Decatur Street Narrowing; Some Angry, Others Happy
Decatur Metro | December 8, 2009 | 11:53 amIn yesterday’s paper, the AJC’s Ariel Hart detailed a project that many Decatur-to-Downtown Atlanta commuters and GSU students/employees already know intimately: the narrowing of Decatur Street.
The narrowing is the result of a push by Georgia State University to create a more pleasant pedestrian environment for its students and staff. It took six years to complete, but it’s finally done and reactions are unsurprisingly mixed. Motorists are upset, pedestrians are pleased.
But this quote takes the gasoline-soaked cake…
“This is the kind of craziness that is going on from urban planners all over the place who have nothing but utter contempt for people who drive, and as a result, while they do not realize it, have nothing but utter contempt for economics and economic growth,” [The Heritage Foundation’s Wendall] Cox said.
That’s right folks.
Crazy urban planners don’t realize it, but all of their recent decisions aren’t really based on proven models or studies. They are the result of an unconscious “utter contempt” for drivers. If you look back into the lives of each and every smart growth advocate there is some early-life, car-based trauma, which compels them to make mindless, zombie-like decisions about growth patterns. If they could only see past their blinding hatred of cars and growth at any cost, they would see downtown Atlanta as the teeming, diverse, 24-7 urban center that it truly is.
To provide some balance to the story, the article also quotes Smart Growth America’s David Goldberg, a Decatur resident clearly trying to hide his contempt for cars behind calm, rational discourse.
“In principle, that sort of road diet and pedestrian retrofit, particularly in a high-pedestrian area like a college campus, makes a lot of sense” and helps retail business, said David Goldberg, a spokesman for Washington-based Smart Growth America.
Crazy talk.
It’s always a bit frustrating to read comments such as Mr. Cox’s since his assumption that reducing traffic has a negative impact on economic growth….(and apparently economics as a field generally speaking). A study that we did here in San Francisco (yes, I know… they’re different) showed that after completing a road diet, we actually were able to increase local spending at retail shops. It was found that even though people that drive spent more money at local shops, pedestrians shopped much more frequently.
As an urban planner, I think contempt is a pretty strong word to use about my feelings towards the automobile. I believe that all modes have their place, in the right setting. Yet, we’ve built a city that has been so overly skewed towards one mode, and one mode only.That’s why I’m overjoyed to see projects like Decatur Street move towards completion and why I find statement’s like Mr. Cox’s so insulting.
Don’t be too frustrated Paul. If that’s the best “argument” the opposition can come up with, then you’re pretty much golden.
Mindless griping.
I drive down Dekalb Ave and work in the Five Poiints area. Decatur Street would be the straight and easy route for me to get to work, but is has never been the fastest route. Not by a long-shot. It’s VERY easy to find ways around that stretch of road, no matter where your destination might be.
Wendell Cox fashions himself as an urban planner. His degree is in agriculture, I believe, but the concrete and asphalt crowd always like to trot him out because he’ll take their side. He also likes to maintain that public transportation in any form is bound to fail and that urban sprawl is nirvana because that’s what folks demand. He has no credibility with any professional planner that I have ever met.
Wait, doesn’t the article say Cox is from the Heritage Foundation? ‘Nuff said
I wish they had gotten a comment from Wendell Berry instead. That would have actually added something to the conversation.
Wendell Cox
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendell_Cox
Opponent of smart growth, proponent of market based planning solutions. Because privatizing the public sector without social or legal controls to check greed is always the answer.
Cox believes that the goal of public transportation systems should be to provide mobility to those who do not have access to a car, and not to reduce traffic congestion.[6] As such he believes agencies should seek to obtain maximum value for every dollar of taxes and fees expended, using whatever transportation choices maximize ridership. He believes competitive approaches (principally competitive contracting and competitive tendering) are most effective in this regard.
And for the Heritage Foundation:
The Heritage Foundation is a well-known conservative American think tank based in Washington, D.C.
