[NewYorkYankee]

I don't specifically know anything about this "preferred growth scenario" bill, but I thought what this one dude had to say highlights what a lot of people think:



SB 375 requires all regional transportation planning decisions and all
transportation funding to be limited to a “preferred growth scenario,” that requires a minimum housing density of 10 units per acre. It was adopted by the Senate on June 7, 2007. Here is Senator McClintock’s speech in opposition to the bill:

Mr. President:

This measure says that all transportation plans and transportation funding decisions must be made with the object of concentrating people in dense urban cores. In this bill, it is called a “Preferred Growth Scenario.” It says all transportation plans and funds must serve this “Preferred Growth Scenario,” and that, in turn, means at an absolute minimum packing in ten families per acre. Ten Families.

Welcome to the brave new world of central planning. This is a continuation of the policy that Gov. Schwarzenegger institutionalized with AB 32 and that Attorney General Brown operationalized by suing San Bernardino County.

They’re basically saying, “You cannot build new highways until you can show how you’re going to build them without using earth-moving equipment or concrete and that, once they’re built, nobody is going to use them.”

But the Left has an alternative – that’s what this bill is all about. They want everyone to move into dense urban cores – the denser the better. That’s what this bill means when it uses the term, “Preferred Growth Scenario.”

And fellow Californians: They aren’t talking about your preferences for your own life – they’re talking about their preferences for your own life. And for your family’s life.

“Preferred Growth Scenario.” They prefer that you move into dense urban cores – and they are prepared to manipulate public policy and misuse government authority to force you to do so.

And they couldn’t care less what you prefer for your own life and your own family.

I’ve got news for the authoritarians on the Left: most people don’t want to live in dense urban cores. Most people want a little elbow room – they want a yard for their children to play in. They want a little grass, a little garden, a little breathing room they can call their own.

And who the hell are you to tell people they can’t? Who the hell are you to tell people how and where they’re going to live? Who the hell are you to impose your preferences for their lives over their own preferences for their lives?

That’s at the heart of this issue. People have a right to live their lives according to their own preferences – not government’s – and they have a right to live where they please – to acquire property and enjoy that property. And in any free nation, government exists to respect and protect and accommodate that right.

The people were just sold a $20 billion bond measure to address our sadly neglected highways. After the election, the Governor’s Director of CalTrans admitted that at most $8 billion of the $20 would be used for highway construction. And this measure says little if any will be used for highways.

Many of us warned we were being sold a bill of goods – that very little of that money would actually be used for highway construction. This bill is the ultimate proof of those warnings.

And it is the ultimate expression and embodiment of an arrogant, out of touch class of elitists who actually believe that they are naturally entitled to run your life for you.

[MayorOfChicago]

Jeez, Chicago normally puts 17.4 houses per acre.

[Frisco_Zig]

Seems our state just needs more balance. We are rapidily becoming an urban state. Why should we continue to subsidize low density sprawl when the majority need housing and infastucture in the urban core?

[Frisco_Zig]

Jeez, Chicago normally puts 17.4 houses per acre.

Chicago is not analgous. Think forcing orland park to increase density or lose highway funding

Its long over due IMO

[MonkeyRonin]

"out of touch class of elitists"

Still waiting for an anti-urban article that doesn't use this line.

[kevN_wk]

I’ve got news for the authoritarians on the Left: most people don’t want to live in dense urban cores. Most people want a little elbow room – they want a yard for their children to play in. They want a little grass, a little garden, a little breathing room they can call their own. And who the hell are you to tell people they can’t? Who the hell are you to tell people how and where they’re going to live? Who the hell are you to impose your preferences for their lives over their own preferences for their lives? That’s at the heart of this issue. People have a right to live their lives according to their own preferences – not government’s – and they have a right to live where they please – to acquire property and enjoy that property. And in any free nation, government exists to respect and protect and accommodate that right.
I agree 100% :tup:

[BnaBreaker]

I agree 100% :tup:

Easy there tiger. Shouldn't you read up on the subject a little more before you go buying into overly emotional political rhetoric?

[kevN_wk]

Easy there tiger. Shouldn't you read up on the subject a little more before you go buying into overly emotional political rhetoric?

I just don't think they should be able to force us to live a certain way, despite our preferences. That's not freedom.

[BnaBreaker]

Regarding the letter itself, I don't support "forcing" anyone to do anything, but this guy sounds like just another right-wing barking dog who is completely uneducated on the subject of urban planning and is more interested in massaging the faux 'urban elitest' dynamic when in reality it is usually people like him who are making most of the decisions in this country.

I still don't understand the argument that we should continue down a path that is causing MASSIVE destruction to the environment, economy, and public health (and arguably other things as well), JUST BECAUSE a few people, who more than likely have never known any other environment, say claim to "like it".

Sometimes it seems as though if shooting heroine into the arm of your child before they went to bed or setting off suitcase nukes in your back yard became a popular activity among conservative suburbanites, then conservative politicians would fight for their right to do it. They'll say just about anything to get votes it seems.

I'm sure there are some who actually do believe what they say on the issue of urban planning, but most of them are still highly uneducated about it.

[BnaBreaker]

I just don't think they should be able to force us to live a certain way, despite or preferences. That's not freedom.

I agree completely, but I just don't want you to think that this is how most urbanists think, or that it is true just because it comes out of the mouth of a conservative politician. Just because this guy *thinks* that those dirty liberals want to destroy all lawns and homes and cars and force everyone to live in commie blocks and work in a steel plant for the man twelve hours a day, doesn't mean it's even close to the truth. Politicians say a lot of things. Most of it is, at most, half true.

[passdoubt]

People want to do a lot of things. Am I authoritarian because I think people who beat their kids should have a social service agency forcibly remove them? Am I authoritarian because I think it should be illegal to sell tainted meat? Individual rights aren't absolute. Everyones' individual choices affect others. A drunk father beating his daughter is pretty easy for people to justify state action. I think it's just the more complex thought process and the "tyranny of small decisions" that confuse people when it comes to environmental or social issues like sprawl.

[C0nd0_Cr4zy]

"And fellow Californians: They aren’t talking about your preferences for your own life – they’re talking about their preferences for your own life. And for your family’s life."

Well, if they shouldn't force us to think one way, this guy shouldn't force us to think the opposite way. Just because most children don't want to listen to their parents, doesn't make it right that they shouldn't.

[Buckeye Native 001]

Gawd, why hasn't The Big One caused Southern California to fall into the Pacific yet?. I wish those assholes would stop sprawling everywhere.

[fflint]

More anti-urban blather from yet another powerful and wealthy shill for the suburban-industrial complex.

[kevN_wk]

I agree completely, but I just don't want you to think that this is how most urbanists think, or that it is true just because it comes out of the mouth of a conservative politician. Just because this guy *thinks* that those dirty liberals want to destroy all lawns and homes and cars and force everyone to live in commie blocks and work in a steel plant for the man twelve hours a day, doesn't mean it's even close to the truth. Politicians say a lot of things. Most of it is, at most, half true.

Ok but you say...
I still don't understand the argument that we should continue down a path that is causing MASSIVE destruction to the environment, economy, and public health (and arguably other things as well), JUST BECAUSE a few people, who more than likely have never known any other environment, say claim to "like it".
and you make it seem like we should force everyone to live in urban areas. I know I've said this before, but I don't think we should stop building suburbs, just work hard to make them better and more environmentally friendly.

[BnaBreaker]

Ok but you say...

and you make it seem like we should force everyone to live in urban areas. I know I've said this before, but I don't think we should stop building suburbs, just work hard to make them better and more environmentally friendly.

I didn't say anything about forcing people to do anything. I just think that the argument that something blatantly destructive to the whole of humanity should be continued because some people like it, is irresponsible and illogical.

More to the point, why don't you think we should stop building suburbs? Is it the government identified incorporated area that is "the suburb" that you like, or is it the concept of having a house and a yard? Because, as we've all said before in the other thread you started in skybar, the house and yard isn't at all exclusive to suburbia.

[fflint]

The whole "you just wanna force people" line is aimed squarely at the very concept of urban planning itself, and is inherently extremist. Cities adopt zoning requirements for good, defensible reasons--even the right-wing US Supreme Court has upheld urban planning regulations. It is only a supposed controversy among those with some stake, financial or psychological, in an unchallenged and rapacious suburban-industrial complex.

[niwell]

^Indeed. Ironically of course, it is the low density subdivisions that often have the strictest regulations on what people can and can't do.

[DJM19]

The author of the article fails to mention that a certain amount of responsibility has to be factored into owning land. It impacts transportation, it impacts the enviornment. It means spending more on roads and telephone lines, and sewers. All of which need to be constantly maintained. Its not just "getting a little breathing room"

This is why people HAVE to get smog checks in cali. You have to drive within reason boundaries.

[Chicago103]

Ten units per acre means 4,356 square feet per lot. To put that into perspective I looked at the ratio in Chicago's outer bungalow belt out by Midway Airport and the zoning out there is usually RS-2 or the second lowest density residential zoning in the city. The lots out there are usually 11 lots per acre, so 10 units per acre is slightly less dense than that and just about every housing unit out there is single family detached with yards. So this is not about being anti-single family house or anti-yard at all. The question is how big of a yard to people really need? What is considered to be enough "breathing room"? I fail to see how ten families per acre is considered cramming people. The amount of space people demand just cant keep increasing exponentially until it is unsustainable both enviornmentally and economically. People demanding one acre lots for every family doesnt make sense from a land supply and demand viewpoint just about anywhere in the US and especially in places like California.

Also this is not about telling people how to live, this is about taxpayer money being used to build highways and if you are going to be using tax payer money to build highways shouldnt you have to do something in return to insure that we have sustainable development? I mean when you collect unemployement benefits from the state you have to do certain things in return in order to keep collecting that money, the same applies to a number of other welfare programs, there are rules that are in place to prevent abuse and ensure that the state isnt giving money to people who dont need it or are too lazy to do anything about their situations. Also, how much red tape and bullshit do federal and state governmetns give when it comes to funding of public transportation? So how is this any different? Its simple, traditional welfare programs and public transportation are associated with "laziness" but taxpayer funded highway construction is seen as a birthright associated with "the american dream".

