HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Florida Panthers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Where does Florida Play? (more specific than the state of Florida)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-20-2008, 12:22 PM
  #51
angry_treefrog
Moderator
#CatsAreComing
 
angry_treefrog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Country: Canary Islands
Posts: 7,168
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeroG View Post
that's not the big difference, imo. the biggest difference is that the fan base is generations old here. you see a loyalty we're only beginning to see with the fins.
I agree with this 100%.

On the other hand, I think it's disingenous to compare the public transportation system of an older city which was designed and built in a different era to the system in sprawling Miami. If the public transportation systems of Boston, NYC, etc. had to be designed and built today, they would be a shadow of what they are now for a multitude of reasons.

Here is an example of the wonderful city planning of current day Boston.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig..._Massachusetts)

angry_treefrog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2008, 12:42 PM
  #52
agentzzz
Registered User
 
agentzzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Ft Lauderdale, Fl
Posts: 631
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeroG View Post
there area plenty of different cultures in boston. huge puerto rican population, huge chinese population, irish, brazilian, yada yada yada. that's not the big difference, imo. the biggest difference is that the fan base is generations old here.
thats kinda what i meant i just suck at making points. all big cities have multiple cultures, just down here most of the people just got here 5 minutes ago so expecting them to jump on board a sports team, especially a sport many of them never even heard of is not happening anytime soon.

agentzzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2008, 01:17 PM
  #53
zeroG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somerville, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 6,184
vCash: 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by angry_treefrog View Post
I agree with this 100%.

On the other hand, I think it's disingenous to compare the public transportation system of an older city which was designed and built in a different era to the system in sprawling Miami. If the public transportation systems of Boston, NYC, etc. had to be designed and built today, they would be a shadow of what they are now for a multitude of reasons.

Here is an example of the wonderful city planning of current day Boston.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig...Massachusetts)
heh... i knew that was going to come up. first, yeah, i agree that public transportation here (first subway in the country, btw) is a different beast than in SF. it'll never be the same down there. that doesn't mean it can't be functional. when you see the metrorail and buses running with nobody on them, you have to ask yourself what the point was. and, in a larger sense, that doesn't really excuse all the poor planning examples i brought up. the idea of city planning is to manage growth while making cities more livable and workable, right? here's a definition i found:

Quote:
City Planning: The effort on the part of the city to coordinate, direct and control the type of development taking place, so as to ensure maximum benefits to the populace.
there's a more exhaustive look at the topic on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_planning). so... what are some examples of successful planning down there? both in the local sense (miami) or regional (SF).

now back to the big dig. the problem wasn't necessarily planning. the biggest problem with the project was the management and, in particular, the awarding of the bid to do the work to a san fran firm notorious for consistently underbidding their projects and doing poor work.

now that the project is done, you can see some of the benefits. sure, they are still dealing with problems due to shoddy construction but the added arteries from all sides of the city to the airport makes that trip quite a bit easier and quicker from everywhere. some of the other bits that came along on the periphery like a direct connection via bus line extension the T to the airport is very convenient. traffic in general can still be a bear but it moves pretty well through the tunnels. there's a new bridge that takes traffic out of the city and over the water to the north that's very attractive and has become a welcomed new addition to the skyline. one of my favorite parts of project though was the decision to make a string of parks along the route of the old elevated I93. this land could have been designated and zoned for commercial development but the city for some reason decided, maybe in the tradition of the emerald necklace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerald_Necklace) to make public spaces there. so there's a string of beautiful parks with sculptures and water fountains and grassy areas for picnics, all with a great view of the skyline. they also serve to connect the downtown area with the waterfront and the north end.

i offer this mainly as a defense of the project but also to show how it's possible to improve the aesthetics and (not unrelated) livability of an area and with good planning. having said all that, boston , is NOT my favorite place in the world. far from it. there are a lot of things i don't like about life here but a chunk of the charm and beauty of the city are a testament to competent planning, imo.

