'Ouses, Greenbelt and stuff
Comments
-
It's a while since I visited so I'll bow to your more up to date local knowledge, but for example I don't think a few Victorian style bits applied to what are still fairly standard developer homes are really making the difference here.Dorset_Boy said:
To a degree that may be true for the orginal phase, but I disagree on all the subsequent phases.rjsterry said:
Yes.Dorset_Boy said:
In what way has it blighted Pounbury?rjsterry said:
Look up Createstreets. It's just a rebrand of the Leon Krier guff that blighted Poundbury with fake villagey-ness.rick_chasey said:
It could not be more core to the average labour voter, so yes, I expect they will.focuszing723 said:
Do you think Labour will champion a house building boom?
It would be impressive if they walked the walk.
Why they are insisting on what style the houses are is beyond me.
Do you think the Georgians were pining after Tudor houses?!
Have you actually been there?
It has utterly failed to integrate car ownership with its fake Georgian and Victorian terraces and for a newly planned development there is really very little green open space.
There is an inherent tension between wanting buildings to open straight on to the street and the majority owning cars. One solution is the parking court around the back but that's where most people want their garden, not a huge patch of tarmac.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Dorset_Boy said:
In what way has it blighted Pounbury?rjsterry said:
Look up Createstreets. It's just a rebrand of the Leon Krier guff that blighted Poundbury with fake villagey-ness.rick_chasey said:
It could not be more core to the average labour voter, so yes, I expect they will.focuszing723 said:
Do you think Labour will champion a house building boom?
It would be impressive if they walked the walk.
Why they are insisting on what style the houses are is beyond me.
Do you think the Georgians were pining after Tudor houses?!
Have you actually been there?
I've found Poundbury deeply weird when I've been there - a strange mix of twee and forbidding, and nothing 'organic' about it at all. It feels slightly Socialist State centrally planned to me. Apologies if you live there and love it, but it's not to my taste.
As I've mentioned here before, I really love what Exeter City Council is doing with planning guidance & permissions in St Leonards in Exeter - it's mostly original Regency stucco, very tidy & posh, but anything new has to be a modern reinterpretation on Regency (not pastiche), so white, glass & usually angular.
I'm with TBB on The Barbican - if you're going for a centrally-planned big project, I'd prefer something modern and bold, as long as it's also good for those actually living in it.
@Dorset_Boy - seeing your more recent post, I've not been to Poundbury for many years, so my view might well be out of date.0 -
The hope is that with enough supply of houses, developers would be forced to build competitive houses; i.e. well built, attractive and designed well, rather than being incentivised to build as cheaply as possible as they'll be snapped up anyway regardless, so short is the supply, and so they're forced instead not by what people want but whatever the local councillor in charge wants.0
-
rjsterry said:
See also every city ring road, which cut off the centre.First.Aspect said:They are racetracks, and in places fairly elevated. When I was there last, 2010 maybe, I recall wondering whether they might create noise problems for residents.
Not as bad as the ideas they had for Glasgow of roads on top of apartment buildings (which didn't happen) or a ring or motorways around the city centre, cutting it off from the rest of the city) which did happen).rjsterry said:
See also every city ring road, which cut off the centre.First.Aspect said:They are racetracks, and in places fairly elevated. When I was there last, 2010 maybe, I recall wondering whether they might create noise problems for residents.
Not as bad as the ideas they had for Glasgow of roads on top of apartment buildings (which didn't happen) or a ring or motorways around the city centre, cutting it off from the rest of the city) which did happen).
To an extent. The plan for Glasgow was extraordinary though, with raised motorways very close indeed to the centre. Which itself has a grid system. Sound like an idea from another country?rjsterry said:
See also every city ring road, which cut off the centre.First.Aspect said:They are racetracks, and in places fairly elevated. When I was there last, 2010 maybe, I recall wondering whether they might create noise problems for residents.
Not as bad as the ideas they had for Glasgow of roads on top of apartment buildings (which didn't happen) or a ring or motorways around the city centre, cutting it off from the rest of the city) which did happen).
Anyhow, it was only completed on two sides. The other two sides affectively replaced by "normal" encircling motorways a few miles away to the south and east. The M8, though, essentially slices right through the city. It even cuts off the university from the city. To the north, it has created a very deprived and very dangerous band of semi industrial land interspersed with low quality housing (some high rises, some neglected tenements) that encircles the city centre.
