2 ms·

I guess all I can really say at the end of the day is that I get a weird 'feeling' from the Strong Towns movement, and I can't put my finger on why. Guess that

I guess all I can really say at the end of the day is that I get a weird 'feeling' from the Strong Towns movement, and I can't put my finger on why. Guess that isn't very helpful, is it.

Tade0 3y ago
I get the same feeling from other such organisations and people. They seem to be focused on aspects that are typically less important to the rest of society. The most head-scratching example of this that I've seen was a guy saying that people should move to Chicago because it's underrated and has a decent transportation network. Y-yeah. But that's not the only thing that people consider when they move and let's just say the city itself has a reputation. In my corner of the world there's a lot of putting the cart before the horse in this regard - typically via closing streets for traffic without improving public transport. Net effect is just more congestion because people have places to go regardless how much you reduce "induced demand".
Ekaros 3y ago
It always feel like they are changing something different, but I am not entirely sure if it actually will work or make my life better. And this is as European. At same time. I'm pretty sure sprawl would be better with more mixed zoning. Ofc, with buffers to oil refineries... If some idiots starts that argument.
qball 3y ago
>I get a weird 'feeling' from the Strong Towns movement, and I can't put my finger on why An organization with a subtly culturally imperialist name ("the cities are all fine, but all small towns are all broken everywhere") is unlikely to have your best interests at heart even if its conclusions may have some validity. The thing that this lobby group misses is that, ultimately, most smaller towns are in maintenance mode (we soft-banned most resource extraction and what is left only requires a tenth of the workforce) and that's true to a degree for smaller cities as well. This isn't something you can easily do with a major city because the infrastructure is more heavily used and won't as gracefully degrade, but you can keep rural roads serviceable for a long time with simple maintenance. And this is why "stroads" exist in the first place- that's already the cost-optimized solution (take 2 lane road, expropriate some front yards/front parking, now you have a 4-lane road that can support through traffic and exiting traffic), and reworking them is not going to help a town that Strong Towns claims in the same article "are financially irresponsible and don't even have enough tax revenue to sustain maintenance". Surely, if they don't have bread, perhaps they might consider cake?

I guess all I can really say at the end of the day is that I get a weird 'feeling' from the Strong Towns movement, and I can't put my finger on why. Guess that isn't very helpful, is it.

Tade0 3y ago

I get the same feeling from other such organisations and people. They seem to be focused on aspects that are typically less important to the rest of society. The most head-scratching example of this that I've seen was a guy saying that people should move to Chicago because it's underrated and has a decent transportation network. Y-yeah. But that's not the only thing that people consider when they move and let's just say the city itself has a reputation. In my corner of the world there's a lot of putting the cart before the horse in this regard - typically via closing streets for traffic without improving public transport. Net effect is just more congestion because people have places to go regardless how much you reduce "induced demand".

Ekaros 3y ago

It always feel like they are changing something different, but I am not entirely sure if it actually will work or make my life better. And this is as European. At same time. I'm pretty sure sprawl would be better with more mixed zoning. Ofc, with buffers to oil refineries... If some idiots starts that argument.

qball 3y ago

>I get a weird 'feeling' from the Strong Towns movement, and I can't put my finger on why An organization with a subtly culturally imperialist name ("the cities are all fine, but all small towns are all broken everywhere") is unlikely to have your best interests at heart even if its conclusions may have some validity. The thing that this lobby group misses is that, ultimately, most smaller towns are in maintenance mode (we soft-banned most resource extraction and what is left only requires a tenth of the workforce) and that's true to a degree for smaller cities as well. This isn't something you can easily do with a major city because the infrastructure is more heavily used and won't as gracefully degrade, but you can keep rural roads serviceable for a long time with simple maintenance. And this is why "stroads" exist in the first place- that's already the cost-optimized solution (take 2 lane road, expropriate some front yards/front parking, now you have a 4-lane road that can support through traffic and exiting traffic), and reworking them is not going to help a town that Strong Towns claims in the same article "are financially irresponsible and don't even have enough tax revenue to sustain maintenance". Surely, if they don't have bread, perhaps they might consider cake?