[kevN_wk]

I didn't say anything about forcing people to do anything. I just think that the argument that something blatantly destructive to the whole of humanity should be continued because some people like it, is irresponsible and illogical.

More to the point, why don't you think we should stop building suburbs? Is it the government identified incorporated area that is "the suburb" that you like, or is it the concept of having a house and a yard? Because, as we've all said before in the other thread you started in skybar, the house and yard isn't at all exclusive to suburbia.

I think it's just the type of houses, yards, newer buildings and being closer to the countryside. I know y'all don't think there is more nature in suburbs but in a lot of suburban neighborhoods, there are a lot of forested areas behind house lined streets. You don't really see untouched forested areas in urban cores.

The author of the article fails to mention that a certain amount of responsibility has to be factored into owning land. It impacts transportation, it impacts the enviornment. It means spending more on roads and telephone lines, and sewers. All of which need to be constantly maintained. Its not just "getting a little breathing room."

Whether there are people who own a lot of land out in the country or not, there is still going to be highways or trains. I mean what about farmers? You can't say that farmers owning lots of land and growing crops and live stock for us to eat is bad for the environment. Sure they'll have to have more roads, sewers, etc. but that's the way it is. The world ain't perfect.

And I don't think that y'all understand that some people just don't like the city life and want to live in a quiet place out in the country away from everybody. Not everyone wants to live crammed in in an urban core. Some people need more space. Will a certain amount of breathing room may be enough for one, it may not be enough for another.

[BnaBreaker]

I think it's just the type of houses, yards, newer buildings and being closer to the countryside. I know y'all don't think there is more nature in suburbs but in a lot of suburban neighborhoods, there are a lot of forested areas behind house lined streets. You don't really see untouched forested areas in urban cores.

We've been over this before. I thought you said that you understood? What makes houses, yards, and new buildings a "suburban" thing? I don't understand why you continue to stick to that mantra, even after it's been thoroughly dismantled by several people.

Regarding natural areas, the vast majority of suburban sprawl has no real "nature" to be seen. Why? Because it's all mowed down for new parking lots or warehouses. If there were no sprawl the central city would be quite close to nature.


Whether there are people who own a lot of land out in the country or not, there is still going to be highways or trains. I mean what about farmers? You can't say that farmers owning lots of land and growing crops and live stock for us to eat is bad for the environment.

Nobody says that about farmers, because farmers help to sustain society with their food production. What does sprawl produce besides smog and wal-mart?

Sure they'll have to have more roads, sewers, etc. but that's the way it is. The world ain't perfect.

What kind of logic is that? The world isn't perfect, so we should cease attempting to solve problems?

And I don't think that y'all understand that some people just don't like the city life and want to live in a quiet place out in the country away from everybody.

Actually, I think it is you who simply doesn't understand that "city life" can, and usually does include, for the vast majority of "city dwellers" a single-family home and a private garden on a quiet street. No offense, but one would have to be blind or dellusional to believe that suburban sprawl was the equivalent of some "peaceful, country way of life".

Not everyone wants to live crammed in in an urban core. Some people need more space. Will a certain amount of breathing room may be enough for one, it may not be enough for another.

Do you even have any idea how 'spacious' or 'crammed' ten families per acre is, or are you simply reacting based on the pre-concieved ideas you have in your head when you hear the words "city" and "urban"?

[nomarandlee]

This guy is missing the boat. I agree with his sentimetns but disagree with his reality. You or anyone (in most cases) should be able to build or live in a house of any time anywhere you please. Just don't expect a six lane freeway or mass transit to come near your door ffity miles from the urban center to connect you with the rest of humanity.

If one has an aversion to people and need their own space then they should expect a direct negative correlation on how much others (the taxpayers) will reach out and subside your choice.

[Visiteur]

And I don't think that y'all understand that some people just don't like the city life and want to live in a quiet place out in the country away from everybody. Not everyone wants to live crammed in in an urban core. Some people need more space. Will a certain amount of breathing room may be enough for one, it may not be enough for another.

Open question: So when a lot of people start pursuing this goal, when does the country stop being the country, and they keeping pushing farther and farther out to compensate? So many people are clamoring for more space that it's producing strains on our transportation systems, environment, and in the case of places where that space has begun running out (South Florida), pocketbooks. Too much of anything is not good (this can be argued for urbanism as well, but the numbers are arguably smaller than those pursuing suburbia and exurbia).

[ginsan2]

Gawd, why hasn't The Big One caused Southern California to fall into the Pacific yet?. I wish those assholes would stop sprawling everywhere.

I was thinking the same thing. I'm sure that The Big One will eventually resolve most of the issues SF and LA are having.

Here in Michigan we've having issues supporting the water systems and highways going out to these sprawling gated communities and new suburbs. It was profitable for a while, but now the state is stuck supporting this massive infrastructure. I suppose this isn't really an issue in a state as rich as California, but it still presents a major liability for anyone to deal with.

[Buckeye Native 001]

If SoCal fell into the Pacific, who would NorCal blame for stealing their water? :shrug: ;)

[BTinSF]

Here in Michigan we've having issues supporting the water systems and highways going out to these sprawling gated communities and new suburbs. It was profitable for a while, but now the state is stuck supporting this massive infrastructure. I suppose this isn't really an issue in a state as rich as California, but it still presents a major liability for anyone to deal with.

One word: TOLL

[BTinSF]

If SoCal fell into the Pacific, who would NorCal blame for stealing their water? :shrug: ;)

Arizona, Nevada

[kevN_wk]

Is it the government identified incorporated area that is "the suburb" that you like, or is it the concept of having a house and a yard? Because, as we've all said before in the other thread you started in skybar, the house and yard isn't at all exclusive to suburbia.
I just like the style of buildings, the neighborhoods, etc. But I love the city too. I don't live in a big metro area so I like large metro areas (the urban and suburban parts) as a whole. I like the urban and suburban areas, so basically I like the whole metropolitan area. Idk a better way to explain it, so...yeah.
Regarding natural areas, the vast majority of suburban sprawl has no real "nature" to be seen. Why? Because it's all mowed down for new parking lots or warehouses.
Look at James Bond Agent's USA Sprawl Festival and look at all the little forests behind the houses. You don't usually see little pockets of forested areas in urban areas.
What does sprawl produce besides smog and wal-mart?
When I said that I wasn't talking about suburbia. I was talking about farmers and people who have houses way out in the country.
What kind of logic is that? The world isn't perfect, so we should cease attempting to solve problems?
What I ment was that because of farms, there are going to be more roads (to get to the farm), and you can't complain about more roads caused by people living out in the country because farmers live out in the country. And because we need farms, we need roads to them. That's a little confusing, so I hope y'all can understand what I ment.
Actually, I think it is you who simply doesn't understand that "city life" can, and usually does include, for the vast majority of "city dwellers" a single-family home and a private garden on a quiet street. No offense, but one would have to be blind or dellusional to believe that suburban sprawl was the equivalent of some "peaceful, country way of life".
I know but for people like me who haven't lived in an urban area think it means living in a huge conglomeration of highrises. Sorry.
I definitely don't think suburbia is anywhere near the same as living in the country, just a little more than inner city areas.
Do you even have any idea how 'spacious' or 'crammed' ten families per acre is
No I honestly don't

[BnaBreaker]

I just like the style of buildings, the neighborhoods, etc. But I love the city too. I don't live in a big metro area so I like large metro areas (the urban and suburban parts) as a whole. I like the urban and suburban areas, so basically I like the whole metropolitan area. Idk a better way to explain it, so...yeah.

I'm really not sure what you're getting at here.

Look at James Bond Agent's USA Sprawl Festival and look at all the little forests behind the houses. You don't usually see little pockets of forested areas in urban areas.

Well sure, at first, in most suburban areas there are forests because that is what was there first, but as with most areas of sprawl, the forests quickly get taken out for more development.

When I said that I wasn't talking about suburbia. I was talking about farmers and people who have houses way out in the country.

Oh, well, we were talking about suburbia I though. There should be urbanity of varying densities, and rural towns structured around agriculture. Suburbia fits neither of those molds and brings the worst of both worlds.

What I ment was that because of farms, there are going to be more roads (to get to the farm), and you can't complain about more roads caused by people living out in the country because farmers live out in the country. And because we need farms, we need roads to them. That's a little confusing, so I hope y'all can understand what I ment.

Well there are tiny one lane country roads, and there are eight lane traffic clogged superhighways. Surely you recognize the difference.

I know but for people like me who haven't lived in an urban area think it means living in a huge conglomeration of highrises. Sorry.

I know that, which is why I don't understand why people such as yourself hold on so hard to your pre-concieved ideas. If you know you haven't had experience with a subject, why wouldn't you wait until you learned more before you formed such heavy opinions on it?


No I honestly don't

So then why are you using words like "crammed" to describe what they are trying to do here?

[kevN_wk]

Well sure, at first, in most suburban areas there are forests because that is what was there first, but as with most areas of sprawl, the forests quickly get taken out for more development.
Yes, but they are also going to tear down undeveloped forested areas and build houses and there will be more little forests between the house-lined streets. And why would they tear down those little forests between the streets, what could they build with such little land in the middle of a neighborhood?
rural towns structured around agriculture. Suburbia fits neither of those molds and brings the worst of both worlds. Why should rural towns always be structured around agriculture? And in my opinion, suburbia is the best of both worlds, you live close the the countryside and you are close to dense urban areas.
Well there are tiny one lane country roads, and there are eight lane traffic clogged superhighways. Surely you recognize the difference.
Yea, so what does superhighways have to do with people owning lots of land??
So then why are you using words like "crammed" to describe what they are trying to do here?
Because NewYorkYankee mentioned "dense urban cores," which, from what I've gathered, is a lot of people living in skyscrapers in a densely populationed
area. And, because I haven't lived in an urban area, would seem "crammed" to me. I could probably get used to it but I prefer a house. But, now that I think about it, I would actually enjoy living in a highrise (not that I ever wouldn't enjoy it), I just wouldn't want to feel crammed.

