The houses are close together and near the street, small front yards with porches. My home is a part of the street: I can hear the conversations of passersby from my bed at night, sometimes to my great annoyance but mostly to my relief - if ever anyone screams for help in the street, they can be sure that it will be heard.

The front porch also creates a neighbourhood culture. Sitting on the front steps in the summer, seeing neighbours pass by, getting to recognize people is part of creating community. I am recognized on my street; the children in my house are recognized. There is safety in that, knowing that you know people.

The street is well-lit at night, even the alley in back of the houses is bright. Though cell phones are rapidly replacing the necessity for them, I'd like to see more public telephones in residential areas. People should have ready access to phones for emergency situations.

There are several parks within a short walk, including Dufferin Grove, which Michelle mentioned. There are a lot of community events that centre in the park or in the nearby Dufferin Mall, which is nice too. The mall, in addition to being a place for consumers, is used as a family/ daycare/ senior's meeting place.

My feminist city would have wide sidewalks, wide enough to accommodate two strollers side by side. The city would also be responsible for snow removal from sidewalks, not the individual home owners. (My own personal beef - in the winter, I find myself making moral judgements on my neighbours based on whether or not they clear the snow from their sidewalks.)

I'd also like to see more planned communities like the St Lawrence neighbourhood, where co-ops and non-profits (i.e. "subsidized housing") are cheek by jowl with fancy condominiums. All the neighbourhoods would be mixed income, avoiding pockets of poverty or wealth.

A truly family-friendly city would have lots of clean, safe public washrooms. Nothing's worse than hunting around for a facility with a stinky baby or a toddler who needs to pee or a little one who needs their hands washed. Public washrooms, both male and female would be equipped with change tables and chairs for cleaning/changing kids.

London has also relaxed zoning on neighborhood bars. I think it recognizes that people don't want to drive after drinking anymore, and want to have a few beers within stagering distance of home.

Where I think London falls down is that we, like most other communities fail kids and mothers on social assistance by grouping them together in Ontario housing projects. Developments should include smatterings of low income/ Ontario housing. But then developers dictate policy to city council, not the other way around.

Oh, and LEVEL sidewalks! What a concept!!!

The mere SHAPE of this city guarantees its inconvenience for anyone who isn't a middle class 30-50 year old with a house in the suburbs, one car, 2.5 kids, and a mini-van.

My little vision is neighbourhood "islands" of maybe 20-30 square blocks. A main strip would have all the small businesses you would need for your day to day living and in the centre would be the "community square": a large public green space for social events and everyday recreation that would also include the local community centre, school, and civic area council.

Within these areas, only specially permitted vehicles could enter (deliveries, firefighters, etc). Everyone else would have to rely on light personal transport (this includes those carts for the disabled). and, of course, publically-owned community bicycles would be everywhere.

Between these islands would be high-speed vehicle corridors. Pedestrians would not walk here but use overhead walkways. Cars would have to be parked in parking towers before the drivers could enter the "people zones".

Now, in my lovely little sim-city, a stellar public transit system is a must, so with any luck the dependence on cars would diminish significantly, reducing the need for these vehicle corridors.

quote:

---

The mere SHAPE of this city guarantees its inconvenience for anyone who isn't a middle class 30-50 year old with a house in the suburbs, one car, 2.5 kids, and a mini-van.

---

I may not have a house in the suburbs, but I am a 30-something with 2 kids, dog and mini-van.... And it's not like living in that arrangement ('burb living) would be even remotely convenient in my view...

I've often said that more of this city needs to be structured more like our neighborhood. We live in an old residential neighborhood, but there are a good mix of businesses and services nearby. We're a few blocks away from: Hardware store, bakery, grocery store, organic grocery, butcher shop, chocolate shop, gift/clothing stores (independents, not major chains), dentist, 2 doctors, SGI/insurance agent, fish store, convenience store (with video rental section), 5 restaurants (including an indoor playground coffee house), one bar. My hubby has office space 1/2 a block from our house.

Beyond the convenience factor, because nearly everybody here walks places, we know each other. There are several playgrounds and park spaces nearby. We're only a few blocks from the bike trails.

Sure, we can all say that it's the homeowner's responsibility to shovel the walk in front of their house. Bull. That is publicly-owned property, and the city should be responsible for its maintenance, particularly since they have the right to erect whatever signage or do whatever construction work they want to do on it without the permission of the homeowner. Not only that, but not everyone has the time or the ability to shovel their walk - there are lots of old people who can't do it. It shouldn't be the job of individual citizens to shovel public property. It's not like they don't pay enough property taxes to the city anyhow.

