.
They're all wrong. Why do I say that, because they can't make a new
place work like an old place. The sense of place must happen over a
time span.

pennywise, stripmall foolish....

The market will always have its was, as its created by the aggregate
thinking of millions of people.
Over the past 40 years I've watched 3 downtown redevelopments in Fort
Myers, FL all of which were *planned* by people like what Paul
described and each of them failed to live up to the expectations and
fell into quick disrepair.
During this same period I've watched a huge *inside* mall flourish and
several *outside* malls fail.
Again, Paul gets it right.
People do not want to walk long distances outside to spend their money,
if they don't have to.

Tell that to the people of Copenhagen, or all the people who flock there
to do just that. If the place is designed properly, people _will_ walk
large distances, inside or out. The trick is to make it intimate so you
don't feel like you're going a long way.

Intimate? A crowded city is the opposite of intimate. Remember the
first public transit, horses pulling street cars on rails at walking
speeds, were popular because even in 1830 people did NOT like to walk,
and still don't.

The shopping district of Copenhagen IS intimate. What is NOT intimate is
acres of parking lots surrounding stores that actively discourage walking
to them.

That is thanks to rigidly strict European population controls. The U.S. does
not believe in that (at least not yet).

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by george conklin

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Don

Post by ++

Post by 3D Peruna

Post by george conklin
Correct. Planners worship small stores, high prices, central
business distracts far from your house (but in the Politically
Correct place), but those walkable stores should be small,
high-priced, and locally-owned selling their imported goods at high
markups.

Planners don't know crap.

them's fight'n' words ( ]8> |)= (emoticon 4 them's fight'n' words)

Post by 3D Peruna
I still haven't found a viable "planned" community any place on the
earth. 99% of planners won't acknowledge human nature in their
planning...the "keeping up with the Joneses", the "I don't want to
walk in the rain", the "I can't afford to pay $25.00 for a book when
I can get it for $15.00 with shipping on Amazon." Sure, they're
filled with lots of theories about why places they like work.
They're all wrong. Why do I say that, because they can't make a new
place work like an old place. The sense of place must happen over a
time span.

pennywise, stripmall foolish....

The market will always have its was, as its created by the aggregate
thinking of millions of people.
Over the past 40 years I've watched 3 downtown redevelopments in Fort
Myers, FL all of which were *planned* by people like what Paul
described and each of them failed to live up to the expectations and
fell into quick disrepair.
During this same period I've watched a huge *inside* mall flourish and
several *outside* malls fail.
Again, Paul gets it right.
People do not want to walk long distances outside to spend their
money, if they don't have to.

Tell that to the people of Copenhagen, or all the people who flock
there to do just that. If the place is designed properly, people
_will_ walk large distances, inside or out. The trick is to make it
intimate so you don't feel like you're going a long way.

Intimate? A crowded city is the opposite of intimate. Remember the
first public transit, horses pulling street cars on rails at walking
speeds, were popular because even in 1830 people did NOT like to walk,
and still don't.

The shopping district of Copenhagen IS intimate. What is NOT intimate is
acres of parking lots surrounding stores that actively discourage walking
to them.

That is thanks to rigidly strict European population controls. The U.S.
does not believe in that (at least not yet).

Er, what? Please provide some information about what you believe the
essence of these population controls are, and how that relates to the design
and layout of the Copenhagen shopping district that means people are more
than willing to walk and bike around in it.

[Sancho Panza]

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by george conklin

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Don

Post by ++

Post by 3D Peruna

Post by george conklin
Correct. Planners worship small stores, high prices, central
business distracts far from your house (but in the Politically
Correct place), but those walkable stores should be small,
high-priced, and locally-owned selling their imported goods at
high markups.

Planners don't know crap.

them's fight'n' words ( ]8> |)= (emoticon 4 them's fight'n' words)

Post by 3D Peruna
I still haven't found a viable "planned" community any place on the
earth. 99% of planners won't acknowledge human nature in their
planning...the "keeping up with the Joneses", the "I don't want to
walk in the rain", the "I can't afford to pay $25.00 for a book
when I can get it for $15.00 with shipping on Amazon." Sure,
they're filled with lots of theories about why places they like
work. They're all wrong. Why do I say that, because they can't make
a new place work like an old place. The sense of place must happen
over a time span.

pennywise, stripmall foolish....

