Thanks very much for writing. The guy you really you should talk to about Deaf Smith County Peanut Butter is Jon Krampner http://www.creamyandcrunchy.com he is the author of a book about peanut butter and mentions Deaf Smith County.

Yes, let's definitely keep it just between us so that no one can criticize us or take our remarks out of context. Certainly all p our adversaries will adhere to our guidelines. The irony is that I don't think Mr. Gordon said much interesting much less controversial. He was acting as a cheerleader for a particular respective -- which I probably agree with -- bu that seems to me to be very much the job of the WH -- to further certain policies.

Sounds about right. Or in other words I am "retired."

Yes that's a fair critique and my only response is that transit managers should frontally discuss the utility of such experiments to induce demand. If I were a transit manager I'd go out and explain the politics to both his/her board and to the political constituencies (various pro-transit groups etc etc). Maybe they have but I guess I have never heard of anyone discussing a deliberate attempt to dramatically increase frequency way ahead of current demand on one strategic route in order to show that supply induces demand. I do emphasize that I have never heard since I am not really into the transit world.

Thanks. Very interesting and your explanation makes sense.

Uh...I wonder if 2008 counts for "Many years ago..."

Easy to determine: read Sunset. I haven't in years on any sort of regular basis but I still like it when I run into a copy.

Thanks but I really have little experience in long-form writing...telling a longer story.

Yes it is odd that so many people think that the High Line is a manifestation of Landscape Urbanism. Even James Corner doesn't have the nerve to make such a claim, though by indirection (using a photo of the High Line but without comment in a book about Landscape Urbanism) he tries to do so.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about what "design" means. Of course there is a tactical element of design -- Corner's work. But while it is good work, it is by no means os enormous novelty or genius. It's just good, competent, professional work. The real element of genius of the High Line is to have been recognized at all -- that it should be re-used as a park. But we do agree on one point: the emphasis should not be on buildings but the space between builidings. That's what new urbanism is all about.

Done. Thx.

Thanks, I will try to find it.

Superb! Thanks for the refinement! Here's a bit more: http://citycomfortsblog.typepad.com/cities/2009/12/oh-god-not-again-the-density-debate.html http://citycomfortsblog.typepad.com/cities/2005/05/attention_tyson.html http://citycomfortsblog.typepad.com/cities/2005/05/density_again.html and my comments in http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/09/arlington-vs-tysons-corner.html

Thx. I will refresh my memory.

Excellent! Thanks! Wish I could find Waldheim's thesis.

Yes there is much in Landscape Urbanism which appears odd and it doesn't make sense, even on its own terms. Of course since I don't really get that it has any clear premises, except being in opposition to New Urbanism, I am doubly at sea.

Michael, What you say is totally reasonable. But has it been done? That's my question. Has it been done? In fact? In reality? Actually done or at least significantly being done? The politics are enormously difficult. It's simply not that easy to "Just put a big grassy median to narrow the street, slowing down traffic..." on a through-arterial under State jurisdiction. Where has it been done? The problem of the arterial is the holy grail of urban planning.

I have no judgment on Arlington as I honestly don't know enough; I know that it is a huge problem, like every other arterial, and saw it once some ten years ago. And the comments I received yesterday -- including Victor, if I am not mistaken -- gave me the sense that while Arlington/Columbia Pike had a good start, it was just a start. But I want to bring up something else which is sometimes lost: the need for support by a constituency who will back "urban action," for want of a better term. Efforts like Dover Kohl's work needs an ongoing core of citizen supporters (including business people) in order to raise the enormous oil tanker of strip arterial development and push it over the farthest edge of the ocean. Judging from Seattle, I am not convinced that the supporters are clear enough and conflate walkable urbanism with a whole host of issues — a very fleet of oil tankers — like peak oil, sustainability, global climate change and so forth. Such complexity does not, I believe, help political support. It is just too complex.