You should visit - in a car with central locking - I think you'd find the consequences as compared to the initial concept professionally interesting.
0 -
It's visually much nicer than most modern developments, and I do think they learnt from the mistakes of phase 1. Sure it's a bit pastiche, but better than typical modern estates that are soleless identakit houses. I don't live there but do go there a few times a year and have had a good explore, both on foot and by bike.briantrumpet said:Dorset_Boy said:
In what way has it blighted Pounbury?rjsterry said:
Look up Createstreets. It's just a rebrand of the Leon Krier guff that blighted Poundbury with fake villagey-ness.rick_chasey said:
It could not be more core to the average labour voter, so yes, I expect they will.focuszing723 said:
Do you think Labour will champion a house building boom?
It would be impressive if they walked the walk.
Why they are insisting on what style the houses are is beyond me.
Do you think the Georgians were pining after Tudor houses?!
Have you actually been there?
I've found Poundbury deeply weird when I've been there - a strange mix of twee and forbidding, and nothing 'organic' about it at all. It feels slightly Socialist State centrally planned to me. Apologies if you live there and love it, but it's not to my taste.
As I've mentioned here before, I really love what Exeter City Council is doing with planning guidance & permissions in St Leonards in Exeter - it's mostly original Regency stucco, very tidy & posh, but anything new has to be a modern reinterpretation on Regency (not pastiche), so white, glass & usually angular.
I'm with TBB on The Barbican - if you're going for a centrally-planned big project, I'd prefer something modern and bold, as long as it's also good for those actually living in it.
@Dorset_Boy - seeing your more recent post, I've not been to Poundbury for many years, so my view might well be out of date.
The Barbican was certainly bold, but i do recall being in a couple of flats where you heard and felt the tubes going underneath. There used to be a cracking cinema there with the most comfortable armchair like seats. However, I'd hate to live there (though in my early 20s I might not have minded. I did spend my first year in halls at Uni very close by.
0 -
I'm torn a bit and I think it ties up with the ditch your car thread. I like the idea of streets being places for all rather than the domain of cars so I like the concept of shared space but at the same time it doesn't reflect the reality that in somewhere like Dorset people still rely on car use to a high extent so each household will own at least one vehicle that needs somewhere to sit when not in use. I had to do a road safety audit on a new development (around 10 years ago) next to GCHQ in Cheltenham and you could see where delivery vehicles were having to drive across landscaping to get past the parked cars. It simply didn't work as intended. I think that's a common issue when people have these visions of how people should live - it applied to the large Council estates that where thrown up post war too. I think the other issue with homezone type developments is that the developers saw it as a chance to reduce the amount of space required for streets and squeeze more housing onto a site.rjsterry said:
It's a while since I visited so I'll bow to your more up to date local knowledge, but for example I don't think a few Victorian style bits applied to what are still fairly standard developer homes are really making the difference here.Dorset_Boy said:
To a degree that may be true for the orginal phase, but I disagree on all the subsequent phases.rjsterry said:
Yes.Dorset_Boy said:
In what way has it blighted Pounbury?rjsterry said:
Look up Createstreets. It's just a rebrand of the Leon Krier guff that blighted Poundbury with fake villagey-ness.rick_chasey said:
It could not be more core to the average labour voter, so yes, I expect they will.focuszing723 said:
Do you think Labour will champion a house building boom?
It would be impressive if they walked the walk.
Why they are insisting on what style the houses are is beyond me.
Do you think the Georgians were pining after Tudor houses?!
Have you actually been there?
It has utterly failed to integrate car ownership with its fake Georgian and Victorian terraces and for a newly planned development there is really very little green open space.
