Letters.

Our kind of ``New Urbanist''

In Steve Thompson's column (AW, At Large, Jan. 8), he suggests that ``New Urbanists'' and others ``scheme for a world apparently devoid of nearly all automobiles.'' As an urban planner and an automotive enthusiast, I take exception to that statement. If you live near any of our major metropolitan areas, I don't believe you need to be a planner or engineer to understand we simply should not continue developing these areas as we have for the past 55 years. Our objective is to create an environment where more people may live closer to work, schools and shopping, thus reducing the need for the vehicle trips to which most of us are now subjected. The intent is to make choices other than driving a single-occupancy vehicle more attractive for routine travel. I have owned many fun and exciting cars and am guilty of suggesting the true enthusiast should own three vehicles-a sports sedan, a roadster and a utility vehicle-because no one car/truck/SUV can do it all. Still, I have no desire to drive any of these vehicles in daily, gridlocked rush-hour traffic.

Tim Price, via e-mail

More Detroit

What happened? Your Jan. 22 issue was certainly the biggest letdown I have ever had. I was anxiously drooling in wait of the neat cars to be debuted in the Motor City. But what did I get? The display of cars from the Detroit show has to be one of the worst lineups of rotund, creased, copycat vehicles in history. What happened to smooth and sleek?

Paul Smythe, Redmond, Ore.

This time will be remembered as the Armored Personnel Carrier Era of automotive history. Judging from the Detroit auto show, it's still getting worse instead of better. Wake me when it's over.