[J. Will]

I’ve got news for the authoritarians on the Left: most people don’t want to live in dense urban cores.

Most people don't want to pay taxes either. Maybe we should make taxes optional?

BTW, 10 units per acre isn't even close to being dense. I'd make the minimum 15, maybe even 20 units per acre. Even at that density most of the population could have backyards, lawns, trees in their yard, and privacy.

[BnaBreaker]

Most people don't want to pay taxes either. Maybe we should make taxes optional?

BTW, 10 units per acre isn't even close to being dense. I'd make the minimum 15, maybe even 20 units per acre. Even at that density most of the population could have backyards, lawns, trees in their yard, and privacy.

But...but...elitism! Crowded! Communists! force! gays! ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!

[BnaBreaker]

Yes, but they are also going to tear down undeveloped forested areas and build houses and there will be more little forests between the house-lined streets. And why would they tear down those little forests between the streets, what could they build with such little land in the middle of a neighborhood?
Why should rural towns always be structured around agriculture? And in my opinion, suburbia is the best of both worlds, you live close the the countryside and you are close to dense urban areas.

Yea, so what does superhighways have to do with people owning lots of land??

Because NewYorkYankee mentioned "dense urban cores," which, from what I've gathered, is a lot of people living in skyscrapers in a densely populationed
area. And, because I haven't lived in an urban area, would seem "crammed" to me. I could probably get used to it but I prefer a house. But, now that I think about it, I would actually enjoy living in a highrise (not that I ever wouldn't enjoy it), I just wouldn't want to feel crammed.

Ya know, I might come back later and respond to this, or perhaps somebody else will, but i've kind of lost interest in this conversation. Sorry.

[DaveofCali]

I don't specifically know anything about this "preferred growth scenario" bill, but I thought what this one dude had to say highlights what a lot of people think:



SB 375 requires all regional transportation planning decisions and all
transportation funding to be limited to a “preferred growth scenario,” that requires a minimum housing density of 10 units per acre. It was adopted by the Senate on June 7, 2007. Here is Senator McClintock’s speech in opposition to the bill:

Mr. President:

This measure says that all transportation plans and transportation funding decisions must be made with the object of concentrating people in dense urban cores. In this bill, it is called a “Preferred Growth Scenario.” It says all transportation plans and funds must serve this “Preferred Growth Scenario,” and that, in turn, means at an absolute minimum packing in ten families per acre. Ten Families.

Welcome to the brave new world of central planning. This is a continuation of the policy that Gov. Schwarzenegger institutionalized with AB 32 and that Attorney General Brown operationalized by suing San Bernardino County.

They’re basically saying, “You cannot build new highways until you can show how you’re going to build them without using earth-moving equipment or concrete and that, once they’re built, nobody is going to use them.”

But the Left has an alternative – that’s what this bill is all about. They want everyone to move into dense urban cores – the denser the better. That’s what this bill means when it uses the term, “Preferred Growth Scenario.”

And fellow Californians: They aren’t talking about your preferences for your own life – they’re talking about their preferences for your own life. And for your family’s life.

“Preferred Growth Scenario.” They prefer that you move into dense urban cores – and they are prepared to manipulate public policy and misuse government authority to force you to do so.

And they couldn’t care less what you prefer for your own life and your own family.

I’ve got news for the authoritarians on the Left: most people don’t want to live in dense urban cores. Most people want a little elbow room – they want a yard for their children to play in. They want a little grass, a little garden, a little breathing room they can call their own.

And who the hell are you to tell people they can’t? Who the hell are you to tell people how and where they’re going to live? Who the hell are you to impose your preferences for their lives over their own preferences for their lives?

That’s at the heart of this issue. People have a right to live their lives according to their own preferences – not government’s – and they have a right to live where they please – to acquire property and enjoy that property. And in any free nation, government exists to respect and protect and accommodate that right.

The people were just sold a $20 billion bond measure to address our sadly neglected highways. After the election, the Governor’s Director of CalTrans admitted that at most $8 billion of the $20 would be used for highway construction. And this measure says little if any will be used for highways.

Many of us warned we were being sold a bill of goods – that very little of that money would actually be used for highway construction. This bill is the ultimate proof of those warnings.

And it is the ultimate expression and embodiment of an arrogant, out of touch class of elitists who actually believe that they are naturally entitled to run your life for you.

Blah, typical opportunistic Republican populist crap.

People like this politician are the reason why L.A. and California for that matter has housing shortages and many other problems.

[ardecila]

Hmm... how do I put this?

Kevin, cities and neighborhoods that are occupied by good, honest, hard-working people ARE beautiful. Those people love their property, and they tend to their gardens, maintain their trees, and mow their lawns with love, just like the neighborhoods in suburbia. A good city neighborhood has plenty of shared parks with trees, playgrounds, and lots of places to commune with nature.

When you think of a city, you are imagining cities as they are today - rundown, lots of concrete everywhere, lots of crime, dirty, and cramped. But urban neighborhoods do NOT have to be that way. The only reason cities are like that today is because they have been abandoned for so many years. City neighborhoods are inhabited today by people who really do not care about nature or personal space, so those people have shaped their environment to remove nature from the equation.

You brought up Agent James Bond's spawl photo series. Check out some of these shots of the place I grew up, a CITY neighborhood with city buses, sidewalks, and even shops and schools that I walked to... yet there's not much concrete anywhere.

http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/781/beverly1tu7.jpg

No "little forests", huh?
http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/5960/beverly3rk2.jpg

Neighborhood shops (there's a train station just outside the shot on the right).
http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/4125/beverly5jd4.jpg

[NewYorkYankee]

Conservatives are all about freedom until it affects them. Ask a Republican about "Civil Rights" or "Gays" or "Feminisim" and you'll see exactly how "freedom loving" they really are.


People fear density. They fear the demographics it may bring (yes people, this is a race issue...), they lack of control it implies, and the community it fosters.

[ginsan2]

Conservatives are all about freedom until it affects them. Ask a Republican about "Civil Rights" or "Gays" or "Feminisim" and you'll see exactly how "freedom loving" they really are.

That's a rather huge blanket statement, isn't it? Yes, conservative Christians and fundamentalists take issue with "gays", but I'm economically quite conservative and I have enough brainpower left to form different opinions on social issues.


People fear density. They fear the demographics it may bring (yes people, this is a race issue...), they lack of control it implies, and the community it fosters.

Well, to be completely fair, this has to be the worst sales pitch I've ever seen. "Hey, why shouldn't you give up your back yard and private driveway so you can be cramped elbow-to-elbow with complete strangers? Density is better!" See? It just doesn't sound good because most people don't really feel very passionate about large downtown areas.

This Californian senator's comments make me wonder if the opposite would be true: If you saw how the Japanese in Tokyo had to live, would you actually say "Hey, that's perfect urban planning!"?

[kevN_wk]

Kevin, cities and neighborhoods that are occupied by good, honest, hard-working people ARE beautiful.
Hmmm...did I say they weren't?
When you think of a city, you are imagining cities as they are today - rundown, lots of concrete everywhere, lots of crime, dirty, and cramped. But urban neighborhoods do NOT have to be that way. The only reason cities are like that today is because they have been abandoned for so many years. City neighborhoods are inhabited today by people who really do not care about nature or personal space, so those people have shaped their environment to remove nature from the equation.
Which is why many people don't want to live in cities TODAY
Kevin, cities and neighborhoods that are occupied by good, honest, hard-working people ARE beautiful.
Hmmm...did I say they weren't?
Check out some of these shots of the place I grew up, a CITY neighborhood with city buses, sidewalks, and even shops and schools that I walked to... yet there's not much concrete anywhere.
Well I think I was talking about dense urban cores, which is like a large conglomeration of tall highrises w/o yards, houses, right??
No "little forests", huh?
I said there ARE little forests.

[dktshb]

I just don't think they should be able to force us to live a certain way, despite our preferences. That's not freedom.

"they" are people who realize that those "preferences" and "choices" have come at an irreversible cost. There are times to think beyond the needs and preferences of the individual. We're at the point now where trying to achieve this suburban dream of a 'buffer zone' from human interaction now has real consequences. If we were a country of about 35 million people that would fine but...

"U.S. POPClock Projection

According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the resident population of the United States, projected to 06/09/07 at 17:11 GMT (EST+5) is
302,044,824

COMPONENT SETTINGS FOR JUNE 2007
One birth every.................................. 7 seconds
One death every.................................. 13 seconds
One international migrant (net) every............ 27 seconds
Net gain of one person every..................... 10 seconds
Historical National Population Estimates"

http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

[dktshb]

^Indeed. Ironically of course, it is the low density subdivisions that often have the strictest regulations on what people can and can't do.

Great point!

[Mister F]

When I said that I wasn't talking about suburbia. I was talking about farmers and people who have houses way out in the country.

What I ment was that because of farms, there are going to be more roads (to get to the farm), and you can't complain about more roads caused by people living out in the country because farmers live out in the country. And because we need farms, we need roads to them. That's a little confusing, so I hope y'all can understand what I ment.
Farmers and "people who have houses way out in the country" have little in common. Farmers need a lot of land to farm, that's the nature of the industry. The vast majority of people don't need a lot of land to live on. If it were just farmers living in the countryside, there would be minimal infrastructure to serve them. But the more people start getting their trophy lots in the middle of the country, the more traffic it brings and the more demands there are to pave roads, build highways, provide garbage pickup, run school buses, etc. These services all cost a fortune to provide in low density environments, and it's city residents that end up subsidizing the rural residents.

