HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2010, 2:44 AM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,736
Book sales for starters. I suspect a lot of grants come from industry as well, but that's just a guess. The whole thing is greased by being one of the few standard go-to people for the "opposing" viewpoint.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2010, 2:53 AM
pj3000's Avatar
pj3000 pj3000 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Pittsburgh & Miami
Posts: 7,524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G View Post
Ha. The author is a former classmate of mine.
You should have killed him when you had the chance.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2010, 4:22 PM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
Book sales for starters. I suspect a lot of grants come from industry as well, but that's just a guess. The whole thing is greased by being one of the few standard go-to people for the "opposing" viewpoint.
If he favored cities over suburbs, then he wouldn't be rich, famous and employed as an 'expert on cities'. It's that simple.

Any number of forumers here are more nuanced in their thinking about cities and suburbs than Kotkin, but because they think independently and don't pimp the petroleum-suburban complex, they don't get book deals, Orange County college fellowships, and speaking fees.

The oily interests sponsoring, promoting and funding Kotkin don't care about epic obesity, social alienation, roadway carnage, or environmental calamity--they only care about this quarter's profits. And for some reason they think Kotkin helps their bottom line, so they prop him up. They do the same with Wendell Cox, although to a lesser extent because that one is apparently less media-friendly.
__________________
"You need both a public and a private position." --Hillary Clinton, speaking behind closed doors to the National Multi-Family Housing Council, 2013
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2010, 5:17 PM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam
Posts: 39,083
Vancouver is doing soemthing like this perhaps with its town centre approach and transit oriented development - have many "town centres" instead of one downtown
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted May 1, 2010, 10:36 PM
American Dirt's Avatar
American Dirt American Dirt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 28
Kotkin is a necessary gadfly to writers like the author of this American City article. Both are ideologically driven, but Kotkin has made it his modus operandi to defy contemporary city planning dogma. Complete defiance of dogma is usually no wiser than complete agreement with it.

But why is it a myth that people didn't choose suburbs? Of course a single-family detached house is a paradigm for a huge portion of the population--that largely explains why lower-income minorities have in recent years starting buying into the portions of suburbia that they can afford.

Do the people who think that we only moved to the suburbs through government policies (such as the author of the featured article) really think that if we had policies to encourage people to move back to the depopulating Central Great Plains by having government funded infrastructure, tax breaks, or low-interest loans, that people would move there? Hasn't the re-introduced "Homestead Act" generally proven ineffective at getting people to move back to central Nebraska?

I'm amazed at the number of urbanists who remain convinced that American lifestyle patterns are so driven by top-down policy. Life at its most banal (and usually getting a realtor and looking for house is pretty banal) is fundamentally bottom-up.
__________________
_____
Visit American Dirt, my blog on landscapes and the built environment:
http://dirtamericana.blogspot.com/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted May 1, 2010, 11:52 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,736
Nobody says all suburbia is due to top-down policies. But the EXTENT of suburbia clearly is, due to highly slanted public spending, private lending, and prescriptive zoning.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted May 4, 2010, 7:18 PM
M II A II R II K's Avatar
M II A II R II K M II A II R II K is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 52,200
Joel Hotkin: America in 2050 -- Where and How We'll Live


March 17th, 2010

Joel Kotkin



Read More: LINK

Quote:
The presence of 100 million more Americans by 2050 will reshape the nation's geography. Scores of new communities will have to be built to accommodate them, creating a massive demand for new housing, as well as industrial and commercial space. This growth will include everything from the widespread "infilling" of once-desolate inner cities to the creation of new suburban and exurban towns to the resettling of the American heartland -- the vast, still sparsely populated regions that constitute the majority of the U.S. landmass.

In order to accommodate the next 100 million Americans, new environmentally friendly technologies and infrastructure will be required to reduce commutes by bringing work closer to -- or even into -- the home and to find more energy-efficient means of transportation.

Suburbs Rule

Suburbia -- the predominant form of American life -- will probably remain the focal point of innovations in development. Despite criticisms that suburbs are culturally barren, energy inefficient or suitable only for young families, 80 percent or more of the total U.S. metropolitan population growth has taken place in suburbia, confounding oft-repeated predictions of its inevitable decline.

This pattern will continue to the mid-21st century. The reasons are not hard to identify: Suburbs experience faster job and income growth, far lower crime rates (roughly one-third) and much higher rates of home ownership. While cities will always exercise a strong draw for younger people, the appeal often proves to be short-lived; as people enter their 30s and beyond, they generally prefer suburbs. This pattern will become more pronounced as the huge millennial generation -- those born after 1983 -- enters this age cohort.

Over the next few decades, however, suburban communities will evolve beyond the conventional 1950s-style "production suburbs" of vast housing tracts constructed far from existing commercial and industrial centers. The suburbs of the 21st century will increasingly incorporate aspects of preindustrial villages. They will be more compact and self-sufficient, providing office space as well as a surging home-based workforce. Well before 2050 as many one in four or five people will work full or part time from home.