zeroG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2008, 01:46 PM
  #54
angry_treefrog
Moderator
#CatsAreComing
 
angry_treefrog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Country: Canary Islands
Posts: 7,168
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeroG View Post
i agree that public transportation here (first subway in the country, btw) is a different beast than in SF. it'll never be the same down there. that doesn't mean it can't be functional. when you see the metrorail and buses running with nobody on them
A lot of that has to do with the "culture" of the city. Sure, having MetroRail run in a more logical manner would be nice, but I suspect people still wouldn't ride it in large numbers. As long as people can afford to drive cars around SoFla, they will. Traffic be damned. (They will also recklessly cut you off while texting on their cell phone, but that's another topic altogether.)



Quote:
Originally Posted by zeroG View Post
now back to the big dig. the problem wasn't necessarily planning. the biggest problem with the project was the management and, in particular, the awarding of the bid to do the work to a san fran firm notorious for consistently underbidding their projects and doing poor work.

now that the project is done, you can see some of the benefits. sure, they are still dealing with problems due to shoddy construction but the added arteries from all sides of the city to the airport makes that trip quite a bit easier and quicker from everywhere. some of the other bits that came along on the periphery like a direct connection via bus line extension the T to the airport is very convenient. traffic in general can still be a bear but it moves pretty well through the tunnels. there's a new bridge that takes traffic out of the city and over the water to the north that's very attractive and has become a welcomed new addition to the skyline. one of my favorite parts of project though was the decision to make a string of parks along the route of the old elevated I93. this land could have been designated and zoned for commercial development but the city for some reason decided, maybe in the tradition of the emerald necklace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerald_Necklace) to make public spaces there. so there's a string of beautiful parks with sculptures and water fountains and grassy areas for picnics, all with a great view of the skyline. they also serve to connect the downtown area with the waterfront and the north end.

i offer this mainly as a defense of the project but also to show how it's possible to improve the aesthetics and (not unrelated) livability of an area and with good planning. having said all that, boston , is NOT my favorite place in the world. far from it. there are a lot of things i don't like about life here but a chunk of the charm and beauty of the city are a testament to competent planning, imo.
I think you missed my point. Creating a rational, organized public transportation infrastructure is a giant undertaking if you want to make it work (i.e. have people WANT to use it). Those type of projects were a lot easier to do a century ago than they are now. The Big Dig was a large project, but it pales in comparison to building an entire transportation netwrk from the ground up. Creating a viable public transportation system in SoFla (it would have to be elevated rail... noone will ride the buses) would be more expensive and more disruptive.

Quite honestly, the biggest problem with SoFla transportation (as in other places like Atlanta) is that far more people have moved (and continue to move) to the area than the infrastructure was designed to support. Take someone who hasn't been to Boston in fifty years and give them a tour of the city. I'm sure it's a different city than it was then, but still recognizble. Take someone who hasn't been to Miami in fifty years and give them a tour. It's a different planet.

angry_treefrog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2008, 02:29 PM
  #55
KW
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Country: Finland
Posts: 2,315
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeroG View Post
nice. so you insult me by saying



i refute that so you insult me again, then pack up your toys and walk away?

let me be clear - i'm not lecturing anybody. different cities offer different lifestyles and, of course, everyone's entitled to their opinions and preferences. i threw mine out there, agreeing with others who had posted from outside of FL. that's it. don't conflate that with the points about public planning in FL.