The market will always have its was, as its created by the aggregate
thinking of millions of people.
Over the past 40 years I've watched 3 downtown redevelopments in Fort
Myers, FL all of which were *planned* by people like what Paul
described and each of them failed to live up to the expectations and
fell into quick disrepair.
During this same period I've watched a huge *inside* mall flourish
and several *outside* malls fail.
Again, Paul gets it right.
People do not want to walk long distances outside to spend their
money, if they don't have to.

Tell that to the people of Copenhagen, or all the people who flock
there to do just that. If the place is designed properly, people
_will_ walk large distances, inside or out. The trick is to make it
intimate so you don't feel like you're going a long way.

Intimate? A crowded city is the opposite of intimate. Remember the
first public transit, horses pulling street cars on rails at walking
speeds, were popular because even in 1830 people did NOT like to walk,
and still don't.

The shopping district of Copenhagen IS intimate. What is NOT intimate
is acres of parking lots surrounding stores that actively discourage
walking to them.

That is thanks to rigidly strict European population controls. The U.S.
does not believe in that (at least not yet).

Er, what? Please provide some information about what you believe the
essence of these population controls are, and how that relates to the
design and layout of the Copenhagen shopping district that means people
are more than willing to walk and bike around in it.

European populaton is strictly enforced, and they are intrusionary to the
extent of ordering people to move when their dwelling units exceed the
prescribed size for their family units. Before praising anything about
European planning, it is a basic requirement to be informed and understand
what European governments do to control their populations.

The comparisons to the U.S. are apples to rutabagas. Europe just doesn't
have to deal with population growth in the same fashion as the U.S. does.

[george conklin]

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by george conklin

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Don

Post by ++

Post by 3D Peruna

Post by george conklin
Correct. Planners worship small stores, high prices, central
business distracts far from your house (but in the Politically
Correct place), but those walkable stores should be small,
high-priced, and locally-owned selling their imported goods at high
markups.

Planners don't know crap.

them's fight'n' words ( ]8> |)= (emoticon 4 them's fight'n' words)

Post by 3D Peruna
I still haven't found a viable "planned" community any place on the
earth. 99% of planners won't acknowledge human nature in their
planning...the "keeping up with the Joneses", the "I don't want to
walk in the rain", the "I can't afford to pay $25.00 for a book when
I can get it for $15.00 with shipping on Amazon." Sure, they're
filled with lots of theories about why places they like work.
They're all wrong. Why do I say that, because they can't make a new
place work like an old place. The sense of place must happen over a
time span.

pennywise, stripmall foolish....

The market will always have its was, as its created by the aggregate
thinking of millions of people.
Over the past 40 years I've watched 3 downtown redevelopments in Fort
Myers, FL all of which were *planned* by people like what Paul
described and each of them failed to live up to the expectations and
fell into quick disrepair.
During this same period I've watched a huge *inside* mall flourish and
several *outside* malls fail.
Again, Paul gets it right.
People do not want to walk long distances outside to spend their money,
if they don't have to.

Tell that to the people of Copenhagen, or all the people who flock there
to do just that. If the place is designed properly, people _will_ walk
large distances, inside or out. The trick is to make it intimate so you
don't feel like you're going a long way.

Intimate? A crowded city is the opposite of intimate. Remember the
first public transit, horses pulling street cars on rails at walking
speeds, were popular because even in 1830 people did NOT like to walk,
and still don't.

The shopping district of Copenhagen IS intimate. What is NOT intimate is
acres of parking lots surrounding stores that actively discourage walking
to them.

Just think how intimate it is to have to say home to get your goods
delivered the following Tuesday. My mother used to have to do that. So
cozy.

[3D Peruna]

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Don

Post by ++

Post by 3D Peruna

Post by george conklin
Correct. Planners worship small stores, high prices, central
business distracts far from your house (but in the Politically Correct
place), but those walkable stores should be small, high-priced, and
locally-owned selling their imported goods at high markups.

Planners don't know crap.

them's fight'n' words ( ]8> |)= (emoticon 4 them's fight'n' words)

Post by 3D Peruna
I still haven't found a viable "planned" community any place on the
earth. 99% of planners won't acknowledge human nature in their
planning...the "keeping up with the Joneses", the "I don't want to walk
in the rain", the "I can't afford to pay $25.00 for a book when I can
get it for $15.00 with shipping on Amazon." Sure, they're filled with
lots of theories about why places they like work. They're all wrong.
Why do I say that, because they can't make a new place work like an old
place. The sense of place must happen over a time span.

pennywise, stripmall foolish....

