And to extend the analogy even further, raisethehammer, who is no doctor but may well be a fat kid, claimed to never slam anyone or anything and then in the next breath dismissed a perfectly sensible post of mine as "hilarious."

actually, I should apologize for that.
Your post wasn't really hilarious. It was pretty stupid actually.
And so far, I haven't heard you share any counter-points in an attempt to dismiss my criticism of your post (that is assuming you actually read it).
Feel free to keep name-calling, or perhaps you can stop and think about this issue and possibly learn something (or prove me wrong, and I'll gladly learn something).

That is quite an apology.

The post was a list of reasons why I believe that people choose to live in the suburbs rather than the city. Whatever rebuttal you may have made was not relevant --- no matter how valid or invalid the reasons I listed are (houses may well be flimsier in the 'burbs, the grass may actually be greener in the city, people may not ever actually use their yards), I still believe that they, or at least the perception of them, are part of what draws people to suburban homes.

so, we finally agree on something!

And to take the analogy one step further, the rest of us are paying the kid's grocery bills.

Oh. And we'll pay for his health care too.

Good defenisve play markbarbera--you're now at the point where you're anticipating the next move. Always played defense myself, so I respect that move.

That being said, I'm not going to brand you elitists. Since you are urbanists and have seen the light, you are simply better than the rest of us living our miserable existence. Interesting that you should latch onto obesity also--as it is apparently still socially acceptable to discriminate based on body mass index. I won't even approach the fact that HAMRetrofit also suggested fat people are stupid.

It would be really easy for me to throw my hands up and say that I'm finished with trying to contribute positively to this forum--and there are days (such as today) that I am sorely tempted to take the low road.

Can you explain to me how you see your previous post as a positive contribution? First, you accuse HAMRetrofit of claiming fat people are stupid. If you genuinely think this to be so, then you have completely misunderstood his analogy, and by entension my expansion on the analogy. Furthermore, the whole 'discriminating against fat people' accusation is a classic case of beating up the strawman, and certainly is not a positive contribution to discussion.

All in all, I'd say you weren't merely tempted, you have found the low road and have in fact been merrily skipping down that road for some time.

The only "positive" contribution I could make here that would be satisfactory to you is to throw myself at your mercy and repent. I disagree with your point of view on the issues and I fully intend to continue to come here and to defend my position on the issues. If you re-read the posts you are trying to defend I think you'll see that there is no beating up of the strawman going on.
A spade is a spade.

I have always come here with my viewpoints, perspectives on the past, anecdotes and a genuine desire to see Hamilton (and area) prosper. The low road is name calling--it's dismissing those who disagree with you out of hand, it's calling posts by other forumers "stupid"--it goes on on both sides--and I've never taken part in that. That being said, I do think some of what I've tried to bring to this forum has been overlooked simply because some of my opinions go against the grain.

I assure you it's more fulfilling to argue these points face-to-face, as opposed to doing so from high horseback.

maybe we should all meet at McDonalds in Waterdown and have this discussion. :haha:

What bus would I have to take to get there? If I said I hate McDonald's for all the crap food, would that make me an elitist?

yea, you elitist snob!! Why don't you just act normal and eat processed, chemical-filled food and become a big tub of lard like the rest of society!!
You selfish son of a .......

Why not come to the next civic drinks night instead? I went to the last one, and it's basically this board in round table discussion format. Add to that being in the best restaurant / venue in the city (Pepper Jack Cafe) and you can't go wrong.

when is the next one?? i saw something about that in HMag today, but didn't recall the date/time.

The 'new homes' industry is really becoming laggard in the states.

http://realestate.msn.com/Buying/Art...1168&GT1=10932

How long until we see this here? The industry is really a sinking ship. I really can't see trends returning to this type of development even after the credit crisis has stabilized. Society will move onto new and better things with these developments becoming no more than squatter housing.

Maybe smug is a more appropriate descriptor.

HAMRetrofit, what better thing do you see society moving on to?--That's a serious question. Also, given that real estate has been the primary source of consumer wealth in our economy, how will this "better thing" that society moves on to contribute to the health and growth of our economy?

As for when we'll see a restructuring in the homebuilding business in Canada--it's important that the homebuilding business in Canada is quite different than it is in the U.S. While the U.S. industry is dominated by relatively few large builders with a national presence like Pulte, Centex and Toll Brothers--the Canadian homebuilding industry has a far greater regional focus--therefore, difficultly in one region may affect regional players, but will not necessarily affect builders in other cities/provinces.

The credit crisis/real estate downturn in the U.S. cannot be blamed on some inherent failing in the way cities have developed. Overzealous lenders and speculators caused much of the damage. It is concerning, of course, that a small number of players in the market were able to exact as much damage as was done. Given Canada's dependence on the U.S. economy, I wouldn't be too quick to "wish" that these developments become squatter housing. Doing so shows your complete lack of a grasp on the realities of the economy.

look no further than George Bush and Alan Greenspan if you would like to know who to pin the housing crash on.
Greenspan bailed before the bottom fell out. The prez doesn't have that option or I'm sure he would have too.
Our housing market is better than in the US, but the fact is, our economies are tied together. We'll still feel it here.

How about starting sometime this year...

As reported in today's Toronto Star online edition:

I am not trying to validate this sort of project but I could see developments like these as the start of an international trend.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...56#post3332756

The North American suburb is rapidly losing its appeal. After the credit crisis there is going to be continued suspicion over the 'new home ownership' market. I cannot see the US government desiring to return to it because it is simply too problematic from almost every perspective -- resource, economic, spatial, and social.

I'll happily validate it. The crap we've been building for decades does one thing and one thing only - makes money for the guys building it. everyone else loses.
And don't expect the US governement to clue in anytime soon. They're some of the biggest morons on the planet. What the car/oil/building companies want, they give them. End of story.