Source: National Survey on Communities conducted for Smart Growth America and National Association of Realtors.

__________________
ASDFGHJK
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted May 4, 2010, 7:22 PM
M II A II R II K's Avatar
M II A II R II K M II A II R II K is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 52,200
At least his side of the story gets thrown out there.
__________________
ASDFGHJK
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted May 8, 2010, 3:15 PM
M II A II R II K's Avatar
M II A II R II K M II A II R II K is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 52,200
Kotkin and Clubs


Robert Steuteville

Read More: http://www.newurbannews.com/moose.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/op...ks.html?src=me


Quote:
David Brooks’s column in The New York Times April 5, “Relax, We’ll Be Fine,” is a hopeful and thoughtful review of Joel Kotkin’s book, The Next Hundred Million. That is what I thought until I came to the following statement, which Brooks apparently picked up from Kotkin: “For every 10 percent reduction in population density, the odds that people will join a local club rise by 15 percent.” Before I tell you why the statement brought me up short, let’s examine it more closely. You’ll notice that it sounds almost like a GEICO ad. If a pro-suburban group were to run a series of spots on TV, they could do worse than to say: “a 10 percent drop in population density gets you a 15 percent rise in local club membership.”

So let’s start at 11,000 people per square mile, which is approximately the population density of Eastern US cities like Boston and Philadelphia. Now ratchet that on down, in 10 percent density reductions, to the average population of a typical large suburb, 1,600 people per square mile. Brooks’s formula nets an increase of more than 1,100 percent in local club membership! If you take it further, to 700 people per square mile, the density of many exurban communities, club membership is up 3,300 percent from the figure for Boston. Wow! Those people must join a whole lot of clubs! How do they find the time with all of the commuting that they do?

Did Brooks consider the implications of that statement? Did he ask himself whether this possibly could be true? The answer, if he had looked into it, is that it isn’t true. Not even a tiny little bit true. Here’s the provenance of this factoid: Brooks and/or Kotkin probably got it from news reports, which in turn sourced a press release by someone who worked for the University of California-Irvine public relations office. The press release, which referred to a study by UC Irvine economics professor Jan Brueckner, was grossly in error. The study itself was flawed.

If you read the 2006 study, “Social Interaction and Urban Sprawl,” and look at the numbers, you find that going from Boston to a typical suburb does not net a statistical difference in social interaction of any kind. You have to go down to the exurban level — from 11,000 to 700 people per square mile — to reach about a 5 percent rise in talking with neighbors regularly. To achieve a second 5 percent increase in social interaction, you’d have to go to a landscape with 50-some people per square mile — not a whole lot of neighbors to talk to there. A third 5 percent rise in social interaction puts you in an actual wilderness, where, I assume, you’d join the “moose” lodge. But if you read the study carefully enough to do the math, you find that even that absurd correlation is illusory.
__________________
ASDFGHJK
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted May 8, 2010, 4:24 PM
Onn Onn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: The United States
Posts: 1,937
I think Kotkin makes a valid point that suburbs are more attractive than cities. I don't find that statement a surprise at all. Suburbs offer more space (a yard, garage, basement, more bedrooms), which you could never get in an urban environment. People choose the suburbs because it's comfortable living, and they can get more peace and quiet. You could certainly argue our economic success has been helped along by suburbs too. The oil factor is only one piece of the puzzle. There are other factors, like having a large house to furnish inside and out, translating in the need for people to buy more.

And I think the suburbs win hands down as a place to raise the family. There is more room for more people and the area is safer than the city is. It makes total sense, the author is not wrong. He's just taking a different view than most tend to take. Most look at suburbs as negative today, therefore they get a bad rap. The reality is though suburbs are going nowhere any time soon. Even if we stopped building today we would still have to deal with all the suburbs already out there. We're not just tearing them down. Suburbs will be a part of American life for perhaps generations to come. Moving forward it's likely we will see more, because of the sure amount of land the country has. And building suburbs are cheaper than building cities, you get more for your money. Americans love bargains.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted May 8, 2010, 8:28 PM
NYaMtl NYaMtl is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onn View Post
There are other factors, like having a large house to furnish inside and out, translating in the need for people to buy more.
You say that as if it's a good thing.

Quote:
And I think the suburbs win hands down as a place to raise the family.
Schools matter, lawns don't.

Quote:
There is more room for more people and the area is safer than the city is.
Outside of your house there is only more room for more cars, not more people. Sidewalks are narrow or non-existant, public places are barren or non-existant, leaving what? Unpleasantly crowded malls and parking lots? That sketchy patch of woods next to the unfinished subdivision? Joy!

Depending on where you're talking about--you seem to think all cities and suburbs are the same and homogenous--the safety factor is quite debateable, both statistically and perceptually.