The foundation took a leading role in the conservative movement during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, whose policies drew significantly from Heritage’s policy study Mandate for Leadership.[1] Heritage has since continued to have a significant influence in U.S. public policy making, and is widely considered to be one of the most influential research organizations in the United States, especially during the Republican administration of President George W. Bush.[2]
Heritage’s stated mission is to “formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.”[3]
And major supporter of supply side economic theories.
Yes, we are all fully aware of your contempt for all things not socialist. Please don’t turn this into a liberal vs. conservative argument. Many of us Heritage Foundationers fully agree with this project to make pedestrians safer and believe it will help the area immensely.
DTR: I think you were thinking of Carolyn. If memory serves correctly I’ve seen our Nellie take shots at both sides, though admittedly from a more Decatur-oriented (lefty) outlook.
And careful with that ‘socialist’ word – use it too much and it starts to lose its meaning.
Hey, I thought these days you could only use the word, “socialist” in conjunction with the word, “fascist”.
Robbie,
In defense of DTR, I believe he/she was thinking of Nelliebelle. Allow me to quote from one of NB’s prior postings, in which the word “socialist” was used:
“I am a Democrat sorta socialist from a family of Democrats so blue we have no hemoglobin (my grandpa always said “I don’t allow two things in my house- Yankees and Republicans”)…”
Eric, I think DTR is accusing me of showing contempt because of what I thought was a gentle rib I made about his name in another thread. I do consider myself very lefty and have no problem with that. I am typically very congenial on here and can’t help how others insecurities color their impressions. What I do have problems with is the reporter politicizing this issue red/blue with her choice of interviewees. She could have talked to other people who are more balanced on both sides of the issue. I obviously didn’t state that in a way anyone but Paula understood, but that was really my point.
No worries, NB. Your gentle jibe was received with the good humor you intended. And I’m quite secure in my conservatism. 🙂
Okay, good.
You know, I do have this stupid need to make everyone get along. It’s like a cancer or a giant parasite that won’t let go. That’s one reason that AJC reporter’sdecision to only throw out quotes from divergent ends of the spectrum really ticked me off. I realize I didn’t articulate that very well. Do we always have to choose what’s salacious in sacrifice to an actual smart discussion of issues??
Heck, I don’t like much of what I have seen of the density and mixed used focus of smart growth theories much more than I like the market driven ideology of Wendell Cox!
I just made some cream cheese cinnamon rolls. Who wants one??
Aww, I’m your Nellie!
I am sorry, but the Heritage Foundation is not exactly agenda free. I would better sources of commentary – sources grounded in actual urban planning concepts- without Heritage Foundation baggage could be found.
Frankly, Smart Growth America has an agenda, but it’s an agenda grounded in urban planning. Surely there has to be someone like Paul- who can most likely reasonably argue both sides- that the AJC can quote. My shot there is really more towards the AJC reporter- she has to go for the obvious red vs. blue setup rather paint in more subtle colors.
BTW, I like the new Decatur Street. I can zoom now fast as hell cause everyone else is avoiding it 🙂 Better for hitting all those pedestrians DM is always lovin’ on.
I tried Nellie, but your record preceeds you.
You just seem so nice for one of them thar lefties.
What exactly is the relevance of this supposed to be? If Heritage supported Reagan and free maket principles, they have no credibility?
The relevance is exactly what i said- I find it annoying that the reporter goes for the extreme on both sides rather than presenting something more balanced. The Heritage Foundation is extreme and heavily supportive of people like Hannity and Limbaugh.
Really? What is their connection to Hannity and Limbaugh?
The Heritage Foundation is a sponsor of both shows (I have heard the commercials) and Hannity promotes joining/donating to the Heritage Foundation through commercials on his radio show and claims it represents his views.
I think perhaps what NellieBelle is trying to say is that quoting the Heritage Foundation *in this context* is a bit like asking for PETA’s opinion on the opening of a new Chick-fil-A location: the response is predictable and doesn’t add much to the conversation.