That's just a way for municipal governments to pass the buck. It always makes me laugh, every year - councillors will say, "Oh, we don't have enough money in the snow removal budget for that." Please. This is a Canadian city. In Canada, we get snow. We got snow last year. We got snow the year before. We got snow every year for the last 100 years and more. Chances are, you idiots, that we'll be getting snow THIS year too, so freakin' well PLAN your damn BUDGET around the SNOW.

Next time I'll tell you how I really feel about the whole thing. Hee.

My only change to your plan, Jacob Two Two, would be to get the amazing transit in place, and not to build the high speed vehicle corridors in the first place. If you build the highways, cars will fill them to capacity, no matter how many or how big you make them. The more convenient it is to take a car, the less people will be inclined to use the transit, no matter how convenient transit is. I say, build normal roads for the die hard drivers, no freeways, transit-only routes so that buses can get where they're going quickly, and the inconvenience of only having roads will convince the drivers quickly that they would be better off taking transit. Let's build our neighbourhoods to suit people rather than cars!

[ March 04, 2002: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

It should be featured in Kingston's tourism brochures, it's sure a cultural fixture of the city.

---

[ March 04, 2002: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

quote:

---

Maybe I shouldn't have put this topic under feminism. What's good for the goose appears to be good for ganders and goslings and the rest of us animals...

---

quote:

---

If your neighbors are too old to shovel sidewalks get your teenagers to do it for them... Just a thought.

---

I don't have teenagers. And I believe it's something that should be a public service since it benefits everyone.

[ March 04, 2002: Message edited by: Michelle ]

There are feminist groups that serve as intervenors in custody and support cases. They could care less about what's best for humanity. they represent women's interests only.

When the Liberals tried to rewrite child custody legislation feminist groups boycotted the consultations because *gasp* MEN would be there. Imagine fathers daring to question teh absolute rights of women to retain custody of their children.

In reality there are quite a few man hating dykes out there who get government funding and whose main objective is to win win win, regardless of the cost to men, children or society.

Where are the feminist groups who ridicule women for demanding ridiculous alimony payments. Why don't these feminist groups tell these parasites that they are giving the women's movement a bad name and to go out and get a damn job? Ha ha ha. As if.

The truth is that feminist groups like the fact that men have to pay alimony. They like the fact that men hardly ever get custody. And it's not their dream of a wonderful feminist city that drives these feelings. No. It is pure unadulterated self-interest and selfishness.

quote:

---

Aw c'mon. You guys are soooo full of sucrose that just looking at you would give one diabetes.

---

Yep, that's me sugar and spice and everything nice.

quote:

---

One thing I would do is make all the children's parks up to date, with lots of updated (and safety-checked!) playground equipment.

---

I remember hearing that the City of Toronto a year or two ago removed all playground equipment from all parks and schoolgrounds -- is that true? Have they reconsidered or in any way gone back on this policy?

quote:

---

I don't think most people let their kids roam unsupervised much anymore, 'lance... I'd prefer mine build their forts in the yard, and won't disturb 'em if I'm unwelcome... But at least you can hear cries for help if necessary...

---

I know, and I'm aware, too, that I'm mythologizing my (relatively) carefree small-town childhood of 30 years ago or so.

But it's true: the folks would say "go out and play," and we would, without apparent worry on their part. Now, I suppose in principle we had to tell them if we were leaving the neighbourhood. But not if we wanted to go "up on the hill" to build a fort -- of course, in that case they'd know because we'd come to borrow my dad's tools.

Anyway, past my personal experience, I think unstructured and (relatively) unsupervised play is good, even essential, for children. But this is getting rather off the topic, I suppose.

[ March 04, 2002: Message edited by: 'lance ]

My fear of going your route, where everything is in easy walking distance is that it will lead to more Regent Parks, and Jane/Finch developments.

I mean, if we want to play simcity, that's one thing, and a lot of fun, but in reality we have to deal with the stuff handed down to us from previous generations, and make the best of it.

And, if there's only ONE grocery store withing walking distance ONE pharmacy etc, what happens to prices? Simcity turns into GougeCity.

What every city needs is a guy like me to be turned loose on city streets, with an eye to making them work. Major arteries have to be given over to moving traffic, including public transit, and every little detail that one has to do to increase traffic movement has to be done.