The same principle applies with low density suburbia. Higher densities cost less to service. If a developer wants to build 2 units per acre, why should the city widen roads to service low density development? Certain density levels have to be met to get certain levels of government services, it's a pretty basic principle. It has nothing to do with forcing anybody to do anything, it's just making sure that public resources get spent as efficiently as possible.

BTW, 10 units per acre isn't high rises and dense urban cores. It's single detached houses with yards, or it could be townhouses or semis.

[kevN_wk]

If it were just farmers living in the countryside, there would be minimal infrastructure to serve them. But the more people start getting their trophy lots in the middle of the country, the more traffic it brings and the more demands there are to pave roads, build highways, provide garbage pickup, run school buses, etc. These services all cost a fortune to provide in low density environments, and it's city residents that end up subsidizing the rural residents.
I know, but to me that's just the way it is. Some people just want to live out in the country away from civilization, and I think they should be able to. Some people just want a quiet place away from everything.
BTW, 10 units per acre isn't high rises and dense urban cores. I know

[kevN_wk]

"they" are people who realize that those "preferences" and "choices" have come at an irreversible cost. There are times to think beyond the needs and preferences of the individual. We're at the point now where trying to achieve this suburban dream of a 'buffer zone' from human interaction now has real consequences.
Yes, but, like I have said before, instead of making everyone live in urban areas, we could work to make suburbia more environmentally friendly. How many times have I said that? :brickwall:

[dimondpark]

Topography and water supply has been really good catalysts of relatively dense development in California(compared to the most of the nation) and so its not like we have 1 house per acre as some sort of norm.

Anyway,
who is McClintock? Our US Senators are democrats Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, neither of whom, would ever make such comments.

[dktshb]

Topography and water supply has been really good catalysts of relatively dense development in California(compared to the most of the nation) and so its not like we have 1 house per acre as some sort of norm.

Anyway,
who is McClintock? Our US Senators are democrats Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, neither of whom, would ever make such comments.

He's a State Senator in District 19 which is Thousand Oaks... he currently serves as vice-chairman of the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee: Go figure... :uhh:
http://republican.sen.ca.gov/web/mcclintock/biography.asp

[dimondpark]

He's a State Senator in District 19 which is Thousand Oaks... he currently serves as vice-chairman of the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee: :uhh:
http://republican.sen.ca.gov/web/mcclintock/biography.asp

oh, this is a state senate issue. thanks for that clarification!:D

[BnaBreaker]

Yes, but, like I have said before, instead of making everyone live in urban areas, we could work to make suburbia more environmentally friendly. How many times have I said that? :brickwall:

I think it is you who is getting confused. Explain to us how you would propose making suburbia more "environmentally friendly" (which is only part of the problem btw) and then explain how exactly the end product would differ from low density single family urban neighborhoods like have been shown on this this thread. I think mentally you are still having trouble getting past this "urban-suburban" divide that you think is there.

[kevN_wk]

I think it is you who is getting confused. Explain to us how you would propose making suburbia more "environmentally friendly" (which is only part of the problem btw) and then explain how exactly the end product would differ from low density single family urban neighborhoods like have been shown on this this thread. I think mentally you are still having trouble getting past this "urban-suburban" divide that you think is there.
Well you could have a lot more public transits to the suburbs and find an alternative fuel for cars that doesn't harm the environment nearly as much.
We could use land more wisely. And instead of 2 or 3 story apartment complexes, we could save space and build just one mid/highrise. We could also use any empty land left in the city, if any. I don't know how to explain how the end product would be diff. from urban neighborhoods, I thinks it's just (1) what many people like and are used to (2) the style of the homes, the malls, etc. (3) .....ugh!! I don't know how to explain it, some people just like it better and the atmosphere and feeling of it. It's difficult to explain, but oh well... oy

[kevN_wk]

but yes I do think some of it is just "being in a suburb." You just feel like you have the American dream. And in suburban areas, there are more new buildings, which many people like. Like I said, some people just like it. What else can I say?

[zaphod]

He's right...people should have a choice what kind of enviroment they want to live in

meaning of course you should be able to live in a urban area if you so chose...

Yet, by building massive highway projects and not adequately funding social services in the city center, people have for the last 40 years been forced to live in the suburbs, that is if they want a decent standard of living

now, thats changing, and this guy is bitching why? I seriously doubt men in black are going to raid subdivisions and force people into crowded tenements so that their homes can bulldozed to make way for a nature preserve

[sapphireblueeyes]

some people just don't get it.

[sapphireblueeyes]

Some people just don't get it.

[Chicago103]

but yes I do think some of it is just "being in a suburb." You just feel like you have the American dream. And in suburban areas, there are more new buildings, which many people like. Like I said, some people just like it. What else can I say?

People can like or dislike whatever the hell they want but it shouldn't be up to the taxpayers at large to subsidize the suburban lifestyle. Sure in theory I think people should have the right to live in an auto-centric subdivision but its just that those neighborhoods should be so expensive that few people would be able to afford them anyways and thus the impact on the environment would be minimal. The notion that ever Tom, Dick and Harry of the middle class is entitled to a 3,000 square foot house on an acre of land has to end.

This might happen all on its own fortunately with gas prices going so high, but we need to end the suburban-industrial complex by funding huge roads and highways without end and giving public transportation and transit oriented development options the shaft. The reason that it is often expensive to live in transit oriented urban areas is because the land-use economic system is against them in general and urban areas are expensive because the system is set up against them in general.

The reason we need government regulation right now is because frankly what we have done to our built environment over the past 50 plus years has fucked things up so bad that it will take some government regulation to fix it. In the pre-WWII era there were less zoning laws, less government regulation and less "planning" in the sense we use it today and yet things were far more urban and/or human scaled, walkable and transit oriented. Why? Because back then transit oriented development and walkable/sustainable communities were simply the natural order of how we built things, terms like "transit oriented development" didn't exist because developments that were transit oriented were simply a no brainer, now we have to "plan" such developments against the status quo of auto-centric sprawl. The reason that sprawl became the status quo was because of government programs that built and encouraged sprawl, even mandated it in some cases. Then like a drug the American people slowly got entrenched more and more into the auto-centric suburban mentality, basically social engineering. In order to reverse this we need to have some government regulation to "socially de-engineer" the populace or put them in "rehab" from this permanent faux cliche "American dream" high the masses have been in. You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet but overall people will not suffer in this process, if they think they are most of it is probably in their heads (i.e. lack of parking and high gas prices need not be a major "quality of life" issue).

I know that is long-winded and a bit laced with urban planning terminology but its hard to condense my thoughts on this subject, I could write books about it.

[BnaBreaker]

Well you could have a lot more public transits to the suburbs and find an alternative fuel for cars that doesn't harm the environment nearly as much.
We could use land more wisely. And instead of 2 or 3 story apartment complexes, we could save space and build just one mid/highrise. We could also use any empty land left in the city, if any. I don't know how to explain how the end product would be diff. from urban neighborhoods, I thinks it's just (1) what many people like and are used to (2) the style of the homes, the malls, etc. (3) .....ugh!! I don't know how to explain it, some people just like it better and the atmosphere and feeling of it. It's difficult to explain, but oh well... oy

Well, see, this is EXACTLY my point! Essentially what you are describing are the lower density URBAN neighborhoods that already exist in every city around the country, that we have all been touting this entire thread. You keep saying that we need to "find a way" to improve suburbia, but what we're all saying is that the 'better version' already exists, and has existed for centuries in this country. I just think that as much as we say that houses and yards have a place in urbanity, and as much as you say you understand, you still get hung up on the word 'urban' and your pre-set ideas about what that means. See what i'm saying?

[Cambridgite]

People can like or dislike whatever the hell they want but it shouldn't be up to the taxpayers at large to subsidize the suburban lifestyle. Sure in theory I think people should have the right to live in an auto-centric subdivision but its just that those neighborhoods should be so expensive that few people would be able to afford them anyways and thus the impact on the environment would be minimal. The notion that ever Tom, Dick and Harry of the middle class is entitled to a 3,000 square foot house on an acre of land has to end.

This might happen all on its own fortunately with gas prices going so high, but we need to end the suburban-industrial complex by funding huge roads and highways without end and giving public transportation and transit oriented development options the shaft. The reason that it is often expensive to live in transit oriented urban areas is because the land-use economic system is against them in general and urban areas are expensive because the system is set up against them in general.

The reason we need government regulation right now is because frankly what we have done to our built environment over the past 50 plus years has fucked things up so bad that it will take some government regulation to fix it. In the pre-WWII era there were less zoning laws, less government regulation and less "planning" in the sense we use it today and yet things were far more urban and/or human scaled, walkable and transit oriented. Why? Because back then transit oriented development and walkable/sustainable communities were simply the natural order of how we built things, terms like "transit oriented development" didn't exist because developments that were transit oriented were simply a no brainer, now we have to "plan" such developments against the status quo of auto-centric sprawl. The reason that sprawl became the status quo was because of government programs that built and encouraged sprawl, even mandated it in some cases. Then like a drug the American people slowly got entrenched more and more into the auto-centric suburban mentality, basically social engineering. In order to reverse this we need to have some government regulation to "socially de-engineer" the populace or put them in "rehab" from this permanent faux cliche "American dream" high the masses have been in. You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet but overall people will not suffer in this process, if they think they are most of it is probably in their heads (i.e. lack of parking and high gas prices need not be a major "quality of life" issue).

I know that is long-winded and a bit laced with urban planning terminology but its hard to condense my thoughts on this subject, I could write books about it.

Quite well written, IMO. Today, urban planning= trying to fix the fuck-ups of the past. And I'm sure there have been books written about it already. One key theme seems to come up over and over again. User fees for suburban infrastructure. Sure, America may be all about "choice", but if you choose to live a more environmentally and socially responsible lifestyle, why should you be subsidizing the suburbanite/exurbanites choice when they aren't subsidizing yours? That doesn't sound much like freedom of choice to me.

