XPost: ba.transportation, alt.planning.urban, misc.transport.urban-transit   
   From: tscn@adelph.net   
      
   In article <407D5CEC.1010209@but.us.chickens>,   
    David Nebenzahl  wrote:   
      
   > On 4/14/2004 4:25 AM George Conklin spake thus:   
   >   
   >  > "Robert Coté"  wrote in message   
   >  > news:tscn-9C17A3.11132813042004@isp.ash.giganews.com...   
   >  >   
   >  >> Sure, the obsolete conventional downtown and it's   
   >  >> supporters would love to keep control of any potential competetion but   
   >  >> "allowed" smacks of central planning that brought us the urban failures   
   >  >> in the first place.  This goes back to the original thread topic and the   
   >  >> accusations of transport infrastructure being used to advance other   
   >  >> agendas.   
   >  >   
   >  > The problem is that downtowns were a temporary feature of early   
   >  > industrialization.  Before that era, cities were cellular in nature.  They   
   >  > have reverted to being cellular, with jobs, residences and business   
   >  > locations spread throughout the a region.   
   >   
   > Over-sophistication and obfuscation at work: what's industrialization (or   
   > de-industrialization, for that matter) got to do with it?   
      
   Everything for those of us who learn from history.  Nothing for those   
   who refuse to learn from history.  Large, dense, urban conurbations   
   accreted for the sole purpose of supporting the industrial revolution.   
   The industrial revolution is over, get over it.  Sure the concept is   
   sophisticated and complex.  The simpletons who don't get it are excused   
   from further participation.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)