Unpopular opinions involving cities

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by pdxtex

street cars don't exist in America like they use to because they were dismantled on purpose. a collusion between oil interests, general motors and the tire companies, under the guise of selling people on bus transit. if you believe the conspiracy.....

This is actually a myth:

http://marketurbanism.com/2010/09/23...treetcar-myth/

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by pdxtex

i went to nyc once. it was the middle of summer. i returned to Portland and was picking out black boogers 4 days later.

yep, that gunk is everywhere and there is a word for it as well -- it's called schmutz. you don't wanna see our windowsills!

[pdxtex]

new york otherwise seemed really clean and well kept. i remember tourist streets in london. they would get so much garbage on weekends, there was a little mini street sweeper the size of riding lawn mower that some guy would use on the sidewalk. wow! new york by comparison seems to magically cart their trash away in a more covert manner. I think the lack of garbage cans in London was more of a defensive strategy though, one less place to hide an IRA bomb. I was there the summer after they bombed the wharf. kaboom.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog

What in the world are you talking about? Definitely a few unpopular and inaccurate opinions with your post.


LA neighborhoods look nothing like Chicago suburbs, like at all.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7506...7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Lo...4d-118.2436849

They're exactly the same in built form and geography, there are miles upon miles of this flat suburban land in LA, it is certainly the majority. Other than weather these people aren't living any differently and the people in LA are paying much more.

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by The North One

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7506...7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Lo...4d-118.2436849

They're exactly the same in built form and geography, there are miles upon miles of this flat suburban land in LA, it is certainly the majority. Other than weather these people aren't living any differently and the people in LA are paying much more.

Yeah, the suburban view is ubiquitous... Anywhere, USA

I bet I could find a street in the near suburbs of Erie, PA (my hometown) that looks exactly like these within 1 minute...

Ok, maybe 2 minutes

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0920...7i13312!8i6656

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

This is actually a myth:

http://marketurbanism.com/2010/09/23...treetcar-myth/

It's not a myth - as that editorial even states, there was actual convictions of GM and other companies involved. But as it also points out, it is true that as early as the 1920s and 30s there was a trend moving away from streetcars in favour of suburbanization, buses, and subways. The "Great American streetcar conspiracy" no doubt hastened their decline however, and there'd probably be a lot more streetcar networks intact if not for the conscious efforts of companies with opposing interests.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by The North One

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7506...7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Lo...4d-118.2436849

They're exactly the same in built form and geography, there are miles upon miles of this flat suburban land in LA, it is certainly the majority. Other than weather these people aren't living any differently and the people in LA are paying much more.

I know exactly where that is, Lakewood, CA. Interesting choice, because it was one of the first very large-scale post-WWII suburban developments in the LA area, larger than the first Levittown, even, and built with the same assembly-line type of construction... and the first planned community in SoCal with no downtown, built around a shopping mall. Cutting-edge for its time, I've read. When it incorporated as a city in the 1950s, it was the first incorporated city to contract out to the County for law enforcement, fire protection, and library services to save money. In fact, cities that do that in California are said to be on the "Lakewood Plan." Prior to Lakewood, when a community in California incorporated as a city, they were expected to establish their own police department, fire department, and public library.

But anyway, as you zoom out, there are hills and knolls near Lakewood. Signal Hill is only about 6 miles southwest of Lakewood, with the hills of the Palos Verdes Peninsula a little further out from there, and to the north, there are the Puente Hills, which are about 14 or 15 miles away. On very clear days, depending on where you are in Lakewood, you can see Signal Hill, Palos Verdes, and the Puente Hills. Good hiking is to be had in PV as well as the Puente Hills.

I feel that LA's suburbs are pretty built up, too. Though it's suburban, you somehow get the feeling that it's still somehow pretty well populated and built up. In Chicago's suburbs, at least the ones outside the immediate Chicago city limits, it feels almost like a small town. I had a childhood friend who moved to Mt. Prospect, IL (she doesn't live there anymore), but Mt. Prospect felt almost like a rural small town to me than part of a big metropolitan area.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by pdxtex

i went to nyc once. it was the middle of summer. i returned to Portland and was picking out black boogers 4 days later.

try shanghai, new york is tahoe in comparison. (someone is going to pipe in TRY BEIJING)

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

It's not a myth - as that editorial even states, there was actual convictions of GM and other companies involved. But as it also points out, it is true that as early as the 1920s and 30s there was a trend moving away from streetcars in favour of suburbanization, buses, and subways. The "Great American streetcar conspiracy" no doubt hastened their decline however, and there'd probably be a lot more streetcar networks intact if not for the conscious efforts of companies with opposing interests.

