digg

Join DiggAbout

Call for questions
Submit and vote up questions you'd like to see answered by Kevin & Jay at the next Digg Townhall on 11/18.

Park Avenue - Before & After the Car

treehugger.com — We need to rethink the way we operate our cities.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Lane, on 10/10/2007, -2/+86Park Avenue is still an accurate description.
    • DavidBGie, on 10/10/2007, -16/+5Many utopias have been scarred by reality. That's just life. Cars are not a negative thing. Anti-progressives are.
      • DOCKAUF55, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3Name one utopia. Please.
        • DavidBGie, on 10/10/2007, -10/+5Let's see ... The hippie movement, Liberia, Jones Town, The Nazis, The UN, Soviet communism, Welfare program, etc .... There are many at different levels. Need some more?
          • Reziarfg, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I'm sorry, but by very definition a utopia cannot exist.
            1: an imaginary and indefinitely remote place
            2: a place of ideal perfection especially in laws, government, and social conditions
            3: an impractical scheme for social improvement

            Most of your definitions seem to fall under what you believe is 3. However they were mostly practical.
          • arjung, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2wait, i thought you were joking until i saw that you're the same person who originally posted about utopias above.
    • kettlechips, on 10/10/2007, -11/+5Haha, get it? Park?
      • monsterenergy, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3You just ruined the joke...*****
    • seanherman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Keep in mind that's Park Avenue, the richest, most prestigious road in Upper Manhattan. All the old money that lives on the east side (of the park/island) lives between Park Ave and 5th Ave (along central park). Go two blocks east of that picture, and there were probably alleyways and streets covered in horse *****, human ***** and all sort of other crap. Much of the Upper East Side might have been nicer than that, but I can assure you areas like Hells Kitchen, Harlem, etc. would look nothing like that picture.
  • IShouldBeWorkin, on 10/10/2007, -5/+27If you think thats bad you should check out what Baltic looks like...
    • drouk1556, on 10/10/2007, -5/+40It's only $250 to stay in a hotel on Mediterranean Avenue.
      • juttman, on 10/10/2007, -16/+2nice, monopoly references are great
      • DOCKAUF55, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7hullo how much to park my thimble overnight?
      • unfinite, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4No man, it's only $250 to BUY a hotel on Mediterranean Avenue.
        • VanillaStarfish, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0On a Monopoly board. New York is a dirty place. I'll never return.
    • gl77, on 03/31/2008, -8/+7I own Baltic and Mediterranean, and all of the crack whores that walk those streets give their hard earned dollars to me. now gimme this months rent!
    • gropo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Meanwhile Electric Company and Water Works are making record profits while we pay through the nose!
  • JaridR, on 10/10/2007, -8/+41It didn't start going downhill with the automobile. Before there were too many horses, too much horse-sh*t. Then cars, now too much carbon.
    • consoneo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11Don't dig this guy down, go read this and believe it!

      http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1971/6/1971_6_65.shtml

      It is a horribly long article describing how the horses were so much worse than cars ever have been. Pollution was higher due to the above mentioned fecal matter.
    • Humptydank, on 10/10/2007, -3/+39The average amount of manure was twenty-five pounds per day, per horse. Multiply that by 200,000 horses in New York at the turn of the century, and you have 2,500 tons of excretion raining down from horse-butts every single day. And that doesn't include copious amounts of pee. Anyone who's ever been near Central Park South and smelled the gifts left by just the fifty or so tourist carriages knows that no one on Tree-Hugger pining for the "good old days" in New York would have lasted five minutes. When horses live in fields they are part of nature, but when they are brought into cities and used like cars, they are far more filthy.

      Add to that the fact that the wealthy could afford to have their neighborhoods cleaned while the poor, say, on the Lower East Side, would have to navigate literal piles of filth, and I vote thumbs up on the whole car thing.

      The car isn't perfect. Far from it. But it sure as hell was a revolutionary improvement over the technology of the day.
  • dbizzell, on 10/10/2007, -37/+7I hate digg.com
    • juttman, on 10/10/2007, -4/+15i do too sometimes
      • slipkn0tz23, on 10/10/2007, -11/+2Hah. I love how Dbizzell gets dugg down (hes at -12 at the time of me posting this), and Juttman agrees with him and gets dugg up (He's at 8, at the current time)
    • Verdanic, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2You're original.
    • juttman, on 10/10/2007, -8/+10i hate peace mongering hippie diggers
      • kurttrail, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3That's OK. We feel sorry for your family.
    • aknowles5139, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2If you hate it, thats great. I'm sure nobody here wants to hear it.

