Quote:
Originally Posted by Onn
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.
|
It's irresponsible, that was my point. We
can't continue to consume like this, and it's appalling how much of it is completely unnecessary.
Quote:
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.
|
If you want to bring education into the mix: I think it's poppycock that we should promote lawns to improve students' performance. It's just sheer nonsense. Any correlation you could possibly measure between the two would be illusory.
Quote:
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.
|
Clear cutting land to build a subdivision wipes out ecosystems, it's just reality. It doesn't matter if you put back grass and trees, the biodiversity disappears. It's gone, poof. The watersheds disappear. The marshes disappear. Old growth trees (don't ask me explain why those are important) disappear. It's foolish to say that they don't wipe out ecosystems--they are as antiseptic to life as the city.
Quote:
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.
|
Why does it not surprise me that you don't know anybody who cares about their ecological footprint or carbon emissions? As-is, it's no surprise that people wouldn't raise their family in today's American cities (save those few, you know, that are already full of families). Why is the solution ONLY to build new suburbs, and not to improve the livability of our urban areas that are more efficient and less of a drain on resources?
Quote:
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.
|
It's ridiculously more complex than that. I feel a lot more comfortable walking around St. Catharine Street in Montreal, or Broadway in New York City at 2:00 in the morning than I would anywhere in the suburbs. Not to mention--fatal car accidents (which surely qualify as a safety issue) put suburbs on par and even surpass violent crime rates in region after region after region. Not as glitzy as a mugging, but it's everywhere.
Quote:
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.
|
of·ten /ˈɔfən, ˈɒfən; ˈɔftən, ˈɒf-/ [aw-fuhn, of-uhn; awf-tuhn, of-]
–adverb
1. many times; frequently.
2. in many cases.
He is not a "well-known intellectual," nearly all of his credentials are bought and paid for. He is, however, known for using inaccurate statistics, broad sweeping generalizations, and the occasional outright fallacy in his writings.
Quote:
You can't save all ecosystems, it's not probable.
|
That barely makes sense.
Quote:
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.
|
Except most of those "protected" areas are under constant threat from pollution, development, industry, etc. Out of curiosity, can you show me someone that says we've protected "far more ecosystem" than anyone else has in the world.
Quote:
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's not about considering them on the same levels as humans, it's about placing humans in a natural context. We have responsibilities,
both moral and practical, to maintain a balance.
Quote:
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]
This is driving me
insane. Are you suggesting that the modern suburb "minimizes the damage?" Did you just hear yourself?
Quote:
The point remains though that there is so much land out there we will always have room to build on.
|
No, you're wrong. The point remains that we CAN'T build on that land because we need it for other things. I'm not the only poster in this thread that has suggested that. You have offered nothing to refute this claim.
Quote:
Ohhh and cities don't have any other problems, like pollution, which is good for your health?
|
For crying out loud, who said cities don't have any other problems? What a silly way to deflect my criticisms--which you still haven't addressed. I (along with just about everybody else in the world) readily admit that there are problems with the cities too. In fact, particularly on this forum, that's what we often (meaning "in many cases") like talking about
: how to fix them.
(By the way, pollution is problematic in the suburbs too, thanks I forgot to mention that one in my fury over ecological collapse.)
Quote:
And who do you think designs the "templates or catalogues"?
|
Ask an architect, they will answer: developers. It's not architecture--this is where terms like "cookie-cutter" and "ticky-tacky" comes from? It's not an architectural critique but a fundamental one.
Quote:
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.
|
I have a feeling you don't agree with me. My biggest problem with the suburbs: transportation and land use, a lack of "green technology" is present throughout North American society, not just the 'burbs.
Quote:
That certainly could be an advantage of a suburb, employing technology you can’t use in the city. Like solar panels.
|
Now, I'm honestly quite sure you're not a moron. Explain to me why solar panels can't be used in the city? Give me a moment...I'm rubbing my eyes in disbelief that you suggested that.
Quote:
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.
|
See above.
Quote:
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.
|
No, read what I said initially. They can't because it's
illegal. Minimum parking requirements, zoning, density stipulations, etc. etc. etc. The only thing that's really possible in most places today are more suburbs, or suburban-style developments (including high rises). In American cities, there is actually plenty of land. Speculators are a different fish to fry, but complicit in driving up land costs.