No, the myth is that the car companies colluded to destroy the streetcar companies. By the time they were purchased they were already dead.

And as I said earlier it's doubtful they would still be around today. It's an outdated mode of transit.

[SFBruin]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Scientific studies have found that people who are from cities are generally more stressed out. But I'm not 100% sure these studies completely controlled for things like occupation, income level, and cost of living. For example, would a retiree in NYC be significantly more stressed out than a retiree in the country, presuming the same income levels?

Regardless, density is a normal part of the human experience. If look at any traditional culture - from hunter gatherers to small farming villages - people tend to live very close together, with either no private space or a very small private home, with much of their time spent outside engaging in communal activities. This leads me to think it's not so much density that is stressful, but the constant presence of strangers. Indeed, in most traditional cultures meeting a stranger is a very stressful occasion, because those outside of the group could murder you on sight.

Therefore, I'd actually say from the standpoint of human psychology, the healthiest possible community would be a dense hamlet of around 150 people, all of whom are you friends and families, with minimal contacts with the rest of the world. Which of course is impossible in any civilized culture.

Yeah, I would agree. It's kind of complicated because cities are important.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by pdxtex

i remember tourist streets in london. they would get so much garbage on weekends, there was a little mini street sweeper the size of riding lawn mower that some guy would use on the sidewalk.

San Francisco has those. A former mayor (Willie Brown) saw them when he was tavelling somewhere and bought a bunch of them.


https://www.google.com/search?q=SF+g...rmb4iDX7W2J4M:

They don't really do that great a job.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

No, the myth is that the car companies colluded to destroy the streetcar companies. By the time they were purchased they were already dead.

And as I said earlier it's doubtful they would still be around today. It's an outdated mode of transit.

They were NOT. Most of them were municpally owned like DC Transit, which I mentioned, and served much of the city with streetcars quite effectively. My family rode them all the time. But when I was still a child they ripped up all the tracks. I actually remember them doing that and the propaganda about the superiority of busses.

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

They were NOT. Most of them were municpally owned like DC Transit, which I mentioned, and served much of the city with streetcars quite effectively. My family rode them all the time. But when I was still a child they ripped up all the tracks. I actually remember them doing that and the propaganda about the superiority of busses.

They were not municipally owned, they were mostly private companies. It's all sourced. You riding on one as a baby in the 50's doesn't change this fact.

And yes, busses are preferable to mixed traffic streetcars. Any transit expert will tell you the same. Streetcars offer no mobility improvement over busses. In fact they're often slower since they have no ability to move around obstacles.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

They were not municipally owned, they were mostly private companies. It's all sourced. You riding on one as a baby in the 50's doesn't change this fact.

And yes, busses are preferable to mixed traffic streetcars. Any transit expert will tell you the same. Streetcars offer no mobility improvement over busses. In fact they're often slower since they have no ability to move around obstacles.

Sorry, but I'm old enough to know what happened first hand and watching it happen. Some places they were private. Not in many. They were public in DC. In San Francisco they had been public since 1912. They all tore up the tracks regardless.

But in the Bay Area you are partly right. There was a separate system (like there is now with Muni and BART) that crossed the Bay known as the Key System. They has extensive streetcar tracks in the East Bay. Here's what happened to them:

On April 9, 1947, nine corporations and seven individuals (constituting officers and directors of certain of the corporate defendants) were indicted in the Federal District Court of Southern California on two counts: 'conspiring to acquire control of a number of transit companies, forming a transportation monopoly' and 'Conspiring to monopolize sales of buses and supplies to companies owned by National City Lines'. They were convicted of conspiring to monopolize sales of buses and supplies. They were acquitted of conspiring to monopolize the ownership of these companies.

In 1948 they proposed a plan to convert all the streetcars to buses. They placed an advertisement in the local papers explaining their plan to 'modernize' and 'motorize' Line 14. Oakland city council opposed the plan by 5–3. The Public Utilities Commission (PUC) supported the plan which included large fare increases. In October 1948, 700 people signed a petition with the PUC "against the Key System, seeking restoration of the bus service on the #70 Chabot Bus line". The councils of Oakland, Berkeley and San Leandro opposed the removal of street cars. The traffic planners supported removal of the streetcar lines to facilitate movement of automobiles. Local governments in the East Bay attempted to purchase the Key System, but were unsuccessful.

The Key System

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_System

In other words, it was, indeed, mostly a plot to sell busses.