Quote:
It makes total sense, the author is not wrong. He's just taking a different view than most tend to take.
The problem with Joel Kotkin is that he, quite often, is plainly wrong. The statistic on clubs mentioned in previous posts is a good example.

Quote:
Most look at suburbs as negative today, therefore they get a bad rap.
Speaking of the typical modern suburban development: they are quickly eating up our arable farmland, accelerating the depletion of our natural resources, and have failed to improve America's societal ills in any meaningful way. They are often built without architectural merit or memorable places, and they are usually impractical to impossible to traverse without a car. THAT's why they get a bad rap, not because they have spacious homes or trees and lawns and kids running around. (Those are things that can be found in our premiere urban neighborhoods too, by the way.)

Quote:
The reality is though suburbs are going nowhere any time soon.
The problem is, they cannot exist without cheap oil, and oil is going somewhere very soon.

Quote:
Even if we stopped building today we would still have to deal with all the suburbs already out there. We're not just tearing them down.
Why can't we just tear them down? That's EXACTLY what we did with our cities 60 years ago--including architectural treasures and neighborhoods where plenty of people still lived, even!

Just because the suburbs exist does not mean that they cannot change.

Quote:
Suburbs will be a part of American life for perhaps generations to come. Moving forward it's likely we will see more, because of the sure amount of land the country has.
And forever there will be people around to oppose this malignant use of the "sure amount of land" that is left. Do you understand how precious that land is, both for agriculture and ecology?

Quote:
And building suburbs are cheaper than building cities, you get more for your money. Americans love bargains.
And you get what you pay for.

Of course you agree with Joel Kotkin, you just made all the same mistakes that cause him to lose his credibility.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted May 9, 2010, 3:33 AM
Onn Onn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: The United States
Posts: 1,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYaMtl View Post
You say that as if it's a good thing.
Of course it's good, they grow the econmey.

Quote:
Schools matter, lawns don't.
Whoa, how can you say lawns don't matter?! I played on lawns when I was a kid! Kids need room to run around and spread out. Lawns are too important, as is a backyard.

Quote:
Outside of your house there is only more room for more cars, not more people. Sidewalks are narrow or non-existant, public places are barren or non-existant, leaving what? Unpleasantly crowded malls and parking lots? That sketchy patch of woods next to the unfinished subdivision? Joy!
But if you live in the suburbs you likely have a larger house, and a larger house can accommodate more people.

Quote:
Depending on where you're talking about--you seem to think all cities and suburbs are the same and homogenous--the safety factor is quite debateable, both statistically and perceptually.
I really don't know where people get the idea that suburbs aren't safe. Every suburb I've known have certainly been safer than the nearest major cities. I think the general trend in this country is most big cities are not that safe.

Quote:
The problem with Joel Kotkin is that he, quite often, is plainly wrong. The statistic on clubs mentioned in previous posts is a good example.
That's a very ignorant statement, how can someone always be wrong? Sounds like you just don't agree with him in general. That most certainly does not mean he is wrong however.

Quote:
Speaking of the typical modern suburban development: they are quickly eating up our arable farmland, accelerating the depletion of our natural resources, and have failed to improve America's societal ills in any meaningful way. They are often built without architectural merit or memorable places, and they are usually impractical to impossible to traverse without a car. THAT's why they get a bad rap, not because they have spacious homes or trees and lawns and kids running around. (Those are things that can be found in our premiere urban neighborhoods too, by the way.)
Eating up farmland? We have so much land and so many resources that we could keep building for another 100 million people and still have plenty of room. Take a look at the whole midsection of the country, there is almost nothing there. Better yet, take a train trip through the middle of the country. There is a lot less there than you would think. Miles and miles of nothing, not even farmland, in states like Kansas, Nebraska, Arizona, New Mexico…

There is certainly nothing wrong with suburbs, not everything has to have a strong architectural element to it. That's a very narrow minded look at things. I mean, really there is architecture in all suburbs, it's just very modern. It's not complex. That's perfectly okay though, it works. If you don't like suburbs that's fine. That's not a reason to get rid of them or stop building them though. This is a free country, if people want to live in suburbs let them live in suburbs. So far as we know they are not hurting anything. They’re cheap and comfortable, that is why people live in them. Being car centric is only one part of the puzzle, and most Americans would probably say there's nothing wrong with that either. There's very little support for mass transit outside of cities, Americans like their cars.

Quote:
The problem is, they cannot exist without cheap oil, and oil is going somewhere very soon.
So are fuel efficiency standards, they are going up. Of course everyone knows the future is likely electric. We just need enough oil until electric cars become cheap enough for the average American to buy.

Quote:
Why can't we just tear them down? That's EXACTLY what we did with our cities 60 years ago--including architectural treasures and neighborhoods where plenty of people still lived, even!
Well I think it's a lot cheaper to tear down a building than a subdivision. That's a no brainer.

Quote:
Just because the suburbs exist does not mean that they cannot change.
Of course ones already built can change, but that takes a lot of money. Perhaps suburbs of the future will be different than those today, by including mass transit options. Who knows.