That’s about it, Paula. Thanks for finding the analogy that was hiding from my poor brain.
I think that is a terrible analogy. Heritage is not a one-issue organization, like PETA. Rather, they espouse a free-market bent to a variety of public issues. The more apt analogy would be if I said we need not ask a liberal think thank for a quote about the health care debate, because we can safely predict they’ll favor single payer. That’s likely true, but it doesn’t mean they add nothing to the conversation.
Again, I’m not saying this particular snippet is enlightening. It’s not. But that’s altogether different than faulting the reporter for even quoting Heritage to begin with.
Note also that the article quoted PEDS, whose reponse — dripping with disdain for people who drive — is equally, if not predicatable, than anything Heritage said. Yet there doesn;t seem to be any issue with including them in the discussion.
DEM, I say in several posts that the reporter goes for the extreme on both sides.
yes paula, and your fine enlightening comparison sure upped the ante too.
are you a comedy writer for beck?
As a non-urban planner (but an urban dweller), I gotta take the other side in this discussion.
Let’s say you have a hypothetical downtown area. And let’s say that area is struggling to remain relevant, with loads of empty office space and the recent high-profile departure of your local newspaper among other businesses. And let’s also say that there are a fixed number of ways for residents to reach the downtown. Would it be advisable to:
a) Instill programs that make it easier for commuters and visitors to reach your downtown
b) Clamp down on a key road, creating long traffic lines and thus inconveinencing and discouraging these same people from visiting your downtown
And before anyone points out that the GSU area is growing and could use a bit of pedestrian-friendliness, I completely agree with that. I’m just not convinced that blocking one of the major arteries into the city was the right solution.
The answer is to make downtown a more viable place to live. The “solution” of opening up downtown to more cars to reach downtown as a way of attracting more people to come has never worked in any place its been tried.
Your Solution B is how Atlanta got to where it is in the first place.
Great link, thanks for posting.
Agreed. If people genuinely want to work/locate their business in a particular location for the reasons of foot traffic, vibrancy, benefits of proximity, etc.. . People will figure out a way to get there.
That might make sense if Decatur street didn’t run EXACTLY parallel and about 50ft from a MARTA rail line.
Using the downtown concept in the abstract, yes I agree that maintaining proper access to downtown is important in continuing to making an attractive workplace environment. But I think that leads to the question if people want to be and work there because it’s easy to drive there and park
or if it’s a place where they actually want to local their office and workers. Robbie, I like your comment about instilling programs to make it easier to provide access. I think that is a key point that providing good access isn’t always about road lanes.
Good points. I didn’t mean to weigh in so heavily on the pro-car side of things. Making downtown livable is the ultimate goal. However, to get there you have to keep the current commercial structures alive long enough for the new wave of housing and businesses to take hold.
And that’s my beef with the road narrowing. It just seems like downtown has enough stacked against it already that it doesn’t need to be adding inaccessability to its list of issues (both real and perceived).
Downtown Atlanta is already by far, without question, no doubt the most assessible place to get to in the the entire city. Not only is it a compact area with 6 MARTA rail stops, but is the only neighborhood in the city where MARTA rail goes in two directions (north/south, east/west). Not only that, but downtown is served by major roads and throrougfares, the downtown connecetor, Interstate 20, etc. I don’t really think that narrowing litle old Decatur St from 4 to 2 lanes and improving walkability in the Georgia State area is going to impact downtown’s viability. What will impact its viability is whether we can make it a livable place to work, live, and spend time. The work that has been done on Decatur St will further those goals.
