Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
lockmat

Higher Density does not equal less driving

Recommended Posts

Take the feather out greenies ;p hehe

Pushing high density living may seem like a good way to get people out of their cars—saving them money, curbing emissions, and reducing oil dependence—but densification may not be a silver bullet, according to one recent study.

---

The inflexibility of our automobile usage boils down to a few factors, with work being the most important. The more workers in a household, the more drivers, and the more drivers, the more miles. A one-driver household, as noted above, tallies 10,100 miles per year; a two-driver household racks up 18,800 miles; three drivers, 33,900; four drivers, 47,700.¹ We are, by and large, beholden to our cars because we are beholden to our jobs. After that, driving increases as a result of income (richer people drive more), number of children (more and larger cars), education (higher education means more cars), and people’s life stage (households with older children have more cars.

---

One of the main arguments behind higher density living is that it will reduce our carbon footprint. While density may be a better long term solution, right now the most expeditious approach is to increase fuel economy.

---

It would be great if everyone had access to mass transit, but for many, mass transit isn’t just a poor option, it isn’t an option at all. Those who do travel by bus or train today may only be a job change away from having to drive. Modern life demands mobility, and few things are better at providing that than the automobile.

http://persquaremile...ot-be-to-blame/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess, but whether someone lives in high or low density, if their goal is to reduce consumption, they will reduce consumption. It's the first "R" of the three "Rs" of conservation. Reduce.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so, in order for density to work, we need to stop having to go anywhere? um, no duh, comes to mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so, in order for density to work, we need to stop having to go anywhere? um, no duh, comes to mind.

Sort of, Nate. I believe the best result of increased density, leaving aside the work place/home relationship, would be the opportunity to walk to the grocery store, dry cleaners, restaurant, etc. instead of drive there. The grocery store near my house is literally a few minutes away by car. To walk however, I would have to negotiate about a mile of winding streets in my subdivision then another half mile of major thoroughfare, albeit with a nice sidewalk, but no trees for shade. If I could walk three of four blocks, or even a few more, to the local store I wouldn't mind doing that twice as often as I drive to the store now. Also, once I get home, I am very reluctant to get back in the car and run some minor errand. I think I would be much more likely to come home, change into some more comfortable shoes, and walk around my neighborhood to get what I need.

When gasoline prices went so crazy in 2008 I decided I could justify renting an apartment near my office and avoid my daily 80-mile round-trip commute. The savings in fuel costs did not pay my rent entirely of course but the extra two hours I added to my day (every day) made the cost a bargain. Further, I got more exercise because I had more time to work out (the apartment had a fitness room) and I walked from place to place in the evenings. Granted I lived in the sort of neighborhood that was more conducive to walking but that too seems to follow along with increased density.

Alas, I let my apartment go when the lease expired this last December. The continuing poor economy was the reason. One, I thought it would be prudent to save the cash and two, it just wasn't seemly to be maintaining two residences when some of my colleages have been out of work for year or longer. That said, I certainly plan to return to "in-town living" as soon as the climate seems right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed this is COMPLETELY skewed logic. Higher density would equate to less driving if the neighborhood is sufficiently populated with retail to where to you don't need to drive as much. I recently moved from Eastwood to Montrose. Now I live within 3 mins walk from Kroger, several very nice restaurants, the dry cleaners, music stores, radio shack, you name it. It's literally MORE of a hassle to get in the car and rangle around for parking than it is to just walk to these areas. The only life activity I'm further away from now is my work, but the buses on this side of town are far more reliable than in Eastwood, so I've stopped taking the car to work entirely as well.

So far my money savings in gas have been huge... like $50 less last month than the month before. Also extending the life of my vehicle by the savings of wear and tear, along with more exercise for me.

