HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
Newsgroups: alt.planning.urban
Subject: Re: Automotive congestion as a sign of health
Date: 8 Jan 93 22:39:54 GMT
Reply-To: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
Organization: lbl
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.12.154

In article <1993Jan8.200428.28065@netcom.com>, randolph@netcom.com (Randolph
Fritz) writes:
|> 
|> On a related note, I've decided that automobile traffic congestion can
|> actually be a sign of urban health--it means that people are crowding
|> out cars.  What do you-all think?

There's a related theory (forgot whose) that at some level
of urban development, congestion is constant, no matter how few
or many roads there are (and how wide).  Assuming this for the
moment, then we can simply ignore autos and look at how easily
people can get around without them as a sign of urban health.

Bruce Nordman
B_Nordman@lbl.gov
From: rcf@netlink.cts.com (Bob Forsythe)
Newsgroups: alt.planning.urban
Subject: Re: Death and Life of Great American Cities
Date: 9 Jan 93 02:18:14 GMT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

trebor@athena.mit.edu (Robert B Beattie) writes:
> 
> Who determines these characteristics in American cities? Anyone even vaguely 
> familiar with the city planning process knows that even the most comprehensiv
> planning bodies do not map out the detailed design of their cities. Instead, 
> almost all development in cities is undertaken by private investors, who are 
> usually only loosely guided by the zoning codes and other rules of the 
> municipality. If American cities don't conform to these ideals, it's probably
> because private development, as currently practiced, hasn't taken them to hea
> 
    I think that's a bit self-defeating.  The job of planning how a city 
is to take shape belongs to planners and government, not the developers, 
and it is the job of the professionals to indeed map out a detailed 
design.  This can be accomplished through the General Plan, the Zoning 
Ordinance, and various other mechanisms, such as design review and 
environmental protection ordinances.  The fact that development is done 
by developers shouldn't have a lot to do with it (although that does 
ignore the political influence of developers).  Developers don't have to 
accept planning principals, they have to live with the ordinances that 
professionals develop on the basis of those principals.  Make it fairly 
clear to them what the rules of the game are, and they won't care what 
principles (excuse the earlier spelling) are used.  The problems occur 
when they get mixed signals from government.

-Bob

--                    
INTERNET:  rcf@netlink.cts.com (Bob Forsythe)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!rcf
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
From: haynes@cats.ucsc.edu (Jim Haynes)
Newsgroups: alt.planning.urban
Subject: Re: Gasoline Tax and Cities
Date: 11 Jan 1993 04:45:39 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: hobbes.ucsc.edu


In article <SPACKMAN.93Jan10153947@disco-sol.dfki.uni-sb.de> stephen@acm.org writes:
>	(3) they don't handle bulky goods
I have a couple of friend (married couple) both working for the same company.
For a while their company assigned them to an office in New York City.  When
they came back they entertained at a gathering of friends by telling New York
City stories all night.  One of these was about buying the step stool.

They needed a step stool for their kitchen, so they went to some big NYC
department store.  They found one they liked and told the sales person they
wanted to buy it.  The sales person explained that was just the display
model, and they were supposed to pay for it and then it would be delivered
to their home in a few days.  They said they are never home during the week
(since both are at work) so they wanted to buy a step stool and take it
home with them.  The sales person explained that there were none in the store
other than the display model; that in New York you don't buy something as
bulky as a step stool and take it home with you, because you'd have to carry
it in a taxi or subway or bus; so everything is delivered by trucks from
the store's warehouse.
-- 
haynes@cats.ucsc.edu
haynes@cats.bitnet

"Ya can talk all ya wanna, but it's dif'rent than it was!"
"No it aint!  But ya gotta know the territory!"
        Meredith Willson: "The Music Man"

Newsgroups: alt.planning.urban
From: micah@ravl.rice.edu (Micah Samuel Rosen)
Subject: Location of posters
Organization: Rice University
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 21:28:13 GMT

This may seem a little silly, but it would be nice if
persons posting to this group would indicate what city,
town, r.f.d., pond or whatever they are living in and
writing about.

There is a broad variety of urban areas out there to
talk about and it might help contextualize the comments.