      *remembers the good old days of Digg* ...yeah it pretty much sucks... I hope the improvements separate the idiots from YouTube and the geeks from Digg versions 1 and 2.
  • juttman, on 10/10/2007, -5/+14Is Boardwalk still available?

    My bad, that was Park Place.
  • krolm, on 10/10/2007, -10/+6wow! had no clue park ave. looked like that at one point.
    • VanillaStarfish, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0It has to start some how. Before that, it was nothing but trees and a bunch of white men hanging Indians from the trees.
  • kennywinker, on 10/10/2007, -23/+94Oh, I'm sorry I didn't realize people WANTED to be able to only travel 10 miles a day, as well as constantly be facing the odor from thousands of horses and their feces. By all means, do away with cars and bring back horses what an AWESOME IDEA!!!!!!
    • Light11, on 10/10/2007, -11/+24what about bikes?
      • mike17032, on 10/10/2007, -10/+7Not gonna cut it, not even close.
        • nreynolds, on 10/10/2007, -8/+7biking on flat land is really easy....
          • nixonrichard, on 10/10/2007, -3/+16pushing the little pedal and going 70mph with the A/C on is even easier.
          • KlayBorg, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Most people in Amsterdam bike everywhere.
      • twinklyJesus, on 10/10/2007, -7/+10You ever try to deliver a washer/dryer combo on a bicycle? A sofa? I don't know about NYC, but Houston is HUGE. I wouldn't want to pay the delivery charge to have my furniture moved 40 miles across town by bicycle.

        THINK!
        • kettlechips, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7I don't buy a large appliance every day, and the delivery charge is a lot lower than car expenses.
        • rootneg2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1it's not that EVERYONE has to use cars. Trucks are good for transporting freight, precisely the example you give (although, to be fair, I have seen people moving refrigerators on a bike more than once; it's quite a sight)

          But the way most people use cars right now is just downright silly. Using a 1 ton vehicles to move 150lb people is just bad engineering; most of the time I look around at cars there's only 1 person per car, stuck in rush hour traffic, going a little faster than a brisk jog.
      • KevenM, on 10/10/2007, -1/+45not to mention all that bicycle feces
        • leif77, on 10/10/2007, -5/+0i logged in just to digg you up. very funny.
      • rootneg2, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Indeed. We need more bikes, especially in NYC. I just moved here and biking is SO much faster than a car (and cheaper too, those taxis get expensive...). I haven't timed it yet, but I think it might be even faster than the (local, not express) subways.

        The only problem is that there aren't enough cyclists because there isn't much roadspace set aside for cyclists; which in turn is partly because there aren't enough cyclists.
    • celerate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7We don't need horses any more, there are better forms of public transportation now. Some of the future concept cities imagined by the Japanese as they need to expand to suit the population size are designed to have monorails for public transportation instead of roads for motor vehicle transportation.
    • jlharrity, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1You've got to admit that it'd be fun, though. Nothing like good old cavalry maneuvers.
    • xmkatx, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1I would love more horses in the city. There are already horse drawn carriages for the tourists, though, and I hate seeing how some drivers drive around a carriage so carelessly.
    • gropo, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3@xmkatx
      No, seriously. Hang out on Central Park South on a hot day in July to fully appreciate the horse urine fumes. Hell, at least they capture most of the feces. No thanks. That said, we're in the age of electric trains and innanely efficient bicycles, not to mention exotic things such as Segways. Kennywinker's comment was unadultered asshattery.
  • kennywinker, on 10/10/2007, -31/+4Oh, I'm sorry I didn't realize people WANTED to be able to only travel 10 miles a day, as well as constantly be facing the odor from thousands of horses and their feces. By all means, do away with cars and bring back horses what an AWESOME IDEA!!!!!!
  • murty, on 10/10/2007, -11/+15Bring back walking! Would probably solve a lot of other issues... would probably create other issues as well i suppose.
    • gl77, on 03/31/2008, -4/+9***** that *****, i walked to work and back last week, 5 miles round trip, doesnt sound like much, but when there's a heat advisory out and its 97 degrees (felt like 110 with the heat index), i almost had a ***** heat stroke.
      • drouk1556, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Uphill both ways.
        • nreynolds, on 10/10/2007, -2/+497 degrees above the waist, -5 degrees below it.
      • SerifTheRobot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Towing my little brother on a sled
    • WhiteRaven, on 10/10/2007, -12/+3Are you going to pay me to walk? My time is way, way to valuable to waste it walking places.
      • kwojniak, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Yeah, screw getting some exercise and breathing fresh air. My time is better spent viewing pictures of cats.