This article is silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

another agreed.

while as totheskies points out, eastwood (and east end in general) isn't the most walkable place, there are convenience stores pretty much everywhere within walking distance. If I lived in eastwood proper, the kombat kroger would be walkable (as it is, it is bicyclable), there aren't any music stores in the area though, and I'm still scared to go to the kombat kroger, mostly because I have no idea how big the rats are that hide behind the cereal boxes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

another agreed.

while as totheskies points out, eastwood (and east end in general) isn't the most walkable place, there are convenience stores pretty much everywhere within walking distance. If I lived in eastwood proper, the kombat kroger would be walkable (as it is, it is bicyclable), there aren't any music stores in the area though, and I'm still scared to go to the kombat kroger, mostly because I have no idea how big the rats are that hide behind the cereal boxes.

I went there the other day to get a flyer and kroger card... and everyone just stared at me...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went there the other day to get a flyer and kroger card... and everyone just stared at me...

That's pretty much our reaction when we see you post on here.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

another agreed.

while as totheskies points out, eastwood (and east end in general) isn't the most walkable place, there are convenience stores pretty much everywhere within walking distance. If I lived in eastwood proper, the kombat kroger would be walkable (as it is, it is bicyclable), there aren't any music stores in the area though, and I'm still scared to go to the kombat kroger, mostly because I have no idea how big the rats are that hide behind the cereal boxes.

I've been to Battle Kroger. It's not bad.

A relative who lived in Houston shopped there all the time. He walked from his house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting article:

It's true - Houston doesn't have the best commute, but new data shows that a majority of Houstonians could make it to work in 30 minutes or less.

...

The New York City area had America’s longest commutes with 31.4 percent of its workers taking 45 minutes or more to make their way from home to work. In Houston, just 18.8 percent have a commute that long, according to the data.

Other metros with substantial percentages of long-distance commuters are Washington (29.5 percent in the 45-plus club), Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (26.5 percent), and Chicago (24.9 percent).

http://www.bizjourna...rk.html?ana=twt

Takes me about 30 mins to get to work.

Maybe it's better that we're so spread out and have multiple employment centers?

Edited by lockmat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been to Battle Kroger. It's not bad.

A relative who lived in Houston shopped there all the time. He walked from his house.

It definitely beats the crappy selection and "wall-o-40's" at the Scott Street HEB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

another agreed.

while as totheskies points out, eastwood (and east end in general) isn't the most walkable place, there are convenience stores pretty much everywhere within walking distance. If I lived in eastwood proper, the kombat kroger would be walkable (as it is, it is bicyclable), there aren't any music stores in the area though, and I'm still scared to go to the kombat kroger, mostly because I have no idea how big the rats are that hide behind the cereal boxes.

Are you kidding me? The East End is so walkable that people actually do so...and not just because walking makes the whiney people amongst them think that they're solving the world's "problems," or because they think it's good for their "health," or because it makes them "feel good" about themselves. They walk because walking is practical (at their income level).

Back when I was flat-out broke, Kombat Kroger was a twice-weekly one-kilometer walk each direction to buy frozen pizza and malt liquor. It was open late, which was fantastic. And it carried everything I needed. There's nothing that I buy now at the Garden Oaks Kroger that I didn't buy at Kombat Kroger for the same price. Plus, the older store is laid out more efficiently, lines are usually very manageable, and the prices are exactly the same. Everything about it is better. Especially the people that are willing to shop there, as they are either willfully or cluelessly unfashionable. I never had to worry about being judged for having a deoderant-encrusted gaping hole in the armpit of my t-shirt. They were my people. I miss it.

And now, here, at either the Garden Oaks or Heights Krogers (neither of which I can walk to, and nary a liquor store), I am confronted with...a vast quantity of plastic people. It sucks.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been back in Boston this week to sell my condo. I've been here all week and haven't been in a car yet. I've visited friends, my old workplace, my lawyer's office, my realtor's office for the closing, to the DMV in Chinatown, to multiple restaurants, and even to Fenway for a game.

There's a part of me that misses it.

That said, I walk in Houston too. I can't reach the number of places I can in Boston by foot, but I still prefer Houston more. Why? Because having personal auto access allows me to have MUCH great mobility. There are so many places in Boston I simply stopped going to because they were too far to walk to (or the snow/rain/sleet/heat- yeah, it hit 103 here last week persuaded me to stay in) or there'd be no parking (or valet for the cost of a meal in Houston).