Quote:
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.
|
Hear no evil, see no evil. Stop ignoring all the evidence that I'm (and other posters, and ...so many other people in the world) are giving you because Joel Kotkin says it's a lifestyle choice. Sticking your head in the sand doesn't mean nothing is wrong. They are NOT less polluting than cities, they kill people all the same as cities do, and in terms of their tremendous appetite for resources, they are strangling our nation. It is unsustainable.
Quote:
It depends, there are many issues where there is no conclusive evidence to give one side overwhelming “right” over the other.
|
Except in the case of actual factual errors and flawed research. For an example, I will point you back to the one Kotkin likes, about the likelihood of people to join clubs. It's bunk.
Quote:
Emissions would be one of those issues. I don't see conclusive evidence humans are causing global warming, nor that emissions are killing people.
|
I don't care if you see it or not, I really couldn't give a damn considering how you look at "evidence" based on your previous posts. I could literally outline it for you step by step, and you'd probably still claim that you don't see any "evidence."
Show me one...ONE....
ONE scientific body that researches climate who claims that humans are not causing global warming. There are none. They all agree. Their data says the same things. The only people who disagree are the ones invested in this mess--politicians, suburb-mongerers, heavy industry, and dirty energy corporations.
Quote:
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.
|
Having the majority doesn't make them right. That's enshrined in the way our government works. The majority of Americans could agree that we should drink Coca Cola instead of water, and it still wouldn't make it good for your teeth. Stop weasling your way out through logical fallacy, stop burying your head in the sand--you haven't actually meaningfully engaged in any of my points, and I'm starting to repeat myself. Worst, you're verging on defensive ad hominem attacks.
That being said: Theoretically, I'd prefer to be labeled an elitist than a moron.
Quote:
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.
|
The problem is when mass transit systems are left to fail at the expense of other forms of transportation. You haven't understood the basic crux of everything I've been trying to say: the system (not the market) overwhelmingly favors auto-centric suburbia
at the expense of every other kind of development. This leaves the rest, both the countryside and the city, to rot. Then people like Joel Kotkin stand and point, saying "Ew, who wants that, right?"
Believe it or not, there are places where people fight to get more mass transit, rather than the other way around, but they can't.
Quote:
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.
|
I don't think you have a good understanding of energy policy. In any case, I prefer just about anything to your suggestion: to build more sprawl, unmitigated.
Quote:
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.
|
And what I'm trying to say: If we were able to tear down our cities (and in so many sad instances, we did), why are the suburbs incapable of transformation? Do you get it? If we could bulldoze entire central neighborhoods, radically altering the character of our central cities over the span of 20-30 years, then why are the suburbs untouchable?
Quote:
It certainly could, if someone comes up with a cost effective plan to revitalize old suburbs we could put it into action.
|
It'd be illegal in most places to do so.
Quote:
Of course resources are not unlimited, yet I suspect people will continue to build anyway.
|
Doesn't make it right.
Quote:
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.
|
That's where you and I differ. I am choosing to do something about it, you are complacently kicking back your feet saying "Well, people like it like this, it can't be so bad." Our forefathers would be ashamed at how complacent Americans have become.
Quote:
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.
|
You know what's not engraved into the history of America? Sitting around and waiting for someone else to take care of it. "Energy crisis? Urban sprawl? Collapsing ecosystems? Scientists will figure it out...how about that solar stuff and electric cars? I hear there's a subdivision in California that's got'em now... Oh, did you see all that stuff I bought last week? Boy my credit card bill is going to be scary... Yeah, I voted down the proposal to improve bus transit, they still haven't fixed the potholes over on Main."
It's complacency, and it's something we should be collectively ashamed for.
Quote:
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.
|
You are way off base here. There are thousands upon thousands upon thousands of urban projects that are not high-rises, not just in my adopted city of Montreal, but in New York, Boston, Chicago, Denver, Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Houston, Dallas, Charlotte...the list goes on and on. I might even guess that the majority of urban projects are probably not high-rises.
Anyway, I can't argue with you--you just keep ignoring what I have to say, and rather than admitting any of your arguments might be even remotely flawed I expect you'll just label me an "elitist." I don't think you understand ecology, I don't think you understand energy, and I don't think you understand traditional urbanism. I'm no expert either, but I'm willing to admit when I'm not certain or might be wrong.
I am sure you are not a bad person, and in the best of faith I wish you well. Like myself, I am sure you will be keeping track of our collective problems in earnest...but I suggest you take a good look at some of Joel Kotkin's critics, and continue into his world with a grain of salt in tow.