        /sarcasm
        • WhiteRaven, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No, my time is better spent ENJOYING MYSELF. Walking is a crappy way to spend a couple hours.
    • timlopez, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7
      Pshhh, who wants to walk to McDonalds?!
    • rspeed, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10You don't need to bring back walking in NYC. It's there, trust me.
    • deadmann, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Looking at that picture I'd definitely like to see pedestrian cities.
      • aaronm67, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Never been to New York? Unless it's several miles, people typically walk.
        • rootneg2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1And even then, they just ride the subway.

          Not many people have cars in NYC...
  • mishabear, on 10/10/2007, -4/+26We're never going to remove cars until something better comes along but that doesn't mean we need to allow cars on ALL streets. I'd love to have urban areas again where people could mingle, have sidewalk cafe's, etc. without everything being commercialized or designed for drivers. Hell, just ONE street through the downtown area would be enough. I think most cities are trying to do something like this. I can think of a few cities already.
    • WhiteRaven, on 10/10/2007, -8/+9Cities are designed for drivers because THEIR INHABITANTS CHOOSE TO DRIVE.
      • rootneg2, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1No, it's the other way around.

        inhabitants choose to drive because the city is designed for cars. If a city was designed for pedestrians (as many older cities in europe are or some on the east coast, like NYC) most people still walk or bike. If your local grocery store were only a couple blocks away, would you drive?
        • WhiteRaven, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You are emphatically, and factually wrong. The instant cars became available, people started moving to the suburbs to get away from dense cities... and dense cities existed in part because density makes walking and mass transit practical.

          People didn't *like* being stuck in dense cities. Cars freed them of that.

          People who are still in cities may indeed walk or bike... but the vast majority demonstrated their preferences by moving *away* from that situation.
    • jcm267, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2Providence, RI tried doing this. It turned Westminster Street into a pedestrian mall... and it FAILED. Today, most of Westminster St is open to traffic again.
    • frostmonkey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7I live in Calgary AB, and we have a street like that...sort of.

      Stephen Ave. (which is right in the core of downtown Calgary) is closed to all motor traffic during the work hours. It allows restaturants to have their large outdoor patios, and the three blocks or so which are closed off are absolutely SWARMING with people during lunch hour. I mean thousands of people, with street vendors, performances etc.

      Gotta love being oil rich haha
      • 808kick, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Ottawa has Sparks St.
      • squidy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Montréal has Prince Arthur and de la Gauchetière Ouest, Québec closes many streets in the summer (rue St-Jean, part of Grande Allée). But none of these compare to Church Street in Burlington, VT! This street is really nice with shops and restaurants!
    • Sliver85, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5State st. in Madison is an example of this.
      • TheMidnight, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yep. They don't allow cars on State Street, just taxis, buses and police. You can usually walk down the street without fear unless a drunk bicyclist is about. State Street is famous for bars, college students, panhandlers, the Halloween party, and occasional violence.
      • rootneg2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1There's also the greenway down the entire west side; only bikes, pedestrians, and rollerblades with only a very occasional stoplight for a cross-street. It's like a freeway for bikes, and it's very cool.
    • my8bird, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Downtown Dubuque, IA has a great area downtown where they took a street, removed some lanes, and now it is a growing cafe and shopping area where people can drive, but not in great numbers.

      Dubuque is the nose sticking out of Iowa
    • llamagorama, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah, Ottawa's got a street like that, except that it's surrounded by other streets so the point is a little lost.
    • jlharrity, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Minneapolis has a bus, bike, pedestrian only street in the heart of downtown. Works well for us.
    • gropo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Downtown Crossing in Boston comes to mind. Le Grand Place in Brussels an ideal historic example.
  • stepanstas, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2true
  • mike17032, on 10/10/2007, -15/+7Yes because horse ***** is so much better than right? And going back in time is always the best solution to our issues as well, thats the hippie way. Also nice to see more treehugger spam.
  • kinerry, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4You should have seen it when there were horses, prepare to wear your boots is all I can say
  • tomisina, on 10/10/2007, -7/+30you should look at a picture of a city before they had electricity... those gas street lamps were beautiful...
    we should outlaw electricity!
  • Yang1205, on 10/10/2007, -16/+2its a shame what global warming has done...