The market will always have its was, as its created by the aggregate
thinking of millions of people.
Over the past 40 years I've watched 3 downtown redevelopments in Fort
Myers, FL all of which were *planned* by people like what Paul described
and each of them failed to live up to the expectations and fell into quick
disrepair.
During this same period I've watched a huge *inside* mall flourish and
several *outside* malls fail.
Again, Paul gets it right.
People do not want to walk long distances outside to spend their money, if
they don't have to.

Tell that to the people of Copenhagen, or all the people who flock there to
do just that. If the place is designed properly, people _will_ walk large
distances, inside or out. The trick is to make it intimate so you don't
feel like you're going a long way. Probably the outdoor ones that failed
are like the one near me, where it is _possible_ to walk outside, if you're
willing to cross acres of empty parking lots with no sidewalks anywhere.
Inside malls work because they get the scale right.

It wasn't "designed" or planned in the way that "planners" think of
planning. Copenhagen happened over a thousand years. Geography,
politics, culture, etc. all contribute to Europe being what it is... and
that's what the "planners" seem to think is good for everyone. If it
was such a good thing, why didn't it last in the USA? Because we (as a
culture, the land we have, etc) are different. This is precisely the point.

Architecture (and by extension) cannot solve social/political/cultural
problems. Architecture is by far more of a reflection of society than a
mold for society to fit into. Virtually every single "social"
architectural project in the US has been (or is going to be)
demolished--wiped off the earth--because they failed miserably to solve
social problems. Planning is no different.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by 3D Peruna

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Don

Post by ++

Post by 3D Peruna

Post by george conklin
Correct. Planners worship small stores, high prices, central
business distracts far from your house (but in the Politically
Correct place), but those walkable stores should be small,
high-priced, and locally-owned selling their imported goods at high
markups.

Planners don't know crap.

them's fight'n' words ( ]8> |)= (emoticon 4 them's fight'n' words)

Post by 3D Peruna
I still haven't found a viable "planned" community any place on the
earth. 99% of planners won't acknowledge human nature in their
planning...the "keeping up with the Joneses", the "I don't want to
walk in the rain", the "I can't afford to pay $25.00 for a book when I
can get it for $15.00 with shipping on Amazon." Sure, they're filled
with lots of theories about why places they like work. They're all
wrong. Why do I say that, because they can't make a new place work
like an old place. The sense of place must happen over a time span.

pennywise, stripmall foolish....

The market will always have its was, as its created by the aggregate
thinking of millions of people.
Over the past 40 years I've watched 3 downtown redevelopments in Fort
Myers, FL all of which were *planned* by people like what Paul described
and each of them failed to live up to the expectations and fell into
quick disrepair.
During this same period I've watched a huge *inside* mall flourish and
several *outside* malls fail.
Again, Paul gets it right.
People do not want to walk long distances outside to spend their money,
if they don't have to.

Tell that to the people of Copenhagen, or all the people who flock there
to do just that. If the place is designed properly, people _will_ walk
large distances, inside or out. The trick is to make it intimate so you
don't feel like you're going a long way. Probably the outdoor ones that
failed are like the one near me, where it is _possible_ to walk outside,
if you're willing to cross acres of empty parking lots with no sidewalks
anywhere. Inside malls work because they get the scale right.

It wasn't "designed" or planned in the way that "planners" think of
planning. Copenhagen happened over a thousand years. Geography,
politics, culture, etc. all contribute to Europe being what it is... and
that's what the "planners" seem to think is good for everyone. If it was
such a good thing, why didn't it last in the USA? Because we (as a
culture, the land we have, etc) are different. This is precisely the point.

The point is, people are quite willing to walk around outside and shop.

The reason it didn't happen over here is that we've had zoning laws that
enforce separation of different uses, so it is impossible in most places to
have shopping within walking distance of jobs and residences. If you look
at towns older than about 70 years, you will see that most of them have at
least some of the town that is built like a European city or village.

