Comments on: Cities, Suburbs, and Infrastructure

By: ending the tampa bay creative diaspora (part i) | Sticks of Fire: a Tampa blog

Thu, 14 Aug 2008 16:31:56 +0000

[...] in search of a city. LA, Phoenix, Albuquerque, El Paso, Houston, Orlando, Jacksonville - the built landscape is pretty much the [...]

By: Probate

Probate — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 00:39:47 +0000

I think a micro trend will be “quality of life outposts” (like fort’s in the ole frontier days) with the use of computers, phones and FedEX who needs to go to the city after all? Other than the personal face the face interaction. I would rather work at my lakefront home. I suspect the hermit population is growing faster than most people think. Web blogs and web forums provide pretty good social interaction. I don’t need a trendy starbucks in Soho to get a new idea. There is the future… I think

By: Ian

Ian — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 21:44:28 +0000

There are a lot of personal benefits to this kind of shift toward transit-centered development. But what are the consumer products (and corporate backers) driving the shift this time ’round?

I think what makes this shift a particular challenge to carry out is the entrenched business interests (autos and servicing, fast food, big box stores) in the status quo. Those who built the highways didn’t have much opposition to overcome - in fact, they had a lot of support from the automakers, white goods manufacturers, etc.

Today, there are a lot of people making a lot of money off of car-centric cities. Whatever the time and lifestyle benefits of this spatial shift, overcoming those entrenched interests won’t be easy.

By: Charles Carrington

Charles Carrington — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 18:34:30 +0000

Richard, I agree with you on the “first mover” advantage. Some of the US core regions (NY, Chicago) already have decent public transit, and they are managing the transition (to a higher energy/transportation cost) reasonably well. Those without good public transport, not so well. Investment in efficient transport — existing or new — should offer advantages.

Most European capitals have good subways and good rail services. There is an embedded belief in much of the US that our cities don’t have the density or size to support the huge capital costs of subways and rail. I haven’t checked but I’d guess that there was some city size at which subways were economically viable. And, if built, then adequate density would follow.

Do you have any idea what the average size of a city was that created a subway in the 20th Century? Any thought of what the size might be today? I’d SWAG somewhere between 1 and 2 million persons.

Unfortunately we (in Texas) see many cities investing in Toll Highways, rather than dense public transport options. It’s cliche to say, but it is so last century.

By: Stacey Derbinshire

Stacey Derbinshire — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 17:30:42 +0000

Hi there,

I looked over your blog and it looks really good. Do you ever do link exchanges on your blog roll? If you do, I’d like to exchange links with you.

Let me know if you’re interested.

Thanks..