[Cambridgite]

I think it is you who is getting confused. Explain to us how you would propose making suburbia more "environmentally friendly" (which is only part of the problem btw) and then explain how exactly the end product would differ from low density single family urban neighborhoods like have been shown on this this thread. I think mentally you are still having trouble getting past this "urban-suburban" divide that you think is there.

As for much of the existing, post-war suburbs, not much can be done. The discontinuous streets and blank collector roads will never be walkable/transit-friendly. If you look at a lot of urban neighborhoods just outside the downtown cores of small and mid-sized North American cities, you can find lots of single family homes with their own backyard, mature trees out front, and instead of garages, they have narrow driveways between the houses (accomodating the car without worshipping it as your only God). The densities aren't incredibly high, but they are still quite pleasant and walkable in nature. You are usually near a mixed-use main street of sorts, and have access to quality public transit. All of the amenities of suburban living, without the restrictions on non-car mobility. Here's an example of what I'm talking about.
http://s206.photobucket.com/albums/bb210/Cambridgite/?action=view&current=Picture114.jpg
http://s206.photobucket.com/albums/bb210/Cambridgite/?action=view&current=Picture115.jpg

If new suburbs were to be built like this, we'd have a lot less transportation problems than we do today. Planning for the odd suburban downtown to serve as a focal point (particularly for office employment) would also help. Sure, there are people in these areas that choose to drive places, but at least they have more choice than people who live in new subdivisions like mine. Imagine, going to work, shopping, or partying downtown by biking or taking public transit, being able to walk to the convenience store, while still being able to have a barbeque in your backyard with friends and family. That's why houses in these areas are being renovated so quickly. Plus they just look better. :tup:

[BnaBreaker]

As for much of the existing, post-war suburbs, not much can be done. The discontinuous streets and blank collector roads will never be walkable/transit-friendly. If you look at a lot of urban neighborhoods just outside the downtown cores of small and mid-sized North American cities, you can find lots of single family homes with their own backyard, mature trees out front, and instead of garages, they have narrow driveways between the houses (accomodating the car without worshipping it as your only God). The densities aren't incredibly high, but they are still quite pleasant and walkable in nature. You are usually near a mixed-use main street of sorts, and have access to quality public transit. All of the amenities of suburban living, without the restrictions on non-car mobility. Here's an example of what I'm talking about.
http://s206.photobucket.com/albums/bb210/Cambridgite/?action=view&current=Picture114.jpg
http://s206.photobucket.com/albums/bb210/Cambridgite/?action=view&current=Picture115.jpg

If new suburbs were to be built like this, we'd have a lot less transportation problems than we do today. Planning for the odd suburban downtown to serve as a focal point (particularly for office employment) would also help. Sure, there are people in these areas that choose to drive places, but at least they have more choice than people who live in new subdivisions like mine. Imagine, going to work, shopping, or partying downtown by biking or taking public transit, being able to walk to the convenience store, while still being able to have a barbeque in your backyard with friends and family. That's why houses in these areas are being renovated so quickly. Plus they just look better. :tup:

Unfortunately for society, I think you're right in saying that new suburbia would be very difficult to convert over to something more responsible without simply destroying it all. Most of it is such a tangeled up mess that I don't really know how it could ever be turned into something cohesive.

[kevN_wk]

Well, see, this is EXACTLY my point! Essentially what you are describing are the lower density URBAN neighborhoods that already exist in every city around the country, that we have all been touting this entire thread. You keep saying that we need to "find a way" to improve suburbia, but what we're all saying is that the 'better version' already exists, and has existed for centuries in this country. I just think that as much as we say that houses and yards have a place in urbanity, and as much as you say you understand, you still get hung up on the word 'urban' and your pre-set ideas about what that means. See what i'm saying?
Yea yea, I know. But since y'all don't like suburbs, y'all don't really understand why and how I like 'em. Urban neighborhoods just aren't the same to me. Idk, it's hard to explain. I just like the suburban environment. If there was a better car fuel and transits to suburban areas, it would be better. I know, your thinking "Public transit won't work in suburbia, because people won't want to walk that far to there house from the transit station." But if there were more master planned communities that were arranged to where people could walk to shopping malls and restaraunts, etc. it would be a lot better. And if the people still don't want to walk or use a bike, at least they won't have to drive nearly as far.

[BnaBreaker]

Yea yea, I know. But since y'all don't like suburbs, y'all don't really understand why and how I like 'em. Urban neighborhoods just aren't the same to me. Idk, it's hard to explain. I just like the suburban environment. If there was a better car fuel and transits to suburban areas, it would be better. I know, your thinking "Public transit won't work in suburbia, because people won't want to walk that far to there house from the transit station." But if there were more master planned communities that were arranged to where people could walk to shopping malls and restaraunts, etc. it would be a lot better. And if the people still don't want to walk or use a bike, at least they won't have to drive nearly as far.

With all due resepct dude, you're making absolutely no sense whatsoever to me. You say that we should "improve" suburbia to make it more "environmentally friendly", but when I point out to you that what you are describing is exactly what a low-density urban neighborhood entails, all of a sudden you say that you don't want suburbs to be like that afterall. What exactly is it that you aren't grasping? What would be different between a low-density urban neighborhood, and your vision for 'new and improved' suburbia. This is getting tiring.

[Cambridgite]

With all due resepct dude, you're making absolutely no sense whatsoever to me. You say that we should "improve" suburbia to make it more "environmentally friendly", but when I point out to you that what you are describing is exactly what a low-density urban neighborhood entails, all of a sudden you say that you don't want suburbs to be like that afterall. What exactly is it that you aren't grasping? What would be different between a low-density urban neighborhood, and your vision for 'new and improved' suburbia. This is getting tiring.

I guess I'll try to take a guess at what he means. Taking a low density urban neighborhood, replacing the older homes with the plastic toy houses of today, cutting down the trees and replacing them with little trees that won't make the neighborhood look green for another 40 years? That's all I could think of. Oh yeah, do you still want to keep the deadworm street patterns and collector roads, or would a grid system and mixed-use main streets be too urban for you?

[hoju]

^I think he pointed out that some prefer the "newness" of suburbia. No old buildings or architectural quality mucking everything up. Also the shopping malls. For some, the ability to drive to a mega mall parking lot and walking around in a drab space stripped of all character is a major quality of life issue. Having this be the only form of entertainment in your town is especially a big plus for some people. Sounds like boringville, USA to me, but to each his own. Just don't ask me to subsidize this foolishness at the expense of those who live more responsibly.

[kevN_wk]

What would be different between a low-density urban neighborhood, and your vision for 'new and improved' suburbia.
It's not the same.
cutting down the trees and replacing them with little trees that won't make the neighborhood look green for another 40 years?
I never said we should cut down trees, when I said something about that, I meant thats what they will do to build houses, I never said they should. In fact, I said how I liked the little forests between the streets.


Oh yeah, do you still want to keep the deadworm street patterns and collector roads, or would a grid system and mixed-use main streets be too urban for you?
No old buildings or architectural quality mucking everything up. Also the shopping malls. For some, the ability to drive to a mega mall parking lot and walking around in a drab space stripped of all character is a major quality of life issue. Having this be the only form of entertainment in your town is especially a big plus for some people. Sounds like boringville, USA to me, but to each his own.

Ok, now y'all are just being stupid.

Yes, y'all shouldn't have to subsidize the suburbs when they don't do the same for you, or w/e. I don't know anything about that stuff, I'm only 15.

[fflint]

Ok, now y'all are just being stupid.
Okay, no. Unacceptable.

[Connect]

The way I'm reading that legislation is that it says the gov't will spend money in areas where this is a minimum density. The legislation does not force anyone to move into those areas. Nor does it force developers to build in those areas. So if people chose not to live in those more dense districts, they don't have to. The gov't is concentrating limited funds on where it'll do the most good. Isn't that smart? Isn't that what we want from the govt'?

In any case neither the gov't nor the individual is infallable. Both make good and bad decisions and both have good and bad preferences.

A part of freedom that is often ignored in arguements such as those presented by this politician is that freedom also comes with personal responsibility. If someone wants to live in the middle of Idaho, they can, just don't expect everyone else to chip in to make it happen.

[kevN_wk]

Ok, just to get things straight, I like urban neighborhoods, dense urban cores, and suburbia. But I don't consider "my new and improved suburbia" the same as urban neighborhoods. So I like a little of all.

[ardecila]

The only differences between what you are proposing, and an existing, low-density urban neighborhood, are newness and government. Your idea would entail all newly constructed houses with modern conveniences, large rooms, etc. as well as larger yards than most houses in cities.

Also, since it would be built in the suburbs, the land would be broken up into smaller towns and cities with seperate school systems and smaller, more numerous downtown areas.

Really, those are the only differences I can see. Also, remember that new development cannot always be slipped into a forest somewhere. Cities like Atlanta and Charlotte are surrounded by forest, so that's where they build their subdivisions. But in suburban Chicagoland, 90% of subdivisions, malls, and schools are built where cornfields used to be. Any trees have to be planted.

[danvillain]

oh, this is a state senate issue. thanks for that clarification!:D
you might recall he ran against garamendi for lieutenant governor in 2006. he was also a big backer of prop. 90 ("eminent domain"). he's *way* over on the right.

[BnaBreaker]

It's not the same.



For the third time, i'll ask you, how is it different? You keep on repeating that same tired old mantra, but the only things you've said about your 'proposal' suggests that it is, actually, exactly the same thing.

[Chicago103]

The way I'm reading that legislation is that it says the gov't will spend money in areas where this is a minimum density. The legislation does not force anyone to move into those areas. Nor does it force developers to build in those areas. So if people chose not to live in those more dense districts, they don't have to. The gov't is concentrating limited funds on where it'll do the most good. Isn't that smart? Isn't that what we want from the govt'?