For example :

I'm prepared to believe Randolph Fritz (randolph@netcom.com)
 when he says --


>On a related note, I've decided that automobile traffic congestion can
>actually be a sign of urban health--it means that people are crowding
>out cars.  What do you-all think?

-- if he is writing from Manhattan or Charleston or Cairo while
I don't believe that he would have a correct assessment in
Houston or Los Angeles.

Just a suggestion ... take it or leave it ... no flames


Micah Rosen        Univ. of Virginia B.S. Architecture 1990
Houston, TX        Rice University M. Arch. 1993 
               
                   "Rubbernecking is an indication of the disinteresting
			quality of our own modern lives ... "
               
Newsgroups: alt.planning.urban
From: calvert@QueensU.CA (John Calvert)
Subject: Re: Death and Life of Great American Cities
Organization: Queen's University, Kingston, Canada
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 05:11:55 GMT

>almost all development in cities is undertaken by private investors, who are 
>usually only loosely guided by the zoning codes and other rules of the 

Jacobs addresses this by claiming that pre-WWII most cities laid out street
grids even for residential areas, and told developers what they could put
there (this is a simplification). I know of at least one undertaking that
is returning to this method: Markham, Ont (north of Toronto) has hired
Andres Duany (of Seaside, FL) to rewrite the cities zoning laws. The new
laws will encourage at least 1., 2. and 4. from Jacobs. Developers will
have a choice, go the old route and face approval delays of up to 3 years,
or accept the changes in zoning (and sometimes even street layout) and
possibily receive approval in a few months. No Guarantees!

To clarify a previous posting: short blocks, although resulting in more
pavement per square unit of city vitality, lead to many more interactions
between district neighbours, and visitors. They give people a variety of
routes to any one destination. They allow the vitality to spread beyond
the main boulevard or thoroughfare. They stir things up. From personal
experience I perfer to walk a block with many interesting sidestreets
to one long corridor.

John
-- 
John Calvert

calvert@mast.queensu.ca
Newsgroups: alt.planning.urban
From: macrakis@osf.org (Stavros Macrakis)
Subject: Re: Planners, Engineers, and Architects
Organization: OSF Research Institute
	<1993Jan12.152244.24351@athena.mit.edu>
Date: 12 Jan 93 14:50:47

In article <1993Jan12.152244.24351@athena.mit.edu> trebor@athena.mit.edu (Robert B Beattie) writes:

   ...engineers think that planners and architects are imprecise and
   too political, architects think planners compromise too much on
   their vision while engineers have little or no inspiration, and
   planners think that both engineers and architects seldom have a
   sense for the complexities of implementation and policy. Where do
   we all get these stereotypes? I'm not sure, except I know some of
   them are reinforced in school and professional life....

Such "professional cultures" seem to be a normal and necessary part of
life, probably because very few people can be good at many things at
the same time.  Rather than having universalists, who are precise when
they calculate structures, creative when they select colors, and
Machiavellian when they negotiate zoning variances, we have
specialists in each field.  The engineers can perfect their precision;
the architects their sense of color; the urban planners their
political manipulations.  Now, of course, you have to find some way
for these specialists to understand each other and interact
productively.

None of this is specific to urban planning.  An artist presumably
expects his plumber to solder well, his accountant to prepare 1040's
correctly, and his dealer to schmooze effectively.  Of course, some
artists do their own plumbing, tax forms, and sales.  But wouldn't
they better spend their time on their art?

	-s
Newsgroups: alt.planning.urban
From: trebor@athena.mit.edu (Robert B Beattie)
Subject: Re: Death and Life of Great American Cities
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Urban Studies & Planning
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 01:59:52 GMT

The original post asked why, if Jane Jacobs had gotten such universal accolades
for her principals of good city design, so few American cities seemed to 
conform to them. There are really two parts to an answer, in my opinion.

First Jacobs, as an earlier poster pointed out, was a critic of architecture
(and as that poster didn't point out, of planning as well). Her critique was
well received in the literature, but was not terribly well received by working
planners because it came from outside of the boys club, so to speak. But this 
isn't really the main answer, although it does say something interesting about
the planning profession at that time.

