HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2012, 2:20 AM
TarHeelJ TarHeelJ is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by philvia View Post
it's perfectly ridiculous. just because you can afford a larger house doesn't mean you should buy it - that's no excuse. my point was that people buy these large houses out of vanity and not purpose.

if you make a purchase decision solely on the fact that a house has 4 bedrooms rather than the 3 that you need, that is ridiculous. yes people have choices, but that doesn't mean they're right or that they demand respect.

the worst offenders are the "guest rooms" and the "home office". every suburbanite wants a guest room for that yearly visit from the inlaws and every suburbanite wants a dedicated office to store their 1.4 pound laptop - and before you lose your mind, people who have frequent guests and people who actually work from home are perfectly fine requiring dedicated spaces, but the MAJORITY of people need neither. it's all vanity.
Oh my god...you can certainly have your own opinion, but don't act like yours is the "right" one for everyone. There is absolutely nothing wrong with someone having a guest room if they need and can afford it. It's not up to you or me or anyone else to decide that it's wrong for someone else. And most people (other than the 1%) do not have one for vanity - they have one for GUESTS.

You are making a large number of assumptions about people and their reasons for wanting/needing space. Just because your needs/desires are different definitely does not make them correct. I can't believe some of the posts in this thread - they sound like they are coming from right-wing conservatives attempting to push their views on everyone else! I always thought that urban dwellers were more open minded and tolerant than the general population (and I still think so), but I can see that some of them on this site aren't.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2012, 2:27 AM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is online now
Dryer lint inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston/ SF Bay Area
Posts: 37,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by philvia View Post
it's perfectly ridiculous. just because you can afford a larger house doesn't mean you should buy it - that's no excuse. my point was that people buy these large houses out of vanity and not purpose.
if they want it and can afford to buy a large home and maintain it, what does it matter to you or anyone else what their needs are?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2012, 2:30 AM
mhays mhays is online now
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by TarHeelJ View Post
I'm curious though...how does it affect us for someone to choose a larger than necessary living space that he/she can afford?
How does the planet's health affect others? If you don't see the basic ethical issue....

Not to mention the land often involved, or the economic competition for resources.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2012, 2:39 AM
TarHeelJ TarHeelJ is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
How does the planet's health affect others? If you don't see the basic ethical issue....

Not to mention the land often involved, or the economic competition for resources.
When the U.S. gets anywhere near running out of land this might be an issue, but we aren't even in the ballpark. There are more than enough land and housing resources in the U.S. for a hundred generations to come. The vast majority of homes aren't built on previously undeveloped land and are not new construction anyway, so I don't see how that is even an issue.

This isn't about "the planet's health" but it's about some people wanting to impose their views onto others. I'm surprised that this is coming from people on this site...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2012, 2:41 AM
TarHeelJ TarHeelJ is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
if they want it and can afford to buy a large home and maintain it, what does it matter to you or anyone else what their needs are?
Thank you. People in this thread seem to be coming up with their own (made up) reasons.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2012, 2:47 AM
mhays mhays is online now
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by TarHeelJ View Post
When the U.S. gets anywhere near running out of land this might be an issue, but we aren't even in the ballpark. There are more than enough land and housing resources in the U.S. for a hundred generations to come. The vast majority of homes aren't built on previously undeveloped land and are not new construction anyway, so I don't see how that is even an issue.

This isn't about "the planet's health" but it's about some people wanting to impose their views onto others. I'm surprised that this is coming from people on this site...
Speaking of planets, we're not from the same one apparently. That's the kindest thing I can say.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2012, 2:49 AM
TarHeelJ TarHeelJ is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
Speaking of planets, we're not from the same one apparently. That's the kindest thing I can say.
I could definitely say the same...I'm from a tolerant and open-minded planet where we don't impose our views on others. You and I are not in disagreement over our preferences, but over condemning others for theirs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2012, 3:00 AM
mhays mhays is online now
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
Another thing to love about the west coast...unlike the South, people like you don't win statewide elections here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2012, 3:01 AM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is online now
Dryer lint inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston/ SF Bay Area
Posts: 37,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by TarHeelJ View Post
When the U.S. gets anywhere near running out of land this might be an issue, but we aren't even in the ballpark. There are more than enough land and housing resources in the U.S. for a hundred generations to come. The vast majority of homes aren't built on previously undeveloped land and are not new construction anyway, so I don't see how that is even an issue.