Post by 3D Peruna
Architecture (and by extension) cannot solve social/political/cultural
problems. Architecture is by far more of a reflection of society than a
mold for society to fit into. Virtually every single "social"
architectural project in the US has been (or is going to be)
demolished--wiped off the earth--because they failed miserably to solve
social problems. Planning is no different.

Architecture can avoid making problems worse. When you have structures in
place that enforce excessive fuel consumption (allowing no choice to walk)
then you have a continuing national security problem of securing more and
more fuel, for instance. And obesity.

[george conklin]

Post by 3D Peruna
Architecture (and by extension) cannot solve social/political/cultural
problems. Architecture is by far more of a reflection of society than a
mold for society to fit into. Virtually every single "social"
architectural project in the US has been (or is going to be)
demolished--wiped off the earth--because they failed miserably to solve
social problems. Planning is no different.

Architecture is similar to painting a pretty picture in the eyes of the
architect. Roof leaks? No problem; that is not important!!! Unfortunately
they have planners deciding what good architecture is. Together they push
it like art, with fake accents, nasty comments and subject to infinite fads
which the public could care less about.

[george conklin]

Post by 3D Peruna

Post by george conklin
Correct. Planners worship small stores, high prices, central business
distracts far from your house (but in the Politically Correct place), but
those walkable stores should be small, high-priced, and locally-owned
selling their imported goods at high markups.

Planners don't know crap.
I still haven't found a viable "planned" community any place on the earth.
99% of planners won't acknowledge human nature in their planning...the
"keeping up with the Joneses", the "I don't want to walk in the rain", the
"I can't afford to pay $25.00 for a book when I can get it for $15.00 with
shipping on Amazon." Sure, they're filled with lots of theories about why
places they like work. They're all wrong. Why do I say that, because they
can't make a new place work like an old place. The sense of place must
happen over a time span.

Yes, sense of place develops when people do NOT move around, but in the USA
that is not the usual pattern, becuase we move once in 7 years anyway. Jobs
have a quite a bit to do with that too.

[3D Peruna]

Post by george conklin
Yes, sense of place develops when people do NOT move around, but in the USA
that is not the usual pattern, becuase we move once in 7 years anyway. Jobs
have a quite a bit to do with that too.

I'd dispute the notion that people don't move or do move. There isn't a
set pattern to it. I know people in the town I live in now that have
not left the state their entire life. I also know people who are
transplants...those who come and go, yet the place I live retains its
own sense of place.

A sense of place isn't necessarily bestowed upon it by long term
residency---but it is part of it. A sense of place, IMHO, is based on a
natural embrace of the local geography and history without undue efforts
to make it something else.

[george conklin]

Post by 3D Peruna

Post by george conklin
Yes, sense of place develops when people do NOT move around, but in the
USA that is not the usual pattern, becuase we move once in 7 years
anyway. Jobs have a quite a bit to do with that too.

I'd dispute the notion that people don't move or do move. There isn't a
set pattern to it. I know people in the town I live in now that have not
left the state their entire life. I also know people who are
transplants...those who come and go, yet the place I live retains its own
sense of place.
A sense of place isn't necessarily bestowed upon it by long term
residency---but it is part of it. A sense of place, IMHO, is based on a
natural embrace of the local geography and history without undue efforts
to make it something else.

The statistics on people's moving are well-known and fairly constant. We
also know people who want to move even if they don't have to, so horse
stories don't make the pattern. And there are data from Europe which show
that the longer you are in one place, the stronger the attachment to
it...sense of place, if you will.

[Pat]

Post by 3D Peruna

Post by george conklin
Yes, sense of place develops when people do NOT move around, but in the USA
that is not the usual pattern, becuase we move once in 7 years anyway. Jobs
have a quite a bit to do with that too.

I'd dispute the notion that people don't move or do move. There isn't a
set pattern to it. I know people in the town I live in now that have
not left the state their entire life. I also know people who are
transplants...those who come and go, yet the place I live retains its
own sense of place.
A sense of place isn't necessarily bestowed upon it by long term
residency---but it is part of it. A sense of place, IMHO, is based on a
natural embrace of the local geography and history without undue efforts
to make it something else.

There was an article, a while back (maybe 6 months) about "lack of
community" or some such thing. It postulated that the sense of
community cannot occur without the religious institutions that
keystoned almost all cities/communities in the country. It said that
planning communities without churches (etc) will create housing but
will not create a community. So, since religious institutions are not
usually included in planned communities, they tend to fail.