I'm not sure about other cities, but in London where major traffic arteries are often stupidly clogged by bad or careless engineering, traffic spills over into residential streets and increases traffic flow in areas that should only be handling local, and not through traffic. That's a danger to kids.

Michelle;

London's snow removal should be the envy of the northern hemisphere. Bare pavement all year round, with the exception of a few hours after a major snow storm. Sidewalks cleared similarly.

The price for all this though is rotting infrastructure from salt degradation, and a spring brine flush in the river that is sooner or later going to kill it.

This morning on my way home from work, I had no worries about sliding from the 1/2 cm of snow we got over night.

We must remember that both mens' and womens' laps are equally comfortable.

But anyway, on a more serious note, a tangentially good book relating to good cities is Looking Backward by Edward Bellamy. In it he has a city which unfurls canopies over sidewalks automatically when it rains.

I can't remember if it has moving sidewalks, but the protection-from-the-rain thing is pretty cool.

Another book that might prove interesting is Sam Smith's Great American Political Repair Manual. Notwithstanding the title, he has some good things to say about how cities can and should be made more people-friendly rather than auto-friendly.

[ March 04, 2002: Message edited by: DrConway ]

My feminist -- or, as earthmother rightly pointed, universally desirable city -- would have to be a fertile ground for diversity of all sorts. You'd have to know some Spanish in order to hail a cab, some French in order to deal with reps of bureaucracy, some Chinese in order to buy at the corner store; you'd have to be willing to cross paths with a Pride Parade on your way to work; linger on yet another political demo on your way home; witness a huge variety of street and subway performers; have at least two (ideologically opposed, if there's a chance) brilliantly written free city weeklies that you become addicted to.

Femcity would leave no spaces out of reach for women, as it has been historically the case. City would be woman's to discover, day and night -- it would finally let her become a flaneuse. As opposed to those who long for a close-knit and familiar neighbourhood, my femcity would grant to individual women the right to anonymity, privacy, disappearance. There would be a lot of city passages and unexpected road openings that would let women escape the unwanted gaze.

We need cities that would make women feel at home outside the confines of their homes. Women in femcities would feel that their entitlement to space is without bounds. When I walk dark unknows streets (or even crowded streets during the day) I often feel as if I were doing something transgressive. I sometimes believe I can physically feel the centuries of verboten city spaces, and the ethics and politics behind it all. As if this urban geo-injustice were sedimented in my veins and reactivated whenever I take a stroll out of the regular marche-route.

Femcities are friendly to all those who choose to or have no choice but to consume the city by foot. No Loitering and No Trespassing signs would be a laughingstock. There would be trash bins on every corner (here in Halifax, from where I live to where I work there is not a single garbage can; we're talking 1.5 km or so through the middle-class residential area here). And generally, the city would allow its poorer inhabitants a much richer knowledge of the city than to their better-off counterparts.

(By the city decree or by-law there would be an option of buying cheap lousy seats for the theatre, opera, and ballet, and just before the curtains go up anybody holding those tickets would be escorted to the parterre if it's not been filled (and it never is). For instance. And you would not have to pay just for auditing the class or a lecture at the university; philosophy is a city business and everyone is welcome.)

Walter Benjamin wrote beautifully about city spirit. I'll finish with his quote from a 1938 work:

quote:

---

The street becomes a dwelling for the flâneur; he is as much at home among the facades of houses as a citizen is in his four walls. To him the shiny, enameled signs of businesses are at least as good a wall ornament as an oil painting is to the bourgeois in his salon. The walls are the desk against which he presses his notebooks; news-stands are his libraries and the terraces of cafés are the balconies from which he looks down on his household after his work is done.

---

Sure, when we talk about the vehicles we drive currently there are substantial problems. The internal combustion engine is getting the better of us, not unlike the external combustion engines of not so long ago.

One of the neat things about living in a place like London, is that the core buildings are a living testament to the change in technologies. The old sand coloured "London Brick" buildings from the age of steam show you the effects of the coal age. Instead of the golden yellow brown sugar sand colour of the natural brick, uncleaned buildings are BLACK.

Things changed though with a new technology. And, I think the internal combustion engine, for all it's problems, is a definate improvement over coal.

I don't think we should be giving up on the idea of individual transport. It's great! it's liberating!