This isn't about "the planet's health" but it's about some people wanting to impose their views onto others. I'm surprised that this is coming from people on this site...
the problem is though is new housing communities are eating up undeveloped land at a steady pace all over the country and that is a problem. there's really not much land left in the US that is undeveloped....a cross country flight is a sober reminder of that reality. however, the problem is much more complicated than simply shaming people who buy out in exurbs. we have to look at why and address that first; schools, cost of living, taxes, crime, lifestyle choices all factor in. a 'cheap' city like houston is rapidly becoming too expensive for most middle class families to own a home (any size) within close proximity of most business districts and not in the hood and this compounded with a shitty public school system is forcing people further out.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2012, 3:02 AM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
I am a typical
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 41,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by TarHeelJ View Post
Not buying any of that...sprawl isn't all about large homes. Most of the large surburban homes people are buying are not built on previously undeveloped land in the exurbs. You are describing an extreme circumstance.
What?

I watched what was previously forest get clearcut to make room for those houses so who are you to tell me what I directly observed—and what you can observe in Google Earth—isn't happening?!?!

Go to that location in Google Earth and use the time slider, you can see that neighbourhood progress from forest to suburb in the span of a decade. In five years it will be twice the size it is now, and what is it surrounded by? Forests, and grasslands that are failed farms. (The soil here can't support farms but were doled out as if they could, it resulted in a unique development pattern in our rural area that I won't go into detail about here. the "farm" to the left of that area is a junk yard owned by a guy with three "hobby cows".) When I was a kid, that area was a dirt road that ended in the middle of the bush.

You're pretty out of touch with reality. Sure, many subdivisions in cities to the south and west of us are built on farms, but that doesn't mean it is OK to build on the farms. Where else are we going to get food? You realize it have to come from somewhere else before popping up on shelves at Safeway, right?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2012, 3:07 AM
Gresto's Avatar
Gresto Gresto is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by TarHeelJ View Post
I could definitely say the same...I'm from a tolerant and open-minded planet where we don't impose our views on others. You and I are not in disagreement over our preferences, but over condemning others for theirs.
When others' preferences deleteriously affect society at large, I see nothing wrong with condemning them. It's an ethical issue. "Shaming" is an old-fashioned concept that might be useful in today's profligate, "me me me" society. The disparities between the haves and have-nots is ever-increasing, and many of the haves, notably those who are wantonly acquisitive and wasteful, just don't seem to grasp that there's a problem with their lifestyles.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2012, 3:10 AM
TarHeelJ TarHeelJ is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
What?

I watched what was previously forest get clearcut to make room for those houses so who are you to tell me what I directly observed—and what you can observe in Google Earth—isn't happening?!?!

Go to that location in Google Earth and use the time slider, you can see that neighbourhood progress from forest to suburb in the span of a decade. In five years it will be twice the size it is now, and what is it surrounded by? Forests, and grasslands that are failed farms. (The soil here can't support farms but were doled out as if they could, it resulted in a unique development pattern in our rural area that I won't go into detail about here. the "farm" to the left of that area is a junk yard owned by a guy with three "hobby cows".) When I was a kid, that area was a dirt road that ended in the middle of the bush.

You're pretty out of touch with reality. Sure, many subdivisions in cities to the south and west of us are built on farms, but that doesn't mean it is OK to build on the farms. Where else are we going to get food? You realize it have to come from somewhere else before popping up on shelves at Safeway, right?
What you are describing is a very small percentage of suburban homes...yes, construction on previously undeveloped land DOES exist, but it in no way is the majority of construction or the majority of suburban home purchases.