Jacob's principals, as stated in the earlier post, are:
|> 1. diversity of use
|> 2. small blocks
|> 3. mixed ages of buildings
|> 4. medium high densities

Who determines these characteristics in American cities? Anyone even vaguely 
familiar with the city planning process knows that even the most comprehensive
planning bodies do not map out the detailed design of their cities. Instead, 
almost all development in cities is undertaken by private investors, who are 
usually only loosely guided by the zoning codes and other rules of the 
municipality. If American cities don't conform to these ideals, it's probably
because private development, as currently practiced, hasn't taken them to heart

Just my opinion
Newsgroups: alt.planning.urban
From: foxx@foxxjac.b17a.ingr.com (AJ Foxx)
Subject: Re: Gasoline Tax and Cities
Reply-To: foxx@foxxjac.b17a.ingr.com
Organization: "n.  A group united by a common interest or goal"
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:20:52 GMT

trefftz@canidae.cps.msu.edu (Christian Trefftz Dr. Hsu) writes:
|> There is talk again about higher taxes on gasoline.
|> Would it have a long term impact on the way cities grow?
|> Would it make massive transit systems more attractive?
|> What do you think?


I asked this question at one point and have pieced together
this answer.  Gasoline costs are actually not the major cost
of private transportation.  I recall an article that placed
the cost of driving a car at somewhere over $4 a mile (U.S.)
including maintenance and other necessary costs.  So I believe
that many people will complain (greatly) about increasing
gasoline prices, but they will adjust.  As long as people 
focus on factors such as gasoline which are smaller and are
able to ignore other greater costs, they will not perceive 
mass transit as a better option.  

An example is found in extremely crowded areas where people 
choose mass transit rather than pay exhorbant parking fees.
These people realize that gasoline cost is less significant
considering the amount of time they drive versus the amount
of time they park.
  --AJ
Newsgroups: alt.planning.urban
From: calvert@QueensU.CA (John Calvert)
Subject: Re: Death and Life of Great American Cities
Organization: Queen's University, Kingston, Canada
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 21:11:03 GMT


I'd like to know what schools are teaching or studying the ideas
put forward by J. Jacobs, Duany & P-Z, and Peter Calthorpe. I don't
mean just "noticing", but actually pushing to their limits. Here's
an example, how about redeveloping a shopping mall to turn it back in
to a main street, with dwellings and small shops added, and the
parking lot returned to streetscape.

John
-- 
John Calvert

calvert@mast.queensu.ca
Newsgroups: alt.planning.urban
From: randolph@netcom.com (Randolph Fritz)
Subject: Re: Gasoline Tax and Cities
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:59:07 GMT

I think a workable mass-transit design in a modern metropolis would
involve two levels:

  1. A publicly-funded, high-speed, sparse network that gets within a
     few miles of all the destinations of the system.

  2. A set of locally-funded transit systems that go the last few
     miles.  This would include already-existing corporate commute
     services and neighborhood services that would be locally
     established and funded.

As a final touch, the high-speed network could also handle cargo.  The
cargo transport problem generally could be much alleviated by delivery
services.

__Randolph



Newsgroups: alt.planning.urban
From: randolph@netcom.com (Randolph Fritz)
Subject: Re: Location of posters
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 01:08:59 GMT

I live in Silicon Valley--edge city--in Mountain View, which is near where
the Valley's downtown would be if zoning didn't forbid any such thing
from emerging.  I grew up in New York City and I've spent some time in LA.

As for a sign of health--congestion indicates use.  Automotive
congestion means that lots of people want to use a place and are
willing to spend time and deal with stress to do it.  I think this is
a sign of health in shared-use urban spaces, at least so long as the
spaces aren't swamped.

Even in Silicon Valley, even in LA, the places people like to be
in--the ones they choose to congregate in when they have the
inclination--are the ones where people walk, and people are willing to
drive considerable distances to get out and walk.

__Randolph Fritz
  randolph@netcom.com
  Mountain View, California, Earth
Newsgroups: alt.planning.urban
From: trebor@athena.mit.edu (Robert B Beattie)
Subject: Re: Planners, Engineers, and Architects
Keywords: Planning architecture engineering communication NOT
Organization: MIT Dept. of Urban Studies and Planning
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:22:44 GMT

Both professionally and academically I have seen very few instances where 
communication among these professions is anywhere near where it should be. Here
at MIT the Planning Dept. is part of the School of Architecture and Planning,
but with the exception of some people who do double masters degrees, and a few
planners who are interested primarily in urban design, there is very little
communication.

