[sim]

Taken from the Construction Forum:

Originally Posted by Ramsayfarian

Wonder if the never ending debate between urban and suburban that happens here, had anything to do with Richard White's story in today's Herald.

Well worth the read.

"Suburb Bashing Ignores the Facts"

What facts? That people like their space; have their cake and want to eat it too? Well no shit? This is about as enlightening as when the many armchair climatologists or other cereal box atmospheric scientists remind us that climate has always been changing, when explaining climate change...

I know science is hard for some people, but then a corresponding opinion shouldn't be presented as such. The only argument that is tiring is that of "people like suburbs, therefore suburbs are good." By that logic Pickton shouldn't be punished, and I should own a 100 million dollar yacht with 4 wives running around on it. (Exaggeration to make a point.)

Let's look at energy and resource use and the corresponding increased pollution. How about a built form that encourages the most dangerous and deadly thing most people do per day? How about for a country (countries, if you include those that the "urban policy maker and scientist" Wendell Cox uses as support) that champions free markets, suburban development adheres very little to this principle. For that lovely "social engineering" argument - I'd love to see what would happen if a city was run entirely by a company paying dividends...

Seton as an example of good development (Sorry Strongbow): I see a massive hospital (a public good whose utilization should be maximized through increased accessibility) in more or less, the middle of nowhere, and a lot of parking lots with a few decent looking buildings and maybe one street worth walking down. Quarry Park? An embarrassement. There is nothing there that is ground breaking or different from the status quo.

White wants to argue that this kind of development is conducive to diverse lifestyles - well what if I choose a lifestyle that doesn't involve the use of a car? How do I get most places? Missionaries? The Gospel?

The gospel is more transit, cycling and walking, and fewer cars, more urban (multi-family housing) development and less suburban (single-family) development.

These missionaries are trying to convert us from our hedonistic North American lifestyle to an enlightened European one.

Yeah, wouldn't want to try and improve on energy consumption and pollution generation, while allowing equality of use of public infrastructure, support for a truly alternative lifestyle and choice making that is ultimately cheaper for the public purse. Maybe throw some straw man and sensationalist rhetoric in there and you've got yourself a rational and convincing argument... Is White per chance confusing a newspaper article with the comments section below?

I personally think that articles like this and especially the recent one quoting Wendell Cox are nothing short of embarrassing and an afront to reason and knowledge in general. That's a fact - well no, that's an opinion.

End Rant

Originally Posted by Aegis

I'm not normally one to post stuff about other cities in a local thread, but, this is a really interesting article, which contradicts some of the prevalent opinions in this thread on density. Example: environmentalists blocking development of tall buildings or near transit nodes. Learned a new term today: Manhattanization.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...24868&page=153

http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2011...se-development

I'm not 100% sure what you are trying to say here or if I'm misinterpretting it, but as far as the bold:

The article seems to be saying the exact opposite:

Keeping San Francisco from becoming a forest of skyscrapers once dominated conversations about development in The City. Opposition to such “Manhattanization” was a platform that environmentalists, neighborhood groups and outright foes of development used to block construction projects.

But times have changed.

Past rejection of density propelled the growth of suburbs and the carbon emissions of longer car commutes. But today’s dominant paradigm favors dense, transit-oriented infill developments that encourage walkable access to schools, stores and services.

Environmentalists will keep fighting developments that involve the addition of traffic, but don’t expect the same kinds of fights over greater density in San Francisco

In fact, the entire article is basically a contradiction to everything that White was trying to say. Perhaps we are on the same page?