121–130 of 142 posts
I'm glad they dropped the "land" part. "Hollywoodland" doesn't have the same ring that Hollywood has.
Always makes me think of “The Rocketeer”. That probably pins me to a particular generation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m from your generation and my only memory of the film was a lot of talking and very little action. Have you seen it as an adult? Curious how it holds up. Wikipedia’s page is interesting, apparently its got a cult following now.
For the record: it holds up brilliantly. James Hornet’s score alone is worth the ride — still used as a primary temp track for figuring out the edits of new movies. Effects are the best practical work has to offer. Timothy Dalton as Errol Flynn with an Aryan secret is phenomenal, having the most fun of his career. Jennifer Connelly is a full on movie star hitting her stride. Alan Arkin at his peak grumpy old man stag…
If anyone hasn't watched the documentary 'Cadillac Desert' on the importance of water in the history and development of the United States Southwest, then I would highly recommend putting it on. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PR2BSGQt2DU
Is it based on the book?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Very few industries have such an iconic name and emblem as Hollywood. The music industry doesn't. If I were to ask you to name the city, place, or thing most associated with music, I'd get different answers. Fashion, too. Sports. Wine. No Hollywood. Silicon Valley is a good comparison, but when you think of software, it's shifted to the Bay Area and other places. It's not the same magnitude of definitive. Hollywood i…
[flagged]
I tend to think the same due to growing up in the area. It’s like a freeway sign to me. After giving the hundredth tourist from around the world directions to get there… I thought hmm, people really like this mere sign.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The rest of this century is dedicated to undoing the zoning practices of a certain generation.
Millennials are entering the home buying market in large numbers now, and it turns out they want detached single family homes in quiet suburban neighborhoods, just like everyone else . It is important to be very clear about this because the HN crowd seems to have a massive over-representation of people who like dense living arrangements: the vast majority of Americans want to live in a detached home that they own, an…
It’s not uncommon to read a comment so detached from economic reality but this is today’s winner. In fact causing the problem it intends to solve.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Millennials are entering the home buying market in large numbers now, and it turns out they want detached single family homes in quiet suburban neighborhoods, just like everyone else . It is important to be very clear about this because the HN crowd seems to have a massive over-representation of people who like dense living arrangements: the vast majority of Americans want to live in a detached home that they own, an…
People who like dense living spaces should visit some of the dense high rise areas in Manila. Enjoy the gridlock and queueing ten minutes for the elevator to your floor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even with five boroughs, I'm still surprised NYC is this low. In addition to the obvious Staten Island, apparently Queens "only" has 22,125! I always thought it would be close to Brooklyn etc.
Well, Queens is about 75% cemeteries by land use. (Population figures don't include dead people, I assume.) Kidding, but there is more land for industrial and commercial use in Queens that isn't residential. Including two airports and three sizable sports facilities. Brooklyn by contrast has almost no interruptions to the edge-to-edge residential street grid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.builderonline.com/money/economics/80-percent-of-...
Absent anything else, of course most people prefer to live in single-family homes (SFH). But that's not the question most people have to face in reality, because SFH have other trade-offs that that survey completely ignored, including: - significantly higher cost (absent widespread R1 zoning, which drives the cost of apartments up), - locations in the middle of desolate suburbia, - dead neighbourhoods because almost…
I love the constant description of suburbia as being desolate.
My suburban neighborhood is pretty typical and we have a vibrant community, including little free libraries, bike trails, conservation clubs, birdwatching orgs, garden clubs, needlecraft clubs, kids running lemonade stands, teens hustling to shovel driveways in the winter, a community pool, bake sales, plant sales, strawberry festivals, and more.
We even all banded together and got rid of a lot of the streetlights so now I live in a Bortle 3 (or VERY low Bortle 4) dark sky. And because I have a yard I have a huge-ass amateur radio antenna farm and a fire pit where people come over to chill out.
I raised three daughters here and they turned out fantastic, and spent their youth doing some real Stranger Things stuff without all of the upside-down bits.
If I want to feel hip and urbane I drive the 20 minutes to the train station and go into town, pay my $20 for a cocktail, see an overpriced show, and then retire to my awesome house.
I'm beginning to think that people who think suburbia is desolate are miserable shitheads who a: people don't want to be around, or b: don't want to be around other people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The average person has no choice but to live in single-family homes. That doesn't mean they want that. Your solution of 'move somewhere else' is completely tone-deaf. Furthermore, you completely ignored mid-rise housing, and the fact that it can be seamlessly mixed in with SFH without significantly changing the feel or character of the neighbourhood. Oh The Urbanity made a great YouTube video about this recently wher…
If those mid-rise buildings have their own parking and residents there are not able to get resident street parking permits, I’d be quite prone to support it. If the first of those is falsified, the mid-rise has a negative effect on the nearby properties. If the second is falsified, that negative effect is significantly amplified. Our part of the city of Cambridge has slightly less street sparking space than cars for…
Furthermore, if there is no off-street parking and cities price on-street parking appropriately such that there are always a few empty spots, no one would move into the area with the expectation that they can park their car for free, and it wouldn't be a problem.
Off-street parking mandates sound like a good idea, but they're actually horrible for cities, and they're part of why most American cities are as sprawling and car-dependent as they are. City-planners of the 20th century thought the same as you and didn't consider the consequences, and now the trend is reversing: many cities and states are beginning to eliminate those mandates, but it's going to take quite a long time before the effects are felt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We can have both, can't we? Obviously I don't like cul-de-sacs personally, but nowhere in my comment did I suggest banning them. The phrase you quoted was just a turn of phrase as I described my preferred style of land use which is currently illegal in most zoning laws. Right now. It's kind of funny that your reaction to my comment is "he wants to take away the cul-de-sac" when all I'm asking is if we can get zoning…
You did literally propose that we "let people...get rid of the cul de sacs." I don't think I was jumping to baseless conclusions while reading your words.