It is a very interesting thought -- that things tie people together
other than just housing and proximity.

[george conklin]

Post by Pat

Post by 3D Peruna

Post by george conklin
Yes, sense of place develops when people do NOT move around, but in the USA
that is not the usual pattern, becuase we move once in 7 years anyway.
Jobs
have a quite a bit to do with that too.

I'd dispute the notion that people don't move or do move. There isn't a
set pattern to it. I know people in the town I live in now that have
not left the state their entire life. I also know people who are
transplants...those who come and go, yet the place I live retains its
own sense of place.
A sense of place isn't necessarily bestowed upon it by long term
residency---but it is part of it. A sense of place, IMHO, is based on a
natural embrace of the local geography and history without undue efforts
to make it something else.

There was an article, a while back (maybe 6 months) about "lack of
community" or some such thing. It postulated that the sense of
community cannot occur without the religious institutions that
keystoned almost all cities/communities in the country. It said that
planning communities without churches (etc) will create housing but
will not create a community. So, since religious institutions are not
usually included in planned communities, they tend to fail.
It is a very interesting thought -- that things tie people together
other than just housing and proximity.

Ask that question in Iraq where religion really is bringing the nation
back together again.

[Ken S. Tucker]

Post by Pat

Post by 3D Peruna

Post by george conklin
Yes, sense of place develops when people do NOT move around, but in the USA
that is not the usual pattern, becuase we move once in 7 years anyway. Jobs
have a quite a bit to do with that too.

I'd dispute the notion that people don't move or do move. There isn't a
set pattern to it. I know people in the town I live in now that have
not left the state their entire life. I also know people who are
transplants...those who come and go, yet the place I live retains its
own sense of place.
A sense of place isn't necessarily bestowed upon it by long term
residency---but it is part of it. A sense of place, IMHO, is based on a
natural embrace of the local geography and history without undue efforts
to make it something else.

There was an article, a while back (maybe 6 months) about "lack of
community" or some such thing. It postulated that the sense of
community cannot occur without the religious institutions that
keystoned almost all cities/communities in the country. It said that
planning communities without churches (etc) will create housing but
will not create a community. So, since religious institutions are not
usually included in planned communities, they tend to fail.
It is a very interesting thought -- that things tie people together
other than just housing and proximity.

I disagree Pat. We being avid campers land in some
camp ground and before you know it, you're sitting
with people who become friends, it's the nature of
humans. On the contrary religion is divisive, and leads
to shunning and then hostility and wars.
Organizational religion is an extreme social-pathic
condition that defeats the natural warmth humans
have for each other.
Ken

[Clark F Morris]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:11:19 -0700, "Ken S. Tucker"

Post by Ken S. Tucker

Post by Pat

Post by 3D Peruna

Post by george conklin
Yes, sense of place develops when people do NOT move around, but in the USA
that is not the usual pattern, becuase we move once in 7 years anyway. Jobs
have a quite a bit to do with that too.

I'd dispute the notion that people don't move or do move. There isn't a
set pattern to it. I know people in the town I live in now that have
not left the state their entire life. I also know people who are
transplants...those who come and go, yet the place I live retains its
own sense of place.
A sense of place isn't necessarily bestowed upon it by long term
residency---but it is part of it. A sense of place, IMHO, is based on a
natural embrace of the local geography and history without undue efforts
to make it something else.

There was an article, a while back (maybe 6 months) about "lack of
community" or some such thing. It postulated that the sense of
community cannot occur without the religious institutions that
keystoned almost all cities/communities in the country. It said that
planning communities without churches (etc) will create housing but
will not create a community. So, since religious institutions are not
usually included in planned communities, they tend to fail.
It is a very interesting thought -- that things tie people together
other than just housing and proximity.

I disagree Pat. We being avid campers land in some
camp ground and before you know it, you're sitting
with people who become friends, it's the nature of
humans. On the contrary religion is divisive, and leads
to shunning and then hostility and wars.
Organizational religion is an extreme social-pathic
condition that defeats the natural warmth humans
have for each other.

Sometimes that is true. In many cases it provides the glue to a
community and a base for groups that serve the community. I know that
is true in my home community and many others here in rural Nova
Scotia, Canada. I have also seen the same in many United States
communities and been a part of a multi-church group in East Orange,
New Jersey where I used to live and go to church.