Decatur Street was perfectly walkable before the road narrowing. I go to GSU frequently and cross Decatur Sreet on foot when I do. I also drive on Decatur Street from Decatur Street to Atlanta–a thoroughfare in which we collectively have a lot invested (reversible lanes on Dekalb Avenue, large bridge over the merge, etc.). I’m still scratching my head over the notion that Decatur Street needed double-wide sidewalks. Even by Atlanta standards, these sidewalks were not “crowded”. If GSU thought it needed more setback for its buildings, they should have thought of that when they built them in the first place. Decatur Street preceded GSU by nearly a century, and should be allowed to serve the role it was intended to have when it was one of only seven streets in Marthasville–the main thoroughfare between town and city.
Robbie, joking aside, I do find that other than one useless left turn only lane at the intersection of of Jesse Hill (which is actually the intersection I wail on about where I saw the lady get smushed while illegally crossing) heading toward Grady, traffic is moving pretty smoothly along this path. Of course,I am an early bird, so I can’t speak to how it works in rush hours!
I travel through downtown quite a bit and on Dekalb Ave/Decatur St/Marietta st. While the new roadwork has caused a bit of confusion and congestion, it will work itself out as more people become acquainted with it. However, if you really want to improve throughput downtown, have the police begin enforcing and towing the cars that continually block lanes – this included delivery trucks, taxis, cars, and government vehicles. that’s the real issue with traveling downtown.
Good point. The main result of the project was congestion and resulting traffic diversion (the goal of beautification was not realized). Employees of GSU’s neighbors (CNN, state and federal buildings, Philips Arena, remaining Marietta Sreet businesses) are being prodded to take alternate routes away from “campus” (e.g., Forsyth Street, Edgewood). The effects of GSU’s clogging of this major downtown artery would be relieved somewhat if the City of Atlanta would: (1) make Edgewood a true 4-lane road by taking away parking spaces in portions which have become congested by diverted drivers from Dekalb and other counties east of the city; (2) start ticketing drivers who block long lines of traffic by entering major intersections that they foreseeably could not clear to get home “one light sooner”); and (3) ticket or move along drivers who park their cars illegally during rush hour along Forsyth and other roads parallel to Marietta Street/Decatur St.
Let’s be honest here. A lot of “smart growth” advocates do hate cars. Read this from the article, and tell me that you honestly don’t detect any anti-car bias there at all:
“If people want to commute by car, or feel like they have to commute by car, that’s their problem,” said Sally Flocks of the Atlanta pedestrian group PEDS.
Translation: if you, like millions of others, like to drive to work, screw you.
Also, is there an ulterior moitve here of forcing people to take MARTA, even if they don’t want to? Yes:
Seagren said that if drivers are so frustrated that they start to take MARTA, that may be a good thing, but frustration wasn’t the goal. “We would hope that people would see other means than driving their cars if those are available, and we think that there are,” he said. “But I don’t think the narrowing was done with the intent on driving drivers out of the area.”
So it may not be the intent, but if we’ve managed to make your drive utterly unbearable, well then maybe you should hop on a train, because frankly, that’s what we’d prefer.
This is not to say the Heritage Foundation guy’s quotes aren’t overdone. They are, especially since he admits he hasn’t studied this project. But neither has the Smart Growth America fellow.
I’ll also add that in the many, many threads here relating to MARTA and transportation in general, there is a tremendous amount of barely under-the-current contempt for cars.
But here’s the KEY difference. Urban planners don’t have “contempt for PEOPLE who drive”, they have contempt for the infrastructure that supports the car, because it has done nothing but destroy urban environments when it’s taken to the nth degree. The PEOPLE don’t have a choice but to drive, because that’s the infrastructure we’ve built and sustained over the past 70 years.
The quote above personalizes it in an attempt insult the planners.
Which leads into the forcing people to ride MARTA. Are we not currently forcing people to drive? Do they really have a choice? Whatever transportation system the government supports, an argument can be made that people are being forced into it. Right now we spend trillions on road infrastructure and much smaller amount on public transit. Can’t I make an argument that that model is forcing me to drive?
What’s happening at GSU is a long-needed effort to retrofit an environment around the complex and diverse needs of the people it serves. Yes, in this instance, it’s predominantly students and faculty on foot but clearly the road will still serve through traffic as well.