There is an inherent tension between wanting buildings to open straight on to the street and the majority owning cars. One solution is the parking court around the back but that's where most people want their garden, not a huge patch of tarmac.0 -
The Barbican was intended to allow car use. There is loads of underground parking which is hardly used today. This has become a problem for the City as they now receive very little money from it and have lots of underused space which is restricted by the terms of leases.Pross said:
I'm torn a bit and I think it ties up with the ditch your car thread. I like the idea of streets being places for all rather than the domain of cars so I like the concept of shared space but at the same time it doesn't reflect the reality that in somewhere like Dorset people still rely on car use to a high extent so each household will own at least one vehicle that needs somewhere to sit when not in use. I had to do a road safety audit on a new development (around 10 years ago) next to GCHQ in Cheltenham and you could see where delivery vehicles were having to drive across landscaping to get past the parked cars. It simply didn't work as intended. I think that's a common issue when people have these visions of how people should live - it applied to the large Council estates that where thrown up post war too. I think the other issue with homezone type developments is that the developers saw it as a chance to reduce the amount of space required for streets and squeeze more housing onto a site.rjsterry said:
It's a while since I visited so I'll bow to your more up to date local knowledge, but for example I don't think a few Victorian style bits applied to what are still fairly standard developer homes are really making the difference here.Dorset_Boy said:
To a degree that may be true for the orginal phase, but I disagree on all the subsequent phases.rjsterry said:
Yes.Dorset_Boy said:
In what way has it blighted Pounbury?rjsterry said:
Look up Createstreets. It's just a rebrand of the Leon Krier guff that blighted Poundbury with fake villagey-ness.rick_chasey said:
It could not be more core to the average labour voter, so yes, I expect they will.focuszing723 said:
Do you think Labour will champion a house building boom?
It would be impressive if they walked the walk.
Why they are insisting on what style the houses are is beyond me.
Do you think the Georgians were pining after Tudor houses?!
Have you actually been there?
It has utterly failed to integrate car ownership with its fake Georgian and Victorian terraces and for a newly planned development there is really very little green open space.
There is an inherent tension between wanting buildings to open straight on to the street and the majority owning cars. One solution is the parking court around the back but that's where most people want their garden, not a huge patch of tarmac.
Also, there is a car free area of some German city which was designed with garages on the outskirts. Over time, the number of people owning cars dropped substantially.
Therefore, it is possible for things to go the other way.0 -
I do agree with you to a large extent. Although with America I'd more say, whilst they have been designed around cars, the results quite often show that car centric living doesn't really work well. A guy I met whilst working out there commuted for an hour every day.TheBigBean said:
A lot of North America is very well designed for cars. I'm not really a fan, but plenty of people are. Some of the towns in the UK that don't work well for cars tend to be a bit prettier and have more soul, but again, that's just my perspective. Isn't the suicide rate higher in new towns?Jezyboy said:
That feels slightly unfair, given we live in a car centric country, places should be recognised for working well for a car centric lifestyle.TheBigBean said:
I should probably have disclosed that in my view your second paragraph is the most important and means I don't appreciate any of the car positives.Jezyboy said:
Modern(ish) housing stock with relatively thoughtful road planing that makes it relatively easy to get around compared to other towns I've visited of a similar size.TheBigBean said:
Tell me the positives about MK? I'm happy to list loads about the Barbican.Jezyboy said:
Honestly I think MK gets a lot of unjustified hate.pblakeney said:
Not an attack but my gawd, what a horrible thought.TheBigBean said:
But the people who want more houses built imagine something like Milton Keynes. They're not thinking of the Barbican.rjsterry said:
There's a LOT of empty space in MK. Which is kind of the point.TheBigBean said:Apparently Milton Keynes is 89 sq km with 123,264 houses. That's 722 sq. metres per house.
Either prospect tbh.
It's interesting how many MKs you'd need to build if you were gonna build 4.5 million homes though!
Probably too car centric though.
It does have a bus system which has worked when I have used it and was reasonably priced. It also looked to have a big park full of sheep.
Many traditional towns seem to work poorly for cars, but have few other good alternatives.
I'm not sure on the more soul argument...I think in a fair few cases we've just managed to wreck towns that maybe once had a soul.0 -
Definitely but for car free development you really do need the public transport / active travel infrastructure there at the start. In the absence of much space for development in existing well-served cities large cale 'new town' type developments have always felt like the effective way of doing this although even then it will be a struggle in the early stages as no-one is going to want to do the infrastructure (transport, leisure, commercial, employment, education etc.) in advance of flogging enough houses.TheBigBean said:
The Barbican was intended to allow car use. There is loads of underground parking which is hardly used today. This has become a problem for the City as they now receive very little money from it and have lots of underused space which is restricted by the terms of leases.Pross said:
I'm torn a bit and I think it ties up with the ditch your car thread. I like the idea of streets being places for all rather than the domain of cars so I like the concept of shared space but at the same time it doesn't reflect the reality that in somewhere like Dorset people still rely on car use to a high extent so each household will own at least one vehicle that needs somewhere to sit when not in use. I had to do a road safety audit on a new development (around 10 years ago) next to GCHQ in Cheltenham and you could see where delivery vehicles were having to drive across landscaping to get past the parked cars. It simply didn't work as intended. I think that's a common issue when people have these visions of how people should live - it applied to the large Council estates that where thrown up post war too. I think the other issue with homezone type developments is that the developers saw it as a chance to reduce the amount of space required for streets and squeeze more housing onto a site.rjsterry said:
It's a while since I visited so I'll bow to your more up to date local knowledge, but for example I don't think a few Victorian style bits applied to what are still fairly standard developer homes are really making the difference here.Dorset_Boy said:
To a degree that may be true for the orginal phase, but I disagree on all the subsequent phases.rjsterry said:
Yes.Dorset_Boy said:
In what way has it blighted Pounbury?rjsterry said:
Look up Createstreets. It's just a rebrand of the Leon Krier guff that blighted Poundbury with fake villagey-ness.rick_chasey said:
It could not be more core to the average labour voter, so yes, I expect they will.focuszing723 said:
Do you think Labour will champion a house building boom?