What we need to do is find a way to cajole new technologies that are an improvement over the old. Not just in terms of the environment, but also in terms of developing inexpensive individual, practicle transportation that single mom's with kids can use and afford.

quote:

---

You'd have to know some Spanish in order to hail a cab, some French in order to deal with reps of bureaucracy, some Chinese in order to buy at the corner store;

---

Hmm. Sounds like only some women would qualify to live in your city, Trespasser. Where would the rest of us feminists live?

quote:

---

have at least two (ideologically opposed, if there's a chance) brilliantly written free city weeklies that you become addicted to.

---

What's your definition of brilliant? Are we talking about writing at the university level (in other words, inaccessible to the majority of the population) or do you measure brilliance in other terms? What about women who don't like to read and would likely not get addicted to these dailies? What about women who aren't all that academically inclined?

Other than those two things, I like your vision. The anonymity and freedom really grabbed me. But those two things I mentioned above struck me as rather exclusionary, which has been a criticism levelled at feminism for a long time now - that it has become an academic, elite project rather than something that all women can participate in.

[ March 04, 2002: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Instead of naming a topic with the word feminist in it, perhaps some new buzzword should be invented to include men as well. Since one poster mentioned a family friendly city, does the poster mean a lesbian family exclusively or does it include a heterosexual family? See the confusion with the topic title with "feminist" in it?

---

Actually no I don't see the confusion. I am, however, confused that you seem to think that either partner in a hetersexual relationship cannot be a feminist that being a feminist is another word for being a lesbian.

Maybe it's not a city we should be designing, but a town. A smallish town, say 2-3000 people, surrounded by countryside. That way, you'd have the security of knowing everyone (and the kids knowing that whoever saw them doing what they shouldn't knows to whom it needs to be reported and would do it promptly) and also the freedom to roam and play and form life-long attachments.

I believe and support in equal rights for both sexes regardless of whatever. But I don't consider myself a feminist because I agree in equality.

What if a heterosexual is a supporter for gay rights? Would that make the heterosexual a homosexual?

[ March 05, 2002: Message edited by: Snafu ]

quote:

---

Great. So if a male is a supporter of womens equality, he's a feminist? What about a woman who is a supporter of divorced men wanting custody of their kids or mens issues? Would that make her a masculinist?
I believe and support in equal rights for both sexes regardless of whatever. But I don't consider myself a feminist because I agree in equality.

What if a heterosexual is a supporter for gay rights? Would that make the heterosexual a homosexual?

---

A) This has already been discussed in another thread.

B) This has nothing to do with the topic.

I can't figure out which one I like better. I found Toronto so big and anonymous and, well, unfriendly in that it was hard to meet people, but with all the ideas you guys had (after all, I lived on a street full of high rises), I might actually enjoy Toronto living. On the other hand, I might find a small town to be too nosy and intrusive. But if it had a "feminist" bent to it, I might actually love small town living, if people who lived there were sympathetic to feminist ideas like women's freedom to do what they want, etc. Where people wouldn't be peeking out of their curtains if some woman's boyfriend's car was parked in her driveway overnight, know what I mean?

Oh and for the languages: the city situations would turn everyone into mini-polyglots. After your seventh visit to your foreign language restaurateur, you will have definitely picked up something. Arms and legs as a means of communication - first two visits; from the third on, you start learning the language. You can always change the store but then you'd have to learn some Polish if you want to shop across the street... By the way, just to correct myself before somebody corrects me, there is no 'Chinese' language, there's Cantonese and Mandarin etc.

Come to think of it, Skdadl, my vision of the city is a tad ageist and ableist.

quote:

---

From Sam Smith's "Manual": It appears that humans generally don't do that well in collections of over about 100,000 people. When you consider that many of our large cities exceed that number manifold, it makes you wonder if it wouldn't be better off to try and distribute population centers around much more evenly?

---

quote:

---

A smallish town, say 2-3000 people, surrounded by countryside. That way, you'd have the security of knowing everyone

---

That is actually what my negative utopia would look like, DrConway and nonesuch. Somebody would proclaim the right size of everything human, and then we'd proceed to create the communities of Stepford Wives...

[ March 05, 2002: Message edited by: Trespasser ]

Since a planned feminist city is a dream (the title itself, as we've seen, would prevent its getting off the ground) perhaps we could discuss some ways in which our existing urban areas can be improved.