Part of the problem, which you seem to be trying to overcome in a healthy way,
is that the vocabulary of the three disciplines is so different. To make a
completely gross generalization (just for illustration) many engineers consider
themselves to be 'scientists,' many architects consider themselves to be 
'artists,' and many planners consider themselves to be either 'deal-makers' or
'reformers.' There are real tensions between these different ways of seeing and
interacting with the world. 

Of course real people seldom fit precisely into the idealized categories that
I've just layed out. The tensions come, I think, because engineers think that
planners and architects are imprecise and too political, architects think
planners compromise too much on their vision while engineers have little or no
inspiration, and planners think that both engineers and architects seldom have
a sense for the complexities of implementation and policy. Where do we all get
these stereotypes? I'm not sure, except I know some of them are reinforced in 
school and professional life. Any other ideas?
Newsgroups: alt.planning.urban
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: Gasoline Tax and Cities
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 10:46:11 GMT

In article <1ii87sINNgi5@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> trefftz@canidae.cps.msu.edu (Christian Trefftz Dr. Hsu) writes:
>There is talk again about higher taxes on gasoline.
>Would it have a long term impact on the way cities grow?

Of course it would.  It would make them poorer, more crowded, and less
efficient.

>Would it make massive transit systems more attractive?

No, they'd still be inconvenient and expensive, but many people would be 
forced into them.

>What do you think?

I think that all these people who hate individual cars ought to keep their
noses out of other people's business.

--Brian
From: fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu (Aaron Priven)
Newsgroups: alt.planning.urban
Subject: Re: Death and Life of Great American Cities
Date: 10 Jan 1993 23:29:22 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (College Eight)
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu


In article <C0HytK.J20@knot.ccs.queensu.ca> calvert@QueensU.CA (John Calvert) writes:
>I just finished reading this classic, and checked out a couple of
>reviews, both from 1961, and more recent. Jane Jacobs seems to
>get universal accolades. So why don't North American cities
>conform to her 4 laws of city vitality?

I discovered Death and Life in a class called "The Quality of Urban
Life" at UCSC a few years ago.  Since then I've gone on to read more of
her work.  (Interesting for you, since you are Canadian, might be her
work on Quebec sovereignty and why it might turn out okay...)

I've found her work to be excellent, and long for more discussion in
the same vein.  One problem I have is that my professor was so
pro-Jacobs that I feel starved for criticism of her.

I should say that I am an amateur (I studied politics) but am
interested in planning issues.

 =Aaron=
(since somebody asked about locations, I just left Santa Cruz,
California, and now live in the East Bay (across from San Francisco))
-- 
Aaron Priven, fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu
  Bring in the workers, and bring up the rails;
  We're gonna lay down the tracks, and tear up the trails. 
  Open her heart, let the life-blood flow,
  Gotta get on our way 'cause we're movin' too slow.
    -- Gordon Lightfoot, "Canadian Railroad Trilogy"
From: electro@access.digex.com (Gary Ehrlich)
Newsgroups: alt.planning.urban
Subject: Re: Gasoline Tax and Cities
Date: 8 Jan 1993 03:06:38 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com


It's always seemed to me that in order to really get people to use
mass transit, you have to give them routes and schedules which get
them to work in reasonable amounts of time.