It would be impressive if they walked the walk.
Why they are insisting on what style the houses are is beyond me.
Do you think the Georgians were pining after Tudor houses?!
Have you actually been there?
It has utterly failed to integrate car ownership with its fake Georgian and Victorian terraces and for a newly planned development there is really very little green open space.
There is an inherent tension between wanting buildings to open straight on to the street and the majority owning cars. One solution is the parking court around the back but that's where most people want their garden, not a huge patch of tarmac.
Also, there is a car free area of some German city which was designed with garages on the outskirts. Over time, the number of people owning cars dropped substantially.
Therefore, it is possible for things to go the other way.0 -
TheBigBean said:
The Barbican was intended to allow car use. There is loads of underground parking which is hardly used today. This has become a problem for the City as they now receive very little money from it and have lots of underused space which is restricted by the terms of leases.Pross said:
I'm torn a bit and I think it ties up with the ditch your car thread. I like the idea of streets being places for all rather than the domain of cars so I like the concept of shared space but at the same time it doesn't reflect the reality that in somewhere like Dorset people still rely on car use to a high extent so each household will own at least one vehicle that needs somewhere to sit when not in use. I had to do a road safety audit on a new development (around 10 years ago) next to GCHQ in Cheltenham and you could see where delivery vehicles were having to drive across landscaping to get past the parked cars. It simply didn't work as intended. I think that's a common issue when people have these visions of how people should live - it applied to the large Council estates that where thrown up post war too. I think the other issue with homezone type developments is that the developers saw it as a chance to reduce the amount of space required for streets and squeeze more housing onto a site.rjsterry said:
It's a while since I visited so I'll bow to your more up to date local knowledge, but for example I don't think a few Victorian style bits applied to what are still fairly standard developer homes are really making the difference here.Dorset_Boy said:
To a degree that may be true for the orginal phase, but I disagree on all the subsequent phases.rjsterry said:
Yes.Dorset_Boy said:
In what way has it blighted Pounbury?rjsterry said:
Look up Createstreets. It's just a rebrand of the Leon Krier guff that blighted Poundbury with fake villagey-ness.rick_chasey said:
It could not be more core to the average labour voter, so yes, I expect they will.focuszing723 said:
Do you think Labour will champion a house building boom?
It would be impressive if they walked the walk.
Why they are insisting on what style the houses are is beyond me.
Do you think the Georgians were pining after Tudor houses?!
Have you actually been there?
It has utterly failed to integrate car ownership with its fake Georgian and Victorian terraces and for a newly planned development there is really very little green open space.
There is an inherent tension between wanting buildings to open straight on to the street and the majority owning cars. One solution is the parking court around the back but that's where most people want their garden, not a huge patch of tarmac.
Also, there is a car free area of some German city which was designed with garages on the outskirts. Over time, the number of people owning cars dropped substantially.
Therefore, it is possible for things to go the other way.
There's an interesting development on Exeter Quay which is predicated on people wanting to live there who don't necessarily want to own cars, much to the annoyance of petrolheads who can't conceive of anything less than two parking spaces per apartment being sufficient. For the life of me, I can't see why they are so exercised about it, other than being perceived as part of this 'war on motorists': no-one will be forced to live there, but I'd think it would be an excellent location for anyone who wants to live and work in central Exeter, with easy access to cycle routes, train stations (only 15 minutes walk from Exeter St David's) and buses.0 -
I know people who do that in this country.Jezyboy said:
...