regarding that second issue, i'll concede and shut up if you refute my claim. i threw out some examples of failed planning. have any counter examples?
I didn't intend to insult you, and I'm not taking the ball and going home either. I just stated what I perceived as unwarranted bias and lack of understanding of the way Florida infrastructure has been built, especially public transport. I don't think you know much about planning in Florida, otherwise you would not have said:
Quote:
just about anywhere but the banana republic of FL that would be true. unfortunately, it seems like there aren't or weren't ever any city planners at all (or the ones they employ are clueless).
and
Quote:
city planning down there is a joke (i think it's more generally applicable, i.e., in sofla, but i'm talking specifically about miami). back when i lived there i remembered hearing stories from a good friend's girlfriend about good planners outside FL turning down jobs down there because of its reputation.
I don't have a problem with the fact that you prefer Boston, New York, London for their public transport over South Florida. Good for you for recognizing the obvious. I'm saying you don't understand how and why things were done the way they were in FL. Your assertion obviously is that planners in Florida - especially South Florida - are a bunch of clueless idiots. All the while you fail to take into account the constraints they were working under. And all the while you fail to know the difference between Miami-Dade county, Palm Beach county, Martin county, etc. Typical Monday morning armchair quarterback.

Oh, and you asserted most if not all city planning is bad in FL. Depends on what your yardstick is. I suspect an important one for you is "is there a recognizable downtown with a bunch of tall buildings, a good public transportation system, and sports venues in downtown area with a bunch of historic pubs around". On the other hand the yardstick could be, "are homes well built, relatively affordable, easy access by car, most necessary amenities conveniently located, with easy office/school/golf course/beach access".

And yes, I do think you tend to lecture to people too much. Although I'm pretty sure my opinion weighs very little, you might still want to get a second opinion? Do you lecture much?

KW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2008, 02:34 PM
  #56
zeroG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somerville, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 6,184
vCash: 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by angry_treefrog View Post
A lot of that has to do with the "culture" of the city. Sure, having MetroRail run in a more logical manner would be nice, but I suspect people still wouldn't ride it in large numbers. As long as people can afford to drive cars around SoFla, they will. Traffic be damned. (They will also recklessly cut you off while texting on their cell phone, but that's another topic altogether.)
you might be right. i'd like to actually SEE what happened if you dropped usable PT into the greater miami area though.

Quote:
I think you missed my point. Creating a rational, organized public transportation infrastructure is a giant undertaking if you want to make it work (i.e. have people WANT to use it). Those type of projects were a lot easier to do a century ago than they are now. The Big Dig was a large project, but it pales in comparison to building an entire transportation netwrk from the ground up. Creating a viable public transportation system in SoFla (it would have to be elevated rail... noone will ride the buses) would be more expensive and more disruptive.

Quite honestly, the biggest problem with SoFla transportation (as in other places like Atlanta) is that far more people have moved (and continue to move) to the area than the infrastructure was designed to support. Take someone who hasn't been to Boston in fifty years and give them a tour of the city. I'm sure it's a different city than it was then, but still recognizble. Take someone who hasn't been to Miami in fifty years and give them a tour. It's a different planet.
i got your point and yes, you're right about that but i think it's important to note that when they took on those projects here a long time ago, they did a decent job. the T looks a lot different than it looked even 40 years ago but it was built in a way that the city could extend. i mention the big dig really not to compare PT but just to note how planning decisions can make cities more livable (or less). forget about PT, just consider all of the failed projects in and around downtown miami alone... the mind boggles. are they all a result of poor PT? idk, and even if that's the case, you have to go back and say someone at some point dropped the ball. why do some cities get it right? or at least workable? i'm not sure.

also, i don't think i'd agree about the way miami looks. parts look different and certainly development on the western edges has been insane (i went to shows at the hollywood sportatorium back in the 80s on pines and hiatus, i.e., the middle of the swamp; my folks now live 30 blocks west of there in strip mall hell) but a lot of what i see in miami now looks the same as when i was growing up there. most of the development is moving west and north, it seems. could that be an argument against wasting further money of transportation in and around the downtown area?

