Interstate 95

[jencoleslaw]

I think yards are some of the most dysfunctional use of space. I hear that some want yards for the kids. But, I rarely see them used. It seems when the kids come out the door they're getting right into the car. The parents probably don't want them ruining the grass.

I believe if you live in a walkable area, the streets and parks around you are yours to enjoy.

wacky! the streets in my neighborhood are littered with broken glass, needles, garbage, chicken bones, dead rats. And the parks aren't much better except you can add drug dealers and users to that list. Just because you can walk there, doesn't mean it is a place you really want you or your kids to go...I am on the third floor of a very tall house and i see all kinds of back yards from every window, full of kids playing in splash pools and sprinklers and running with dogs and playing in their giant doll house things...

[yossarian]

I think yards are some of the most dysfunctional use of space. I hear that some want yards for the kids. But, I rarely see them used. It seems when the kids come out the door they're getting right into the car. The parents probably don't want them ruining the grass.

I believe if you live in a walkable area, the streets and parks around you are yours to enjoy.

That may be a function of your particular area (maybe climate induced), but in my suburban neighborhood within the City of Providence kids are constantly playing in their back yards, on the sidewalks and in the street. I think many parents would be loathe to let younger children (say under 10-12) go to a park unattended. Yet they are comfortable allowing the kids to play in their yards without a parent actively supervising. Between the four families on my street with school age kids there are enough yards (each with a lot around 5,000 square feet) to give the youngins plenty to do. So I wouldn't call all yards a dysfunctional use of space. If we are talking about a McMansion on several acres of turf with a sprinkler system running twice a day that

[Bill Mocarsky]

That may be a function of your particular area (maybe climate induced), but in my suburban neighborhood within the City of Providence kids are constantly playing in their back yards, on the sidewalks and in the street. I think many parents would be loathe to let younger children (say under 10-12) go to a park unattended. Yet they are comfortable allowing the kids to play in their yards without a parent actively supervising. Between the four families on my street with school age kids there are enough yards (each with a lot around 5,000 square feet) to give the youngins plenty to do. So I wouldn't call all yards a dysfunctional use of space. If we are talking about a McMansion on several acres of turf with a sprinkler system running twice a day that’s a different story.

I am mainly talking about the lawns with the sprinkler system and chemicals etc. To me. a functional yard is one where you see the circle of dirt around a tetherball pole, or the worn areas on each side of a badmitten net.

In South Florida, most new houses go up as "planned communities". Most of them have walls or canals surrounding them. The only way to get from one of these subdivisions to anywhere else is to get onto a multi lane throughofare. Residents can freely walk around the community, but once you get to the entrance (or gate) there is a feeling of isolation.

[Liamlunchtray]

I think yards are some of the most dysfunctional use of space. I hear that some want yards for the kids. But, I rarely see them used. It seems when the kids come out the door they're getting right into the car. The parents probably don't want them ruining the grass.

I believe if you live in a walkable area, the streets and parks around you are yours to enjoy.

Granted I have kids, but we use our yard all the time. Its one of the things I like most about our house - just hanging out on the patio listening to some music and maybe grilling up some steaks. We may be right in the middle of the city, but our yard lets us get in on the possitive attributes of the burbs. (trees, quiet, birds, etc...) We walk to the park quite often as well, but on a lazy day there is nothing I like better than my yard. I also like that my house is built right to the sidewalk so I can maximize my 5k sqft lot as much as possible.

[Lone Ranger]

I think I was unclear, sorry. As a clarification, my ire is especially reserved for lawns -- large, obviously unused, freshly cut lawns. On display. As if they were trophies.

What Liam desribes is another matter. Or what Jen describes. A used yard is a functional yard. I won't argue with function.