Quote:
And forever there will be people around to oppose this malignant use of the "sure amount of land" that is left. Do you understand how precious that land is, both for agriculture and ecology?
We have both plenty of farmland and something called federally protected "wilderness" and "national parks". The government is already on top of much of it. They have already set aside an insane amount of land, probably more than any other country in the world. But even with all the protected land there is still plenty more. Again, take a train trip west and you'll see what I mean. We could continue building for the next century.

Cities will grow too. In places like California they may soon be forced to go up because of exploding population. By 2050 California's population will be around 60 million. Then again, California is larger than Japan, which has 130 million squeezed onto a bunch of islands. So you never know.

Quote:
And you get what you pay for.
You may have a point there, but it's not like you’re going to get something better buying in a new high-rise development. Overall you’re going to get less space for more money. Think about it.

Quote:
Of course you agree with Joel Kotkin, you just made all the same mistakes that cause him to lose his credibility.
There is a difference between not having credibility and disagreeing. You may disagree with Joel but that doesn’t mean he's wrong. You can both be right, you’re taking different viewpoints on the matter. You can make good and valid points on either side of the argument. Disagreeing is okay.

Last edited by Onn; May 9, 2010 at 3:48 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted May 9, 2010, 5:21 AM
CentralGrad258's Avatar
CentralGrad258 CentralGrad258 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Fishtown, Philadelphia
Posts: 562
Maybe I self-select my interactions, in fact, it's likely. Still, there is a huge amount of people who love living in a city, enough where every nice walkable neighborhood on the east coast is extremely expensive. I do know some young people who prefer the suburbs, but I know many more who love the city and would stay there if the could afford it. These people are writing from the stereotypes they develop by only dealing with libertarian fundamentalists who are terrified of density for some odd reason. In fact, most people love having walkable neighborhoods and knowing their neighbors. There are various degrees of density, but the exhurban model of today is an awful way to live your life....the people who do it mainly do it for affordability which is only achieved by cheap land no one else wants to live.
__________________
Helsinki and the Finnish countryside || Kiev || St. Petersburg, Russia- Summer Palace

Philadelphia is not a city of palaces for the few, but a city of homes for the many.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted May 9, 2010, 6:35 AM
NYaMtl NYaMtl is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onn View Post
Of course it's good, they grow the econmey.
It causes growth in the worst ways. The amount of "stuff" that people need now means it has to be cheap, which means cheap oil, cheap transportation, and cheap labor in overseas markets where there are fewer regulations for labor rights and environmental policies. I prefer a diverse economy where we do a lot of those things ourselves, if it means we buy less and pay a little more.

Perhaps this is where we differ, but I simply don't think we should be encouraging future generations that more stuff=better.

Quote:
Whoa, how can you say lawns don't matter?! I played on lawns when I was a kid! Kids need room to run around and spread out. Lawns are too important, as is a backyard.
I say lawns don't matter for two reasons. One--children have been playing everywhere except for suburban lawns for the greater part of human history and have turned out fine. Two--it's not as though cities are deserts. We have playgrounds, parks, sidewalks, alleys, and yes, even lawns for them to play in. Tell the kids in my neighborhood that they don't have enough room to run around and I guarantee you'll get some funny looks in return. I grew up in St. Louis city and in suburban Chicago, and I can't say I noticed one was worse than the other as far as my playtime is concerned. Suburban lawns do make it easier to isolate and supervise children, fair enough.

Keep in mind the amount of resources lawns require in order to be maintained, and that putting thousands of them right next to each other wipes out perfectly fine ecosystems in the process. Over and over again.

Quote:
But if you live in the suburbs you likely have a larger house, and a larger house can accommodate more people.
What if you don't want more people? What if you don't need that much space? What if you were concerned about your carbon footprint? What if you were concerned about the cost to heat/cool such spaces?

Cheap energy and social engineering.

Quote:
I really don't know where people get the idea that suburbs aren't safe. Every suburb I've known have certainly been safer than the nearest major cities. I think the general trend in this country is most big cities are not that safe.
You can't say that across the board every suburb is automatically safer than every city. It simply isn't true.

Quote:
That's a very ignorant statement, how can someone always be wrong? Sounds like you just don't agree with him in general. That most certainly does not mean he is wrong however.
How dare you call me ignorant when you didn't even read what I wrote? I said he was often wrong, not always. And he is, and I gave an example. If I agree with him or not is irrelevant. If I'm ignorant it doesn't make him always right.

Quote:
Eating up farmland? We have so much land and so many resources that we could keep building for another 100 million people and still have plenty of room. Take a look at the whole midsection of the country, there is almost nothing there. Better yet, take a train trip through the middle of the country. There is a lot less there than you would think. Miles and miles of nothing, not even farmland, in states like Kansas, Nebraska, Arizona, New Mexico…
Plants, animals, watersheds, ecology, migration paths, etc. are all "nothing?" And why would we build such isolated developments? Do you understand the problems with sustainability facing Phoenix and Las Vegas? Do you think it's coincidence that our arable land tends to be concentrated near population agglomerations? Our agriculture is threatened by sprawl as much as our ecology is. There's no such thing as a place where there is "nothing", unless you're a developer.