The snow removal point is a good one - it's frickin' impossible to push a baby carriage through snow that's more than a couple of centimetres deep. Good night-time lighting is another - it wouldn't be hard to improve lighting levels in most existing urban areas.

Current housing stock can also be utilized in different ways. In the 80s and 90s, lots of privately owned rental housing, apartment buildings and such, were purchased by tenant organizations and made into co-ops. More encouragement of this, and government support of such initiatives would slowly provide the kind of integrated housing that I believe is essential for a healthy city.

Trespasser's post made me think about the narrow way in which I was thinking of "woman-friendly". I was thinking "woman-and-child-friendly". Naturally, not all women are mothers and the city needs to be supportive of single and/or childless women as well. One of the ways that current cities can do that is to make the streets safe for women, especially at night. To that end, I'd want to see community policing applied in a way that's appropriate to an urban landscape. Police officers in the downtown area, travelling on foot or on bikes rather than in cars, would be more attuned to goings-on of the street. Buses in the suburban areas around Toronto will drop single women off between scheduled stops if requested - an improvement would be for a single woman to be able to 'flag' a bus, between stops, say between midnight and five a.m.. The suburbs are, to me anyway, a scary place to be on foot.

I already mentioned more public telephones. I'll mention it again. And, I don't know if this still exists - there used to be a program called "Block Parent" in which approved households would display a sign in their window that let children know that it was a safe house to go in case of trouble or emergency. It would be nice for every neighbourhood to have a safe house, safe for kids and grown-ups. A house that would open the door even in the middle of the night to someone who was being followed or was lost or needed to call the police.

Of course, the young people go away to college or to try their luck in the city. Some return when they have families of their own, some don't.

quote:

---

Anyway, there is no reason at all why safe, friendly neighbourhoods can't exist in a large city

---

A) If you look at the number of posts I've made, you'd know that I haven't been here long or come around often.

B) Yes it's related to the topic because someone answered that a pro feminist city would include men. So that issue was clarified. And I believe that someone said that if a man is a supporter of womens rights, he's also a feminist. Ooooooookay. And thus I said it's like saying a heterosexual who supports gay rights is like calling him or her a homosexual. I'm merely trying to close up some loose threads for better clarification.

quote:

---

And I believe that someone said that if a man is a supporter of womens rights, he's also a feminist. Ooooooookay. And thus I said it's like saying a heterosexual who supports gay rights is like calling him or her a homosexual. I'm merely trying to close up some loose threads for better clarification.

---

Just tying up loose threads for clarification? *coughs*. Please excuse me for finding that difficult to believe.

At the risk of perpetuating a line of "inquiry" that's off-topic, one either is, or isn't, possessing a particular sexual orientation. Feminism is a political and intellectual choice, so I find your "comparison" spurious.

You don't have to identify as feminist to be pro-feminist, but you do have to be pro-feminist to participate in this particular forum. Being quite definitely opposed to censorship, I tolerate this because:

- Rabble has many forums where you can, by and large, freely express any political or ideological position you wish.

quote:

---

You don't have to identify as feminist to be pro-feminist, but you do have to be pro-feminist to participate in this particular forum.

---

In general, I DO agree with womens issues. But I'm not physically, emotionally, mentally or spiritually a woman. That's why it doesn't add up how a man who can support/agree with womens issues.

Maybe I should use a different analogy. There are people who support freedom of speech. Let's say an ordinary run of the mill church that is keeping to itself and respecting others and some group wants to shut them up. Let's say a person who is for freedom of expression, thought & religion is an agnostic but still goes to bat for that church for freedom of speech & religion. Does that make the agnostic a religious person? It's the principle.

quote:

---

There needs to be s "safe" space where women, and the men who support them, can express their ideas about feminism without being baited or berated.

---

Back to a woman/child friendly city, I have the worst time safely navigating public transit with a stroller (my daughter is getting too heavy for a carrier, but doesn't walk, or even stand yet), and am really beginning to understand some small part of the frustration of people confined to wheelchairs who wish to travel by public transit with the rest of 'the public' (and not by the highly inconvenient but necessary Wheeltrans).

Would accessibility issues on transit get the same news coverage as this recent subway platform barrier issue (after a woman was pushed) if my daughter and I were found in a crumpled heap at the bottom of the huge set of stairs at one of the subway stations nearest to our home? There are no 'down' escallators at either station, though there is plenty of room for the installation of one for each platform. Would a frail, elderly person with a broken neck at the bottom of those stairs make somebody sit up and take notice? A mangled toddler maybe? Are a few escallators and more elevators that much to ask?

