• 89 Posts
  • 2.64K Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 4th, 2023

help-circle





  • There a huge difference between cut and cover in a green field, vs cut and cover in an existing downtown. Huge. That’s if you can even do it in an existing downtown because of the road alignment and existing underground utilities. It’s really unlikely you can do cut and cover in an existing city and that’s the whole problem. Greenfield you can do with side slope instead of shoring, one story deep instead of two because you can plan out exits to not interfere with an existing road, and no conflicts with traffic/utilities/buildings/noise mitigation to snarl everything up. And when you get out of the planned core you can run it on the surface and still grade separate crossing, which is cheap.

    the last 70 years do not suggest huge roads, huge offices, and huge house lead to a utopia.

    I’m sorry but this is really twisting what I said. I didn’t say huge roads, I simply said roads (although I can see how that can be misread).

    Huge (tall) offices are the whole point, you relocate big offices and lots of jobs. With easy access to subways. That does not mean car dependency. It’s actually the other way around, a bunch of short rise offices quickly become too far away from a subway line.

    Nor did I say huge houses, I simply said houses. I could include apartments in there too.

    Car dependency depends on the city design, it’s not inherent to the existence of offices and roads. And the whole point of a designed city is you can get the space for cheap subways and space for bike paths without having to cram them into an existing road system. The existing road system is the thorn in the way of subway, transit, trains, and bike paths. Trying to cram all this into existing road system usually doesn’t work, and if you can it gets to be extremely expensive for a subpar system.

    a rare case in America where post-WW2 greenfield housing or commercial developments

    This is not simply housing or a business park on the edge of an existing city which is usually done in car dependency sprawl style. I’m suggesting a new city.

    constant sprawling expansion

    Yeah you really seem to think I’m demanding sprawl when I’m not. I don’t know if your twisting is intentional or not but it’s at the point that I think I’m going to end this conversation. It’s really far from my original question anyway.














  • The comment I responded to:

    “Idaho senator born in another state tells Native American congressional candidate from a tribe native to the state to “go back where you came from.”

    Literally focused on state. That’s precisely the exacting point they were making. Like how do you read that and not think that was about the state.

    And yes I think there is hypocrite damnation. Like how do you misread so badly that you think I don’t jfc. The hypocrite damnation belongs on the national level, not the state level. It doesn’t go away just because you’re from that state.