Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

The luck of geography ?

Expand Messages
  • turpin@yahoo.com
    San Francisco and Manhattan are two of the more pleasant and livable large cities. In both cases, their compactness was forced upon them by geography, one at
    Message 1 of 6 , Oct 28, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      San Francisco and Manhattan are two of the more pleasant and livable
      large cities. In both cases, their compactness was forced upon them
      by geography, one at the tip of a narrow peninsula, the other on an
      island.

      These are the famous, large cases. What other American cities have
      been forced into compact shape by their geographic location? Have the
      results been beneficial in those cases, also? Charleston is an
      obvious candidate, which I've never visited. What others?
    • John O. Andersen
      Portland, Oregon The downtown area is limited by the hills to the west and south. John Andersen Unconventional Ideas at http://www.unconventionalideas.com ...
      Message 2 of 6 , Oct 28, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Portland, Oregon

        The downtown area is limited by the hills to the west and south.

        John Andersen
        Unconventional Ideas at http://www.unconventionalideas.com
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: <turpin@...>
        To: <carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2001 7:39 AM
        Subject: [carfree_cities] The luck of geography ?


        > San Francisco and Manhattan are two of the more pleasant and livable
        > large cities. In both cases, their compactness was forced upon them
        > by geography, one at the tip of a narrow peninsula, the other on an
        > island.
        >
        > These are the famous, large cases. What other American cities have
        > been forced into compact shape by their geographic location? Have the
        > results been beneficial in those cases, also? Charleston is an
        > obvious candidate, which I've never visited. What others?
        >
        >
        > To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@...
        > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
        carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...
        > Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        >
        >
      • duane cuthbertson
        Oklahoma City is an example of the exact opposite. Where geography arguably encourages sprawl. There are no barriers to growth or extending infrastructure in
        Message 3 of 6 , Oct 29, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Oklahoma City is an example of the exact opposite. Where geography arguably
          encourages sprawl. There are no barriers to growth or extending
          infrastructure in the form of hills, water, or hardly any trees. This may be
          one reason that it is in the top three area wise in the US at 623 square
          miles(not including it's suburbs) and only at number 49 population wise.

          Duane Cuthbertson


          >From: "John O. Andersen" <editor@...>
          >Reply-To: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com
          >To: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com
          >Subject: Re: [carfree_cities] The luck of geography ?
          >Date: 28 Oct 2001 08:13:02 -0800
          >
          >Portland, Oregon
          >
          >The downtown area is limited by the hills to the west and south.
          >
          >John Andersen
          >Unconventional Ideas at http://www.unconventionalideas.com
          >----- Original Message -----
          >From: <turpin@...>
          >To: <carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com>
          >Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2001 7:39 AM
          >Subject: [carfree_cities] The luck of geography ?
          >
          >
          > > San Francisco and Manhattan are two of the more pleasant and livable
          > > large cities. In both cases, their compactness was forced upon them
          > > by geography, one at the tip of a narrow peninsula, the other on an
          > > island.
          > >
          > > These are the famous, large cases. What other American cities have
          > > been forced into compact shape by their geographic location? Have the
          > > results been beneficial in those cases, also? Charleston is an
          > > obvious candidate, which I've never visited. What others?
          > >
          > >
          > > To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@...
          > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
          >carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...
          > > Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/
          > >
          > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          > >
          > >
          >
          >
          >To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@...
          >To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
          >carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...
          >Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/
          >
          >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          >
          >


          _________________________________________________________________
          Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
        • rauch@mit.edu
          I don t believe that only geography determines the destiny of a city in this way, and that history and policy has more to do with the compactness of a city.
          Message 4 of 6 , Oct 29, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            I don't believe that only geography determines the destiny of a city in this way, and that history and policy has more to do with the compactness of a city. You'll find many examples (though few in the US) of compact cities surrounded by few natural barriers.

            --- In carfree_cities@y..., "duane cuthbertson" <dcuthber@h...> wrote:
            > Oklahoma City is an example of the exact opposite. Where geography arguably
            > encourages sprawl. There are no barriers to growth or extending
            > infrastructure in the form of hills, water, or hardly any trees. This may be
            > one reason that it is in the top three area wise in the US at 623 square
            > miles(not including it's suburbs) and only at number 49 population wise.
            >
            > Duane Cuthbertson
            >
            >
            > >From: "John O. Andersen" <editor@u...>
            > >Reply-To: carfree_cities@y...
            > >To: carfree_cities@y...
            > >Subject: Re: [carfree_cities] The luck of geography ?
            > >Date: 28 Oct 2001 08:13:02 -0800
            > >
            > >Portland, Oregon
            > >
            > >The downtown area is limited by the hills to the west and south.
            > >
            > >John Andersen
            > >Unconventional Ideas at http://www.unconventionalideas.com
            > >----- Original Message -----
            > >From: <turpin@y...>
            > >To: <carfree_cities@y...>
            > >Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2001 7:39 AM
            > >Subject: [carfree_cities] The luck of geography ?
            > >
            > >
            > > > San Francisco and Manhattan are two of the more pleasant and livable
            > > > large cities. In both cases, their compactness was forced upon them
            > > > by geography, one at the tip of a narrow peninsula, the other on an
            > > > island.
            > > >
            > > > These are the famous, large cases. What other American cities have
            > > > been forced into compact shape by their geographic location? Have the
            > > > results been beneficial in those cases, also? Charleston is an
            > > > obvious candidate, which I've never visited. What others?
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@e...
            > > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
            > >carfree_cities-unsubscribe@e...
            > > > Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/
            > > >
            > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
            > >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            > > >
            > > >
            > >
            > >
            > >To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@e...
            > >To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
            > >carfree_cities-unsubscribe@e...
            > >Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/
            > >
            > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            > >
            > >
            >
            >
            > _________________________________________________________________
            > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
          • fort-fun@home.com
            But then again, there are places where there isn t much of any barriers that would keep them reigned in, but they have taken steps to prevent any type of the
            Message 5 of 6 , Oct 29, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              But then again, there are places where there isn't much of any
              barriers that would keep them reigned in, but they have taken steps to
              prevent any type of the super-sized sprawl (would you like fries with
              that?)