I like having the option. I can walk to Rice Village or Hermann Park/Museums or I can drive to anywhere else I'd want to go. POINT: HOUSTON.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The entire argument is flawed because it assumes that in high density areas, people continue to live far away from their jobs, as they do in low density areas.

The more workers in a household, the more drivers, and the more drivers, the more miles.

This is inherently untrue. The greater the density, the greater the opportunities for people to live close enough to their jobs that they can walk and get rid of their cars.

You should see 5:00pm in downtown Chicago. Thousands of people streaming across the bridges on foot and bicycle to get to their homes in nearby neighborhoods. It looks like one of those nature films of zebra herds crossing the African savannah.

If the author's premise was correct, there wouldn't be 90,000+ working adults in Chicago who don't own a car. Probably hundreds of thousands more in New York (I have a couple of relatives in New York who have never needed to get a drivers license), and millions in Tokyo and other large cities. I can think of 11 people off the top of my head who are suit-and-tie kind of office workers who don't own a car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm can't quite understand what the ring roads survey is actually saying about Houston. Can anyone point me in the right direction?

Yes, I sure can. It is a graphic created by local architecture students. It is pretty and Houston's is biggest. That is the point. (It does not matter that their list is incomplete.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw this on a Yahoo article, and it seemed relevant to this thread. It's a website that gives a score for the "walkability" of cities in the US.

http://www.walkscore.com/rankings/?page=1

I have found that Walkscore can be wildly inaccurate. It will sometimes count porno galleries as bookstores and many times businesses that are long gone will still count toward a neighborhood's score. Worse, it doesn't take into account topography, weather, obstacles (freeways, train tracks, canals) or other very significant factors.

I've lived in places that have gotten Walkscores in the 90's, but I would never dream of living without a car in them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have found that Walkscore can be wildly inaccurate. It will sometimes count porno galleries as bookstores and many times businesses that are long gone will still count toward a neighborhood's score. Worse, it doesn't take into account topography, weather, obstacles (freeways, train tracks, canals) or other very significant factors.

I've lived in places that have gotten Walkscores in the 90's, but I would never dream of living without a car in them.

Haha. Forget Barnes & Noble and Borders (RIP). Walkscore already knows that all the greatest literary minds the world over demonstrate their prowess at 24/7 Adult Megaplexxx.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you kidding me? The East End is so walkable that people actually do so...and not just because walking makes the whiney people amongst them think that they're solving the world's "problems," or because they think it's good for their "health," or because it makes them "feel good" about themselves. They walk because walking is practical (at their income level)

wasn't trying to say ee isn't walkable, because it is very mobile for walking, cycling, and other forms of non car transit. was just saying, the kroger is out of my walkable distance, but that is ok, cause there's lots of other options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I sure can. It is a graphic created by local architecture students. It is pretty and Houston's is biggest. That is the point. (It does not matter that their list is incomplete.)

Sorry about not qualifiing. The only rings (it is pretty huh? lol) I was interested in were Houston's compared to Cities with same or larger populations and their footprints. e.g. Tokyo. Not aware of any fully complete study on any thing, as history is still being written.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha. Forget Barnes & Noble and Borders (RIP). Walkscore already knows that all the greatest literary minds the world over demonstrate their prowess at 24/7 Adult Megaplexxx.