Post by Ken S. Tucker
Ken

[Ken S. Tucker]

Post by Clark F Morris
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:11:19 -0700, "Ken S. Tucker"

Post by Ken S. Tucker

Post by Pat

Post by 3D Peruna

Post by george conklin
Yes, sense of place develops when people do NOT move around, but in the USA
that is not the usual pattern, becuase we move once in 7 years anyway. Jobs
have a quite a bit to do with that too.

I'd dispute the notion that people don't move or do move. There isn't a
set pattern to it. I know people in the town I live in now that have
not left the state their entire life. I also know people who are
transplants...those who come and go, yet the place I live retains its
own sense of place.
A sense of place isn't necessarily bestowed upon it by long term
residency---but it is part of it. A sense of place, IMHO, is based on a
natural embrace of the local geography and history without undue efforts
to make it something else.

There was an article, a while back (maybe 6 months) about "lack of
community" or some such thing. It postulated that the sense of
community cannot occur without the religious institutions that
keystoned almost all cities/communities in the country. It said that
planning communities without churches (etc) will create housing but
will not create a community. So, since religious institutions are not
usually included in planned communities, they tend to fail.
It is a very interesting thought -- that things tie people together
other than just housing and proximity.

I disagree Pat. We being avid campers land in some
camp ground and before you know it, you're sitting
with people who become friends, it's the nature of
humans. On the contrary religion is divisive, and leads
to shunning and then hostility and wars.
Organizational religion is an extreme social-pathic
condition that defeats the natural warmth humans
have for each other.

Sometimes that is true. In many cases it provides the glue to a
community and a base for groups that serve the community. I know that
is true in my home community and many others here in rural Nova
Scotia, Canada. I have also seen the same in many United States
communities and been a part of a multi-church group in East Orange,
New Jersey where I used to live and go to church.

Oh-boy, most of us dislike importing religion into
the arguments. I suggest you start a separate
thread.
Ken

[Pat]

Post by Ken S. Tucker

Post by Clark F Morris
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:11:19 -0700, "Ken S. Tucker"

Post by Ken S. Tucker

Post by Pat

Post by 3D Peruna

Post by george conklin
Yes, sense of place develops when people do NOT move around, but in the USA
that is not the usual pattern, becuase we move once in 7 years anyway. Jobs
have a quite a bit to do with that too.

I'd dispute the notion that people don't move or do move. There isn't a
set pattern to it. I know people in the town I live in now that have
not left the state their entire life. I also know people who are
transplants...those who come and go, yet the place I live retains its
own sense of place.
A sense of place isn't necessarily bestowed upon it by long term
residency---but it is part of it. A sense of place, IMHO, is based on a
natural embrace of the local geography and history without undue efforts
to make it something else.

There was an article, a while back (maybe 6 months) about "lack of
community" or some such thing. It postulated that the sense of
community cannot occur without the religious institutions that
keystoned almost all cities/communities in the country. It said that
planning communities without churches (etc) will create housing but
will not create a community. So, since religious institutions are not
usually included in planned communities, they tend to fail.
It is a very interesting thought -- that things tie people together
other than just housing and proximity.

I disagree Pat. We being avid campers land in some
camp ground and before you know it, you're sitting
with people who become friends, it's the nature of
humans. On the contrary religion is divisive, and leads
to shunning and then hostility and wars.
Organizational religion is an extreme social-pathic
condition that defeats the natural warmth humans
have for each other.

Sometimes that is true. In many cases it provides the glue to a
community and a base for groups that serve the community. I know that
is true in my home community and many others here in rural Nova
Scotia, Canada. I have also seen the same in many United States
communities and been a part of a multi-church group in East Orange,
New Jersey where I used to live and go to church.

Oh-boy, most of us dislike importing religion into
the arguments. I suggest you start a separate
thread.
Ken

My comment wasn't so much about religion as it was about community.
There are certain things that hold a community together and give it
that "sense of community", whatever that is. If no one has anything
in common, there is no community. It might be church, it might be the
love of camping, or it might be Friday night football games. It is
those things, the things that cannot be invented or planned or imposed
that make a community.

