Better (and more correct) living through urban planning
This has success written all over it, doesn't it?
| Posted at 10:47 AM | Permalink |
|
About
This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on October 27, 2010 10:47 AM.
The previous post in this blog was A different kind of election porn.
The next post in this blog is One good thing about Oregon vote-by-mail.
Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.
Comments (13)
Please pass me a barf bucket.
Posted by LucsAdvo | October 27, 2010 11:15 AM
I love it. Planning Speak 101. If you are not in the loop, they will "loop you in". Isn't that special?
Posted by genop | October 27, 2010 11:18 AM
Man, that’s a big-ass butterfly in the graphic! Is that like MOTHRA or what??
http://kaiju.boomcoach.com/gallery/mothra.html
Posted by PDXLifer | October 27, 2010 11:19 AM
Even the *fruit and vegetables* are lined up in neat, square boxes--and there's almost nobody walking. Wouldn't it be nice if humanity were square shaped?
Posted by ecohuman | October 27, 2010 11:25 AM
ecohuman ... don't give the planners ideas, they'll be contacting genetic engineers
Posted by LucsAdvo | October 27, 2010 11:32 AM
100 people came from all over to blow smoke up each others butts. Who knows how far they came? How sustainable and green is that? Did they all ride their bikes or come by public transit? Haven’t they head of “Net Meeting”?
Posted by John Benton | October 27, 2010 11:35 AM
Those braindead folks don't even know the real meaning of 'sustainable'.
Bicycles are not sustainable.
Buses are not sustainable.
Urban agglomerations are not sustainable.
Industrial society is not sustainable.
I highly recommend everybody read Derrick Jensen's What We Leave Behind for realistic definitions of 'sustainability' and enlightened opinions on things like 'eco-districts'. I'm betting he'd trash them just like he trashes gardens on rooftops of truck factories and other silly crap passing as 'sustainable actions'.
Posted by godfry | October 27, 2010 11:43 AM
What could be more eco for Lents than turning this
http://portlandmaps.com/detail.cfm?action=Photo&propertyid=&state_id=&address_id=&intersection_id=&dynamic_point=0&x=7671978.77&y=667839.398&place=NO%20ADDRESS%20AVAILABLE&city=PORTLAND&neighborhood=LENTS&seg_id=0&StreetAnno=no&Size=6%22&Taxlots=no&AddressPoint=yes&Year=2006
into this
http://portlandmaps.com/detail.cfm?action=Photo&propertyid=&state_id=&address_id=&intersection_id=&dynamic_point=0&x=7671978.77&y=667839.398&place=NO%20ADDRESS%20AVAILABLE&city=PORTLAND&neighborhood=LENTS&seg_id=0&StreetAnno=no&Size=6%22&Taxlots=no&AddressPoint=yes&Year=2009
nothing says Eco like a MAX station.
Just like Lents was told, SE Portland Sellwood, Milwaukie and Oak Grove resident have been told they'll get lovely stations with amentities that match the character of their neighborhoods.
Those are concrete promises.
Posted by Ben | October 27, 2010 12:02 PM
"Sustainability at the neighborhood level?" Eh? That's somehow different from "sustainability" at some other level?
Yes, the whole thing reeks of self-righteousness.
Posted by dg | October 27, 2010 12:07 PM
Couldn't we just hold one umbrella Super Conference each year that includes all the smug know-it-all professions at once?
Do it in the coldness of January, when we could all benefit from the gigantic cloud of hot air which would settle in over the city for the duration.
Posted by Snards | October 27, 2010 12:16 PM
I'm entirely with Godfry on this one.
Posted by ecohuman | October 27, 2010 2:31 PM
There's a settlement being built in our midst, people.
Posted by jc | October 27, 2010 3:17 PM
Worst of all, it sucks the wind out of efforts to implement truly beneficial changes city-wide.
Probably it will just greenwash more public subsidies for private development, though. Plus ça change....
Posted by dyspeptic | October 27, 2010 6:06 PM