This is a great example of how studies (numbers) can make outcomes look. I also saw one that had Houston beat-out Denver. Weather was never taken into account. Plug that into the equation and there may be a different outcome. Not sure if they were using downtowns tunnel system either. I suspect if we were to take only the tunnel into account, we may be the most walkable city anywhere. :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a great example of how studies (numbers) can make outcomes look. I also saw one that had Houston beat-out Denver. Weather was never taken into account. Plug that into the equation and there may be a different outcome. Not sure if they were using downtowns tunnel system either. I suspect if we were to take only the tunnel into account, we may be the most walkable city anywhere. :huh:

Oops, sorry editor, didn't see your comment about the weather. So true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These days there are forces that create density rather than the necessity for it that existed in pre war times. Zoned and regulated land use that creates higher land value forces developers to make the most use of their footprint. That usually means incorporating and mixing recreation, housing, work or any other activity that subsidizes the expense of their available land. If this concept is repetitive in a certain area, density will follow and so will congestion and more drivers. In a perfect world, in an urban planning sense, more vehicular congestion will increase the demand for alternative transportation which surfaces more pedestrians in an environment and hopefully more sustainable modes of transport become more efficient and practical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These days there are forces that create density rather than the necessity for it that existed in pre war times. Zoned and regulated land use that creates higher land value forces developers to make the most use of their footprint. That usually means incorporating and mixing recreation, housing, work or any other activity that subsidizes the expense of their available land. If this concept is repetitive in a certain area, density will follow and so will congestion and more drivers. In a perfect world, in an urban planning sense, more vehicular congestion will increase the demand for alternative transportation which surfaces more pedestrians in an environment and hopefully more sustainable modes of transport become more efficient and practical.

Actually...a land use requirement or density requirement that disallows the highest and best financial use of a property will necessarily cause a property's land value to drop. Land values can only be artificially manipulated upward by creating barriers to entry on a regional scale.

Also, in the real world, increased vehicular traffic seems to have many effects; employees move closer to work; employers move the workplace closer to where they live; inner city employment centers rely disproportionately on long-distance transit serving suburban and exurban areas rather than the urban core; people who live close to where they work continue to drive to where they work. This has all been borne out in the downtown Houston commuter survey from a year or so back.

Also, when you attempt to justify alternative transportation as becoming "more practical", it strikes me that what you really mean is "the least inconvenient". And it seems that a trend toward those ends is generally undesirable (except to tourists, and btw, _ tourists).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually...a land use requirement or density requirement that disallows the highest and best financial use of a property will necessarily cause a property's land value to drop. Land values can only be artificially manipulated upward by creating barriers to entry on a regional scale.

Also, in the real world, increased vehicular traffic seems to have many effects; employees move closer to work; employers move the workplace closer to where they live; inner city employment centers rely disproportionately on long-distance transit serving suburban and exurban areas rather than the urban core; people who live close to where they work continue to drive to where they work. This has all been borne out in the downtown Houston commuter survey from a year or so back.

Also, when you attempt to justify alternative transportation as becoming "more practical", it strikes me that what you really mean is "the least inconvenient". And it seems that a trend toward those ends is generally undesirable (except to tourists, and btw, tourists).

Well if I were talking about Houston, I would be speaking hypothetically. My comment was based more on traditional built cities that have an indisputable established nucleus of activity. Driving to work eventhough you live within close proximity is not as universal in cities as you think. Trying to analyze how Houston operates may bust a head vessel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if I were talking about Houston, I would be speaking hypothetically. My comment was based more on traditional built cities that have an indisputable established nucleus of activity. Driving to work eventhough you live within close proximity is not as universal in cities as you think. Trying to analyze how Houston operates may bust a head vessel.

I believe that growth is a good proxy for relevance, as the fastest growing areas are the only ones with the opportunity to implement long term change in urban characteristics. Stagnant areas cannot justify new construction. So here's a list of the fastest growing metro areas between 2000 and 2010. To which of the following do your comments apply?

1. Houston 1,231,393

2. Dallas-Fort Worth 1,210,229

3. Atlanta 1,020,879

4. Riverside, Calif. 970,030

5. Phoenix 941,011

6. Washington, D.C. 785,987

7. Las Vegas 575,504

8. New York 574,107

9. Miami 557,071

10. Orlando, Fla. 489,850

11. Austin, Texas 466,526

12. Los Angeles 463,210

13. San Antonio 430,805

14. Charlotte, N.C. 427,590

15. Seattle 395,931

16. Tampa/St. Petersburg, Fla. 387,246

17. Denver 364,242

18. Chicago 362,789

19. Sacramento, Calif. 352,270

20. Raleigh/Cary, N.C. 333,419

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that growth is a good proxy for relevance, as the fastest growing areas are the only ones with the opportunity to implement long term change in urban characteristics. Stagnant areas cannot justify new construction. So here's a list of the fastest growing metro areas between 2000 and 2010. To which of the following do your comments apply?

