At 11:59 AM 12/13/97 PST, Wayde wrote:
>you need to go back farther than the 50's and 60's. I'm surprised at you -
>a supposedly well read indivual!
I never claimed I was well-read! I try, though. For some reason I switched
to planner mode for this item. It was in the 50s and 60s when modernist
planning principles, the Interstate system, and the explosion of suburbia,
really took off. Actually, Fall 1945 would be agood place to start, though
you are right in a very broad sense...
>>You can see how failed a dream it was.
>
>The "failed dream" was the result of developers grasping onto the style of
>Modernism as a sales tool for the benefit of their own hip pockets. The
>root of the Modernist's ideal (egalitarianism, etc.), was bypassed. Corbu
>was correct when he was worried about "American Gangsters" stealing his
>designs for profit.
Yup. Which is what makes it a failed dream. OF course, Corbu was a gangster
in his own way.
>You are beginning to sound like a New Urbanist for sure now - but like
>them, you are generalizing.
Well, Randolph's comment wasn't all that specific, and seemed to call for a
generalized answer. Please don't accuse me of being a Nurbie. Let's get
beyond those stupid handles. Some of the ideas espoused by these designers
are most likely quite legitimate responses to the problems caused by
excessive reliance on automobiles. What is corrupt about many of those who
espouse them is the motivation behind their use.
> The role of the automobile in American life is
>what American life is all about - what it has strived for - its
>representation as a machine allowing freedom and access to the wide open
>spaces of this very large country is exactly the ideals this country was
>founded upon.
I've written about the idea that our continual outward expansion is a
recreation of the frontier experience. I contend that it is a failed dream,
as the reality is not what we expect.
> Lamenting the fact that everyone is driving around and "
>alienating (sic) entire urban populations" is moot. Dealing with the issue
>as a design problem is the real challenge.
You bet! And that means getting people to use those beasts of burden more
sensibly. It also means providing a measure of mobility equity so all
populations may have the same opportunities for employment, recreation,
housing, etc.
>> Sure, you're equal, more
>> or less, if you have a car.
>
>I would disagree. Someone who drives a Lincoln Navigator is hardly on par
>with someone driving a 67 Chevelle with primer on the doors and duct tape
>stopping a rip in the convertible top.
Oh, really? I have a 1984 Honda that is clapped out, dented, and getting
tipsy---am I less a person than you are? How can you equate a person's
"parity" with their transit mode?
Of course, I will readily admit to having similar thoughts, until I stop and
realize about how well Mad Ave has programmed me to do so. It takes a lot of
cajones to admit to yourself that you're a consumerist pawn.
The point was this: ANY car, M-B or Chevette, will get you to work, or to
the park equally well. ANY ability to affordably transit distances will
bring a measure of improvement into your quality of life. In Europe, it's
(relatively) cheap local, national, and international trains. Cars and their
use are exhorbitantly expensive in Europe. Know why? It's because they are
taxed more in accordance with the impact they have on the environment. Know
why that's not the case here? Of course you do.
Big Auto, Big Oil.
> The automotive industry has made
>sure that Henry Ford's idea of the automible being the great emancipator of
>the people of this country is a place where class and privelege is most
>defined.
Only because we have let it.
>> But if you're too poor to have a car, you
>> probably are stuck in the urban center,
>
>More likely in a trailer or mobile home. Middle America is a very different
>place than the urban *centers* of east or west coast metropolis.
Oh, puhlease. I've spent three years of school working in the URBAN
neighborhoods of Muncie and Anderson, Indiana. No, they are not the South
Bronx. Do you think the problems are any different? Only in scale. In the
quality of human lives, the problems are every bit as important and are
exactly the same.
The problem of the rural poor (which you inadvertantly suggest, though you
seem to believe there are no urban areas in the Midwest) is also a very real
one. There _are_ more rural poor than urban poor in the Midwest. They suffer
from many of the same problems, though transit equity may not be one of
them. They can get to their jobs in their older worn out cars. The biggest
problem is one of quality of education and training to meet the changing
workforce needs. Of course, that problem appears to be pretty widespread
across populations.