In any case neither the gov't nor the individual is infallable. Both make good and bad decisions and both have good and bad preferences.

A part of freedom that is often ignored in arguements such as those presented by this politician is that freedom also comes with personal responsibility. If someone wants to live in the middle of Idaho, they can, just don't expect everyone else to chip in to make it happen.

Thats exactly what the law is trying to do. This douche is not even preserving the idea of freedom he is just preserving the status quo of subsidizing sprawl at the same levels. I personally support the absolute freedom of someone to live in sprawl, but "freedom" to do something does not mean that you are entitled to have the government make it easy for you to do so. This is government being more efficient by funding areas that are most sustainable economically, if anything that position is the fiscally conservative one! Sure this would make "denser" developments more the path of least resistance and cheaper for middle class citizens and would make sprawl less affordable but it wont take away the freedom of developers to build anything or prevent people from moving anywhere, it just changes the balance of the economic advantages to do so, if you can still afford to live in sprawl then you can.

So making sprawl less affordable due to the end of taxpayer subsidization is "elitism" to this guy?! I have news for him, the very concept of a free market economy is that there will be economic "elites" that can afford more than others. If anything this bill is the true free market option and not that of liberal elite socialist engineers as he claims. Not that him or his constituents are smart enough to realize something like this, their ideology is based on emotional rhetoric and not logic, facts and reality. The concept of the "elite" is akin to that of the boogyman, the elites are after you, they like the boogyman are under the bed and are out to take away your freedoms and force you and your family to live in commie blocks.

[kevN_wk]

But in suburban Chicagoland, 90% of subdivisions, malls, and schools are built where cornfields used to be. Any trees have to be planted.
Yea, I know. Where I live it's just grass, weeds, and weesatch trees. Although it is woodsy around rivers and streams.
For the third time, i'll ask you, how is it different? You keep on repeating that same tired old mantra, but the only things you've said about your 'proposal' suggests that it is, actually, exactly the same thing.
NO, It is not! Read this-
The only differences between what you are proposing, and an existing, low-density urban neighborhood, are newness and government. Your idea would entail all newly constructed houses with modern conveniences, large rooms, etc. as well as larger yards than most houses in cities.
And suburbs have malls, and different style houses.

[fflint]

Who cares if this kid wants to stick with pre-ordained conclusions that he cannot support? This thread is now stuck in a very low-quality form of debate, with one party repeatedly advancing his inherited aesthetic as if it were an objective truth about the universe, and with the rest either ignoring the mind-numbing chatter or--wholly unsuccessfully--pointing out all the holes in his line of thinking.

Ad nauseum.

We need to move on.

[BnaBreaker]

So, then, let's move on. What do we move on to? This kid essentially might as well be a representitive for the senator who wrote the letter. So by debating his flawed logic on the subject, it is basically debating the flawed logic of the senator. That's how I see it. If the thread goes in a different direction though i'll gladly partake in that.

[NewYorkYankee]

:previous: Word to FFlint


Anyway, I know people think I bring up social issues alot, but I think they're importaint factors to consider in why people like suburbs:


I'm sorry, but you could go to any city in the united states and see single-family homes. Lots of them.

Now, most of us submit that the schools in these communitews are not the greatest. However, let's hypothesise that this is not a problem. I was visiting my relatives over on Long Island and my cousin Tom had bought himself quite a nice large house out there. So anyway, we were talking about the City and how it's gotten so much better over the years and Tom was going on ad naseum about the "schools/crime/taxes" deal and I was saying that the city was making strides with that. At which point he took his argument over to the "people like space" argument:rolleyes: . At which point I informed him about the victoria houses and mansions of Brooklyn and then it looked like I got checkmate.

So anyway, a coulpe months later, we're all chillin down at Citizens Bank park in Philly. The Mets just got pounded and now we had to make our way back via late-night septa. Well, Tom kinda let something slip....."Wow, gosh, gee, where's all the white people?"

Now, for the record, my cousin Tom is a good guy, plus he knows I'm half-AA. But I think for a split second, I got a glimpse into the ignorance that surronds some people.


But this is only half of the story...........









Before the game, I took him down to South Street. I read a door handle that said "CK" and thought it was a cheesesteak place.....boy was I wrong.

After that fiasco, We kept strolling down South street and the look on my cousin's face was priceless. "Ooooohhh" "OoOoOoOh" said cuz tom. "There's evil in this place son"....."Lots of wierdos". At that point, I don't think "Cousin Tom" was too interested in the diversity of Philadelphia.


Topped off with his wife's cathy's "Dirty Asians" and "too many people" comments about Canal st in Manhattan, and I think we now know why people like their "communites".

[kevN_wk]

So by debating his flawed logic on the subject, it is basically debating the flawed logic of the senator.
Excuse me, flawed logic?? I think y'all just need to except that not everyone wants to live in an urban neighborhood. Some just like suburbs. Yes, they have flaws that should be fixed but urban areas aren't perfect either. Some people prefer suburbs. Deal with it!
Who cares if this kid wants to stick with pre-ordained conclusions that he cannot support?
I have too supported my conclusions! Since y'all like urbanity so much, y'all aren't even open to the thought of an improved suburbia. Y'all are just so brainwashed to think that they are all bad. Just because y'all don't like 'em doesn't mean it's bad for someone else to like them. And who are y'all to say that someone is boring and low quality because they like suburbia? Y'all should respect people who have different view's opinions!

This thread is now stuck in a very low-quality form of debate, with one party repeatedly advancing his inherited aesthetic as if it were an objective truth about the universe.
Objective truth for the universe? Where the hell did that come from?

[sabino86]

:previous: Word to FFlint


Anyway, I know people think I bring up social issues alot, but I think they're importaint factors to consider in why people like suburbs:

I'm sorry, but you could go to any city in the united states and see single-family homes. Lots of them.

Now, most of us submit that the schools in these communitews are not the greatest. However, let's hypothesise that this is not a problem. I was visiting my relatives over on Long Island and my cousin Tom had bought himself quite a nice large house out there. So anyway, we were talking about the City and how it's gotten so much better over the years and Tom was going on ad naseum about the "schools/crime/taxes" deal and I was saying that the city was making strides with that. At which point he took his argument over to the "people like space" argument:rolleyes: . At which point I informed him about the victoria houses and mansions of Brooklyn and then it looked like I got checkmate.

So anyway, a coulpe months later, we're all chillin down at Citizens Bank park in Philly. The Mets just got pounded and now we had to make our way back via late-night septa. Well, Tom kinda let something slip....."Wow, gosh, gee, where's all the white people?"

Now, for the record, my cousin Tom is a good guy, plus he knows I'm half-AA. But I think for a split second, I got a glimpse into the ignorance that surronds some people.


But this is only half of the story...........

Before the game, I took him down to South Street. I read a door handle that said "CK" and thought it was a cheesesteak place.....boy was I wrong.

After that fiasco, We kept strolling down South street and the look on my cousin's face was priceless. "Ooooohhh" "OoOoOoOh" said cuz tom. "There's evil in this place son"....."Lots of wierdos". At that point, I don't think "Cousin Tom" was too interested in the diversity of Philadelphia.


Topped off with his wife's cathy's "Dirty Asians" and "too many people" comments about Canal st in Manhattan, and I think we now know why people like their "communites".

I'm embarassed to share the same name with this guy :yuck: (and I used to live in New York too)

[roadwarrior]

I don't specifically know anything about this "preferred growth scenario" bill, but I thought what this one dude had to say highlights what a lot of people think:



SB 375 requires all regional transportation planning decisions and all
transportation funding to be limited to a “preferred growth scenario,” that requires a minimum housing density of 10 units per acre. It was adopted by the Senate on June 7, 2007. Here is Senator McClintock’s speech in opposition to the bill:

Mr. President:

This measure says that all transportation plans and transportation funding decisions must be made with the object of concentrating people in dense urban cores. In this bill, it is called a “Preferred Growth Scenario.” It says all transportation plans and funds must serve this “Preferred Growth Scenario,” and that, in turn, means at an absolute minimum packing in ten families per acre. Ten Families.

Welcome to the brave new world of central planning. This is a continuation of the policy that Gov. Schwarzenegger institutionalized with AB 32 and that Attorney General Brown operationalized by suing San Bernardino County.

They’re basically saying, “You cannot build new highways until you can show how you’re going to build them without using earth-moving equipment or concrete and that, once they’re built, nobody is going to use them.”

But the Left has an alternative – that’s what this bill is all about. They want everyone to move into dense urban cores – the denser the better. That’s what this bill means when it uses the term, “Preferred Growth Scenario.”

And fellow Californians: They aren’t talking about your preferences for your own life – they’re talking about their preferences for your own life. And for your family’s life.

“Preferred Growth Scenario.” They prefer that you move into dense urban cores – and they are prepared to manipulate public policy and misuse government authority to force you to do so.

And they couldn’t care less what you prefer for your own life and your own family.

I’ve got news for the authoritarians on the Left: most people don’t want to live in dense urban cores. Most people want a little elbow room – they want a yard for their children to play in. They want a little grass, a little garden, a little breathing room they can call their own.

And who the hell are you to tell people they can’t? Who the hell are you to tell people how and where they’re going to live? Who the hell are you to impose your preferences for their lives over their own preferences for their lives?

That’s at the heart of this issue. People have a right to live their lives according to their own preferences – not government’s – and they have a right to live where they please – to acquire property and enjoy that property. And in any free nation, government exists to respect and protect and accommodate that right.

The people were just sold a $20 billion bond measure to address our sadly neglected highways. After the election, the Governor’s Director of CalTrans admitted that at most $8 billion of the $20 would be used for highway construction. And this measure says little if any will be used for highways.

Many of us warned we were being sold a bill of goods – that very little of that money would actually be used for highway construction. This bill is the ultimate proof of those warnings.