Quote:
There is certainly nothing wrong with suburbs, not everything has to have a strong architectural element to it. That's a very narrow minded look at things.
You completely bypassed several real-life, uniquely suburban problems that I pointed out, and now you're calling me narrow minded?

Quote:
I mean, really there is architecture in all suburbs, it's just very modern. It's not complex. That's perfectly okay though, it works.
Architecture is built by architects. Most suburban developments are built from developers' templates or catalogues, not by architects. Don't talk to me like I'm a stranger to modern architecture. It exists in cities, too. The neighborhood where I live consists almost entirely of mid-late 20th century structures.

Quote:
If you don't like suburbs that's fine. That's not a reason to get rid of them or stop building them though.
I never said I don't like suburbs. I'd like to be clear that I think we could build them better. I also believe we can build them NOT at the expense of our urban and rural areas, as is the status quo.

Quote:
This is a free country, if people want to live in suburbs let them live in suburbs.
People should be able to build things that aren't suburban, too. In most places right now, that's not possible, it's illegal. So much for freedom.

Quote:
So far as we know they are not hurting anything.
You can't be serious. Do you read anybody except Kotkin and Cox?

Quote:
They’re cheap and comfortable, that is why people live in them.
The cheap-ness is artificial. The costs are hidden, and you end up with urbanism that looks, feels, and acts cheap.

Quote:
Being car centric is only one part of the puzzle, and most Americans would probably say there's nothing wrong with that either. There's very little support for mass transit outside of cities, Americans like their cars.
1- What most Americans say, then, is the standard for what is right, wrong, best, and worst? Emissions alone should make it clear to most people that there is something wrong with auto-centric environments. I am proposing a more complex rubric that incorporates factors other than "what most Americans would probably say."

2- Mass transit is only one part of the puzzle. In most places, it doesn't exist or is inadequate--why should we take those opinions on mass transit so seriously when they only have one meaningful way--the car--to get around? That's like doing market research for bacon products in Pakistan.

Quote:
So are fuel efficiency standards, they are going up. Of course everyone knows the future is likely electric. We just need enough oil until electric cars become cheap enough for the average American to buy.
Right--are you suggesting that electricity is unlimited and always will be cheap? More, more, more...it's just not the answer. We need to be more modest in our consumption. There are so many problems with personal transportation at its current scale, I don't even know where to begin.

Quote:
Well I think it's a lot cheaper to tear down a building than a subdivision. That's a no brainer.
I don't understand--are you suggesting this as a positive aspect of cheap suburban developments?

Quote:
Of course ones already built can change, but that takes a lot of money. Perhaps suburbs of the future will be different than those today, by including mass transit options. Who knows.
It might also stimulate parts of the economy and leave us with a better quality of life. I think it's time for Americans to realize that we have the power to change the character of our cities: we've done it before.

Quote:
We have both plenty of farmland and something called federally protected "wilderness" and "national parks". The government is already on top of much of it. They have already set aside an insane amount of land, probably more than any other country in the world. But even with all the protected land there is still plenty more. Again, take a train trip west and you'll see what I mean. We could continue building for the next century.
Don't patronize me. I am well aware of the National Parks Service. You are opening a can of worms without knowing much about conservation.

Needless to say, even out west (which I have traveled to and through), it's not unlimited, much of what's left is quite fragile, and (again) the resources required to support such inefficient developments are CERTAINLY not unlimited. As-is, what we have now, is unsustainable, and you are proposing we build more.

Quote:
You may have a point there, but it's not like you’re going to get something better buying in a new high-rise development. Overall you’re going to get less space for more money. Think about it.
Did I make even a small mention about anything involving high-rise developments? Most of the "city" areas I have been implying or referring to have few or no high rises (like the one I live in now), and those are my preferred areas to live.

To be honest, I worry a lot more about quality and sustainability for my money than I do about space for money. In fact, I include a lot more than "space" when analyzing any cost benefits, and I'm sure I get by quite comfortably on less money than most people.

Quote:
There is a difference between not having credibility and disagreeing. You may disagree with Joel but that doesn’t mean he's wrong. You can both be right, you’re taking different viewpoints on the matter. You can make good and valid points on either side of the argument. Disagreeing is okay.
I disagree with opinions founded on half-truths and outright lies, and paid for by special interests. I can most certainly say that Joel Kotkin is often wrong, AND I disagree with his opinions.

