Talk:Transit-oriented development

The previous entry for this item contained a picutre and caption depicting development near the Alewife station of Cambridge, Massachusetts. For various reasons, alluded to in this revised entry, and the new one contained under the heading "transit-proximate development", it is controversial to describe what was depicted as "transit-oriented". A less controversial illustration is certain development Arlington, Virginia, as it was nationally-recognized as transit-oriented by the EPA in its vetting process in 2003. I have clarified all this, and have moved the picture and caption to the other entry. Thesmothete 13:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The most recently added picture is not particularly illustrative of transit-oriented development, considering you (obviously) can't discern transit at that elevation. I think it should be removed and replaced with a "ground level" photo of a TOD, which would ideally show the transit station in the foreground and development in the background. Darkcore 17:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's what the EPA has on their page. I considered editing the photo to show the actual station locations but: 1) that would alter the photo from it's source material, and 2) I don't seem to have a photo editing tool on my computer that would do it. If the photo can be altered, perhaps we should try it that way.

However, you are correct that a good ground-level photo *in addition to* the one shown, would be helpful, as TOD involves both a density taper (not easily visible from the ground) and a pedestrian orientation (not easily visible from anyplace except the ground). Perhaps we can keep working on this. Thesmothete 18:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, there you go -- another photo has been added to show TOD at the ground level. This may not be the best one to use, but it does the job for now -- perhaps there will be a better one somewhere. Thesmothete 05:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]