But I fail to understand the American obsession with the lawn as a thing unto itself. And it's the flawless (i.e., evidently unused) expanse of lawn that I see as being the basically anti-social element of our society. Not that you can't be a normal social individual and still have a lawn, I don't mean that at all. Most people would never even think twice about the subject, and that's fine. But if you consider the meaning of the lawn as a financial and philosophical symbol in our society, I think you'll see what I mean. The perfect lawn represents isolation, the so-called rugged individualism that is merely a recipe for sterility, and the appearance of complete financial independence (which is an illusion, absolute malarkey no matter who you are).

And of course it goes without saying that the trophy-lawn goes hand in hand with the personal automobile and the short-sighted, close-minded, unsustainable paradigm that characterizes American life. It is in with that in mind, especially, that I call the lawn antisocial -- in the sense that it is an inherently destructive element of our society.

Yes, suffice it to say that I have a special hatred for the carefully manicured swath of impeccable grass. Go ahead, call me crazy now.

[Liamlunchtray]

[Cotuit]

I like how a converstion about an interstate highway turned into a conversation about lawns.

Its as if we all decided we don't like highways and decided to talk about something else.

[matt]

Go ahead, call me crazy now.

You're Crazy!

I mostly agree. A lawn for the sake of a lawn is nice to look at. A lawn that you can play on, is nice though.

I really respect interesting landscapes over just grass. If there is green grass involved in an interesting landscape, thats cool. I've seen some good (and of course bad) examples of nice landscaping on the limitted amount of landscapable space in peoples urban yards. I really like when people take the area between the house and the street and do something with some thought towards interesting landscape - the space is often not enough to do much with, so why not jazz it up beyond grass.

what was this thread about, again?

[runawayjim]

You're Crazy!

I mostly agree. A lawn for the sake of a lawn is nice to look at. A lawn that you can play on, is nice though.

I really respect interesting landscapes over just grass. If there is green grass involved in an interesting landscape, thats cool. I've seen some good (and of course bad) examples of nice landscaping on the limitted amount of landscapable space in peoples urban yards. I really like when people take the area between the house and the street and do something with some thought towards interesting landscape - the space is often not enough to do much with, so why not jazz it up beyond grass.

what was this thread about, again?

the house i grew up in has a ton of trees in the yard, it's an awesome yard, very shady. great for kids with hlls for sledding and room for ball games and stuff.

there's a house on the street i live on now that is perfectly landscaped, but not interesting... bushes trimmed with perfect 90 degree angles and perfectly green lawn... it looks like no one lives there because it's so perfect.

[Baines]

Ok everyone, I thought I'd throw a topic out there...

Driving from New York State today back to Providence I was wondering if today in 2006 (not historically), is I-95 good or bad for the city of Providence as a whole? If we could divert traffic onto 295 around the city entirely and completely do away with the highway, would it be good or bad for the city? Is the traffic and economic benefit worth the detriment of it splitting the city and making the region as a whole more auto dependent?

Discuss...

- Garris

Going back to the original question...

From an outsider's vantage point I see Route 95 as a great asset for PVD. Here's why:

1 From the southern approach the view of the citty is impressive (this will be outstanding with the completion of the Rt 195 bridge and OneTen)

2 With the completion of Empire at Broadway, the Westminster projects and any tall 55 Boadway project the drive through the Downcity edge will be very urban

3 With Rt 195 moving further south, Rt 95 will be the only major"direct" route into the Downcity for all N/S traffic - again adding to the big city feel but with some traffic relief

This does not in any way, IMO, decrease the need for a suburban ring light rail system. Route 295 is too far out and it would hurt the city if Rt 95 traffic were moved out to it. Rt 95 is not the cause of the auto dependency; it is the lack of a suburban ring light rail system.

[Dozer]

Without 95 we would probably be just another Worcester. Springfield seems to be doing quite well for itself and having Rt 91 and the Mass Pike going through it dosen't hurt. Having both 95 & 195 running through the city is an asset. A sometimes annoying asset. Hartford has 2, 84 and 91, which I'm sure works out well for them.

[Dozer]

And to clarify (for the sake of technicality) - I-90 never touches Springfield. The Mass-Pike runs through West Springfield and Chicopee. The only two interstates that run through Springfield are I-91, and I-291.