It is the overplanning and lack of real this fundamental (yet
uncontrollable) quality that is lacking in many planned communities.
You cannot contrive it. You cannot force it. You cannot order it to
happen.

[Don]

Post by Ken S. Tucker

Post by Pat

Post by 3D Peruna

Post by george conklin
Yes, sense of place develops when people do NOT move around, but in the USA
that is not the usual pattern, becuase we move once in 7 years anyway. Jobs
have a quite a bit to do with that too.

I'd dispute the notion that people don't move or do move. There isn't a
set pattern to it. I know people in the town I live in now that have
not left the state their entire life. I also know people who are
transplants...those who come and go, yet the place I live retains its
own sense of place.
A sense of place isn't necessarily bestowed upon it by long term
residency---but it is part of it. A sense of place, IMHO, is based on a
natural embrace of the local geography and history without undue efforts
to make it something else.

There was an article, a while back (maybe 6 months) about "lack of
community" or some such thing. It postulated that the sense of
community cannot occur without the religious institutions that
keystoned almost all cities/communities in the country. It said that
planning communities without churches (etc) will create housing but
will not create a community. So, since religious institutions are not
usually included in planned communities, they tend to fail.
It is a very interesting thought -- that things tie people together
other than just housing and proximity.

I disagree Pat. We being avid campers land in some
camp ground and before you know it, you're sitting
with people who become friends, it's the nature of
humans. On the contrary religion is divisive, and leads
to shunning and then hostility and wars.
Organizational religion is an extreme social-pathic
condition that defeats the natural warmth humans
have for each other.
Ken

Religions are based in strong human emotions, fear, fear of the unknown.
Notice how it dovetails with the current political state in the US.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Pat

Post by 3D Peruna

Post by george conklin
Yes, sense of place develops when people do NOT move around, but in the USA
that is not the usual pattern, becuase we move once in 7 years anyway.
Jobs
have a quite a bit to do with that too.

I'd dispute the notion that people don't move or do move. There isn't a
set pattern to it. I know people in the town I live in now that have
not left the state their entire life. I also know people who are
transplants...those who come and go, yet the place I live retains its
own sense of place.
A sense of place isn't necessarily bestowed upon it by long term
residency---but it is part of it. A sense of place, IMHO, is based on a
natural embrace of the local geography and history without undue efforts
to make it something else.

There was an article, a while back (maybe 6 months) about "lack of
community" or some such thing. It postulated that the sense of
community cannot occur without the religious institutions that
keystoned almost all cities/communities in the country. It said that
planning communities without churches (etc) will create housing but
will not create a community. So, since religious institutions are not
usually included in planned communities, they tend to fail.
It is a very interesting thought -- that things tie people together
other than just housing and proximity.

There are lots of places where church going is the exception rather than the
rule that have a very strong sense of place.

[Don]

Post by Pat

Post by 3D Peruna

Post by george conklin
Yes, sense of place develops when people do NOT move around, but in the USA
that is not the usual pattern, becuase we move once in 7 years anyway.
Jobs
have a quite a bit to do with that too.

I'd dispute the notion that people don't move or do move. There isn't a
set pattern to it. I know people in the town I live in now that have
not left the state their entire life. I also know people who are
transplants...those who come and go, yet the place I live retains its
own sense of place.
A sense of place isn't necessarily bestowed upon it by long term
residency---but it is part of it. A sense of place, IMHO, is based on a
natural embrace of the local geography and history without undue efforts
to make it something else.

There was an article, a while back (maybe 6 months) about "lack of
community" or some such thing. It postulated that the sense of
community cannot occur without the religious institutions that
keystoned almost all cities/communities in the country. It said that
planning communities without churches (etc) will create housing but
will not create a community. So, since religious institutions are not
usually included in planned communities, they tend to fail.
It is a very interesting thought -- that things tie people together
other than just housing and proximity.

That is interesting as I'd recently read a book dealing with the history of
Brown County and some of the first buildings constructed around here were
churches, schools and, get this, a library, back in the early 1800's. There
are lots of churches around here, of every stripe.
So, if a church *goes under* the community will suffer somewhat/population
decline?
I find it hard to believe that people would move because a church closed its
doors.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Don

Post by Pat

Post by 3D Peruna

Post by george conklin
Yes, sense of place develops when people do NOT move around, but in the USA
that is not the usual pattern, becuase we move once in 7 years anyway.
Jobs
have a quite a bit to do with that too.