This puts the individual, rather than their transport technology, at the center of the equation where he or she belongs. It also plays a role in the larger urban goal of providing more choices in all aspects of life — transportation included. Free market worshippers like Cox should applaud something like that.
Well, DM, it depends. You can’t credibly argue that you have no choice but to drive from Decatur to GSU, or anywhere else to downtown. MARTA runs right through both. And the road in question here runs essentially alongside MARTA. So in this case, you have government subsidized roads and government subsidized rail that go from the same place to the same place. Tha sounds like a choice.
Obviously, many people choose to drive this route, even though it is far more expensive to do so.
Now, if you argue that you have no choice but to drive to Douglasville, point taken. But that’s not what is at issue here.
I believe that you’re right in saying that no one is being forced into driving, biking, walking, skipping, or skateboarding from any point in Atlanta to another. But I think DM’s point is that the funding for transportation has been distributed in such a way, it makes it a very inpalatable to take other forms of transportation besides the automobile. Private vehicles are subsidized by both the government and the private sector to a far greater proportion than to any other mode. This is far more than just the paved roads, it goes to the hidden costs of constructing expensive parking structures at roughly ~$50,000+/space and surface lots that reduce development potential, hidden costs of air pollution, the list goes on…
It’s very likely if the funding for the various modes were more equal, and all of these hidden costs were accounted for, we might live in a place where transportation choices might be more legitimate between any two points in the city. So in the present, it might be more convenient to drive between Decatur and GSU. With below-market rate parking, roadways designed for vehicle-speed in mind, and sub-par alternative options, I would fully agree. In the end, this project isn’t so much about taking away automobile lanes, it’s about leveling the playing field for non-drivers. At the very least it allows the other transportation modes to stand a chance, so people can have a choice about how they get around town.
A few comments:
Narrowing this stretch of Decatur Street is not “blocking one of the arteries into Downtown.” There are a couple of ways to cut over to Memorial Drive or MLK from DeKalb Ave/Decatur Street. A reduced flow of traffic can still be handled by this new stretch of Decatur Street.
I also wonder if GSU has any plans to educate its students as to how to properly use crosswalks at intersections. Reducing the flow of traffic on Decatur Street through the GSU “campus” is fine, but I fear it will only further embolden pedestrians who seem to think that it’s fine to hang toes over curbs or cross any stretch of street regardless of traffic controls.
I know one student has been hit in the last year or so. The students and street people are both horrible about crossing whenever they see a 2-foot interval between cars. I’m usually the only one who waits for the the little white walking man to tell me to cross. I almost get run over by the jaywalkers.
Note to self: Teach kids the NYC song: “Don’t cross the street, in the middle, in the middle, in the middle, in the middle, in the middle of the block”!
Very unpleasant place during the construction, great place to run over students if that’s your thing or at least lose your temper over arrogant jay-walkers. Always need to be careful here.
But this makes me so nostalgic for when downtown was last a “happening” which was pre-MARTA rail. There was lots of traffic everywhere. You dreaded rush hour. The sidewalks were jammed with people transferring from bus to bus and shopping in betwee. Now all those folks are in tunnels happily bypassing downtown streets. I miss the traffic and smelly, noisy buses and people.
Tunnels?
A) Contempt for cars, or contempt for infrastructure that favors cars, has nothing to do with the modern woes of downtown Atlanta. Therefore, this “solution” will have minimal effect on fixing those core problems. So you can cross the street easier, but there will still be someone on the other side waiting to mug you.
B) Atlanta can do as they please with their roads. They will be the ones who suffer/enjoy the effects of these decisions. They can make downtown completely car free, as far as I’m concerned. (I’d actually like to see what that would be like. Copenhagen, which is so in the press lately, has vast stretches of car free roads in the city center and that really works well for them.)
