Human Scale Neighborhoods (define, metro, suburban, crime)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are intervening in a discussion with another poster where they were touting the presence of multiple bars, brewery, restaurants, and a sports arena in a two block area. Teenagers aren’t supposed to be drinking at all here in the US - it’s illegal.
It is the rowdy drinking adults that are the problem. You want to show pictures from Getmany and then protest when others note Germany is not the US and you have zero comprehension of living in the US regardless of whether the built firm is high density urban or lower density suburban.
Many in fact most avoid the negatives of high density urban built form by NOT living in such an environment. The problem can be avoided by living somewhere else. I don’t need or want bars, breweries, or convenience stores nearby where I live. You can go party it up with the rowdies and return to your hamster-style rental apartment unit in your “exciting” neighborhood. This is yet another reason why others prefer houses with yards - and why people disperse away from density. What you want is a negative quality of life for many if not most.
Again, neither this subforum nor this thread is about the US in specific. This thread is about human scale neighborhoods in general.
And what you want is a boring negative quality of life for me and many others, so what? Why are you even here if you don't want to discuss what is the best environment to live in? Constantly spreading your opinion that you don't want to change and live in urban areas isn't bringing any progress to this discussion. It's just destructive.
I believe that if the teaching staff from a school with good rankings was switched with the teaching staff from a poorly performing inner-city school, the ranking of the respective districts wouldn't change.
Quote:
There are many "poor students" attending public schools in the suburbs.
Yes, and they are generally a minority of the whole. The middle-class environment helps everyone do better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by accord1999
It's more than just funding though, some of the urban systems are pretty well-funded like NYC with a $37B budget for 900K students and have a number of high quality high schools. A lot of it has to do with culture and the desire of students and their families for education. If you're smart or at least work and study hard, there's a path to a good education and admission to a good university. Though that path is increasingly threatened because it's mainly one group that's taking the most advantage of it.
I didn't say anything about funding. As you go on to say in your post, performance has more to do with their environment. Poor kids with a poor home environment, where the parents don't--or can't--care about their kid's education will still likely do better, if they are surrounded by middle class kids at school. And, poor kids with parents who care, are still likely to do better even in a bad school environment, where they are surrounded by kids who don't care. But it's harder, because of other factors, like if the teachers can teach, instead of spending all their time trying to keep the disruptive kids under control.
It's more than just funding though, some of the urban systems are pretty well-funded like NYC with a $37B budget for 900K students and have a number of high quality high schools. A lot of it has to do with culture and the desire of students and their families for education. If you're smart or at least work and study hard, there's a path to a good education and admission to a good university. Though that path is increasingly threatened because it's mainly one group that's taking the most advantage of it.
The other problem(which Germany shares) is a system that separates kids based on performance. Chicago Public High School have some of the most top ranked high schools in the State, but so do the burbs. Chicago like many cities has a magnet system for assigning students to high schools. Where as the Burbs do not. To get into the best Chicago Public Schools, your kid needs to earn the grades and pass a test with a high enough score. In the burbs, you just need an address. New York is even worse
The difference is that in Germany everyone is subject to the system where as in the U.S. you can simply move to a burb to guarantee that you kid gets into a good school.
Again, neither this subforum nor this thread is about the US in specific. This thread is about human scale neighborhoods in general.
It's certainly not about Germany yet that is what you constantly tout.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stadtmensch
And what you want is a boring negative quality of life for me and many others, so what?
You describe your utopia with adjectives that are meaningful only to you. "Exciting" is one example. You try to rationalize your version of urban living as "better" when it is not "better" at all but rather simply your personal preference at this point in your life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stadtmensch
Why are you even here if you don't want to discuss what is the best environment to live in? Constantly spreading your opinion that you don't want to change and live in urban areas isn't bringing any progress to this discussion. It's just destructive.
You are discussing various built forms - not necessarily the "best environment to live in". If "the best environment to live in" was your intended topic, that would obviously be a personal, subjective preference. Your personal preferences are just that - your personal preferences.
As far as "not wanting to change" - you want to push density, transit, etc. to change other places. Why do you believe others need to change to "be like Germany"? What change exactly are you promoting for where you reside?
People are free to disagree with you - and as you can tell they do. They are just as entitled to have their own personal preferences as to the "best environment to live in".