1. Houston 1,231,393

2. Dallas-Fort Worth 1,210,229

3. Atlanta 1,020,879

4. Riverside, Calif. 970,030

5. Phoenix 941,011

6. Washington, D.C. 785,987

7. Las Vegas 575,504

8. New York 574,107

9. Miami 557,071

10. Orlando, Fla. 489,850

11. Austin, Texas 466,526

12. Los Angeles 463,210

13. San Antonio 430,805

14. Charlotte, N.C. 427,590

15. Seattle 395,931

16. Tampa/St. Petersburg, Fla. 387,246

17. Denver 364,242

18. Chicago 362,789

19. Sacramento, Calif. 352,270

20. Raleigh/Cary, N.C. 333,419

Well from that list, Chicago, D.C., NYC, and to a lesser extent Seattle comes to mind. By the way, my statements were based on the growth of certain areas within a city. Chicago lost over 200,000 people in the last decade, but that does not mean neighborhoods with high density such as The Loop and neighborhoods adjacent to it, did not experience growth to implement such elements. Chicago's example is carbon copied in many cities that have the characteristics that were mentioned in my last post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well from that list, Chicago, D.C., NYC, and to a lesser extent Seattle comes to mind. By the way, my statements were based on the growth of certain areas within a city. Chicago lost over 200,000 people in the last decade, but that does not mean neighborhoods with high density such as The Loop and neighborhoods adjacent to it, did not experience growth to implement such elements. Chicago's example is carbon copied in many cities that have the characteristics that were mentioned in my last post.

So. Out of the twenty fastest-growing metropolitan areas, your sentiment applies to selected neighborhoods within core municipalities in three and one half instances (of which I would dispute D.C. and Seattle). And you included one example where you mention that the municipality as a whole is hemhorraging population.

I think that either my point is proven or your comment is irrelevant.

Chicago's example is carbon copied in many cities that have the characteristics that were mentioned in my last post.

Interesting. Why aren't those cities on the list?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So. Out of the twenty fastest-growing metropolitan areas, your sentiment applies to selected neighborhoods within core municipalities in three and one half instances (of which I would dispute D.C. and Seattle). And you included one example where you mention that the municipality as a whole is hemhorraging population.

I think that either my point is proven or your comment is irrelevant.

Interesting. Why aren't those cities on the list?

What I initially described is not representative of a whole metropolitan area. There are cities that struggle with the evolution I described in their very own cores. What I was trying to get across in my last post is the metropolitan area growth is irrelevant when dealing with how do municipalities manage sustainable growth within certain areas in a city and implementing and encouraging infrastructure that will support a density of a neighborhood. Density, the topic of this thread, is rarely a regional or metropolitan problem in the U.S. Sometimes it is not even a municipality wide problem. So yes my sentiments are being applied to selective neighborhoods within a city.

Edited by WesternGulf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I initially described is not representative of a whole metropolitan area. There are cities that struggle with the evolution I described in their very own cores. What I was trying to get across in my last post is the metropolitan area growth is irrelevant when dealing with how do municipalities manage sustainable growth within certain areas in a city and implementing and encouraging infrastructure that will support a density of a neighborhood. Density, the topic of this thread, is rarely a regional or metropolitan problem in the U.S. Sometimes it is not even a municipality wide problem. So yes my sentiments are being applied to selective neighborhoods within a city.

You make it sound as though density is a facet of the urban experience that need only apply to the few, not the many. Do you believe that policies promoting density are and should be designed to cater to niche constituencies on the margins of the political spectrum? That's what it sounds like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You make it sound as though density is a facet of the urban experience that need only apply to the few, not the many. Do you believe that policies promoting density are and should be designed to cater to niche constituencies on the margins of the political spectrum? That's what it sounds like.