Out here, if you take the bus (we have no subway), you have to find a way to heft the stroller up and down 3 big, steep steps. It's a real pain.

And for those of us who drive... There are a few places that offer "parents with small children" parking spaces, but everybody else parks in them, and it isn't enforced. I once caught a young fella doing it, and asked him if he'd like to push my kid's stroller through the snow from the other end of the lot...

[ March 07, 2002: Message edited by: Victor Von MediaBoy ]

Incidentally, I don't see many of the issues being raised in this thread as "women's issues". They're just plain old quality of life issues. Calling them women's issues seems to imply (IMHO, of course) that men don't deserve safe streets, accessible buses, good playgrounds, clear sidewalks, etc, etc...

[ March 07, 2002: Message edited by: Victor Von MediaBoy ]

quote:

---

And I just hate it when I get the "Why don't you just leave them at home?" line....

---

In the last few years I've been filling in for people at work, and working overtime at odd hours, and it astounds me that I've seen young women walking through desolate streets at all hours. And I mean all hours: 3:00 AM, 4:00 AM...any time of night. I'm not sure what this means. Crazy girls? or is the city much safer than we believe? I don't know.

When I think of a city that has regard for women and children it has to be reasonably crime free for everyone. I'm not sure that high density living is condusive to this, or can be without draconian police initiatives.

But, for things like public transit to work for everyone, you can't have it trying to service a population that is spread hither and yon, either.

I get to visit Toronto not as often as I like. Toronto has always been special to me. The first spellunk as a teen on big bad Younge street. The first Leaf game with your Dad. The "Tut" exhibit, and trips to the ROM.

But, how many women and children can participate in those wonderful things a big city like Toronto has to offer? I remember it used to cost a dime to get into the ROM. I don't know what the children's admission is today, but the adult admission raised my eyebrows.

I guess the subway and bus can get you way out to the Metro Zoo. But how practicle a trip is that with kids if you say, live in Etobicoke?

I see Toronto as a wonderful place, because I see it as a visitor. I use the transit and think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, but I've never had to take it at rush hour. Friends tell me people ride the transit with expressions on their face exactly matching the French aristocrats huddled in the timbrels on their way to Robspierre's party.

It is NOT fun to try and take a toddler or baby in a stroller on the bus or subway. They could have elevators for mothers with strollers and people in wheelchairs at subway stations, but only a few of them do. It would be so much easier if they all did, because have you ever tried to get a toddler to stay still, hold your hand, and not run around for several minutes of just standing around in one spot? It's so much easier if they're in their stroller to keep track of them, and in one place. It's pretty damn scary to think of what could happen if they squirmed away from you and ran toward the subway tracks. I was terrified to take the subway with him when I lived in Toronto. I think I still would be now, since as a three year old, he's even more mobile, too big to hold in my arms for long periods of time, but a complete bundle of energy, and of course without the sense God gave a duck when it comes to danger.

They have all these new buses that have low platforms with no stairs, and about 4 places to strap in wheelchairs, but even those buses will not service people in wheelchairs. Many of the bus drivers are surly and rude when you try to ask them questions - makes it pretty intimidating to use their night policy and ask them to stop between stops.

quote:

---

We have wheel chair accessible buses here but you are still expected to take your child out of the stroller, and while holding the child fold the stroller up and carry both on the bus then tuck the stroller away, and if you also happen to have another child and packages to hold.....

---

That's what you have to deal with, earthmother? Wow. I'm a busser myself, and I'm always impressed by parents who maneuvre strollers onto the bus. I mean, I have trouble dealing with a shoulder bag and a backpack, let alone adding a child and a cumbersome transportation accessory into the mix.

We are an area rather like Florida north, alot of seniors move up here when they retire and the bus has become more of a senior shuttle.

quote:

---

Deciding I was fed up with being stressed about the stroller, I took my two kidlets to The Maul after work and bought one of those metal-framed backpack baby carriers.

---

We have one of those, too, Rebecca. Very handy in some situations, but if I have to carry a kid over a yr and a half for a good chunk of the day, my back gives me hell.

quote:

---

"This isn't a stroller, it's a Fragile Offspring Conveyance Device, and I'll thank you not to damage my child's psyche with your negative energy resulting from your irrational adherance to convoluted and repressive rules."

---