              Boulder, CO is an example of that. They have the mountains to the
              west, north, south, and in the past there was no physical (except
              hills and the odd lake or stream) barriers to the east /
              southeast...there was absolutely nothing between (well 'nothing' is an
              exaggeration, but there wasn't much) at one time between boulder and
              denver. However, boulder being the 'bastion' of liberals (which isn't
              really true) it was decided that (some time long, long ago) there
              would be a line in which one couldn't build a house over (on the
              mountain side) and that the city limits would STOP HERE!!! because the
              city was encircled by a greenbelt.

              The same idea is applied to my home town / city (which I cannot say is
              much better than OKC / LA / MSP / DFW / DEN / ATL...). Where there is
              a UGA, or Urban Growth Area, where the city will provide services
              (H2O, Waste, WasteWater, Electric, Gas) [at a price if outside of
              limits] to the denizens and workers there. Anything further out, the
              county or another city will provide services (mostly county as there
              are only 2 other cities with a population over 5 000 people in this
              neck of the boonies).
              Also, whomever moves into the UGA (but not in the city) can expect to
              be annexed by the city within ten years. Also, there has been much
              debate to whether the city should move ("update") the UGA lines,
              because 'these lines were drawn in the sand 5 years ago.' The city
              wants (along with those of the moderate-right) to move the UGA line
              over to the otherside of the I'state, so I guess it's not foolproof or
              should I say developer-proof.

              The idea of the UGB Urban growth boundary (a set line in which all
              growth occurs and would (in theory) be hard to move) is setting in the
              minds of Coloradoans. (And of course if you know the Front Range
              of CO, then you know it's mainly flat and it could be a LA Plex-ish
              area if given the chance--It's almost longer than LA Conglomo anyways,
              so it seems 'what's the use' some times.) The last election it was
              heavily battered (1:2 votes, then again nearly 50% came out to vote).
              However, in the public op polls after about 6 mo and 'til now seem to
              be supportive of a growth-controlling bill / program with the 'line'
              device included.

              Just my ideas,
              Andrew Reker
              Fort Collins, CO
              )>Andyisms: "Don't you hate it when your PP (Payg), your contract, and
              )> your other contract cell phone all go off all at once, in
              )> class? God that is so embarassing." :)

              --- In carfree_cities@y..., "duane cuthbertson" <dcuthber@h...> wrote:
              > Oklahoma City is an example of the exact opposite. Where geography
              arguably
              > encourages sprawl. There are no barriers to growth or extending
              > infrastructure in the form of hills, water, or hardly any trees.
              This may be
              > one reason that it is in the top three area wise in the US at 623
              square
              > miles(not including it's suburbs) and only at number 49 population
              wise.
              >
              > Duane Cuthbertson
              >
              >
              > >From: "John O. Andersen" <editor@u...>
              > >Reply-To: carfree_cities@y...
              > >To: carfree_cities@y...
              > >Subject: Re: [carfree_cities] The luck of geography ?
              > >Date: 28 Oct 2001 08:13:02 -0800
              > >
              > >Portland, Oregon
              > >
              > >The downtown area is limited by the hills to the west and south.
              > >
              > >John Andersen
              > >Unconventional Ideas at http://www.unconventionalideas.com
              > >----- Original Message -----
              > >From: <turpin@y...>
              > >To: <carfree_cities@y...>
              > >Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2001 7:39 AM
              > >Subject: [carfree_cities] The luck of geography ?
              > >
              > >
              > > > San Francisco and Manhattan are two of the more pleasant and
              livable
              > > > large cities. In both cases, their compactness was forced upon
              them
              > > > by geography, one at the tip of a narrow peninsula, the other on
              an
              > > > island.
              > > >
              > > > These are the famous, large cases. What other American cities
              have
              > > > been forced into compact shape by their geographic location?
              Have the
              > > > results been beneficial in those cases, also? Charleston is an
              > > > obvious candidate, which I've never visited. What others?
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@e...
              > > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
              > >carfree_cities-unsubscribe@e...
              > > > Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/
              > > >
              > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
              > >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              > > >
              > > >
              > >
              > >
              > >To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@e...
              > >To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
              > >carfree_cities-unsubscribe@e...
              > >Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/
              > >
              > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
              http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              > >
              > >
              >
              >
              > _________________________________________________________________
              > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
              http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
            • joemendoza21@hotmail.com
              Also Seattle, between the Puget Sound and Lake Washington. It s downtown is between Capital Hill and Elliot Bay.
              Message 6 of 6 , Nov 2, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                Also Seattle, between the Puget Sound and Lake Washington. It's
                downtown is between Capital Hill and Elliot Bay.
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.