BUY Noctamid ONLINE NO PRESCRIPTION

Interesting video but not all that revolutionary for someone already living 5 minutes from “condensed necessities like grocery stores, schools, workplaces, and churches, large public parks and recreation spaces, and conserved natural areas.” As far as this video appealing to upper-middle class folks like us, that might make sense considering our demographic (+10 years or so) is more likely to live in these evil cul-de-sacs. Many of the low-income folks you talk about in your post already live in urban areas. True, they might not live in communities that resemble the communities in the video but they certainly aren't the demographic destroying farmland, clogging highways, etc. It looks like the goal of this “new urbanism” is two-fold. 1. Improve existing urban areas for the people who already live there. 2. Create new urban areas (a la southern village?) to attract people away from the burbs.

My point is not that low income people don't already live in high-density urban areas. (Though there's a great deal of inequity in the supply of basic services to those areas, like grocery stores with fresh produce, public spaces that are well-maintained and safe, etc). My point is that this “come back to the city” idea advanced by New Urbanists, while directed at upper-middle-class cul de sac residents, has a severely negative effect on low income people if not managed properly. In large cities, New Urban communities developed atop existing low income neighborhoods threaten to push out the very people who have taken advantage of high-density–albeit less shiny and hip–development.

Areas like Southern Village (a New Urban development in Chapel Hill, for the uninitiated) prove my point: here you have a slightly higher-density development of cookie cutter homes and a manufactured “downtown” complete with office space, a grocery store, an elementary school, a movie theater, restaurants, etc. Assuming a fair number of folks living in that development can walk their kids to school and then continue by foot to an office down the block, that's a great thing. But how many of the teachers in that elementary school, cashiers at the grocery store, ticket clerks at the movie theater and cooks in the restaurants can afford to live there? Few. So you've eliminated the cul de sac and introduced a commute for people with the least amount of disposable income and time to drive to a “walkable” community.

The other point here is about neighborhood diversity. You can't view these issues from the perspective of NY city, because NY is remarkably diverse. Instead, think of smaller cities like Raleigh or Chapel Hill. Developing island-like isolated New Urban communities without intentionally including housing options for low income people will lead to vast inequities between the residents of those communities (who are able to take advantage of public greenspace, farmers markets, etc) and the people who work there.

Finally, I think there's an important point missing from many New Urban advocates: that the quality of life, construction, and amenities advanced in these utopian scenarios should not be limited to wealthy people. That's a point I'd like to see touted over and over again. Because many of the greening strategies that feel very much in line with New Urbanism–better insulation and smarter energy consumption, density leading to efficiency gains, public greenspace–could be most immediately beneficial for low income people.

Interesting, as are all progressive or “forward-thinking” ideas, but I wouldn't get my hopes up. New Urbanism seems as far-fetched an idea in our society as electric cars, mass-production of wind power, or assembling an all-natural, organic diet (and sticking to it). The current state of affairs in our country (sprawl, automobiles dependent on oil, etc.) is the byproduct of decades, or over a century, of planning. Imagine, if you can, the sheer amount of capital invested in our current system: highways, suburbs, GM, Ford, Chrysler – the list goes on…) and then imagine how much more capital would be needed to mold it into this new vision for the future (New Urbanism, 100MPG, turbine power). Even if you and I love these ideas, our representatives might not – the security of their political careers might not. The sheer volume of obstacles in the way of a such an idea is staggering.

Interesting, as are all progressive or “forward-thinking” ideas, but I wouldn't get my hopes up. New Urbanism seems as far-fetched an idea in our society as electric cars, mass-production of wind power, or assembling an all-natural, organic diet (and sticking to it). The current state of affairs in our country (sprawl, automobiles dependent on oil, etc.) is the byproduct of decades, or over a century, of planning. Imagine, if you can, the sheer amount of capital invested in our current system: highways, suburbs, GM, Ford, Chrysler – the list goes on…) and then imagine how much more capital would be needed to mold it into this new vision for the future (New Urbanism, 100MPG, turbine power). Even if you and I love these ideas, our representatives might not – the security of their political careers might not. The sheer volume of obstacles in the way of a such an idea is staggering.

Just a test here Back Massager

One of the best posts this, i am quite happy to have read this, you seem to have done a lot of research before posting this one over here, I bet it was tough! wasn’t it? Thanks once again.

Interesting video.all progressive or forward-thinking ideas,thanks