    • Walgreenz, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Its a real shame what Al Gore has done...
      • nixonrichard, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8He invented the Internet so everybody could bitch about global warming.
    • KevenM, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Global warming created more cars? What exactly did Global Warming do that's relevant to this thread?
  • mrroarke, on 10/10/2007, -2/+22How about a picture of the landscape before the people, buildings and streets? I'll bet it was even better.
  • bigjimslade, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7
    ...unfortunately it took hours for them to clean up the horse crap that was all over the place.
  • twinklyJesus, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6Yeah, it was pretty, pretty unpractical! Can you imagine all the expense and hassle moving the large volume of people and products we have now, by bike or horse? Can you imagine the filth and disease from the manure?

    It's all fun and games until someone gets horse ***** in their eye!
    • kettlechips, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Plenty of people live nicely without a car these days.
    • SweetChinMusic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1But they all live in the city.
    • rootneg2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1trains and trucks or planes for freight.

      trains or planes for long-distance people moving.
      buses, subways, monorails, or light-rail for daily cross-town work commutes (or back to cars for smaller cities that can't afford the infrastructure)
      bikes, or walking (or even taxis) for errands to the grocery store (with a properly laid out city)

      Even if it *is* just the cities, that would be a huge benefit. I already know that in NYC almost nobody drives because there is a good public transportation city, and resources are organized for walking (small, close grocery stores; compact downtown/business district, etc.)

      It seems like rush hour traffic is the epitomy of expense and hassle for solving just the daily-commute problem. One 150lb person per 1500lb car, going a little faster than a brisk jog? I would pass those shmucks on my bike when I lived in Austin.

      the "car in every home" paradigm is a really poor solution to the very basic, fundamental "moving ***** from A to B" problem in general.
  • seanc6610, on 10/10/2007, -2/+23I'm calling shenanigans. I checked this out, and I'm pretty sure this isn't totally accurate for all of Park Ave., as the avenue carried tracks from more than one railroad as early as the 1830s. Maybe this is an area of the ave. where the trains didn't run, but Park was definitely never actually a giant park running down Manhattan.
  • JustinHorne, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2Yeah, as if any ONE of those people don't own a car and live more than amile from where they work. Go shut the ***** up.
  • JDoorjam, on 10/10/2007, -6/+12It's not about cars vs. horse *****. That's an awfully false dilemma. The real question is just how much we're willing to sacrifice to the automobile in terms of pleasant living spaces -- in an environment that, yes, must make some concessions to the automobile. We should have walkable neighborhoods, and broad walkways on tree-lined boulevards. It's not hard to figure out, and it's not even expensive (sidewalks are easier and cheaper to maintain than roads anyway).

    For more on livable, human-oriented urban design, google "new urbanism." The issues new urbanism deals with are exactly those that this photograph hints at.
    • kettlechips, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3correct
    • acefearless, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3This is exactly what the pictures comparison are about. The point isn't to get rid of cars or replace them with horses. But to make our cities human centric. I live in San Francisco, I walk to work most days but I also own a car. But I don't need to be able to drive on every single street in the city. Take grant street in San Francisco. For the most part it is just a tourist walking street with a single lane of traffic down the center and about a mile and a half of shops and restaurants. No one drives down this if you can avoid it, which you easily can. But tourist love the Chinatown section of it and a lot of locals love the North beach section of it and every one walks on the two very narrow sidewalks bumping in and stumbling over each other because they don't want to get hit by the occasional car that drives down. Imagine this mile long street that crosses town where business are already aimed at foot traffic, if you don't need to worry about being hit by cars. You can wander amongst trees and flowers and street cafes sit on a nice bench when you like listen to street performers (when they are good). Sounds kind of nice doesn't it. And remember a block down is a nice fast car street if you need to get from point a to b in a hurry.

      In a suburban city you call these mile long walkable streets that are focused on people walk in malls. In an urban city like New York or San Francisco the malls aren't the center of the world the streets are. It would be nice if a few of these were focused on being a place for the millions of people who live there to get around with out worrying about getting hit by cars.
      • samdu, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1"I don't need to be able to drive on every single street in the city."