But, see A) above. It’s not going to help Atlanta. Cars are not, IMHO, Atlanta’s problem. Not even in the top ten. As far as economic development, frankly, if I’m locating any sort of business in the metro area, downtown is the very last place I would consider.
C) Thank god (or insert your favorite deity or social cause) for the Heritage Foundation. Very smart people doing very laudable work. Perhaps not the best choice for urban planning discussion, but I loathe those who reject a sound argument because they don’t choose to accept the source. (Unless that source is dailykos, drudge, Scientology or something equally kooky or hyper-partisan. Or me 😉
George, intellectually, how do you separate an argument from its source? I am not being sarcastic but very serious. The source of the argument and idea is as important as the argument itself. If you don’t question the source- and reject those from sources you question- then where is intellectual inquiry versus acceptance of whatever you are being spoonfed? Where is ideology and conviction versus talking points? I stopped reading and trusting a particular feminist blog because everything was rooted in sexism. There are more shades in the world than black and white, but these writers blamed everything on PATRIARCHY! and SEXISM! And they were decades out of college!
In the days of Buckley and Saffire, Heritage Foundation may have fostered a true intellectual inquiry, but today I don’t see anything but talking points.
http://www.askheritage.org/
I use Decatur Street almost daily to access downtown. It passes dead-smack through the middle of the GSU campus. Our children, suburban and urban alike, cross it constantly during the daytime hours. Anything we can do to make them safer, we should. Also, the once-empty neighborhood just to the north is beginning to see some residential development, bringing even more pedestrians into the equation.
There are lots of alternatives to reaching the center of downtown from the east via Decatur Street, including Edgewood Avenue one block north, MLK Blvd. one block south and Andrew Young Blvd. coming off Freedom Parkway across Peachtree Street and connecting to the other side. There’s even the option of hanging a left at Kimball Way and traveling beneath downtown in the old railroad gulch all the way to CNN Center.
If it takes an extra couple minutes to travel into the urban core, so what?. This Atlanta attitude that all roads must be wide open to traffic flowing with as little impediment as possible at maximum speed is like something out of the 1960s, when it was seen as “urban renewal” to plow down entire historic neighborhoods to make way for man-made canyons containing eight-lane highways. We’ve long since seen the folly of that sort of development as the mutilation of once-cohesive business and residential districts has taken its toll.
The Decatur Street project, modest though it may be, is real progress — a belated step toward recognizing that movement through an urban center takes many forms, all of which need to be accommodated in some semblance of harmony. Now if we can just get some more movement on the long-discussed idea of building parks over the Downtown Connector, like the Fifth Street bridge at Ga Tech, to reconnect the neighborhoods it sundered…
Hear, hear!
Agree on most of that, George. Downtown is a disaster for far bigger reasons than transportation planning. Walking around that area is not a pleasant experience – and I know it all too well.
And you are right about discussing the argument rather than the source. Else, how do people judge the sources? It’s all about the ideas, and no one is 100% right or 100% wrong.
TeeRuss, I asked you a question below but posted ti to the wrong spot. Am very interested in replies from both you and George (Unless DM fires me for topic highjacking) 🙂
So you can cross the street easier, but there will still be someone on the other side waiting to mug you.
George, you obviously haven’t spent much time downtown lately. There are still lots of rough patches downtown, and it still lacks basic services to make it a real, breathing neighborhood, but lots of improvements have been made, the thousands of young people at GSU downtown everyday is certainly one of them. Yes, there are lots of panhandlers and homeless, but the perception that you are going to get mugged just walking down the street in broad daylight is just not accurate. There are many other parts of town, which are percieved to be safer, where your chance of getting mugged is far higher. Crime in downtown is actually quite low compared to other parts of the city.
And if I was looking to locate a business, downtown would have to be on the top of my list. Where else is more centrally located in the Metro Area? Where else would nearly all of my employees have the option of taking public transit to get to work? Where else could my business be in a truly urban environment located close to all of Atlanta’s major cultural, entertainment, convention facilities, and large hotels?