Sprawl is a completely different topic my friend. We are discussing people's housing choices, not housing construction. You can accuse me of being out of touch with reality all you want, but let's try and stay within the boundaries of this discussion.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2012, 3:13 AM
TarHeelJ TarHeelJ is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gresto View Post
When others' preferences deleteriously affect society at large, I see nothing wrong with condemning them. It's an ethical issue. "Shaming" is an old-fashioned concept that might be useful in today's profligate, "me me me" society. The disparities between the haves and have-nots is ever-increasing, and many of the haves, notably those who are wantonly acquisitive and wasteful, just don't seem to grasp that there's a problem with their lifestyles.
Wow...some of you just don't get it do you?

Take that mess to an Occupy shanty town!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2012, 3:15 AM
TarHeelJ TarHeelJ is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
the problem is though is new housing communities are eating up undeveloped land at a steady pace all over the country and that is a problem. there's really not much land left in the US that is undeveloped....a cross country flight is a sober reminder of that reality. however, the problem is much more complicated than simply shaming people who buy out in exurbs. we have to look at why and address that first; schools, cost of living, taxes, crime, lifestyle choices all factor in. a 'cheap' city like houston is rapidly becoming too expensive for most middle class families to own a home (any size) within close proximity of most business districts and not in the hood and this compounded with a shitty public school system is forcing people further out.
Yes, but sprawl is a completely different topic. We are talking about people's housing choices and how they have a right (or shouldn't have, according to some people) to the amount of space they need and can afford without someone attacking them for it. I agree that building new developments on previously undeveloped land is terrible, but the fact is that most home purchases do not fit that description.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2012, 3:19 AM
TarHeelJ TarHeelJ is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
Another thing to love about the west coast...unlike the South, people like you don't win statewide elections here.
Who are "people like me"? People who are tolerant and open-minded and don't try to impose their views on others...that's who I am. Who are you? The tone of yours and some other posts who would demonize people for their individual needs and preferences - those are more in line with conservative views.

I am only guessing that you are confusing me with a conservative for some reason. It's a little confusing seeing as how you are the one with intolerant viewpoint - not me. I am very much a liberal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2012, 3:24 AM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
I am a typical
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 41,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by TarHeelJ View Post
What you are describing is a very small percentage of suburban homes...yes, construction on previously undeveloped land DOES exist, but it in no way is the majority of construction or the majority of suburban home purchases.
Then what are they being built on? Was suburban Fargo lined with factories that have all mysteriously disappeared? Was the Phoenix, Arizona region totally covered in shopping malls before the houses took over?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2012, 3:27 AM
TarHeelJ TarHeelJ is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,998
I am not going to continue arguing with some of you...if you like being intolerant of others then fine, but I am not and I refuse to jump on the bandwagon just because some people think it politically correct. One more time...we are not talking about sprawl/construction of homes on previously undeveloped land, but simply of home purchases - most of which are not mansions with huge amounts of square footage.

For the record I live in a 1,300 sq.ft. home with 2 bedrooms on a very compact urban lot with one other person, and that is my choice. But if I chose to buy a home with an extra bedroom I don't see how it is anyone's business. I agree with those of you who choose to live in less space, but I don't agree what we should chastize others for their own personal choices on how much space is right for them. That's an awfully hypocritical stance.

Peace out.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2012, 3:27 AM
yaletown_fella yaletown_fella is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by dimondpark View Post
I dont really mind so long as lots arent getting bigger.
Really?

I prefer the Ferris Bueller aesthetic of a large lot, mature tree cover, and modest modernist bungalow in an area served by public transit/local main street vs some 80X180 ft lot car dependent hellhole in on the fringe of Markham.

Suburban living in Etobicoke (Old Toronto suburb)
http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=Edenbri...2,32.41,,0,0.1

Typical north Markham schlock
http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=Markham...2,319.69,,0,-2
__________________
Supporter of Bill 23

Last edited by yaletown_fella; Mar 1, 2012 at 6:22 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2012, 3:27 AM
TarHeelJ TarHeelJ is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
Then what are they being built on? Was suburban Fargo lined with factories that have all mysteriously disappeared? Was the Phoenix, Arizona region totally covered in shopping malls before the houses took over?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2012, 3:29 AM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
I am a typical
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 41,172
Answer the question. What was the land where most suburban houses are being built used for if it is not previously undeveloped?
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:04 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.