Wednesday, January 3, 2007

Long December

Back from Wisconsin after a whirlwind holiday tour. Here's the run down:

No photos as the camera ran out of battery prior to leaving. Natalie packed the charger but I managed to keep myself busy enough that I didn't feel like running out to the car in the balmy 40 degree weather (damn global warming, it's Wisconsin for god's sake! ) to charge the battery and thus I spent a solid 10 days without documenting my experiences through images.

Instead I'll rely on words.

Met up with good old friends a few times and spent some time drinking beer, bowling, drinking beeer and generally having a good time. Definitely a highlight of my time home.

I foolishly packed my skis instead of my bike. I had to resort to ::gasp:: running! I did actually enjoy it.

Running is good fun if and only if it is done on trails that twist, turn, and provide atleast a small but measurable amount of elevation gain and loss. Such is the case at the Glacial Blue Hills trails outside of West Bend, WI. Fun on the mtb, but tight enough that they're even fun while running. Recommended duration: 1 hour. (It's still running people and you'll kill your knees if you do it longer than that.)

Saw a few movies including Night at the Museum. If you liked Jumanji, I'd recommend it. Went ice skating with the feam at the Pettit in Milwaukee. That was alot of fun. Althoguh I did find out that the Olympic Training Center is no longer thus as most of the Olympians jumped ship for SLC. Gone with be the days of speed skating olympians calling Waukesha home. But then again, if I had the choice between SLC and Milwaukee, I'd probably choose Salt Lake.

Here's a question: Will it take legal precedence in America to stop greedy developers from laying down housing tracts without a concern for the people that will live there and the quality of life they'll experience? Who should be accountable?

2 comments:

The Notorious T-Bone said...

Who should be accountable? The people that buy the houses, of course. If nobody bought them, they wouldn't be built. A change in attitude is what is really needed, changing the law to enforce that attitude would be expedient, but it inherently violates the principle of free will.

That thought leads me to a more philosophical question: should law dicate the the choices we make or should law be a codification of the choices we make. The answer to that question probably dictates your answer to the original question.

With that said, I have been having a bit a a quandry lately...what to make of the hosing developments that preserve large tracts of land for community use, but have houses that are built on top of one and other (the best example I have seen involved suburban Calgary)? Is this a step in the right direction?

Fryda said...

Building up preserves intelligent densities in communities. Good density makes a more deverse community and ensures interaction between neighbors. This lessens the likelihood of fear taking over those that live there. It also increases walkability/pedalability which increases most folks quality of life. Not to mention the viability of quality public transportation goes throught he roof and increases in viability as in-fill and redvelopment bring densities to manageable, pleasant levels.