"My first 10,000 posts were dry and informative. Some people on here would disagree and I'd crush them intellectually with facts, raw data, and statisics...and with academic precision, sometimes going on for pages. It was my hobby. But there got to be a point where everything worth saying had been said. Newbies would come on and start up the same old arguments with me. Initially, I obliged. You might call the unfettered access to my brilliance a public service."

"Those days are over.". Ah, but are they?!?

"I've more recently concluded that being correct, intellectually honest, or brilliant doesn't mean that you win at an argument or at life in general. So I've stopped caring whether I win. Rather, my posts are more like a series of rhetorical bellyflops, brash masochistic verbiage laced with hints of intellectual substance. Those with the capacity to think will think; but everyone will pay attention."

Good for you as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"My first 10,000 posts were dry and informative. Some people on here would disagree and I'd crush them intellectually with facts, raw data, and statisics...and with academic precision, sometimes going on for pages. It was my hobby. But there got to be a point where everything worth saying had been said. Newbies would come on and start up the same old arguments with me. Initially, I obliged. You might call the unfettered access to my brilliance a public service."

"Those days are over.". Ah, but are they?!?

"I've more recently concluded that being correct, intellectually honest, or brilliant doesn't mean that you win at an argument or at life in general. So I've stopped caring whether I win. Rather, my posts are more like a series of rhetorical bellyflops, brash masochistic verbiage laced with hints of intellectual substance. Those with the capacity to think will think; but everyone will pay attention."

Good for you as well.

Trust me. I'm fully aware of theNiche's devil's advocate postings. I don't have any justification for entertaining them this time though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trust me. I'm fully aware of theNiche's devil's advocate postings. I don't have any justification for entertaining them this time though.

I'm quite serious with my criticism on this one. Defend yourself or abdicate your position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm quite serious with my criticism on this one. Defend yourself or abdicate your position.

"I'm quite serious with my criticism on this one."

Don't piss down MY neck then tell me it's raining!"

"Defend yourself or abdicate your position"

As I am a s well, our most esteemed member. When one makes bold judgment calls on fellow members credibility and character, turns around and calls it a " fact" only to be followed by running away from a lively debate, begun by your own I'll- informed statements with his Faux Zappa hair between his legs, us noobies are left wondering about your " serious criticism"....... "I'm just saying."

Glen Andresun

Edited by Utinga

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did the subject change again, I'm trying to keep up.

Welcome. My bad at this, it was just me trying to chase down a stray. One never knows where they may take their next potty. Please forgive me. shalt happen again. :blush:

Glen Andresun

utinga@hotmail.com

1926 hardy #3 77026

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I'm quite serious with my criticism on this one."

Don't piss down MY neck then tell me it's raining!"

"Defend yourself or abdicate your position"

As I am a s well, our most esteemed member. When one makes bold judgment calls on fellow members credibility and character, turns around and calls it a " fact" only to be followed by running away from a lively debate, begun by your own I'll- informed statements with his Faux Zappa hair between his legs, us noobies are left wondering about your " serious criticism"....... "I'm just saying."

Glen Andresun

Your defense was ineffective. I am unzipping my pants. Prepare for rain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome. My bad at this, it was just me trying to chase down a stray. One never knows where they may take their next potty. Please forgive me. shalt happen again. :blush:

Glen Andresun

utinga@hotmail.com

1926 hardy #3 77026

oh, no worries, it looked like you and Niche were seeing who could piss higher on the wall in the boys room, and I was just wanting to make sure I hadn't skipped over some interesting point of view regarding density and people driving cars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your defense was ineffective. I am unzipping my pants. Prepare for rain.

As I'm still awaiting your defense, I've nothing to defend. So for the moment you may keep your pants sipped-up, please.