And it is the ultimate expression and embodiment of an arrogant, out of touch class of elitists who actually believe that they are naturally entitled to run your life for you.


Well, maybe there needs to be more legislation like this to really change the mentality of Americans. I currently live in one of the densest populated cities in the US (San Francisco), but have in the past lived in a city entirely built on sprawl (Phoenix). I saw the proliferation of sprawl getting worse and worse. People were getting pushed out further and further into the desert and the development of new highways couldn't keep up. Companies were spread out in all directions and the situation just became worse and worse. Saying that people should have the right to build what they want where they want is in fact the American way. However, this has also what has caused us to be the leader in greenhouse emissions and environmental damage (until China surpasses us). My point is that this is something that needs to be regulated for the sake of the planet. If this forces more people to live in cramped quarters, as opposed to urban sprawl, I say bring it on. I think this country needs to have more leftest viewpoints, rather than pro-Bush mantra. While this may seem like an extreme viewpoint to you, travel to almost any other country in the world and you'll realize how the American viewpoint on conservation is in fact the extremist type of view.

[BnaBreaker]

I have too supported my conclusions!

:haha: You seem like a nice kid, but we've all given you more than enough chances here and you have failed in every possible way to "prove" ANYTHING other than your own admitted ignorance on the subject and of the type of urban environments we are discussing. Go take a debate class or something because you clearly have no idea what the word "proof" even means.

[kevN_wk]

you clearly have no idea what the word "proof" even means.

Um, I'm not stupid

I have proof that some people like suburbs.
And if you want proof that my "new and improved" suburbia isn't the same as an urban neighborhood, go to a master planned suburb, (imagine transits and cars with a more environmentally friendly fuel) and then compare it to an urban neighborhood. They are not the same! omg

[sabino86]

Um, I'm not stupid

I have proof that some people like suburbs.
And if you want proof that my "new and improved" suburbia isn't the same as an urban neighborhood, go to a master planned suburb, (imagine transits and cars with a more environmentally friendly fuel) and then compare it to an urban neighborhood. They are not the same! omg

:haha:

[kevN_wk]

:haha:

:gaah:

[Cambridgite]

:previous: Word to FFlint


Anyway, I know people think I bring up social issues alot, but I think they're importaint factors to consider in why people like suburbs:


I'm sorry, but you could go to any city in the united states and see single-family homes. Lots of them.

Now, most of us submit that the schools in these communitews are not the greatest. However, let's hypothesise that this is not a problem. I was visiting my relatives over on Long Island and my cousin Tom had bought himself quite a nice large house out there. So anyway, we were talking about the City and how it's gotten so much better over the years and Tom was going on ad naseum about the "schools/crime/taxes" deal and I was saying that the city was making strides with that. At which point he took his argument over to the "people like space" argument:rolleyes: . At which point I informed him about the victoria houses and mansions of Brooklyn and then it looked like I got checkmate.

So anyway, a coulpe months later, we're all chillin down at Citizens Bank park in Philly. The Mets just got pounded and now we had to make our way back via late-night septa. Well, Tom kinda let something slip....."Wow, gosh, gee, where's all the white people?"

Now, for the record, my cousin Tom is a good guy, plus he knows I'm half-AA. But I think for a split second, I got a glimpse into the ignorance that surronds some people.


But this is only half of the story...........









Before the game, I took him down to South Street. I read a door handle that said "CK" and thought it was a cheesesteak place.....boy was I wrong.

After that fiasco, We kept strolling down South street and the look on my cousin's face was priceless. "Ooooohhh" "OoOoOoOh" said cuz tom. "There's evil in this place son"....."Lots of wierdos". At that point, I don't think "Cousin Tom" was too interested in the diversity of Philadelphia.


Topped off with his wife's cathy's "Dirty Asians" and "too many people" comments about Canal st in Manhattan, and I think we now know why people like their "communites".

Interesting observation.

However, it doesn't explain why, in Canada, the suburbs are the #1 destination of choice for new immigrants...very few of which are white. Perhaps American suburbs are less diverse, but I live in a suburban area and it has quite a large Indian community, mostly Sikh. This is not to say that racism doesn't exist in my city, as it's a problem all over the world. But I just can't see how being a suburbanite automatically makes you racist. Surely, racism CAN motivate a move out to a small town within commuting distance, exurb, etc., but I'm sure other reasons can play a factor as well.

Nevertheless, I have heard of some exurbs outside of the Greater Toronto Area that are known for harboring racist hicks. And when you ask people why they moved out of certain areas, they will sometimes say "I don't like feeling like a minority" or "it just doesn't feel like home anymore". Even in my own community, I've heard more established residents saying things like "I don't like this place anymore. Too many pakis are moving in."

This is the new racism....tolerance, but not much else. People are close-minded, scared of anything different from them, but wont say much explicitly, in fear of people criticizing them. Then they decide to cacoon and move away from the "problem", literally.

[combusean]

Yes, but they are also going to tear down undeveloped forested areas and build houses and there will be more little forests between the house-lined streets. And why would they tear down those little forests between the streets, what could they build with such little land in the middle of a neighborhood?
Why should rural towns always be structured around agriculture? And in my opinion, suburbia is the best of both worlds, you live close the the countryside and you are close to dense urban areas.


If you want to live close to the countryside, you have to sell your house every year to be increasingly farther from the city, if you don't, your countryside is replaced with seven lane thoroughfares, strip malls, and Super Walmarts. This of course happens en masse, wreaking havoc on the previous ring of suburbia. Mesa, AZ, with almost half a million people is teetering on bankruptcy from this sort of planning.

Nor do I know what you mean by "forest." You've been using it like KB Homes or Toll Brothers plants as many trees each year as Georgia Pacific. This just doesn't happen. A suburban developers' land is for houses and the requisite roads. A city has to bend over backwards for a pedestrian or equestrian corridor if the alignment doesn't already exist on whatever abandoned right of way (train tracks, canals, etc). Any trees that are there are either mandated by the HOA or if you're lucky weren't carved down before they threw up houses. Land with trees doesn't make money, so you have to pay for it somewhere. Most suburbanites can't afford this luxury. Or, where you live local government has managed a some sort of concession (again, something you inadvertently pay for somewhere, raising housing prices) for some semblance of wildlife corridors (not forests) in between houses. This is an extremely progressive exception especially compared with how it happens nearly everywhere else.

Here, the suburbs is where the trees aren't. They're either too new, not maintained, or nobody ever gave a rats to plant them in the first place. Downtown is where the city is planting trees first to give more shade to pedestrians.


Yea, so what does superhighways have to do with people owning lots of land??


Because when people own lots of land, they're forced to drive from point A to point B for every last stupid thing, and public transit becomes impossible and inefficient. Average suburbia just magnifies the problem by putting the 7-11 behind the fence a quarter mile or more away by car. That's where the eight lane superhighway (or in Phoenix's case 24 lanes soon) comes into play.


Because NewYorkYankee mentioned "dense urban cores," which, from what I've gathered, is a lot of people living in skyscrapers in a densely populationed
area. And, because I haven't lived in an urban area, would seem "crammed" to me. I could probably get used to it but I prefer a house. But, now that I think about it, I would actually enjoy living in a highrise (not that I ever wouldn't enjoy it), I just wouldn't want to feel crammed.

What do you mean by crammed? You own your space but the way you're talking about it's like the neighbor's kids are spilling in and leaving toys in your bedroom while you're at work. Sure, you might have some space in the suburbs, but when you're dealing with the same damn traffic jam every day where you have 2 feet around your car for sixteen miles, that's crammed. Do you just ignore how much time you probably spend your life this way?

Dense urban cores are dense urban cores because the area around the core becomes less and less dense as you go further away. There's a huge range of housing in between besides single family homes on large lots to tiny units in 40 floor towers. Have you even seen a real city? Seriously.

But this thread isn't even talking about dense urban cores, where densities can crack hundreds of families per acre. Ten families an acre, a logical minimum standard, is an extremely large amount of space if done right. It can give people the front yard, the back yard, the garage, and access to transit all in a sustainable community. All the space they need, maybe a 3 or 4 story house with a view, and all the connections to the rest of the city built in to keep it sustainable.


I think y'all just need to except that not everyone wants to live in an urban neighborhood. Some just like suburbs. Yes, they have flaws that should be fixed but urban areas aren't perfect either. Some people prefer suburbs. Deal with it!


If by dealing with it you mean sending my taxes to perpetually build and widen freeways further and farther out into the hinterlands like it happens now, then no, I won't deal with it. Why should my taxes go to support such unsustainable destruction for an increasingly smaller chunk of the metro population?

I understand there's a balance, you have to keep qualities of service across the board and for everyone and that the borders of any thriving metro should grow. But people with your attitude shit a brick for every dollar that's not spent on their favorite freeway and surface street like they're the only ones that matter in the city. They claim 99% of people never ride transit or other bogus figures but ignore the ones that do drive but not on their own section of road.


And if you want proof that my "new and improved" suburbia isn't the same as an urban neighborhood, go to a master planned suburb, (imagine transits and cars with a more environmentally friendly fuel) and then compare it to an urban neighborhood. They are not the same! omg

Uhh ... what? Did you just say transit and alternatively-fueled cars in tandem with master-planned neighborhoods? What are you smoking kid? Or, if you're in some new development with anything but houses and roads, again, you're paying for this novelty somewhere. Just because this is what your family has managed to put together doesn't mean it's the gold standard for anybody.

