Quote:
Originally Posted by freeweed
"McMansion". Nuff sed.
Come on, don't pretend that we don't see dozens if not hundreds of comments implying that suburban homes are these palatial estates on acres of property (complete with 4 car garage to hold 3 Hummers, natch).
That being said, I think there's a general understanding here that ironically, newer suburbs in Calgary tend to have much smaller lots than older homes. So the original post is a bit misleading.
|
Yeah, the bolded is what I was getting at. Suburb (the forum member) is generally being disingenuous, and using arguments and figures which have the flaw of making it easy for him to move the goal posts after the fact.
The general understanding is that lot sizes are larger in residential areas built prior to, say, 1980. No one is under a false impression that they aren't. His argument is a strawman because no one is arguing that "suburban" areas (as per the category given in the title of the thread), in general are bad because of this supposed false impression.
However, I can only blame suburb (the forum member) so much for this. The basis for this entire debate is flawed from the outset. It's a false dichotomy pitting one purportedly discrete category of development vs. another. You can't draw any useful line in the sand (and people have tried, see the above map) and say that the development on one side of the line is at the opposite end of the spectrum than the development on the other.