zeroG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2008, 02:44 PM
  #57
angry_treefrog
Moderator
#CatsAreComing
 
angry_treefrog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Country: Canary Islands
Posts: 7,168
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeroG View Post
also, i don't think i'd agree about the way miami looks. parts look different and certainly development on the western edges has been insane (i went to shows at the hollywood sportatorium back in the 80s on pines and hiatus, i.e., the middle of the swamp; my folks now live 30 blocks west of there in strip mall hell) but a lot of what i see in miami now looks the same as when i was growing up there. most of the development is moving west and north, it seems. could that be an argument against wasting further money of transportation in and around the downtown area?
To reference my original post:

Miami metropolitan area population 1950 : 172,000

Miami metropolitan area population 2000: 2,253,000

The population grows 13 fold in five decades and you think the city hasn't changed because it looks the same to you? Can I borrow your reality distortion field when you aren't using it?

angry_treefrog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2008, 03:40 PM
  #58
zeroG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somerville, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 6,184
vCash: 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by KWGoon View Post
I don't have a problem with the fact that you prefer Boston, New York, London for their public transport over South Florida. Good for you for recognizing the obvious. I'm saying you don't understand how and why things were done the way they were in FL. Your assertion obviously is that planners in Florida - especially South Florida - are a bunch of clueless idiots. All the while you fail to take into account the constraints they were working under. And all the while you fail to know the difference between Miami-Dade county, Palm Beach county, Martin county, etc. Typical Monday morning armchair quarterback.

Oh, and you asserted most if not all city planning is bad in FL. Depends on what your yardstick is. I suspect an important one for you is "is there a recognizable downtown with a bunch of tall buildings, a good public transportation system, and sports venues in downtown area with a bunch of historic pubs around". On the other hand the yardstick could be, "are homes well built, relatively affordable, easy access by car, most necessary amenities conveniently located, with easy office/school/golf course/beach access".

And yes, I do think you tend to lecture to people too much. Although I'm pretty sure my opinion weighs very little, you might still want to get a second opinion? Do you lecture much?
am i a stubborn ass sometimes? yeah, sure. i admit it.

back to the topic at hand, my perspective is very much rooted in the information i heard through a friend's wife who worked for the city. the point was that the city could not pay competent planners enough to come and work there. this was.... 17 years ago. really, though, the poor decisions preceded that era and seem to have outlived it as well. anyhow, combine that with a dose of living around the area for the better part of 27 years, witnessing all of these projects and you have a pretty sour view of things.

tell me a little about the constraints the city was under as you see them. i assume part of the picture is the fact that SF sits on a bed of limestone?

my yardstick is not a "recognizable downtown with tall buildings...". not at all. that seems to be a sad scarecrow. are homes well built in SF? don't know about that - though i sat (along with blackpanthers) through hurricane andrew in nmb, my parents' house, along with many others' in the area blew apart. and they weren't along the path of the eye wall.

in any event, i still don't see a strong argument for the quality of planning down there. actually, if as atf has said:

Quote:
Quite honestly, the biggest problem with SoFla transportation (as in other places like Atlanta) is that far more people have moved (and continue to move) to the area than the infrastructure was designed to support.
then planners (transportation, at least) have actually failed by the most basic definition, no?

zeroG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2008, 03:42 PM
  #59
zeroG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somerville, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 6,184
vCash: 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by angry_treefrog View Post
To reference my original post:

Miami metropolitan area population 1950 : 172,000

Miami metropolitan area population 2000: 2,253,000

The population grows 13 fold in five decades and you think the city hasn't changed because it looks the same to you? Can I borrow your reality distortion field when you aren't using it?
hold on a second. define miami metropolitan area, please? also, do you have a number from the 70s as an additional reference point?

zeroG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2008, 04:35 PM
  #60
angry_treefrog
Moderator
#CatsAreComing
 
angry_treefrog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Country: Canary Islands
Posts: 7,168
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeroG View Post
hold on a second. define miami metropolitan area, please? also, do you have a number from the 70s as an additional reference point?
Correction:

1950 690,000
1970 2,200,000
2000 5,000,000

That's 100,000 new people a year for 30 years since 1970. You can't tell the difference? Can you compare that to Boston?