Defined terms are not something urbanophiles like to be held to. I live in an urban area by definition. It is better for me than anything you have promoted because the houses are a decent size, the housing is not located next to or within short walking distance of malls, grocery stores, bars, or restaurants. Of course the houses are a decent size and have yards which provide private and personal space. The school district is highly rated and there is no city nor city politics or taxes to deal with. That IS the best environment to live in by many, many people's definition. You can disagree but it doesn't change personal preferences.
Last edited by IC_deLight; 09-07-2023 at 07:42 PM..
It's certainly not about Germany yet that is what you constantly tout.
You describe your utopia with adjectives that are meaningful only to you. "Exciting" is one example. You try to rationalize your version of urban living as "better" when it is not "better" at all but rather simply your personal preference at this point in your life.
You are discussing various built forms - not necessarily the "best environment to live in". If "the best environment to live in" was your intended topic, that would obviously be a personal, subjective preference. Your personal preferences are just that - your personal preferences.
As far as "not wanting to change" - you want to push density, transit, etc. to change other places. Why do you believe others need to change to "be like Germany"? What change exactly are you promoting for where you reside?
People are free to disagree with you - and as you can tell they do. They are just as entitled to have their own personal preferences as to the "best environment to live in".
Defined terms are not something urbanophiles like to be held to. I live in an urban area by definition. It is better for me than anything you have promoted because the houses are a decent size, the housing is not located next to or within short walking distance of malls, grocery stores, bars, or restaurants. Of course the houses are a decent size and have yards which provide private and personal space. The school district is highly rated and there is no city nor city politics or taxes to deal with. That IS the best environment to live in by many, many people's definition. You can disagree but it doesn't change personal preferences.
An urban area is high density by definition. Urban area =/= metropolitan area
You are spreading your opinion about urban areas and I do so as well. I have my vocabulary to describe environments and you have your own vocabulary.
The problem is many negative things you and some others say about urban areas have nothing to do with opinions, but denying reality.
And if you say that urban areas are X and this isn't the case everywhere including Germany, Monaco, Liechtenstein, Japan etc., then your claim about urban areas is false - PERIOD.
An urban area is high density by definition. Urban area =/= metropolitan area
You are spreading your opinion about urban areas and I do so as well. I have my vocabulary to describe environments and you have your own vocabulary.
The problem is many negative things you and some others say about urban areas have nothing to do with opinions, but denying reality.
And if you say that urban areas are X and this isn't the case everywhere including Germany, Monaco, Liechtenstein, Japan etc., then your claim about urban areas is false - PERIOD.
There you go using meaningless terms again.
High density what, human population?
High density over what size geographic area?
What threshold numbers for geographic area and density constitutes high density?
You are correct in interpreting many things I've said about urban areas are not opinion. They are facts based on personal experience and reality in this country. You have no such personal experience and have never been to the U.S. yet you want to speak as if you are an expert based on watching YouTube video propaganda.
"Urban" is not going to comprehensively entail the same thing globally. There are many different cultures, laws, history, and level of advancement. What is acceptable in one place is not necessarily acceptable in others. The pros (if any) and cons will vary - and some person's "pro" will be another person's "con" even then.
As far as your strange definition of "urban" with respect to "metropolitan" - the terms are not mutually exclusive. "Metropolitan" includes cities (meaning the juristic entity) and urbanized areas. So you might rethink your definitions if you want to distinguish the two.
There you go using meaningless terms again.
High density what, human population?
High density over what size geographic area?
What threshold numbers for geographic area and density constitutes high density?
You are correct in interpreting many things I've said about urban areas are not opinion. They are facts based on personal experience and reality in this country. You have no such personal experience and have never been to the U.S. yet you want to speak as if you are an expert based on watching YouTube video propaganda.
"Urban" is not going to comprehensively entail the same thing globally. There are many different cultures, laws, history, and level of advancement. What is acceptable in one place is not necessarily acceptable in others. The pros (if any) and cons will vary - and some person's "pro" will be another person's "con" even then.
As far as your strange definition of "urban" with respect to "metropolitan" - the terms are not mutually exclusive. "Metropolitan" includes cities (meaning the juristic entity) and urbanized areas. So you might rethink your definitions if you want to distinguish the two.
If two things are not equal ("=/="), it does not mean they are mutual exclusive. Either you don't know what those mathematical signs mean or you don't understand first order logic or both.