I'd dispute the notion that people don't move or do move. There isn't a
set pattern to it. I know people in the town I live in now that have
not left the state their entire life. I also know people who are
transplants...those who come and go, yet the place I live retains its
own sense of place.
A sense of place isn't necessarily bestowed upon it by long term
residency---but it is part of it. A sense of place, IMHO, is based on a
natural embrace of the local geography and history without undue efforts
to make it something else.

There was an article, a while back (maybe 6 months) about "lack of
community" or some such thing. It postulated that the sense of
community cannot occur without the religious institutions that
keystoned almost all cities/communities in the country. It said that
planning communities without churches (etc) will create housing but
will not create a community. So, since religious institutions are not
usually included in planned communities, they tend to fail.
It is a very interesting thought -- that things tie people together
other than just housing and proximity.

That is interesting as I'd recently read a book dealing with the history
of Brown County and some of the first buildings constructed around here
were churches, schools and, get this, a library, back in the early 1800's.
There are lots of churches around here, of every stripe.
So, if a church *goes under* the community will suffer somewhat/population
decline?
I find it hard to believe that people would move because a church closed
its doors.

If a church goes under, the people have already moved or died (many churches
age their way out of existence).

[Don]

Post by 3D Peruna
I'd dispute the notion that people don't move or do move. There isn't a
set pattern to it. I know people in the town I live in now that have not
left the state their entire life. I also know people who are
transplants...those who come and go, yet the place I live retains its own
sense of place.
A sense of place isn't necessarily bestowed upon it by long term
residency---but it is part of it. A sense of place, IMHO, is based on a
natural embrace of the local geography and history without undue efforts
to make it something else.

Better.
Not *something else*.
The politicians always say *better*.
Here in Brown county some of the politicians want to make stuff better all
the time.
The taxpayers only have to dig a little deeper in their pockets, thats all.
Well, what the politicians don't realize, or care, is that the taxpayers
here don't want things better.
We, they, want them exactly as they are, thats why we, they, live here.
Some of us used to live *better* but tired of it and its inherent baggage.
You see, what a politician thinks is better for me is not neccessarily what
I consider better for me.
The current issue to be made better by the politicians is to consolidate all
the volunteer fire depts, 5 of them, into 1 giant gov't run conglomeration
with multi levels of bureauracy and exponential costs. 80% of the people
said NO!!! but the politicians decided to go ahead with it anyway.
They need a small field out here off Gatesville Road with some lovely
politicians feets protruding from the dense brown ground, ready to bloom in
the spring and then doused with accellerant and torched in the fall........

[Don]

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat

Post by William

Post by Pat
I wanted to upgrade my cell phone and had been in the bigger community
25 miles or so away a couple of days ago and looked for phones.
Couldn't upgrade then but decided to today. So I went to our local
Radio Shack about 3 miles away -- the only Verizon dealer in the
area.
Their price for the phone was $279 but there $50 "rebate". The my
"new every two" was only worth $50, not $100. So the cost would be
$179. Back in the "big store" out in the bigger city, the same phone
was $249 with the same $50 rebate and my "new every two" was worth
$100; so I could get the phone for $99.
So much for shopping local.
If the Radio Shack goes out of business because locals don't shop
there, I'm going on the record and saying "it ain't my fault". I
tried.

I'm not used to the subject of were to go shopping as such a big
debate. Thats another good thing about living in a big city.
Everything is near by, big stores, small stores, franchises, family
owned its all here. Plus,since the stores are all pretty close
together it keeps the prices low, at least relatively.

That's funny, I thought that "where to go shopping" was first and
foremost in planning. That, and hating Walmart for giving rural
people the opportunity to get lower priced items than city folk.
If shopping isn't important to planners, then why all the hub-bub
abount keeping a central business district vibrant, locating theaters
in the cities, and all of the boutiques that you like selling all of
their over-priced items.

Correct. Planners worship small stores, high prices, central business
distracts far from your house (but in the Politically Correct place), but
those walkable stores should be small, high-priced, and locally-owned
selling their imported goods at high markups.

Thats exactly what you have here in ruralville.
If you want value for your dollar you have to drive about an hour in any
direction.
Vehicle gas doesn't seem to be affected though, everywhere around here its
about $2.74.