Occasionally, I or someone I know has had to find their way to work by
bus or train instead of car.  In some of these cases, what would have
been a 15-20 minute drive became a 60-90 minute commute.  It's no surprise
that someone would opt for the drive in this case.  I know that for myself,
a difference of an hour in the time I get home can make a *HUGE* difference
in what I get accomplished in the evening


-- 
     ELECTRO   | Gary J. Ehrlich           | "Real filkers don't document;
    E_____     |                           |  if it was hard to write it   
   E           | electro@access.digex.com  |  should be hard to scan" 
  ELECTRO      | G. EHRLICH on GEnie       |
From: sod@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Sean M O Donnell)
Newsgroups: alt.planning.urban
Subject: Re: Where to study Urbanism(was Re: Death and Life)
Date: 11 Jan 1993 18:29:24 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Reply-To: sod@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4
Originator: sod@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

From article <C0K4nt.C2s@rice.edu>, by micah@ravl.rice.edu (Micah Samuel Rosen):
> The programs in urbanism I am familiar with at this point include:
> 
> University of Virginia - graduate students in all divisions of the
> 			school of Architecture (architecture, landscape
> 			urban planning, arch. history) can take
> 			studios and recieve a certificate in American
> 			Urbanism. This program has been around for
> 			over ten years now.
> 
> University of Miami (FL) - The school of architecture is run by
> 			Duany and Plater-Zyberk. It offers a post-
> 			professional Masters of Architecture and 
> 			Town Planning.
> 
> Look for possible emergence of Yale with the recent appointment
> of Fred Koetter as Dean of Architecture. (Although I understand
> that being dean at Yale is largely ceremonial like many other
> schools.)
> 
> Others are out there but those are the ones I know. Traditional 
> urbanism was hip stuff for architects in the early 80's but has gone
> by the wayside with the emergence of Rem Koolhaas (Delirious New
> York) and the "Lite City." There are still a few architecture
> professors pushing traditional urbanism but such are the tides
> of fashion ...


I wonder if attempting to study urbanism in a formal program is the appropriate
method to arrive at your own understanding of the phenomena.  Personal
experienec of places is the singularly best method of learning about urbanism.
In this manner of study, you avoid the deception of scrutinizing a city in
abstraction, i.e. by interpreting plans, axons, renderings, even photos.

To augment these studies there are hundreds of great books (thousands?) that
could help in interpreting a city, ranging from _I, Cladius_ for Rome to
DPZ's _Towns and Town-making Principles_ at Seaside or Windsor.  My suggestion
is to keep it interdisciplinary though.  Politics and economics are powerful
players in the city and Walt Whitman's poem Crossing Brooklyn Ferry reveals
much about life and the city, particularly when you've crossed the East River
yourself (the walk across the Brooklyn Bridge is on of the great urban 
experiences of my life.)

Also, see places sveral times in varying weather conditions, throughout the year.  You get a very different feel and you see how people use a space over time,
Jones Beach is wonderful in the winter.

To qualify my statements, I am a graduate student in Architecture/Urban Planning
and there are definitely things to be learned in school, things that have
changed the way I see the city.  The point being, you can study urbanism
anywhere though.  You have to live it to really understand it.

Sean

D
B
B

C
C
A
B
B
A New Yorker currently exploring the Midwest
>                    "Planned communities are for people with no
> 			plans of their own ... "
Newsgroups: alt.wolves
From: owens@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Robert Michael Owens)
Subject: Re: other ways to tell dog from wolf
Organization: Penn State Computer Science
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 16:46:43 GMT

take this for what it is worth. a while back a dog/wolf/coyote was
killed by the road to my families camp/summer home (this is central pa).
the state game people claimed they identified it as a michigan gray(?)
wolf based on a microscopic analysis of it's hair. also..

for the last two years, a dog/wolf/coyote has been seen in the
state game lands surrounding this same camp. most who have seen it,
claim it to be a coyote. i saw it ~ one year ago but it looks
nothing like a south/west coyote to me. what gives?

owens
Newsgroups: alt.wolves
From: jkraft@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (john kraft)
Subject: Dog or Wolf? The wolves and dogs know.
Organization: Northeastern University
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 23:32:34 GMT

Someone told me that wolf-hybrids have a tuft of fur on their
tail about three inches from the base.  Mine has one and it is very 
noticeable.  This person referred to it as a scent mark although
there is certainly no scent gland on a wolf's tail.  The hairs
tend to stick out and it is about an inch in length and a 
quarter inch wide.  

I suppose that if it is there then it is a sign of being a wolf.
If it is not, I do not know it this disqualifies it.

I think the best way to tell if your puppy is a wolf is to
see if he destroys everything dear to your heart and then smiles
at you.  Just kidding..

Peace Out - John

Newsgroups: alt.wolves