        I'll bet the businesses are glad you can, though.
  • trebuchet03, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8Why does everyone have horse ***** on the mind. It's not saying we should go back to that era, the point is that we should rethink and move beyond our current design ideals.

    Does every building need surface roads connected to it? Imagine a 4 block area without car traffic, but road access to it. Of course, there's a whole other set of issues (traffic density would be much worse in surrounding areas). But then again, the ethos of America (at least the one I live in) is to get in your car to drive a few blocks to your destination.

    All that said, I too wonder if that's an accurate representation o.0
    • ReadItAndWeep, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Didn't you know that nuanced arguments aren't allowed on digg? Everything must be black and white. Its either tree-hugging hippies who want to live in horse ***** or a 4 lane highway in front of every building. Got it? Don't go and muddy the waters with talk of different city planning approaches, etc.
  • tont0r, on 10/10/2007, -10/+0I am sure glad no one at www.treehugger.com owns a car. Whoops, they are owned by Discovery Communications now. Hippocrates.
    • Bamborzled, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8"Hippocrates"

      You keep using that word (or name, rather). I do not think you know what it means.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocrates
    • twinklyJesus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2THE OATH OF HIPPOCRATES

      I SWEAR by Apollo the physician and Æsculapius, and Health, and All-heal, and all the gods and goddesses, that, according to my ability and judgment,

      I will keep this Oath and this stipulation — to reckon him who taught me this Art equally dear to me as my parents, to share my substance with him, and relieve his necessities if required; to look upon his offspring in the same footing as my own brothers, and to teach them this art, if they shall wish to learn it, without fee or stipulation; and that by precept, lecture, and every other mode of instruction,

      I will impart a knowledge of the Art to my own sons, and those of my teachers, and to disciples bound by a stipulation and oath according to the law of medicine, but to none others.

      I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgement, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous.

      I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion. With purity and with holiness I will pass my life and practice my Art.

      I will not cut persons labouring under the stone, but will leave this to be done by men who are practitioners of this work. Into whatever houses I enter, I will go into them for the benefit of the sick, and will abstain from every voluntary act of mischief and corruption; and, further, from the seduction of females or males, of freemen and slaves. Whatever, in connection with my professional service, or not in connection with it, I see or hear, in the life of men, which ought not to be spoken of abroad,

      I will not divulge, as reckoning that all such should be kept secret. While I continue to keep this Oath unviolated, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and the practice of the art, respected by all men, in all times. But should I trespass and violate this Oath, may the reverse be my lot.
    • jlharrity, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Hippocrates was an ancient Greek. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocrates

      I believe you're thinking of "hypocrites".
  • IronDonut, on 10/10/2007, -9/+1Yeah by all means lets return to the past before cars. Cities were so much better covered in horse *****.

    These ***** hippies you get all romantic about the past without stopping to think about the drawbacks. A city like New York covered in animal feces is actually a lot less healthy than one populated with cars. There is a reason why we live twice as long now as then.

    Of course they're selective in what you dislike about modern times. Cars bad... but here they are on the Internet. Do you have any idea how much power the internet consumes? Have you ever been in a modern data center? They consume massive amounts of power.

    Just treehugger.com alone website running on two or three dedicated servers consumes nearly as much power as the average suburban house. The irony...

  • boot20, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Let me say that walking to work would be possible for me, *IF* we had all the corporations in cities. However, my wife goes to school in Oakland and I work in Dublin. The closest we can live to both is Walnut Creek/Pleasant Hill/Concord. So what do we do? We live there. Sure we both commute about 15 miles each way, but she'll sometimes take BART and then drive to school from the station, but I don't have that choice because it would take me over an hour to get to work with the current BART system. It takes me about 30 minutes driving.

    To solve the issue of cars and cities we need 3 things:
    1) FAR better public transportation. While we have a start, we need to bring trains back for local travel. BART is awesome, but there just isn't enough track
    2) Better use of land. This will never happen, but we need to build up rather than out....ain't gonna happen, but nice to think about.
    3) A reasonable way to live, work, go to school, etc in the same area. I love working from home, but that's not always an option. We need to think about ways to get the worker connected to the office in better ways. I tried to market my ideas, but it seems nobody wanted a lightweight virtual classroom/office. So, we're stuck going into work and stuck having to commute.