Last edited by NYaMtl; May 9, 2010 at 6:40 AM. Reason: grammar
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted May 9, 2010, 7:22 AM
hammersklavier's Avatar
hammersklavier hammersklavier is offline
Philly -> Osaka -> Tokyo
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The biggest city on earth. Literally
Posts: 5,863
Suburbs and cities are actually about equally safe. The issue is that the safety issues in cities are much different than they are in the suburbs. In the suburbs, burglary and violent crime rates go down, but at the same time issues involving auto accidents, drunken driving, and, well, driving in general go up just due to the autocentric suburban buildout. Whereas in the urban environment, safety issues related to driving drop like a stone, but those related to home invasion, robbery, etc. go up. And we usually think of home invasion issues before we think of auto safety issues; this perception gap is what leads to the myth of suburban safety when the reality is that you're just as safe in a middle-class neighborhood of a major city as you are in the newest exurb on the market.

Second: suburbs and exurbs are a waste of arable land. This is flat-out exactly true. What do you think those lawns need to grow? Arable land. In fact, one of the greatest ironies with Arizona is how great the anti-government sentiment runs there when your average Arizonan depends on irrigation water from the Colorado River each and every single day for every single one of his or her water needs--including, yes, watering the lawn! If it weren't for those big-government projects of the New Deal you wouldn't even have the water infrastructure in place in Arizona to support cities the size of Phoenix and Tucson! Furthermore, the sprawl of these cities is built exclusively on the best land; I doubt that more than 10% of the area of what is today metro Phoenix was just scrubland turned into suburbs; it was all farmland once. The same holds true with suburbs all across the nation. Few, if any, suburbs cling to the worst land. Instead, cities and farmland compete for the best land, a pattern that is neither exclusively American nor exclusively Western nor even exclusively modern. But a series of tract houses with two-acre lawns are--to echo Kunstler here, for this is where he is at his most accurate--"too much to comfortably live on, too little to properly farm", and when you multiply that by the hundreds of thousands in a state as dependent on irrigation as Arizona, you quickly realize that (IIRC) suburban lawns are the single largest irrigation crop today in Arizona. Yes, really.

Kotkin is wrong in several of his basic premises. There is no war between suburbs and the city: instead, there is a strong viewpoint that suburbs are in fact parasites on the inner city, draining resources from a metro's urban base into its fringes (a theory that has some truth in cities like New York or Philadelphia, although not so much in places like Phoenix or Albuquerque). Kotkin argues that 1) there is a war and 2) it is a war the suburbs will win. But since there is no war--without a center suburbs fail economically--and since due to oil considerations as well as sociological ones, suburbs are losing their luster as the ideal setting of the American Dream--it is easy to see why Kotkin's major arguments just flat-out fall apart. It's like somebody demonstrated Kant's transcendental apperception was all wrong--although 90% of the rest of the Critique of Pure Reason might be right, we'd still have to read it with a grain of salt because we would know that at its heart it contained a grave error that undermined and destabilized the theory as a whole*. Do you see now? Kotkin is like a creationist, a hack who's mobilized to appease only a small, specific, rabidly dogmatic section of the populace--to feed them the base lie that what's good for Special Interest X is good for them (when in fact, in these cases and with a bit of thinking it's usually demonstrably the opposite).

But hey! if you want to live in a Chester County exurb I'm not stopping you; just know that I, for one--and I came from the outer suburbs--would rather choose to live in either a Victorian rowhome or some nice modern infill in the center of the city.

------------
*As far as anybody can tell, though, transcendental apperception is not wrong, so don't worry, nobody has been able to significantly demolish Kant's epistemological theory...yet. Even Paul Guyer, notoriously skeptical of Kant, was effectively reduced to mucking about at the edges where general knowledge accumulations over the past 225 years has in many cases rendered Kant moot.
__________________
Urban Rambles | Hidden City

Who knows but that, on the lower levels, I speak for you?’ (Ralph Ellison, Invisible Man)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted May 9, 2010, 4:16 PM
BnaBreaker's Avatar
BnaBreaker BnaBreaker is online now
Future God
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago/Nashville
Posts: 19,476
He does it because he gets paid to do it.
__________________
"Emancipate yourself from mental slavery. None but ourselves can free our minds."

-Bob Marley
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted May 9, 2010, 7:59 PM
Onn Onn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: The United States
Posts: 1,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYaMtl View Post
It causes growth in the worst ways. The amount of "stuff" that people need now means it has to be cheap, which means cheap oil, cheap transportation, and cheap labor in overseas markets where there are fewer regulations for labor rights and environmental policies. I prefer a diverse economy where we do a lot of those things ourselves, if it means we buy less and pay a little more.

Perhaps this is where we differ, but I simply don't think we should be encouraging future generations that more stuff=better.
Well that's not the way the world works, the global economy today is being fueled by consumer spending. I don't see that trend changing in the near future either because so much of the world is still developing. We have to keep the advantage though, so I consider buying as much as you can a good thing. And in that respect suburbs are a good thing.

