example of how American suburbs are designed to be car dependent
VideoView all comments
They need to form a sub infrastructure department to go throughout America and build these little short cuts and walking/bike paths.
Yea a department like that would be super helpful. One that focused solely on effective means of transportation. IF ONLY the US had one such entity devoted to those endeavors….😪
The thing is those two lots, the apartments and the store, are owned by different companies. They'd have to coordinate to make a connecting drive, and they won't. It costs them money they feel like they don't need to spend.
This is why raw capitalism is fucked plain and simple. They say the market will correct this kind of thing....to who's benefit? Which shareholders? Exactly. It's not gonna happen on its own.
There are so many externalities like this that people are just totally oblivious to so it's ultimately invisible to 'the market'.
It's the great illusion. The Emperor's New Clothes. We don't see how things could be because we only know how they are.
Which is why travel, education, and doing mushrooms is so important.
One of these is not like the others 😆
Eh, two out of three ain't bad.
User deleted comment
10d
They tried telling me the mushrooms are bad.
I'm just nettled that my schooling got in the way.
europe manages fine.
everything is walkable and bikable near big cities in my country
And a big supermarket like that would loose many customers of they didn't have many entrances
Externalities like preserving wet lands? That path would require a bridge.
Fair point but I'm sure there's a way to design a foot bridge that would have minimal impact. And that's not the reason there isn't a bridge anyway, it's because it was just built as 3 separate developments like the vid points out. Better planning could have built the 3 things in a better integrated fashion and preserved the wetlands.
It's Florida, most people would choose to drive anyway. And people don't want random pedestrian traffic in their little communities, so maybe this one guy would walk but most people in the community wouldn't want it. Where I grew up in Florida a neighborhood actually removed a footbridge that connected to a newly built bike trail.
Most people are dumb
Wetlands? This is a small strip of trees. If those were protected wetlands they wouldn't have been able to build a massive shopping center and an apartment complex on them in the first place.
What's under the trees? There's like 5 ponds and storm water holding ponds in in a 1/4 mile. How you imagine wetlands could be different than Florida does
lol, I think my imagination of wetlands is a lot closer to how Florida understands them than yours. Ponds and even small lakes are extremely common in Florida. A tiny strip of woods like this is not going to be protected wetlands. This is the remnants of the woods that were already there - if they were going to force them to build a bridge over the woods, they wouldn't have allowed them to pave over the remainder of it not to mention have two big parking lots draining directly into it.
lol, user name checks out. So tell me what you think might be between the stormwater pond on the left snd the one on the right? Why is there a snaking tree line between those ponds? Could it be a seasonal creek? Does a wetland need to be wet year round? Maybe that lands not protected but it's wet
So, I'm not entirely sure what relevance you see between man-made storm drainage reservoirs and a nearby strip of forest. Your point seems to be, "I see water in the video, therefore all land in the video is a wetland." I particularly like the suggestion that perhaps it's a seasonal creek between the two man-made reservoirs, that part is definitely my favorite.
Regardless of that absolutely breathtaking point, the question isn't "is it a wetland", the question is "is it a protected wetland". And the very, very obvious answer, due to the extensive building all around it, is no. It's a border strip of trees so that apartment complex dwellers aren't staring at the back of a shopping center.
If it wasn't protected why didn't they build there? Why are there setbacks on both sides of the tree line? I don't know, you are the genius, figure out where the development is and check what permits were pulled, till then you remain misinformed
figure out where the development is and check what permits were pulled, till then you remain misinformed
You know what, I guess I'll just have to live with being called misinformed by a guy who thinks there's a seasonal creek between man-made reservoirs and that any strip of forest within 200 yards of said man-made reservoirs must be a protected wetland. Have a good one.
add tedious to your username. your speculation is dumber than mine.
it's literally a wetland genius
LMAO truly lived up your username
While I know you're extremely excited about finding a word that is in some way relevant to water in relation to this land, I'm sorry to tell you that that does not make it "literally a wetland".
From Florida statute:
“wetlands” means those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and a duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soils. ... Florida wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bayheads, bogs, cypress domes and strands, sloughs, wet prairies, riverine swamps and marshes, hydric seepage slopes, tidal marshes, mangrove swamps and other similar areas.
The fact that this area is a floodway does not even indicate that it has any water in it at all, merely that it may be inundated during a 100-year flood. And given that it is next to storm reservoirs, that's hardly surprising.
show some dignity genius, I know you have admitted to being wrong to yourself by now so just slink off
lol… get the actual definition of a “wetland” and suddenly nothing. Not surprising. Have a nice day.
I'll just be gloating over here, there's a creek on the property. Slink off
Not a single company has society as #1, none of them have even the humans as a species as #1. Profit is #1.
And some people get extremely angry when you say those simple facts that we all know but for some reason... do not talk about it.
This actually isn't raw capitalism. If both the apartments and the store were owned by the same entity, then they would coordinate to increase their combined profits. The shareholders would literally benefit more from coordination than the current situation, it's inertia and stubbornness that prevent it from happening.
Capitalism didn't decide where the roads or zoning was... that's not how that works.
Also the idea that the distance should be walkable without knowing if this is California or Texas is a big leap.
One thing though;
Most people shop around, they don't go to the nearest shop all the time. A path is easy, should have been built here for sure. But people are over estimating how much a path would get used.
Two points -
a) your habits change when you walk most places. You may shop around more when you use the car because it isn't much further to drive to store B vs store A, but if you are walking you probably just go to store A most of the time because it's convenient.
b) this isn't about eliminating cars, but reducing reliance on cars for everything. You are still free to shop around in your car if you're looking for loads of items, but it's still really useful to just have a quick path if you just need to nip to store A for milk, so you don't have to go all the way round the roads.