    Oh, and to those of you that go on and about how things "used to be better." Please tell me how you'd transport around all the crap you have to haul now. Hell, I carry a backpack to work just to haul my laptop and all the peripherals that go with it. What can I do when I have a ton of other things to carry as well? I can't bike or walk...so that means driving.
    • rootneg2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1you hit the nail on the head. The whole "moving ***** from A to B" infrastructure needs to be changed; right now we're very entrenched in the "a car in every household" model which, although is works and is relatively convenient, is far from efficient or even cost-effective.

      NYC is actually one place that I feel has it down pretty good: very few people own a car, the subways are incredibly convenient, the city is definitely very "vertical", shops, grocery stores, and workplaces are laid out for walking to/from, and there are public taxis just a wave away for the few times that you really do need a car.
    • rootneg2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1you hit the nail on the head. The whole "moving ***** from A to B" infrastructure needs to be changed; right now we're very entrenched in the "a car in every household" model which, although is works and is relatively convenient, is far from efficient or even cost-effective.

      NYC is actually one place that I feel has it down pretty good: very few people own a car, the subways are incredibly convenient, the city is definitely very "vertical", shops, grocery stores, and workplaces are laid out for walking to/from, and there are public taxis just a wave away for the few times that you really do need a car.
  • ThatGeek, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3i love the articles that just pose problems, and never say a thing about solutions. I dont like using cars to get around everywhere, but as of right now i dont see a better solution
  • CatsAreGods, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4If you read the comments on the original article, they bring out what anyone who has ever been to NYC would know: the "before" picture of Park Avenue with no cars is a complete and utter fake.
  • stewie814, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Park Avenue has always been synonymous with wealth, so it is not an accurate depiction of New York City at-large.
  • Papajohn56, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Buried for inaccurate, that picture has been manipulated.
  • TheBigBentley, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4All I can think is "Wow that looks like a long walk."
  • GianDoe, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2and they ripped down all the nature to put the buildings there originally... before the friggin road so why not start there granola jake? i bet a family of happy squirrels lived in those trees before evil man stole their land and put a city there...let me know when you open your own utopia, i need a vacation *****
  • DMRsweden, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Did I read the page wrong? Where did it say to bring back the horses??
  • Riatsala, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I often wish there were no cars cluttering up the streets, but I'd never part with mine...
  • ranthony, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1Buried as inaccurate and irrelevant. Leave the city planning to the architects and engineers, please.
  • TheDude01, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1I'm sure it looked even better, before the whole city was built! Does that mean we should go back to living in caves? I hate articles like that!
  • orgazmo, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4There's nothing like coming on Digg to make me want to punch hippies in the face.
    Its called progress, live with it.
  • samdu, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3There are plenty of undeveloped places in the country for the luddites. They should go there instead of constantly bitching about progress.
  • sonofman1984, on 03/03/2008, -1/+1Segway anyone???
  • libradragon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I was expecting to see a picture of a Buick.
  • uptown, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I'm looking out my window onto Park Ave. right now and it's a parking lot of 90% taxis .... most of which are being blocked by a cop car that decided to push through the cross-street's traffic light and got stuck blocking the intersection.
  • rockchops, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Manhattan is a failed experiment. An abomination.
  • bloominoctober, on 10/10/2007, -6/+5I cannot digg ANYTHING that comes from treehugger.com (damn environmental wackos).
  • DtownXpander, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Manhattan is a city with a subway. Ever lived in a city like Detroit which doesn't have adequate public transportation? Cars are necessary.
  • SickMonkey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3You can have the best of both worlds simply by setting the buildings back farther from the street and creating pedestrian green buffer zones between the streets and buildings. Of course this would require giving up a lot of valuable real estate to the pedestrians, but the payback would be a much nicer and user-friendly urban environment with cafes, bike paths, etc... A better solution still is building a good subway system for commuters yet still maintain the top streets for commercial commerce. Of course all of this requires perfect city planning from start to finish, so it will never happen except in a very few cities where history let them evolve that way.
  • khiggins, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Dugg for the Treehugger link. Love that site.
  • 582ND3R5, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Check out images of Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica California. TSP is four or five blocks of automobile oriented street that was converted to pedestrian only access in the 1980's. Today it is a thriving commercial district where people from all over Southern California come to visit. Every street doesn't have to be auto-centric or look the same.

    http://images.google.com/images?q=Third+Street+Promenade
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.