If you only want to talk about the city of Miami proper, that is a bit silly. You can't talk about the core 10% of a metropolitan area and ignore the 90% around it. Those are the people going to the games.

Incidentally, I won't sit here and defend the city planners in Miami. They have made some bad decisions (Miami Arena, MetroRail). I am simply pointing out that the Boston's idiots (or anywhere else for that matter) aren't any better. They just like to think that they are.

For what it's worth, the Miami metropolitan area is generally defined as extending into Fort Lauderdale. Remember that due to late 20th century urban sprawl, Miami does not have a true city center (as defined by population density, not entertainment density) like the older Northeastern cities. You have to account for the metro area, not the city proper.


Isn't this supposed to be a hockey forum?

angry_treefrog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2008, 05:05 PM
  #61
ratmanfu
Registered User
 
ratmanfu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Hendersonville, NC
Country: Spain
Posts: 8,468
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to ratmanfu
Quote:
Originally Posted by angry_treefrog View Post
Isn't this supposed to be a hockey forum?


Still, pretty fascinating discussion.

Now, if only the Peltonen thread would deviate to discussing the mechanical functionality of firetrucks.


ratmanfu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2008, 05:22 PM
  #62
zeroG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somerville, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 6,184
vCash: 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by angry_treefrog View Post
Correction:

1950 690,000
1970 2,200,000
2000 5,000,000

That's 100,000 new people a year for 30 years since 1970. You can't tell the difference?
Can you compare that to Boston?

If you only want to talk about the city of Miami proper, that is a bit silly. You can't talk about the core 10% of a metropolitan area and ignore the 90% around it. Those are the people going to the games.

Incidentally, I won't sit here and defend the city planners in Miami. They have made some bad decisions (Miami Arena, MetroRail). I am simply pointing out that the Boston's idiots (or anywhere else for that matter) aren't any better. They just like to think that they are.

For what it's worth, the Miami metropolitan area is generally defined as extending into Fort Lauderdale. Remember that due to late 20th century urban sprawl, Miami does not have a true city center (as defined by population density, not entertainment density) like the older Northeastern cities. You have to account for the metro area, not the city proper.


Isn't this supposed to be a hockey forum?
eh, it's a non-hockey thread. you're still reading it right?

of course i can tell the difference but almost all those people are west, in places that were completely undeveloped even 20 years ago (places, btw, that i would certainly *not* consider "miami"). i've seen it first hand - as i said, my folks live in what was the everglades. otoh, miami, coral gables, coconut grove, south miami, north miami beach, miami beach - those areas, in terms of population density, development, etc. look pretty similar to the naked eye. i do realize that miami would never be a boston with it's denser population centers (the sprawl you talk of was primarily enabled by cars in the 2nd half of the 19th century, right?) but, imo, it could've been much better than it is if better decisions had been made.

that brings me back to the original point - seems like you agree about some of the major projects i've mentioned. you see poor management, waste, incompetent contrators, etc. but i'd probably have to do a lot of research to come up with 1 or 2 failures of the magnitude of metrorail or the arena, let alone all the others that come to mind. so yes, i do think the culture/history of certain areas do attract better talent. there are other factors though and another that has come up peripherally - the fact that the population down there is pretty transient. most people are not from the area and appear to have no vested interest in a particular neighborhood or cities' plans. i'm sure there are areas where that's not the case but i'd guess that public hearings on planning decisions are a little more closely scrutinized here thanks to a more involved (if not smarter) population. that might be a factor. it'd probably take a fair amount of research (or inside knowledge of the current processes) to validate, though.

zeroG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2008, 05:40 PM
  #63
StrangeVision
HFBoards Sponsor
 
StrangeVision's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Florida
Country: United States
Posts: 15,294
vCash: 500
FWIW:

Census Bureau info on Miami: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12/1245000.html

Census Bureau info on Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas: http://www.census.gov/population/www.../metrodef.html