Although with America I'd more say, whilst they have been designed around cars, the results quite often show that car centric living doesn't really work well. A guy I met whilst working out there commuted for an hour every day.
...
I'm fairly certain there are anecdotal stories of much longer commutes.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Ah I accidently deleted the insane bit.pblakeney said:
I know people who do that in this country.Jezyboy said:
...
Although with America I'd more say, whilst they have been designed around cars, the results quite often show that car centric living doesn't really work well. A guy I met whilst working out there commuted for an hour every day.
...
I'm fairly certain there are anecdotal stories of much longer commutes.
He set off at 4am as otherwise the traffic made it a 2 hour journey.0 -
I set off at 6:20am because the trains after are mad. 90-120 minute commute, used to be nearer 90, now regularly over 100mins door to door.Jezyboy said:
Ah I accidently deleted the insane bit.pblakeney said:
I know people who do that in this country.Jezyboy said:
...
Although with America I'd more say, whilst they have been designed around cars, the results quite often show that car centric living doesn't really work well. A guy I met whilst working out there commuted for an hour every day.
...
I'm fairly certain there are anecdotal stories of much longer commutes.
He set off at 4am as otherwise the traffic made it a 2 hour journey.0 -
Atlanta?Jezyboy said:
Ah I accidently deleted the insane bit.pblakeney said:
I know people who do that in this country.Jezyboy said:
...
Although with America I'd more say, whilst they have been designed around cars, the results quite often show that car centric living doesn't really work well. A guy I met whilst working out there commuted for an hour every day.
...
I'm fairly certain there are anecdotal stories of much longer commutes.
He set off at 4am as otherwise the traffic made it a 2 hour journey.
I know it is similar there.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Nah San Diego, but I think it's the same around any large American city, basically cars are a bit crap at moving a lot of people who are largely going a long distance in the same direction!pblakeney said:
Atlanta?Jezyboy said:
Ah I accidently deleted the insane bit.pblakeney said:
I know people who do that in this country.Jezyboy said:
...
Although with America I'd more say, whilst they have been designed around cars, the results quite often show that car centric living doesn't really work well. A guy I met whilst working out there commuted for an hour every day.
...
I'm fairly certain there are anecdotal stories of much longer commutes.
He set off at 4am as otherwise the traffic made it a 2 hour journey.
I know it is similar there.0 -
Jezyboy said:
Nah San Diego, but I think it's the same around any large American city, basically cars are a bit censored at moving a lot of people who are largely going a long distance in the same direction!pblakeney said:
Atlanta?Jezyboy said:
Ah I accidently deleted the insane bit.pblakeney said:
I know people who do that in this country.Jezyboy said:
...
Although with America I'd more say, whilst they have been designed around cars, the results quite often show that car centric living doesn't really work well. A guy I met whilst working out there commuted for an hour every day.
...
I'm fairly certain there are anecdotal stories of much longer commutes.
He set off at 4am as otherwise the traffic made it a 2 hour journey.
I know it is similar there.
A distant relation of mine was telling me that he took some overnight train in the US, and it was $800 for the pleasure. It's no wonder they fly or drive.0 -
There's Greyhound too. I did New York to Denver once.briantrumpet said:Jezyboy said:
Nah San Diego, but I think it's the same around any large American city, basically cars are a bit censored at moving a lot of people who are largely going a long distance in the same direction!pblakeney said:
Atlanta?Jezyboy said:
Ah I accidently deleted the insane bit.pblakeney said:
I know people who do that in this country.Jezyboy said:
...
Although with America I'd more say, whilst they have been designed around cars, the results quite often show that car centric living doesn't really work well. A guy I met whilst working out there commuted for an hour every day.
...
I'm fairly certain there are anecdotal stories of much longer commutes.
He set off at 4am as otherwise the traffic made it a 2 hour journey.
I know it is similar there.
A distant relation of mine was telling me that he took some overnight train in the US, and it was $800 for the pleasure. It's no wonder they fly or drive.0 -
I know people who commute by bus to Victoria from that M4 junction near Stokenchurch. Some days it's about 5 hours in total.
But hey they live in the Chilterns with all the other happy people who need to work in London to afford to live in the Chilterns.0 -
I'm guessing that they booked a private carriage. I just looked and you can get the train from NY to LA for £344. That takes 3 days so yes, flying is probably preferable.briantrumpet said:Jezyboy said:
Nah San Diego, but I think it's the same around any large American city, basically cars are a bit censored at moving a lot of people who are largely going a long distance in the same direction!pblakeney said:
Atlanta?Jezyboy said:
Ah I accidently deleted the insane bit.pblakeney said:
I know people who do that in this country.Jezyboy said:
...