Mark
>you need to go back farther than the 50's and 60's. I'm surprised at you -
>a supposedly well read indivual!
I never claimed I was well-read! I try, though. For some reason I switched
to planner mode for this item. It was in the 50s and 60s when modernist
planning principles, the Interstate system, and the explosion of suburbia,
really took off. Actually, Fall 1945 would be agood place to start, though
you are right in a very broad sense...
>>You can see how failed a dream it was.
>
>The "failed dream" was the result of developers grasping onto the style of
>Modernism as a sales tool for the benefit of their own hip pockets. The
>root of the Modernist's ideal (egalitarianism, etc.), was bypassed. Corbu
>was correct when he was worried about "American Gangsters" stealing his
>designs for profit.
Yup. Which is what makes it a failed dream. OF course, Corbu was a gangster
in his own way.
>You are beginning to sound like a New Urbanist for sure now - but like
>them, you are generalizing.
Well, Randolph's comment wasn't all that specific, and seemed to call for a
generalized answer. Please don't accuse me of being a Nurbie. Let's get
beyond those stupid handles. Some of the ideas espoused by these designers
are most likely quite legitimate responses to the problems caused by
excessive reliance on automobiles. What is corrupt about many of those who
espouse them is the motivation behind their use.
> The role of the automobile in American life is
>what American life is all about - what it has strived for - its
>representation as a machine allowing freedom and access to the wide open
>spaces of this very large country is exactly the ideals this country was
>founded upon.
I've written about the idea that our continual outward expansion is a
recreation of the frontier experience. I contend that it is a failed dream,
as the reality is not what we expect.
> Lamenting the fact that everyone is driving around and "
>alienating (sic) entire urban populations" is moot. Dealing with the issue
>as a design problem is the real challenge.
You bet! And that means getting people to use those beasts of burden more
sensibly. It also means providing a measure of mobility equity so all
populations may have the same opportunities for employment, recreation,
housing, etc.
>> Sure, you're equal, more
>> or less, if you have a car.
>
>I would disagree. Someone who drives a Lincoln Navigator is hardly on par
>with someone driving a 67 Chevelle with primer on the doors and duct tape
>stopping a rip in the convertible top.
Oh, really? I have a 1984 Honda that is clapped out, dented, and getting
tipsy---am I less a person than you are? How can you equate a person's
"parity" with their transit mode?
Of course, I will readily admit to having similar thoughts, until I stop and
realize about how well Mad Ave has programmed me to do so. It takes a lot of
cajones to admit to yourself that you're a consumerist pawn.
The point was this: ANY car, M-B or Chevette, will get you to work, or to
the park equally well. ANY ability to affordably transit distances will
bring a measure of improvement into your quality of life. In Europe, it's
(relatively) cheap local, national, and international trains. Cars and their
use are exhorbitantly expensive in Europe. Know why? It's because they are
taxed more in accordance with the impact they have on the environment. Know
why that's not the case here? Of course you do.
Big Auto, Big Oil.
> The automotive industry has made
>sure that Henry Ford's idea of the automible being the great emancipator of
>the people of this country is a place where class and privelege is most
>defined.
Only because we have let it.
>> But if you're too poor to have a car, you
>> probably are stuck in the urban center,
>
>More likely in a trailer or mobile home. Middle America is a very different
>place than the urban *centers* of east or west coast metropolis.
Oh, puhlease. I've spent three years of school working in the URBAN
neighborhoods of Muncie and Anderson, Indiana. No, they are not the South
Bronx. Do you think the problems are any different? Only in scale. In the
quality of human lives, the problems are every bit as important and are
exactly the same.
The problem of the rural poor (which you inadvertantly suggest, though you
seem to believe there are no urban areas in the Midwest) is also a very real
one. There _are_ more rural poor than urban poor in the Midwest. They suffer
from many of the same problems, though transit equity may not be one of
them. They can get to their jobs in their older worn out cars. The biggest
problem is one of quality of education and training to meet the changing
workforce needs. Of course, that problem appears to be pretty widespread
across populations.
Mark