StrangeVision is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2008, 06:20 PM
  #64
angry_treefrog
Moderator
#CatsAreComing
 
angry_treefrog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Country: Canary Islands
Posts: 7,168
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeroG View Post
eh, it's a non-hockey thread. you're still reading it right?
Can't help it. I like a good argument as much as you do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeroG View Post
of course i can tell the difference but almost all those people are west, in places that were completely undeveloped even 20 years ago (places, btw, that i would certainly *not* consider "miami"). i've seen it first hand - as i said, my folks live in what was the everglades. otoh, miami, coral gables, coconut grove, south miami, north miami beach, miami beach - those areas, in terms of population density, development, etc. look pretty similar to the naked eye. i do realize that miami would never be a boston with it's denser population centers (the sprawl you talk of was primarily enabled by cars in the 2nd half of the 19th century, right?) but, imo, it could've been much better than it is if better decisions had been made.
You did a masterful job of agreeing with my point while still looking like you disagree...and vice versa. Well done. Have you considered a career in politics?

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeroG View Post
that brings me back to the original point - seems like you agree about some of the major projects i've mentioned. you see poor management, waste, incompetent contrators, etc. but i'd probably have to do a lot of research to come up with 1 or 2 failures of the magnitude of metrorail or the arena, let alone all the others that come to mind.
O RLY. Here ya go....

Miami Arena $52,200,000
Big Dig $22,000,000,000

See. That wan't so hard, was it?

In regards to the Big Dig, brought to you from the great minds of Boston city planners...

"A 2008 Boston Globe report asserted that the main effect of the project was to move traffic bottlenecks outward, rather than to reduce congestion or travel times overall, although some trips are now faster. The report states, "Ultimately, many motorists going to and from the suburbs at peak rush hours are spending more time stuck in traffic, not less." The Globe also asserted that their analysis provides "a fuller picture of the traffic situation than a state-commissioned study done two years ago, in which the Big Dig was credited with helping to save at least $167 million a year by increasing economic productivity and decreasing motor vehicle operating costs. That study did not look at highways outside the Big Dig construction area and did not take into account new congestion elsewhere."[26]



Quote:
Originally Posted by zeroG View Post
so yes, i do think the culture/history of certain areas do attract better talent.
Your personal bias is obvious, but thank you for spelling it out for us. This pretty much shoots your credibility into tiny, little pieces.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeroG View Post
there are other factors though and another that has come up peripherally - the fact that the population down there is pretty transient. most people are not from the area and appear to have no vested interest in a particular neighborhood or cities' plans. i'm sure there are areas where that's not the case but i'd guess that public hearings on planning decisions are a little more closely scrutinized here thanks to a more involved (if not smarter) population. that might be a factor. it'd probably take a fair amount of research (or inside knowledge of the current processes) to validate, though.
You still have yet to show me ANY examples of well thought out city planning in the Boston area in the past twenty years. I just gave you a perfect example of New England hubris / Epic Failure (which cost all American taxpayers - not just local ones like the Arena). My point is that your idiots may hail from "The Great City of Boston", but they are just as idiotic, if not more so, than our idiots. They are certainly a hell of a lot more expensive.

angry_treefrog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2008, 06:51 PM
  #65
Laus723
#CatsAreComing
 
Laus723's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Boca Raton, FL
Country: United States
Posts: 27,528
vCash: 500
This is one of the craziest threads I've ever seen.

__________________
Future now!
Laus723 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2008, 07:33 PM
  #66
pb1300
#CatsAreComing
 
pb1300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Aiyio, Greece
Country: Greece
Posts: 11,576
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to pb1300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laus723 View Post
This is one of the craziest threads I've ever seen.
I concur

pb1300 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2008, 08:12 PM
  #67
zeroG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somerville, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 6,184
vCash: 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by angry_treefrog View Post
Can't help it. I like a good argument as much as you do.