Although with America I'd more say, whilst they have been designed around cars, the results quite often show that car centric living doesn't really work well. A guy I met whilst working out there commuted for an hour every day.
...
I'm fairly certain there are anecdotal stories of much longer commutes.
He set off at 4am as otherwise the traffic made it a 2 hour journey.
I know it is similar there.
A distant relation of mine was telling me that he took some overnight train in the US, and it was $800 for the pleasure. It's no wonder they fly or drive.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I know people that commute 10 miles on a bus (two buses actually) and it takes them 60-80 minutes. I told them to get a bike. It would be quicker!
Sometimes. Maybe. Possibly.
0 -
pblakeney said:
I'm guessing that they booked a private carriage. I just looked and you can get the train from NY to LA for £344. That takes 3 days so yes, flying is probably preferable.briantrumpet said:Jezyboy said:
Nah San Diego, but I think it's the same around any large American city, basically cars are a bit censored at moving a lot of people who are largely going a long distance in the same direction!pblakeney said:
Atlanta?Jezyboy said:
Ah I accidently deleted the insane bit.pblakeney said:
I know people who do that in this country.Jezyboy said:
...
Although with America I'd more say, whilst they have been designed around cars, the results quite often show that car centric living doesn't really work well. A guy I met whilst working out there commuted for an hour every day.
...
I'm fairly certain there are anecdotal stories of much longer commutes.
He set off at 4am as otherwise the traffic made it a 2 hour journey.
I know it is similar there.
A distant relation of mine was telling me that he took some overnight train in the US, and it was $800 for the pleasure. It's no wonder they fly or drive.
My cousin (of whatever variety... think he might be second cousin once removed) said that it's partly that because rail is mainly there for freight that passenger services are often dire and very expensive. I also think that this was some sort of touristy route, but that's still a lot of money for an overnighter, given you're not going to see a big chunk of it.
The overnighter from Paris to Die is about £70, or £100 with a bunk. Mind you, the scenery is worth missing for most of the journey.0 -
Aren't USanian railroads focussed on goods bulk transport with tracks owned by regional companies, while Amtrak passenger trains have to take 2nd place, fit in when free spaces? Hence frequent delays, get off to take a coach transfer A to B, et al?pblakeney said:
I'm guessing that they booked a private carriage. I just looked and you can get the train from NY to LA for £344. That takes 3 days so yes, flying is probably preferable.briantrumpet said:Jezyboy said:
Nah San Diego, but I think it's the same around any large American city, basically cars are a bit censored at moving a lot of people who are largely going a long distance in the same direction!pblakeney said:
Atlanta?Jezyboy said:
Ah I accidently deleted the insane bit.pblakeney said:
I know people who do that in this country.Jezyboy said:
...
Although with America I'd more say, whilst they have been designed around cars, the results quite often show that car centric living doesn't really work well. A guy I met whilst working out there commuted for an hour every day.
...
I'm fairly certain there are anecdotal stories of much longer commutes.
He set off at 4am as otherwise the traffic made it a 2 hour journey.
I know it is similar there.
A distant relation of mine was telling me that he took some overnight train in the US, and it was $800 for the pleasure. It's no wonder they fly or drive.
I recall a recent Doug Stanhope podcast episode recounting experiences of trying to travel by train from Arizona to Chicago and back, which sounded a lot worse than Rick C's daily commuting.
0 -
orraloon said:
Aren't USanian railroads focussed on goods bulk transport with tracks owned by regional companies, while Amtrak passenger trains have to take 2nd place, fit in when free spaces? Hence frequent delays, get off to take a coach transfer A to B, et al?pblakeney said:
I'm guessing that they booked a private carriage. I just looked and you can get the train from NY to LA for £344. That takes 3 days so yes, flying is probably preferable.briantrumpet said:Jezyboy said:
Nah San Diego, but I think it's the same around any large American city, basically cars are a bit censored at moving a lot of people who are largely going a long distance in the same direction!pblakeney said:
Atlanta?Jezyboy said:
Ah I accidently deleted the insane bit.pblakeney said:
I know people who do that in this country.Jezyboy said:
...