test. message to J Massengale? On Jan 15, 2011, at 9:41 AM, TypePad wrote: <email_header.png> <spacer.gif> <spacer.gif> <spacer.gif> <spacer.gif> A new comment from “John Massengale” was received on the post “Architects Say The Darndest Things!” of the blog “City Comforts, the blog”. Comment: "Don't they see their own absurdity?" Evidemment pas Commenter name: John Massengale Commenter email: Not Shared (Learn more.) Commenter URL: http://profile.typepad.com/jmassengale IP address: 208.120.9.252 Authentication: Approved Enjoy! The TypePad Team P.S.: Learn more about replying to comments. <spacer.gif> <spacer.gif> <spacer.gif> <spacer.gif> <spacer.gif> <spacer.gif> <spacer.gif> <spacer.gif> Published <spacer.gif> <spacer.gif> <spacer.gif> <spacer.gif> <spacer.gif> <spacer.gif> <spacer.gif> <email_buttons_top.png> <spacer.gif> <spacer.gif> <spacer.gif> <email_buttons_unpublish.png> Unpublish <spacer.gif> <spacer.gif> <spacer.gif> <email_buttons_bottom.png> <spacer.gif> <email_buttons_top.png> <spacer.gif> <spacer.gif> <spacer.gif> <email_buttons_delete.png> Delete <spacer.gif> <spacer.gif> <spacer.gif> <email_buttons_bottom.png> <spacer.gif> <email_buttons_top.png> <spacer.gif> <spacer.gif> <spacer.gif> <email_buttons_spam.png> Mark as Spam <spacer.gif> <spacer.gif> <spacer.gif> <email_buttons_bottom.png> <spacer.gif> <spacer.gif> <spacer.gif> <email_buttons_top.png> <spacer.gif> <spacer.gif> <spacer.gif> <email_buttons_edit.png> Edit Comment <spacer.gif> <spacer.gif> <spacer.gif> <email_buttons_bottom.png> <spacer.gif> <spacer.gif> <spacer.gif> <spacer.gif> <spacer.gif> <email_footer.png> <email_six_apart.png> Six Apart, creators of Movable Type and TypePad. 548 4th Street, San Francisco, CA 94107 Manage Notifications | Support | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy

Mr. Burgess. You claim State will pay all overruns. Could you please document that?

Hal, Baker was excusing Japan, positioning Japan because it "couldn't extricate..." In the context I read it reminded me of the boy who killed his parents and then begged mercy on the court because he was an orphan. Baker was explicitly stating that the USA was a contributing factor to Jan's sense that it needed to invade the USA. At least that's what I understand. So aren't we saying the same thing?

I hope you'll show us a sketch -- a typical plan view illustrating your points. Thx.

Btw, as to the definition of "mosque," and whether there is one in the Pentagon, it seems that there isn't one per se. Moslems have no space exclusively for their practice and use an inter-denominational chapel. So is it a "mosque?" No idea. You wouldn't call it a synagogue or church but -- as people call it now -- a chapel, even though it has clear Christian origins.

If the flow of traffic in SF is improved, then more people will drive there -- remember how widening freeways simply induces more traffic? -- and congestion will remain at the same level as before. I am NOT against the plan just cautioning in case anyone thinks that the streets will be less congested.

@ Aleks: "...since parking is much more expensive..." Why is that? SFPark states that "Yes. Parking rates will be incrementally raised or lowered in SFpark pilot areas based on demand to help make parking easier to find on the street and at City garages." SFPark will probably track prices with what private parking-lot owners already charge— their experience already maximize revenue and they know just how much to charge to fill up their garages but not to overpay to discourage drivers. So evening parking rates may actually go down-- which is not a bad thing for overall urban livability and street life. But even rates go up, I just can't connect with the idea that SFPark's experiment will somehow decrease urban traffic congestion. Yes parking may become more efficient -- but that will just mean that for example an outer-edge (of the city) resident like me will decide "Hey! It's a short trip and I am likely to easily find a space. So why think about the bus?"