You did a masterful job of agreeing with my point while still looking like you disagree...and vice versa. Well done. Have you considered a career in politics?
heh.. no i haven't but you never know! i think the problem was that we were not discussing a well defined entity; when i countered your assertion that miami hadn't changed, i was talking about miami and its immediate environs (what used to be called miami back in the 70s and 80s). in any event, this is a less interesting aspect of the discussion at this point.

Quote:
O RLY. Here ya go....

Miami Arena $52,200,000
Big Dig $22,000,000,000

See. That wan't so hard, was it?
but wait! that 52 million isn't adjusted for inflation!

seriously, though - yes, the big dig bit off more than it could chew and it was managed poorly. the word you found was apropos - hubris. however (and this is a BIG however), it's still a functional solution with some positive impacts. as that quote said, some trips are faster. it HAS, in my limited experience, pushed the bottlenecks further out. just not far enough out. they now seem to be 2-3 miles outside the city instead of smack dab in the middle.

as for recent projects, i already cited to topside planning done on the big dig. it's fantastic! i saw the layout for the parks back in 97 or so and thought "i can't believe the city's going to make parks out of the land under 93" but it looked awesome. this past summer, i had family up visiting and where 93 once stood, we were sitting in a beautiful new park with gorgeous views of downtown with my little niece running through water fountains with a bunch of other kids. the new access has reenergized the north end and waterfront, which used to be cut off from the downtown area and major tourist attractions by 93. the parks, just opened, were teeming with people, both tourists and locals. i've been out there to eat lunch and the same thing - folks who used to only have two green spots to sit for lunch (the common which, granted, is HUGE and post office square) now had a bevy of spots. speaking of PO square, there's another example - used to be a public parking garage above ground but the city remade the entire block in the 70s, putting the garage under ground and putting a beautiful park above ground. the city puts out racks of little pads you can grab to sit on the green and *every* single nice day in the summer, the green is packed with people from the business district for lunch. it's the centerpiece of the financial district (and a great place to take in the ...uh... local scenery). once that traffic dies down, you see more tourists hanging out, looking at the fountains, trees and just generally enjoying the oasis.

Quote:
In regards to the Big Dig, brought to you from the great minds of Boston city planners...

Your personal bias is obvious, but thank you for spelling it out for us. This pretty much shoots your credibility into tiny, little pieces.
oh, that should have been clear but again i'll say that there is a ton i *don't* like about the city. we're just not having that discussion right now. i don't expect to call it home for that much longer as a result, though circumstances could change that. we can get into that stuff (though that probably should be in the lounge!). in any case, if we did, i think you'd see that i'm capable of being objective on the subject of this city's positives and negatives.

Quote:
You still have yet to show me ANY examples of well thought out city planning in the Boston area in the past twenty years. I just gave you a perfect example of New England hubris / Epic Failure (which cost all American taxpayers - not just local ones like the Arena). My point is that your idiots may hail from "The Great City of Boston", but they are just as idiotic, if not more so, than our idiots. They are certainly a hell of a lot more expensive.
well, now i have and also shown that the failures here are at least functional and useful, even if they do not fulfill the original stated goal. how much did it cost to implode the arena? what about the blight of the rest of the area? the wasted potential of bayfront and bicentennial park? those should have been beautiful places too. i wish they were! (in a way, that's what this whole discussion really comes down to for me)

zeroG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-20-2008, 08:21 PM
  #68
Pukboy5kroner
Registered User
 
Pukboy5kroner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,371
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laus723 View Post
This is one of the craziest threads I've ever seen.
Yeah, it started out asking where exactly the team played in Florida -- a question that seemed so innocent. Then got into a debate about the old arena vs. Sunrise. Then moved into a discussion about how communities come together through public transit. Stopped off to bicker about styles of argument, and rambled in and out of some sort of thoughts about census statistics, city planning, and whether or not 4 lanes going one direction is a big road or a small road. I'm going to consult my farmer's almanac now.

Pukboy5kroner is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:08 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.