Wendell Cox: California's War on Suburbia

[vid]

It's fairly similar with cars, though, isn't it?

[fflint]

While I cannot say if that chart is correct, the 2010 Census did show the big, dense cities with the highest transit commute rates also had the longest average commutes.

[CyberEric]

Man, I should have moved to Texas!

[krudmonk]

I have noticed a lot of briths lately...

[Chicago103]

You know when all these people call us "elitists" for being urbanists or the "you will understand when you grow up and have kids" pretentious BS it makes me wonder if some are just envious of the lifestyle we still have in walkable cities that they no longer have that they might have had before they had kids, especially among the latter group, it is like they take some sadistic pleasure in the belief that we will yield to suburbia when we get older and the sooner we do the sooner they have the pleasure in knowing our joy was destroyed, like they have an ax to grind. It is easy to imagine people like them including Wendell Cox as some cultist sci-fi villain that is out to force urbanists to live in auto-centric suburbs.

Me: You will have to kill me before I yield to your suburban views Cox. If you want to kill me Cox you will have to come downtown, you will have to come downtown!

Cox: I will do far worse than kill you, I will hurt you and I wish to go on hurting you, I will take you where I was left, where countless millions of former city dwelling Americans were left, marooned for all child-rearing years in the center of a dead suburb, bored out of your mind, BORED OUT OF YOUR MIND!

Me: COOOOOOXXXX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cox: facial expression of an evil sadistic orgasm at the thought of me living in agony in an auto-centric suburb.

[pacarlson]

Originally Posted by Chicago103

You know when all these people call us "elitists" for being urbanists or the "you will understand when you grow up and have kids" pretentious BS it makes me wonder if some are just envious of the lifestyle we still have in walkable cities that they no longer have that they might have had before they had kids, especially among the latter group, it is like they take some sadistic pleasure in the belief that we will yield to suburbia when we get older and the sooner we do the sooner they have the pleasure in knowing our joy was destroyed, like they have an ax to grind. It is easy to imagine people like them including Wendell Cox as some cultist sci-fi villain that is out to force urbanists to live in auto-centric suburbs.

Me: You will have to kill me before I yield to your suburban views Cox. If you want to kill me Cox you will have to come downtown, you will have to come downtown!

Cox: I will do far worse than kill you, I will hurt you and I wish to go on hurting you, I will take you where I was left, where countless millions of former city dwelling Americans were left, marooned for all child-rearing years in the center of a dead suburb, bored out of your mind, BORED OUT OF YOUR MIND!

Me: COOOOOOXXXX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cox: facial expression of an evil sadistic orgasm at the thought of me living in agony in an auto-centric suburb.

Your fantasy, while entertaining, isn't close to reality. You'll understand when you grow up, get a real job, & have kids.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by pacarlson

Your fantasy, while entertaining, isn't close to reality. You'll understand when you grow up, get a real job, & have kids.

His fantasy was a bit out there, I'll grant you that. But so is your patronization, which just plays right into his pseudo-fantasy.

I am grown up and I have had a real job for nearly two decades.

I know people with kids well enough that I have close insight to their relationship with their kids and how their kids are developing and how they think. I know them in truly rural areas, small towns, suburbs, moderately dense urban neighborhoods and high density urban neighborhoods.

In all cases, environment is secondary to parenting. The kids who are best adjusted are those whose parents are living the life they want to live while at the same time actively participating in their kids lives. Parents who sacrifice too much of their own life for their kids, in my observation, tend to have kids who are more dependent or even spoiled. This can happen whether they live in the city or in the suburbs - location is just one of many factors in which sacrifices parents make for their kids. I don't know any parents who sacrifice everything for their kids, just like I don't know any parents who sacrifice nothing for their kids - all parents fall somewhere between those two extremes.

Kids are resilient. Kids watch their parents, and know if their parents are happy. Kids with happy parents tend to respect their parents more, which tends to make them more receptive to the lessons their parents give them. Which just makes sense - kids are learning to be adults, and they naturally want to learn how to be happy adults. If a parent really, truly wants to live in the suburbs, it's going to be good for the kid, too. If a parent only moves to the suburbs out of some misguided sense of obligation, it could very well backfire. Who do you think all those suburban teen heroin users are being reared by? Happy parents who participate in their kids lives? I don't think so.

[Chicago3rd]

Originally Posted by pesto

There is nothing wrong with living in a tiny urban apartment and subjecting your children (2, 4, 6, however many you have) to the same conditions. This is just a fact of urban life. It is not child abuse, but it is hardly what any parent wants for their children.

Suburbs are full of isolation. Parents want big yards so they can put their kids and pets in the back yard and not pay attention to them. Tons of families I know in the city who would never raise their children in the suburbs because of the isolation.

We can all generalize out of ignorance or just accept the fact that families can live healthy lives in both urban and non-urban environments.

[eternallyme]

I think the real hardliners on this issue don't live in the suburbs, but rather in smaller towns and distant exurbs.

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by pacarlson

Your fantasy, while entertaining, isn't close to reality. You'll understand when you grow up, get a real job, & have kids.

FYI, I am 31 years old, am graduate school educated, have worked at Chicago city hall and for various high profile political campaigns and was successful enough to live in the John Hancock Center. The only thing I don't have yet is kids and when I do my attitude is basically the same as emathias'. If that meets your definition of immaturity I could care less.