Although with America I'd more say, whilst they have been designed around cars, the results quite often show that car centric living doesn't really work well. A guy I met whilst working out there commuted for an hour every day.
...
I'm fairly certain there are anecdotal stories of much longer commutes.
He set off at 4am as otherwise the traffic made it a 2 hour journey.
I know it is similar there.
A distant relation of mine was telling me that he took some overnight train in the US, and it was $800 for the pleasure. It's no wonder they fly or drive.
I recall a recent Doug Stanhope podcast episode recounting experiences of trying to travel by train from Arizona to Chicago and back, which sounded a lot worse than Rick C's daily commuting.
Yup, see above... just what my cuz (2nd, O-R) was saying.0 -
My only experience over there was from Montreal to Toronto. Quick and comfortable. Pay up front for first class and get your full money back on the free bar & dinner. 😉The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I thought the only functions of trains in the US are
1. Cool perspective photos 2. To go over tressle bridges rigged with explosives set by bank robbers.0 -
First.Aspect said:
I thought the only functions of trains in the US are
1. Cool perspective photos 2. To go over tressle bridges rigged with explosives set by bank robbers.
And to provide ideas for black and white TV series.
I never realised Casey Jones was actually a real person.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casey_Jones
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ye1CnzTCDF0 0 -
I wrote a dissertation about how Bristol's inner ring road - originally planned as dual carriageway with with lots of elevated walkways and pedestrian underpasses - had ruined the integration of the city centre with its surrounding inner suburbs. The City Council has spent the past 30 years slowly undoing what planners did in the 30s, 40s and 50s.First.Aspect said:rjsterry said:
See also every city ring road, which cut off the centre.First.Aspect said:They are racetracks, and in places fairly elevated. When I was there last, 2010 maybe, I recall wondering whether they might create noise problems for residents.
Not as bad as the ideas they had for Glasgow of roads on top of apartment buildings (which didn't happen) or a ring or motorways around the city centre, cutting it off from the rest of the city) which did happen).rjsterry said:
See also every city ring road, which cut off the centre.First.Aspect said:They are racetracks, and in places fairly elevated. When I was there last, 2010 maybe, I recall wondering whether they might create noise problems for residents.
Not as bad as the ideas they had for Glasgow of roads on top of apartment buildings (which didn't happen) or a ring or motorways around the city centre, cutting it off from the rest of the city) which did happen).
To an extent. The plan for Glasgow was extraordinary though, with raised motorways very close indeed to the centre. Which itself has a grid system. Sound like an idea from another country?rjsterry said:
See also every city ring road, which cut off the centre.First.Aspect said:They are racetracks, and in places fairly elevated. When I was there last, 2010 maybe, I recall wondering whether they might create noise problems for residents.
Not as bad as the ideas they had for Glasgow of roads on top of apartment buildings (which didn't happen) or a ring or motorways around the city centre, cutting it off from the rest of the city) which did happen).
Anyhow, it was only completed on two sides. The other two sides affectively replaced by "normal" encircling motorways a few miles away to the south and east. The M8, though, essentially slices right through the city. It even cuts off the university from the city. To the north, it has created a very deprived and very dangerous band of semi industrial land interspersed with low quality housing (some high rises, some neglected tenements) that encircles the city centre.
You should visit - in a car with central locking - I think you'd find the consequences as compared to the initial concept professionally interesting.
I think I have posted this before, but this was the plan for Bath: dual carriageway around the back of the Royal Crescent.
People forget just how deeply unpopular Victorian and Georgian architecture was in the mid 20th century.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
@rjsterry Have you ever looked at the blog Demolition Exeter? It's well worth a look.
I'm sure the theme could be copied for most cities, but it's horrifically eye-opening on how little value was placed on 'old buildings' in Exeter from before the Victorian times onwards by town planners. I can only assume the general public didn't have any particular regard for the old buildings either, given how much has been destroyed in the name of 'progress' with nary a word of dissent, as far as I can tell.0 -
That's cos a lot of it was knocked down in the 60s.rjsterry said:
...
People forget just how deeply unpopular Victorian and Georgian architecture was in the mid 20th century.
Out of sight, out of mind.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Or rather why it was knocked down.pblakeney said:
That's cos a lot of it was knocked down in the 60s.rjsterry said:
...
People forget just how deeply unpopular Victorian and Georgian architecture was in the mid 20th century.
Out of sight, out of mind.
It's not that different from 18th century builders putting a Palladian front on a rather unfashionable 16th century building.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0