[kevN_wk]

If you want to live close to the countryside, you have to sell your house every year to be increasingly farther from the city, if you don't, your countryside is replaced with seven lane thoroughfares, strip malls, and Super Walmarts.
Not if you live way out in the country.
Land with trees doesn't make money
Huh?you're dealing with the same damn traffic jam every day where you have 2 feet around your car for sixteen miles, that's crammed. Do you just ignore how much time you probably spend your life this way?
Yea, but you don't live like that. Uhh ... what? Did you just say transit and alternatively-fueled cars in tandem with master-planned neighborhoods?
What's wrong with that?
If by dealing with it you mean sending my taxes to perpetually build and widen freeways further and farther out into the hinterlands like it happens now, then no, I won't deal with it. Why should my taxes go to support such unsustainable destruction for an increasingly smaller chunk of the metro population?
That's not what I meant when I said "Deal with it"

[Cambridgite]

Not if you live way out in the country.

First off, I'm assuming when you live out in the country, you're not a farmer or a lottery winner and you need to get to the city or its suburbs for employment. There are lots of long-distance commuters who do this every weekday. However, in any fast-growing metropolitan area, this will catch up to you as you get surrounded by exurbs where people commute to the ever-expanding urban area. When you choose to move waaayyy out into the countryside, what you're actually doing is just making sprawl even worse and public transit absolutely impossible. Thousands of people collectively trying to do this at the same time is what got North America into the mess it is today. If this factor doesn't serve to deter you from this lifestyle, hopefully the high gas prices will.

[/QUOTE]Yea, but you don't live like that. [/QUOTE]

Then how do you live? Do you fly a helicopter into work everyday to escape all the commuters and costco shoppers who battle with you for road space?

[Cambridgite]

Looks like I don't know how to quote properly. :haha:

[kevN_wk]

In any fast-growing metropolitan area, this will catch up to you as you get surrounded by exurbs where people commute to the ever-expanding urban area.

Y'all obviously haven't been to Texas. Do y'all have any idea how far out in the country some people live? And a lot of the time, the towns they usually commute to are small and a lot of those towns probably don't really have sprawl.

And yea, Cambridgite, I got confused cause I don't know who said what.

[alleystreetindustry]

how about we decide to live where we please. however: human kind is going to eventually run out of room. some people don't understand that GROWTH is the boom of something (it can be small or big). in this..growth refers to the fact that america is going to hit 400 milion people. and with the ways of america, a shit load of land will be devoured (sp) in that addition. i love the environment, i don't understand why someone wouldn't. it makes me happy, and has been here long before any human has. lets do like a true being and respect it. the thing pissing me off about america now is how politics is sooo juvenile, and the constant freedoms americans once held are being stripped from us.

besides. i can understand someone wanting their elbow room. land is precious material. but sometimes the american doesn't understand their 1/2 acre lot in the suburbs is stripped of tress and covered in erosion sensitive grass. with the current behavior commonly seen: this american doesn't like going outside. they like watching sports and movies on their big screen t.v and like to go to the mall. they may have the family barbecue outside, but rarely do i see a person in the sun; whether it be on the sidewalk or in their backyard. it just doesn't happen. why own all that land but not do shit on it?

my mother may live in the suburbs, but she does so with a 1/2 acre lot covered in large pines. there is a large back deck with a pool, and gardens of blueberries, tomatoes, cucumbers, etc. she is always outside, and respects the environment in every way. she tries her best to not buy products with styrofoam (sp); she keeps the temp. at 82 and leaves the fans on; she doesn't tear down a tree because it keeps the sun away from her vegetables-but instead works around it; she recycles every damn thing she can; and she doesn't believe in pesticides. that is a respectable human being that deserves a 1/2 acre lot.

i wish every american was sensitive to the environment. i have the pleasure of living in atlanta. so instead of driving a short distance i take marta. living in rural areas or urban areas both have their pros. what america needs is an establishment of urban growth boundaries.

[sofresh808]

:previous:

Before the game, I took him down to South Street. I read a door handle that said "CK" and thought it was a cheesesteak place.....boy was I wrong.


pardon my naiveness, but what does CK stand for?

[kevN_wk]

how about we decide to live where we please. however: human kind is going to eventually run out of room. some people don't understand that GROWTH is the boom of something (it can be small or big).
:previous: Very true
this american doesn't like going outside. they like watching sports and movies on their big screen t.v and like to go to the mall. they may have the family barbecue outside, but rarely do i see a person in the sun; whether it be on the sidewalk or in their backyard. it just doesn't happen. why own all that land but not do shit on it?

my mother may live in the suburbs, but she does so with a 1/2 acre lot covered in large pines. there is a large back deck with a pool, and gardens of blueberries, tomatoes, cucumbers, etc. she is always outside, and respects the environment in every way. she tries her best to not buy products with styrofoam (sp); she keeps the temp. at 82 and leaves the fans on; she doesn't tear down a tree because it keeps the sun away from her vegetables-but instead works around it; she recycles every damn thing she can; and she doesn't believe in pesticides. that is a respectable human being that deserves a 1/2 acre lot.

Why are you saying no one uses their yard and then say my mom uses her yard a lot? A lot of people do what your mom does. And when you say "this American," are you referring to me??

[Connect]

... Saying that people should have the right to build what they want where they want is in fact the American way. However, this has also what has caused us to be the leader in greenhouse emissions and environmental damage (until China surpasses us). My point is that this is something that needs to be regulated for the sake of the planet. If this forces more people to live in cramped quarters, as opposed to urban sprawl, I say bring it on. ...

I think that you made a really good point here.

Is individual freedom at the cost of environmental sustainability acceptable? No is the correct answer... because without the environment... there is no individual. As important as the environment is, it still gets overlooked in most arguments where it is most important. It's as if we think we're invincible to anything.... but we're not. Not too many politicians are willing to tell constituents that they'll have to sacrifice something. Even if that sacrifice is for their own good (and everyone else's too).

In my opinion an REAL leaders openly acknowledge the need for sacrifice. We are seriously short of real leaders in this country. We may be short on good followers too. Poor followers are people that can't accept criticism and needed sacrifices. Poor followers are people who don't understand and strive for the concept of community. Poor followers don't hold leaders accountable.

If we can't get It right... It'll get us. The It may very well be the environment.

[alleystreetindustry]

Why are you saying no one uses their yard and then say my mom uses her yard a lot? A lot of people do what your mom does. And when you say "this American," are you referring to me??

nah. i said i tend to see AN american (it could be anybody anywhere) not using there yard, because it is true in pretty much every suburb i run through. im not saying every american doesnt use their yard. and i used my mother in context to being a decent person for living on a 1/2 acre suburban lot but thankful for the land she owns, using it for activities and such, and treating it with the respect not every citizen of our country does. if you own land, but not use it for outdoor use..what is the purpose of occupying it? you can be one of those people or not. i really don't care. i do tend to have more respect for people like my mom rather than the "american" featured.

[kevN_wk]

nah. i said i tend to see AN american (it could be anybody anywhere) not using there yard, because it is true in pretty much every suburb i run through.
Whatever
you can be one of those people or not.
I'm not, I have a vegetable garden and I'm going to make another one.

[JBoston]

"...and they're all made out of ticky-tacky and they all look just the same..."

[BigBird9]

I'm really not for either extreemes here.

Why can't we just work to build more enviromental freindly infastructure for both downtown and suburbia? :shrug:

I would hate to see people "forced" to live in an urban center. And (although I'm not a global warming advocate) would hate to see our race eat up our recourses without thought.

[BnaBreaker]

I'm really not for either extreemes here.

Why can't we just work to build more enviromental freindly infastructure for both downtown and suburbia? :shrug:

I would hate to see people "forced" to live in an urban center. And (although I'm not a global warming advocate) would hate to see our race eat up our recourses without thought.

As i've been trying to explain to KeVN this whole time, wouldn't a 'happy medium' between an urban core and suburbia be these traditional neighborhoods of single-family homes on responsibly planned blocks that exist in almost every city in the country already?

[kevN_wk]

Why can't we just work to build more enviromental freindly infastructure for both downtown and suburbia? :shrug:
THANK YOU!!!
wouldn't a 'happy medium' between an urban core and suburbia be these traditional neighborhoods of single-family homes on responsibly planned blocks that exist in almost every city in the country already?
No

[BigBird9]

As i've been trying to explain to KeVN this whole time, wouldn't a 'happy medium' between an urban core and suburbia be these traditional neighborhoods of single-family homes on responsibly planned blocks that exist in almost every city in the country already?

Myabe. But people will always want to live THEY want to, not where the government thinks it is best. Some people would like to live in a condo in the middle of the city and some would rather live where they can play football in the backyard. All I'm saying is that, if you can make an office building green, whose to say you can't make a Wal-Mart green? Either way, in the financial district or on a rual South Dakota farm, there is a lot the government can do to conserve energy without telling people where they can and can't live. I'm sick of politicians on BOTH sides fighting for their political careeres instead of fighting for the better of scociety.

[BnaBreaker]

Myabe. But people will always want to live THEY want to, not where the government thinks it is best. Some people would like to live in a condo in the middle of the city and some would rather live where they can play football in the backyard. All I'm saying is that, if you can make an office building green, whose to say you can't make a Wal-Mart green? Either way, in the financial district or on a rual South Dakota farm, there is a lot the government can do to conserve energy without telling people where they can and can't live. I'm sick of politicians on BOTH sides fighting for their political careeres instead of fighting for the better of scociety.

I understand what you're saying, but it isn't about telling people where to live necessarily. Even if you did tell everyone to up and move to the city there wouldn't be enough room. You can, however, design new single-family developments (with yards) responsibly.

Regarding the environmental Wal-Mart thing, yes, the structure could be built green, but if the codes and zoning and design of the neighborhood as a whole still support typical suburban sprawl then, in my mind, it will still be an environmental hazard since people will still be forced to drive there, and since it would still require gigantic amounts of natural or agricultural land being bulldozed to be built.

[BigBird9]

I understand what you're saying, but it isn't about telling people where to live necessarily. Even if you did tell everyone to up and move to the city there wouldn't be enough room. You can, however, design new single-family developments (with yards) responsibly.


Something like this?

http://www.jubileeflorida.com/site/#/vision/