Secondly my statement was a joke that all Star Trek geeks should know what I am parodying. Also it is kind or ironic that you call my statement fantasy and then go ahead and basically say the same thing the people I am parodying are saying. Also while my posting history on here includes a bit of sarcastic and over the top drama on purpose I try to balance it from time to time with actual well thought out analysis of urban issues. Every post of yours I have read seems to be a parody of being some ultra-suburbanite just to rattle our nerves or something, I mean for goodness sake look at your sig, you expect to wave that around and be considered the standard bearer of seriousness and maturity?

[mhays]

Paccarlson's type often ends up with kids unprepared for the real world. Sheltered, unable to get across town let alone overseas without help, unprepared for the workplace, etc.

I grew up in both suburbia and the inner city, including being on the edge of some poor neighborhoods and going to schools in those areas. I walked about a mile to fourth grade. This has been a big advantage in my ability to relate to all types of people, my independence, and my ability to solve problems without panicking or calling mommy for help.

[miketoronto]

Originally Posted by vid

It's fairly similar with cars, though, isn't it?

Not even close. No one likes transit more than I do, but cars do win out in travel time in most cases. The fact is car commuters do usually spend less time commuting to work, and can reach more places in a 45 minute time frame than transit riders.

Transit is great, but it is too slow in most North American cities to really offer a competitive trip other than to downtown. And even that trip is not always competitive.

Cars on freeways even in traffic conditions will almost always win in speed over transit.

[Roadcruiser1]

Yeah and the point of the suburbs are? They don't deliver the supposed country life. All they deliver is people that will rely on cars to get somewhere. Cars burn oil and oil is running out. So what is the whole point of this?

[pacarlson]

Originally Posted by Chicago103

FYI, I am 31 years old, am graduate school educated, have worked at Chicago city hall and for various high profile political campaigns and was successful enough to live in the John Hancock Center. The only thing I don't have yet is kids and when I do my attitude is basically the same as emathias'. If that meets your definition of immaturity I could care less.

Secondly my statement was a joke that all Star Trek geeks should know what I am parodying. Also it is kind or ironic that you call my statement fantasy and then go ahead and basically say the same thing the people I am parodying are saying. Also while my posting history on here includes a bit of sarcastic and over the top drama on purpose I try to balance it from time to time with actual well thought out analysis of urban issues. Every post of yours I have read seems to be a parody of being some ultra-suburbanite just to rattle our nerves or something, I mean for goodness sake look at your sig, you expect to wave that around and be considered the standard bearer of seriousness and maturity?

Your credentials are superior & clearly qualify you to be an expert on suburban parents. Thanks to you, I now realize how jealous I am of those like yourself. BTW, I thought my reply was funny.

[pacarlson]

Originally Posted by mhays

Paccarlson's type often ends up with kids unprepared for the real world. Sheltered, unable to get across town let alone overseas without help, unprepared for the workplace, etc.

If what you say is true, then they would become dependent on the gubment & become dems; should make you happy. It pLays well on this forum, but wrong as usual. I'd love to see your proof to back it up.

[pacarlson]

Originally Posted by Roadcruiser1

So what is the whole point of this?

Happiness & satisfaction for the family.

[Segun]

Originally Posted by emathias

In all cases, environment is secondary to parenting.

There's your truth.

(I was born and raised in the city BTW, all my life in apartment buildings)

[mhays]

Originally Posted by pacarlson

If what you say is true, then they would become dependent on the gubment & become dems; should make you happy. It pLays well on this forum, but wrong as usual. I'd love to see your proof to back it up.

Where's YOUR proof? You do little more than spout talk radio nonsense. It's great that you're turning over a new leaf. We'll look forward to your proof of the statement above. I'll go next.

[Insoluble]

Originally Posted by mhays

Paccarlson's type often ends up with kids unprepared for the real world. Sheltered, unable to get across town let alone overseas without help, unprepared for the workplace, etc.

Originally Posted by pacarlson

If what you say is true, then they would become dependent on the gubment & become dems; should make you happy. It pLays well on this forum, but wrong as usual. I'd love to see your proof to back it up.

Children who are overly sheltered are much more likely to be overly susceptible to stress. This has been a basic finding in the psychological study of resilience and was established in the early 70's (The original research was done by N. Garmezy but you can probably find reference to this in a more recent psychology textbook.)

Originally Posted by pacarlson

If what you say is true, then they would become dependent on the gubment & become dems; should make you happy. It pLays well on this forum, but wrong as usual.

Ahhh, and now we get to the crux of the matter. This is just a political diatribe on your part and has no basis in reality. Sorry for feeding the troll folks.

- signed The parent of a very happy and well adjusted urban child.

[zilfondel]

The fact of the matter is that what these guys keep writing doesn't matter. Cities won - and big cities have won bigger.

New York, LA, SF, Chicago, Seattle, Philly, DC, Boston - these cities aren't going anywhere. They exist as an impression of our culture, housing our nation's wealth, institutions, people, jobs, and government. Where people migrate to and congregate, urbanism is the natural result, barring ridiculous land-use restrictions.

Wendell Cox and his contemporaries are merely in favor of draconian land-use restrictions to curate a sense of partial urbanism, centered upon an idealists' white upper-middle class 'garden city-at-the-end-of-the freeway' utopian vision.

A fantasy fit for a child! You'd think that grown men would stop tilting at windmills...