|
|
On Wed, 24 Nov 1999, Michael Perelman wrote:
> I must not have made my point about sprawl very well. Yesterday, the two
notes
> both insisted that the layout of cities and reliance on the car was
because of
> individual preferences.
Your point was not only made, but made well -- as it was by Ian McHarg(sp.?)
in _The Heart of Our Cities_ (book and movie) in the late-'60s-early-'70s. I
stand to be corrected for faulty memory; but my best recollection is that he
gave the conceptual design to what has now become a vital downtown Fort Worth
(not to say that the smell of the stockyards didn't give that CBD a bit of a
downwind charm of its own way-back then 8<). That other city to the east laid
claim to riches and finances and an internationally-known soap-opera; but Fort
Worth had both the cultural museums and the juke-joints on Jacksboro Highway.
Ask Molly Ivins...
> Today, Rebecca says that all cities look alike as far as mass transit is
> concerned. She is correct. All American cities work by similar types of
> planning and subsidies. The car and highways are heavily subsidized.
Employers
> are frequently required to provide parking. Planning authorities rarely
look at
> the regional impact of their decisions.
The Interstate Highway Act of 1956 sorta "path-depended" that: 90% Fed funds
for Interstate freeways (rural or urban) vs. 50% for US "primaries" (like US
66, r.i.p.) vs. 30% (exclusive of r/w acquisition) for state designated
secondaries (get the farmer out of the mud a'la the original Federal Highway
Legislation in 1913). Let me be Peircean clear: 90% for "freeways" (the
interstate and defense highway system) *between* cities/urban-areas; while Ike
who was from the "heartland" didn't quite understand the notion that some
politically independent "cities" (say Newark to be trite) were all part of a
single urban area. Yo, that's Interstate... and 90% Fed-funded .. but not a
nickel for extending a rail-transit line; nor feeder-buses to a station.
Dr. Pereleman, in California, can probably do a better job of describing how
General Motors bought out the LA trolley system, in the guise of converting it
to rubber tired coaches, then declaring it unprofitable, and eventually
shutting it down completely (ca. 1956). How conveeeenient! that 90% Federal
funding for freeways became available that very same year...and still is after
all these 43 years. That's 90% for Interstate-designated Highways (from right
out of our gasoline-tax-payin' pockets -- OPEC restraints really he'ps fill
them coffers). At least w/r/t "freeway/lane/miles" Say's Law has been
ten-fold proven...
> While the individual might prefer to rely on the automobile within this
context,
> the QWERTY-like question is, would this preference hold within the system of
> rational urban planning.
Bein' (in my youth) a long-tall-Texan, I prefer a big white horse; but that
individual preference -- if additive and accepted -- would create a rather
utilitarian huge pile of...<manure, I'm being polite tonight>.
Bill the Cat in the Curmudgeon's Hat
|
|
|
 Send comments and questions to admin@eh.net
|
||