[ChargerCarl]

I believe the DC streetcar was privately operated too when it was dismantled in the 50's as well. It certainly started out as one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street...shington,_D.C.

Of course this is all besides the point. As Stephen Smith points out the issue was they were privately operated but regulated as utilities, which hastened their downfall as they were unable to raise the funds to maintain their tracks because of fare regulations and declining ridership.

[toddguy]

Originally Posted by jayden

NYC should never build a skyscraper taller than 2,000 feet. It would ruin the skyline.

Well I think they could get by with an 1800 footer with a well done 500 foot spire or something like that.

Originally Posted by pdxtex

.....which leads me to another unpopular opinion. modern streetcars are better at marketing than actually moving large amounts of people fast. they attract attention and maybe investment along the way, but as an actual mode of transit, they are about as useful as a golf cart.....

I think some of them are just built to benefit the people who, well, are already benefited in society. Wealthy-ish people who can afford to live along the gentrified lines, wealthy-ish people who can afford to shop at the higher priced stores that develop, people who can afford to travel and be tourists and spend money, traveling business people, etc. If you look at which neighborhoods actually use mass transit the most(often poorer neighborhoods where people can't afford cars) how do these very expensive(if requiring new infrastructure and not using pre-existing lines)streetcars really benefit people who need some form of public transportation?

I wish they would just upgrade and expand existing bus systems and service and maybe use an upgraded non-gas using upscale streetcar-looking bus on the 'brochure' streets.

I would much rather have a good working bus system that is efficient, adaptive, varied, and actually used than just keeping the status quo but adding a $$$$$$$ingle streetcar line. I think much of it is the 'Hey look at us! We have one too now!' kind of thinking.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

the issue was they were privately operated but regulated as utilities, which hastened their downfall as they were unable to raise the funds to maintain their tracks because of fare regulations and declining ridership.

Nope. See above. What hastened their downfall at least in the Bay Area and LA was a criminal conspiracy to sell busses for which the company owners were convicted. But similar things happened in other places.

As the bit I posted indicates, there was a lot of propaganda even at the time that the systems were out of date and inefficient and traffic planners often bought into it. But it was garbage.

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Nope. See above. What hastened their downfall at least in the Bay Area and LA was a criminal conspiracy to sell busses.

I mean, if you're not gonna read the article I posted I'm not sure what the point of even discussing this with you is. That view is debunked in the link I posted. Please read it.

Also, as far as I can tell, wikipedia says the DC streetcar was still privately operated in the 50's. Since you actually rode on it when you were a baby maybe you can point out where I'm going wrong here.

[pdxtex]

anyone remember the simpsons monorail episode?? it reminds me of this topic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDOI0cq6GZM

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

Also, as far as I can tell, wikipedia says the DC streetcar was still privately operated in the 50's. Since you actually rode on it when you were a baby maybe you can point out where I'm going wrong here.

In 1933, all streetcars were brought under one company, Capital Transit. The streetcars began to scale back with the rising popularity of the automobile and pressure to switch to buses. After a strike in 1955, the company changed ownership and became DC Transit, with explicit instructions to switch to buses. The system was dismantled in the early 1960s and the last streetcar ran on January 28, 1962 . . . .

In January 1955 the Capital Transit Company, then consisting of 750 buses and 450 streetcars, sought permission for a fare increase, but was denied. So that spring, when employees asked for a raise, there was no money available and the company refused to increase pay. Frustrated, employees went on strike on July 1, 1955. The strike, only the third in D.C. history and the first since a three-day strike in 1945, lasted for seven weeks. Commuters were forced to hitch rides and walk in the brutal summer heat.

On July 18, 1956, after Wolfson dared the Senate to revoke his franchise claiming no other entrepreneur would take the company on, the Congress did just that. Months later, the franchise was sold to O. Roy Chalk, a New York financier who owned controlling interest in Trans Caribbean Airways, for $13.5 million. The company's name was then changed to DC Transit.

As part of the deal selling Capital Transit to O. Roy Chalk, he was required to replace the system with buses by 1963. Chalk fought the retirement of the streetcars but was unsuccessful, and the final abandonment of the streetcar system began on September 7, 1958

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street...ashington,_D.C.

So I was wrong--it was still private. But I was right about the fundamental issue: It was not abandoned because it was outdated. The new owner, who clearly thought he could make money, wanted to keep the streetcars but was forced to replace them with busses by Congress (DC then didn't have "home rule"). This was the era when it was said (with a straight face), "What's good for General Motors is good for the USA". Much of Congress believed that and listened intently to their lobbyists.