Glen Andresun

utinga@hotmail.com

1926 Hardy #3 77026

Edited by Utinga

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I'm still awaiting your defense, I've nothing to defend. So for the moment you may keep your pants sipped-up, please.

Glen Andresun

utinga@hotmail.com

1926 Hardy #3 77026

tinkle tinkle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tinkle tinkle

How many children have been displaced by your occupancy of a unit of affordable housing in an enclave within which families are evidently comfortable? You should have paid more for a unit of unaffordable housing in a neighborhood with fewer families, but which is also efficient so that others with lesser means and more children would have had the opportunity to exert a lesser impact by occupying your home.

Since you're anticipating our rebuttal, I'm going to anticipate yours. You will say that I am insane to believe that families could occupy 400 square feet. You will claim that it is inhumane. You will attempt to morally validate all of your opinions and your way of life through a narrow prism defined by a narrow view of reality and you will then declare victory in your mind, have a beer, and fall asleep feeling smug about yourself. You won't think critically about a damned thing. Hey, I could be wrong about you, but...nah, never mind. You can't admit that possibility, so neither will I.

feel I've just been "verbalized" by an "un-smug". As you know nothing about me I shall forgive your fearful, prejudiced rant towards me. Who I may add has a rather narrow view of MY reality. For ALL others on HAIF, my address is 1926 Hardy #3 77026. It is the $450.00 garage apt in the rear, you will see a 1989 Mitsubishi Eclipse, with a flat tire in the driveway. Forgive me the grass is in need of a mow, I need to walk to the gas station to purchase some petrol for the mower. I receive a $50 deduction in rent for mowing as well as minor maintenance on the other two units. Walk past the car, and please feel free to knock on my door (side door) and we can have a chat about my lifestyle choice. If you feel that my 384 square feet $500 - $50 deduction constitutes "affordable housing" please feel free to email me and I will give you Alicia's number. She may want to raise our rent a tad again. To be fair we do receive "free" cable and utilities here. The Landlady can not afford to separate-out the utilitities. You should have paid more for a unit of unaffordable housing" Before moving here I lived at 4420 Roseland #7 77006, in Montrose and paid $575.00 for 583 Sq feet. I and my 300.00 a pay check partner (sole bread-winner right now) receive zero subsidies, with the exception of Metro being our subsidized mode of transport at the moment. You may want to join me at le' Fiesta and I will be honored to show you how well we shop for food without food stamps. "so that others with lesser means and more children" I am a 400 to 500 a week unemployed courier driver. If you have a spare auto sitting around, I would be most grateful, or a cam , battery and spare tire would be most appreciated as well. Then perhaps you may have an unaffordable unit you might rent to us?

"Since you're anticipating our rebuttal, I'm going to anticipate yours. You will say that I am insane to believe that families could occupy 400 square feet. You will claim that it is inhumane." Ah, my new found un-prejudiced friend, how little you know, I don't know you enough to call "insane" ill- informed is all. I am of the tiny/small house movement. Have you read any of my post or viewed my fb page closely? It would be the likes of you that I am trying to "get to" I feel I may be talking to deaf ears, but if you are interested I've collected vast info on small house living. My neighbors to the South are a family of 8 in a two bedroom bungalow cut into 3 apts. with an un air-con garage apt. in the rear. On some evenings we sit outdoors and share our daily stories. On Sunday several other "displaced" families around us have a bbq at one of the homes on this block. Any of you are most welcome to join in on our festivities. We always shut down at 9 or 10 though, that may be too early for my new elitist screaming, buddy above. Never judge a person solely on his fb fotos, for those also, you know nothing either. But you too Mr. Zappa are welcome at our casa at any time.

I stopped playing these, "cat pushing a watermelon out of the lake", games a long time ago Niche.

You are still loved my twinkle twinkle little star.

'She made a bet with her sister who's a little dumb

She could prove it any time all men was scum!'

Glen Andresun

Utinga@hotmail.com

1926 Hardy#3 77026

Glen Andresun

Utinga@hotmai.com

1926 Handy #3 77026

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...