Quote:
I say lawns don't matter for two reasons. One--children have been playing everywhere except for suburban lawns for the greater part of human history and have turned out fine. Two--it's not as though cities are deserts. We have playgrounds, parks, sidewalks, alleys, and yes, even lawns for them to play in. Tell the kids in my neighborhood that they don't have enough room to run around and I guarantee you'll get some funny looks in return. I grew up in St. Louis city and in suburban Chicago, and I can't say I noticed one was worse than the other as far as my playtime is concerned. Suburban lawns do make it easier to isolate and supervise children, fair enough.
Lawns in general then, if they’re suburban or not. Although suburban lawns you're sharing with many other people, the need for constant parent supervision would go up. I certainly think lawns are important, maybe a study needs to be conducted on that. How do children fair in school coming from the suburbs and from the city, what areas do each excel at and not. I'm sure you would get different answers.

Quote:
Keep in mind the amount of resources lawns require in order to be maintained, and that putting thousands of them right next to each other wipes out perfectly fine ecosystems in the process. Over and over again.
I wouldn't say they wipe out ecosystems, you are planting new trees and plants too, which in turn invite ecosystems. Many of the new suburbs where I am have been forced to bring back some of the vegetation that was taken out when they were built. You can't have a fence around your yard for example. It must be natural, or made of trees.

Quote:
What if you don't want more people? What if you don't need that much space? What if you were concerned about your carbon footprint? What if you were concerned about the cost to heat/cool such spaces?
Not sure I know anyone like that personally, but if there were such a person they could (and would) obviously live in the city. I'm not opposed to living in a city, I think that would be pretty sweet. Although I probably wouldn't choose to raise of family there. I value some space, and a yard with a garden, a garage for my car, and a basement.

Quote:
You can't say that across the board every suburb is automatically safer than every city. It simply isn't true.
No, but I would say in general suburbs are safer than cities. It's a lot easier to protect yourself in a suburb, where there are a lot less people that want your money and such.

Quote:
How dare you call me ignorant when you didn't even read what I wrote? I said he was often wrong, not always. And he is, and I gave an example. If I agree with him or not is irrelevant. If I'm ignorant it doesn't make him always right.
Well "often" is generally considered more than 50% of the time. I don't understand how a writer is wrong more than 50% of the time and can still be selling books. This author is a well known intellectual and thinker, not a hillbilly.

Quote:
Plants, animals, watersheds, ecology, migration paths, etc. are all "nothing?" And why would we build such isolated developments? Do you understand the problems with sustainability facing Phoenix and Las Vegas? Do you think it's coincidence that our arable land tends to be concentrated near population agglomerations? Our agriculture is threatened by sprawl as much as our ecology is. There's no such thing as a place where there is "nothing", unless you're a developer.
You can't save all ecosystems, it's not probable. The fact is we've already protected far more ecosystem than anyone else in the world has, I say we're doing pretty good for ourselves. Personally I don't consider animals on the same levels as humans are, if we were going to go about it in that way we would never get anywhere in the world. It doesn’t matter what we do ecosystems are never immune from human interference, all we can do is minimize the damage. The point remains though that there is so much land out there we will always have room to build on.

Quote:
You completely bypassed several real-life, uniquely suburban problems that I pointed out, and now you're calling me narrow minded?
Ohhh and cities don't have any other problems, like pollution, which is good for your health?

Quote:
Architecture is built by architects. Most suburban developments are built from developers' templates or catalogues, not by architects. Don't talk to me like I'm a stranger to modern architecture. It exists in cities, too. The neighborhood where I live consists almost entirely of mid-late 20th century structures.
And who do you think designs the "templates or catalogues"?

Quote:
I never said I don't like suburbs. I'd like to be clear that I think we could build them better. I also believe we can build them NOT at the expense of our urban and rural areas, as is the status quo.
I agree with you on that, suburbs could be built better and smarter. And I would bet that's the direction they are moving in with the green technology coming into the market, now and in the future. That certainly could be an advantage of a suburb, employing technology you can’t use in the city. Like solar panels. In fact I believe in California that is already taking root, where in some new suburbs all the new houses come equipped with solar panels on the roofs. Another one that comes to mind is the Smart Grid technology, which helps regulate the flow of electricity to cut down on unnecessary energy usage.

Quote:
People should be able to build things that aren't suburban, too. In most places right now, that's not possible, it's illegal. So much for freedom.
I agree on that, try to build something in the cities and it's near impossible or far too expensive. I can understand that, and that's probably mostly because in cities land is tight.

Quote:
You can't be serious. Do you read anybody except Kotkin and Cox?
My point is suburbs are not killing people, they are not a national security threat, they are less polluting than cities are. I don't have any evidence that says suburbs are downright bad. It's a way of life, that's what I see them as.

Quote:
The cheap-ness is artificial. The costs are hidden, and you end up with urbanism that looks, feels, and acts cheap.
Reminds me of my uncle buying a house in a new sub in 95 and having the exterior paint come off 10 years later...