Point taken, Pete – I do spend less time downtown than I used to. I used a wee hyperbole to attempt to make the point that Atlanta has bigger fish to fry. I never felt unsafe in the daytime – uncomfortable occasionally, but never unsafe.
As to company locations, I have to disagree with you and agree with the dozens (hundreds?) of business owners who, for right or wrong, have chosen to leave downtown in the last 20 years or so. I appreciate why you value the features you do, but I think you’re leaving out many negatives that business decision makers evidently see as more important. Traffic/congestion is surely one of those.
But back to roads and cars – why not go large, and restrict whole sections of downtown streets? That would at least make an impact you could easily measure. 😉
Why it may be true that many businesses have left downtown over the years, the opposite is also true. Many law firms have moved up the street to Midtown and Buckhead, for example. Not really because of anything particular to downtown, but because they got sweet deals on space in a brand spankin new building. Talk about trying to avoid traffic congestion, Buckhead is where you would move? Really?
But a few years ago, the 191 Peachtree building was nearly empty and then Cousins bought it and now it is nearly full. The AJC’s moving has more to do with the problems in the newspaper business in general – not downtown.
How do you explain your theory of an exodus from downtown with the huge investments made over the years in the GA Aquarium, expansions to the Mart, the Ivan Allen complex, new hotels, etc?
The way I look at it, this was a GSU campus improvement. And that’s the way it should be. GSU has no obligation to make anyone’s commute right through their campus a breezy one. Their obligation is to make their community and area safer and more accessible for students, who are moving from building to building constantly every day.
Agnes Scott did the same with East Dougherty street, narrowing it and turning it into a 1-way a few years ago. There is just barely enough of a “grid” system of streets around the campus area that it didn’t choke off vehicle traffic, and it works. Same should be true of Decatur street downtown – I know I’ve detoured to using Highland/Baker ave on the way in, which is 4 lanes wide with zero commercial or other street frontage of any kind for most of the trip past Piedmont. THAT’s the kind of road people should zip in and out of Downtown ATL on.
To add on to TeeRuss,
Students get only 10 minutes to move between classes which are often quite far away since the new classroom building is near the Rialto and the rest are around Decatur street. We are overflowing with students which means that packed elevators in the tall buildings will come and go with no space to get on and even stairwells are packed. I know that the students jaywalk sometimes–they don’t want to be late–but the three times I have seen students hit by cars (yes, three) they were crossing legally in the crosswalk. IMHO, they will benefit fewer cars on their campus!
Really? You judge the source based on the argument? The argument comes out of the source. The source has no objectivity, is inherently biased. Therefore, any argument needs to be analyzed – if you are moving beyond superficial -based not just on its merits but its source. I am not going to easily trust an argument coming from the Heritage Foundation any more than I am going to trust an argument coming from the Shakesville feminist blog because I know the inherent bias of both. I am also not going to trust the SmartGrowth without checking him out. ‘
And by the way, I am not trying to be argumentative; I am trying to understand this point of view. It’s the exact opposite of how I think. But then again, I have graduate degrees in history and we are trained to always start at the source – you build your argument on top of other research and primary sources – so maybe its the way I apply that training.
Nelle, I think the issue here is usually a source has multiple arguments in different areas, particularly a source like Heritage, and if you refute one argument from the source because of that source, then you could be seen as trying to discredit all the source’s unrelated arguments.
Nellie, let me turn that around – how do you judge the source? Serious question. I don’t see any possible answer that doesn’t involve an objective look at a lot of the source’s arguments.
Heritage has good points and bad ones. And they have agendas. That’s true of pretty much any source. Therefore, completely ignoring ideas due to their sources means we are guaranteed to miss some good ideas.
And I am not arguing with you on that, Russ, but take the Wendell Cox example. Wendell is a fellow at the Heritage Foundation; you know the foundation’s underlying philosophy is market and private sector based solutions to pretty much everything; you know Cox has not studied the Decatur Street plan, but Cox chooses to criticize the project for its negative impact the economy. How serious can his argument be?