Metropolitan areas could contain urban areas, but that does not mean all of the metropolitan area is urban. Most if not all metropolitan areas do also contain rural areas.
Apparently you don't know what the term urban means. An urban area is defined as a high density area. Of course as everyone knows, it means high density of bananas, not humans. The threshold for what is an urban area varies by country and agency. However a low density area can not be considered an urban area by the very definition of what an urban area is, regardless where the threshold is.
What you say about cities is counter-factual. You haven't lived in many if any urban area. You have no or no significant experience in it. I have lived in both, suburban and urban areas. I have family in the suburbs. I have spent significant amount of time there. But it is funny how you categorize walking videos as propaganda. Walking videos are just showing reality. They don't even have a message. They fail of having a fundamental feature of propaganda. That said you provided zero evidence to back up your claims so far. Neither numbers nor imagary, just your very narrow-minded subjective opinion.
If two things are not equal ("=/="), it does not mean they are mutual exclusive. Either you don't know what those mathematical signs mean or you don't understand first order logic or both.
Metropolitan areas could contain urban areas, but that does not mean all of the metropolitan area is urban. Most if not all metropolitan areas do also contain rural areas.
Apparently you don't know what the term urban means. An urban area is defined as a high density area. Of course as everyone knows, it means high density of bananas, not humans. The threshold for what is an urban area varies by country and agency. However a low density area can not be considered an urban area by the very definition of what an urban area is, regardless where the threshold is.
Dodging answering the question again aren't you? You want to continue to hide behind meaningless terms with nothing bounding scope of anything. "High density" is at best a relative term. You've provided no threshold as to "high" nor over what minimum geographic area nor any concept of granularity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stadtmensch
What you say about cities is counter-factual. You haven't lived in many if any urban area. You have no or no significant experience in it. I have lived in both, suburban and urban areas. I have family in the suburbs. I have spent significant amount of time there. But it is funny how you categorize walking videos as propaganda. Walking videos are just showing reality. They don't even have a message. They fail of having a fundamental feature of propaganda. That said you provided zero evidence to back up your claims so far. Neither numbers nor imagary, just your very narrow-minded subjective opinion.
There you go confusing "city" with "urban". A city is a juristic entity. It is not a definition of built form nor population density.
Contrary to your uninformed allegations, I have lived in both and other environments and almost certainly for longer periods of time than you have even existed on the planet. This is apparent based upon the maturity level associated with your current obsession with density and the arguments and tactics you've used to push density.
You want to cast yourself as an expert on places that you have never lived in or even visited. Watching walking videos does not make you an expert on anything any more than your porn watching makes you a sex expert. The analogy is apt. It's not the same at all. Viewing a digital image of a place is not actively walking the place.
When you can actually define some of the terms you've used then maybe you can make a cogent argument. Until then all you are is a troll promoting argument because you want the freedom to change what your terms mean as you have done numerous times in other threads ("freedom of movement", "city", "urban", etc.).
...can you provide some examples of political races where zoning was a major issue?....
No.
I didn't say people vote specifically for single family zoning. I said people vote for representatives that appoint boards that maintain SFH zoning. In the American system, a problem has to be perceived by the electorate as meaningful to them, before they'll vote on that issue. Right now, not enough people think the maintenance of single family zoning is an issue to even make it an issue in political campaigns (except, maybe, in certain coastal enclaves).
I will tell you that if you get more than 150 miles from the Atlantic or Pacific Ocean, any city where there's a concerted effort to force multi-family housing into single-family neighborhoods will find there's a real serious blowback.
So, I still maintain that overall most Americans prefer a system where there are large areas that are dedicated to single family housing and from which apartments are excluded (except, maybe, duplexes, depending on where you are). If or when that preference changes, we'll see changes in zoning regulations. I guarantee it.
I...Everyone has a list of priorities that shapes where they want to live, and they end up settling for something. ....
My point is that it's my strong suspicion that MOST of the people who're currently living in high density apartments in big cities are doing so not because they love living in those three rooms on the fourth floor overlooking the dumpsters with a 4x8 balcony that you're not allowed to grill on, with Sammy Subwoofer on one side and Archie and Edith fighting all night long on the other. They're living there because they want OTHER things out of living in the city center, and they put up with the crummy living conditions to get those things.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