Quote:
1- What most Americans say, then, is the standard for what is right, wrong, best, and worst? Emissions alone should make it clear to most people that there is something wrong with auto-centric environments. I am proposing a more complex rubric that incorporates factors other than "what most Americans would probably say."
It depends, there are many issues where there is no conclusive evidence to give one side overwhelming “right” over the other. Emissions would be one of those issues. I don't see conclusive evidence humans are causing global warming, nor that emissions are killing people. Overall I would just say that you can't make people change if they don't want to, and if what they are doing is not a threat to yourself or themselves. You can do whatever you want, if you can make your plan for a green America come true more power to you. But I don’t think the majority of Americans would ever go along with that today, you would probably get labeled an elitist.

Quote:
2- Mass transit is only one part of the puzzle. In most places, it doesn't exist or is inadequate--why should we take those opinions on mass transit so seriously when they only have one meaningful way--the car--to get around? That's like doing market research for bacon products in Pakistan.
Ask them, I don't know. I would love more mass transit, where I live I don't even have a functional bus system. Again though, you’re fighting with everyone else for getting something like that done. If no one wants to use funds for mass transit it's awfully hard to push something like that through. If I was a billionaire I would fund new mass transit systems, otherwise it's hard to make that happen.

Quote:
Right--are you suggesting that electricity is unlimited and always will be cheap? More, more, more...it's just not the answer. We need to be more modest in our consumption. There are so many problems with personal transportation at its current scale, I don't even know where to begin.
The answer is to find a solution to the problem, reducing consumption is just a bandaid to the eventual resource crisis. Harnessing energy from the sun is the best way to solve the energy problem, but we don't know how to do that effectively yet. Until then we’re going to be taking baby steps, and getting off of oil is a first. But until oil is gone for good we’re likely to continue using it in some way.

Quote:
I don't understand--are you suggesting this as a positive aspect of cheap suburban developments?
No, but I'm saying that we can't change what's already been done. All the suburbs already built we can't just tear down. This means that whatever happens from this day forward, suburbs will still be a part of American life for generations to come.

Quote:
It might also stimulate parts of the economy and leave us with a better quality of life. I think it's time for Americans to realize that we have the power to change the character of our cities: we've done it before.
It certainly could, if someone comes up with a cost effective plan to revitalize old suburbs we could put it into action.

Quote:
Needless to say, even out west (which I have traveled to and through), it's not unlimited, much of what's left is quite fragile, and (again) the resources required to support such inefficient developments are CERTAINLY not unlimited. As-is, what we have now, is unsustainable, and you are proposing we build more.
Of course resources are not unlimited, yet I suspect people will continue to build anyway. They'll build until they can't build anymore, that's where we’re headed. There is not much you or I or anyone else can do about it.

Another possibility may be that the need for resources forces people to innovate and find solutions for these problems. This concept is well engraved into the history of America.

Quote:
Did I make even a small mention about anything involving high-rise developments? Most of the "city" areas I have been implying or referring to have few or no high rises (like the one I live in now), and those are my preferred areas to live.
The line between high-rises and "city" is very thin today though, as far as new development goes. I think you mentioned that earlier...I agree that could be a big issue, not having that in between option.

Quote:
To be honest, I worry a lot more about quality and sustainability for my money than I do about space for money. In fact, I include a lot more than "space" when analyzing any cost benefits, and I'm sure I get by quite comfortably on less money than most people.
Good for you, I wish there were more of you. Sadly modern society is not very resourceful, and we’re seeing the trend all over the world.

Quote:
I disagree with opinions founded on half-truths and outright lies, and paid for by special interests. I can most certainly say that Joel Kotkin is often wrong, AND I disagree with his opinions.
Outright lies, which ones are you referring to? I don’t see any of those here.

Last edited by Onn; May 10, 2010 at 12:59 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted May 9, 2010, 8:58 PM
Jasonhouse Jasonhouse is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 23,744
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onn View Post
Well that's not the way the world works, the global economy today is being fueled by consumer spending. I don't see that trend changing in the near future either because so much of the world is still developing. We have to keep the advantage though, so I consider buying as much as you can a good thing. And in that respect suburbs are a good thing.
The owners of corporations looove people who think like this... You're all but begging to be owned by someone else.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted May 10, 2010, 12:27 AM
Onn Onn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: The United States
Posts: 1,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasonhouse View Post
The owners of corporations looove people who think like this... You're all but begging to be owned by someone else.


I'm not necessarily against corporations, just as long as they are run with some sense of dignity and respect. I think we need corporations, they make the goods after all. Healthy corporations are the engines of our economy. The people are the fuel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted May 10, 2010, 2:22 AM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
I am a typical
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 41,172
You're arguing in favour of everything that is wrong with what we're doing today, without the realization of how bad things are going to be when the whole scheme falls apart. If the middle class in America is disappearing, as so many on the right (the same side that supports expanding suburbs) like to claim, who is going to be buying all this stuff to fuel the economy?
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 9:32 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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