The only legitimate way to separate an argument from its source is if the argument is created in a vacuum. Objectivity cannot exist outside the rhetorical.
As for the Darwin example, Darwin had a growing reputation as a naturalist when he boarded the Beagle. That’s how he got invited aboard to begin with. AND he was building on the work Charles Lyell and others. Was he not “sourced”and credible to his peers , I doubt the scientific community would have accepted his ideas.
Every one of you accepts and rejects arguments, ideas and information everyday based on personal and cultural bias, on politics and on simply who you are and where you live. In fact, you are arguing with me right now based on your perceptions of yourselves as rational, objective creatures. I don’t accept rational objectivity – the very concept of divorcing emotion and bias from thought is in itself irrational- and I don’t accept arguments from any one without attempting to understand his or her bias.
Wait, as soon as you start using language to formulate an argument you have lost any hope at objectivity. As thinking people go, there is NO such thing as objectivity. Therefore you cannot separate an argument from its source–particularly in written language.
The trouble one runs into is the tendency toward prejudice–which is what we are arguing here.
If you distrust a source, good, fine–say so, but if the source’s argument sucks, then you attack the argument, not the source.
I distrust FOX, but I find O’Reilly et al very entertaining. Bad example, but a better one would be Ayn Rand’s philosophy–you have to argue against her premises and not her or her amphetamine use.
Nellie — So when darwin wrote his Origin of Species, scientists should not only have considered the arguments and evidence in his book, but done some sort of of background check on him? Or, if he had written an unattributed book, it would have been impossible to evaluate his arguments? Because if the source is as important as the argument, it seems to me you would have to sayyes to both questions.
[…] from around the network: Decatur Metro writes about media coverage of a street narrowing project in Atlanta; things get lively in the […]
Streetsblog love?! All right!
[…] from around the network: Decatur Metro writes about media coverage of a street narrowing project in Atlanta; things get lively in the […]
[…] from around the network: Decatur Metro writes about media coverage of a street narrowing project in Atlanta; things get lively in the […]
[…] structural issues can be resolved through better designed streets. More from around the network: Decatur Metro writes about media coverage of a street narrowing project in Atlanta; things get lively in the […]
Of all the driving routes which have been mentioned for avoiding Decatur Street, my preferred route was not mentioned. That pleases me. It took me a lot of experimentation to find the fastest, least congested way to get to work, and I’m going to be selfish and keep my route a secret…although it is not a secret at all if you look at a city road map and try driving a few different ways.
Warning: Non-ideological Potential Threadjacking Regarding Dekalb Ave is about to take place:
Has anyone else noticed the crucified stuffed animals just west of Krog St on the north side of Dekalb Ave? Not sure if those are a new edition, but I find it a bit creepy.
I think they have been there a while. What do they think of the narrowing?
I’ll bet the “yield tambien yeild tambien nice and slow” sign offers a clue.
What’s the problem?
Why would anyone need to drive from Decatur to DT Atlanta passing so many MARTA stations (with parking) along the way?
You can relax and actually read without endangering pedestrians. …Unless that’s the point of one’s driving in town.
Parts of this post really made me laugh. I DID suffer early-life, car-based trauma. What do you call growing up in Gwinnett County?
Only marginally related….
A very interesting and inspiring video from NYC’s head of DOT Janette Sadik-Kahn on some of the pilot programs they’ve done in NY that have essentially taken away lanes for some serious pedestrian projects. Not saying that this could happen on the streets of Atlanta…. but wait… could it? Very impressive and bold stuff.
even better if the link was attached!
http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/posts/learning-from-new-york
Wendell Cox once said in a NY Times piece that Times Square didn’t have enough foot traffic to support businesses. Times Square!
He is an industry shill but is a very useful way to tell which journalists are too lazy to look into their sources’ backgrounds.
That’s hilarious. 🙂