Quote:
Originally Posted by Onn
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.