HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted May 10, 2010, 2:53 AM
Onn Onn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: The United States
Posts: 1,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
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?
Who says it's wrong? You have a book right here arguing for it (which I still have to get and read by the way, I went to the bookstore the other day but apparently they didn’t have it yet). As I said, you can make valid points on both sides. I think environmentalists and people of the sort like to jump the gun sometimes, forgetting the other side of the story all together. Suburbs happened for a reason, if they hadn't no one would have thought it was a good idea.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted May 10, 2010, 3:48 AM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
I am a typical
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 41,172
There is also a book arguing that an evil monster named Xenu banished the souls of depressed people to volcanoes on earth in "DC8-like spacecraft" a million years ago and that these souls are the source of all human suffering. Just because it is in a book doesn't mean it is irrefutable.

A point isn't valid when someone who stands to make money off of that viewpoint being accepted by the masses is paying you to promote it. If McDonald's payed someone to write a book about how "eating McDonald's food all the time made me happy and popular" would you believe them?

Suburbs happened because they were cheap and expedient to produce at the time. They aren't now. They will be less so in the future. This has nothing to do with the environment. It has to do with our future fiscal and food security and the management of our limited natural resources, which includes oil. Suburbs are the most wasteful form of human habitation. It has to stop.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted May 10, 2010, 5:20 AM
Onn Onn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: The United States
Posts: 1,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
A point isn't valid when someone who stands to make money off of that viewpoint being accepted by the masses is paying you to promote it. If McDonald's payed someone to write a book about how "eating McDonald's food all the time made me happy and popular" would you believe them?
Well not necissarly, although there are advatages to fast food. But we're not talking about McDonald's food, were talking about suburbs. Big difference. I think your missing the gray in between the black and white.

Quote:
Suburbs happened because they were cheap and expedient to produce at the time. They aren't now. They will be less so in the future. This has nothing to do with the environment. It has to do with our future fiscal and food security and the management of our limited natural resources, which includes oil. Suburbs are the most wasteful form of human habitation. It has to stop.
They still are cheap, a lot cheaper than moving in a city. Not every suburb is made up of million dollar McMansions. If you just want a house, the suburbs are still A LOT cheaper than buying something in the city....from what I know. To move to any decent city in the country you’re going to be dishing out the cash. As I said earlier, we still have far more land than we know what to do with. Since when has there been a food shortage in the United States of America? That is complete baloney! We could build for the next 100 years and still have enough farmland (not to mention our largest trading partner to the north, which has a tiny population...next time you go to the store check where many of your vegetables come from), and I suspect that is what will happen. Besides, farming has come a long way since the early 20th century. Farmers can be a lot more efficient today than they used to be. If you need proof why don't you check how other countries get by who are 50 times more landlocked than we are. I think we still have plenty of room for more people. Many of our states are still more than half empty, and those are the bigger states.

Last edited by Onn; May 10, 2010 at 10:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted May 10, 2010, 5:50 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 Onn View Post
I think your missing the gray in bettween the black and white.
No, you just don't understand similes and metaphors.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Onn View Post
They still are cheap, a lot cheaper than moving in a city. Not every suburb is made up of million dollar McMansions. If you just want a house, the suburbs are still A LOT cheaper than buying something in the city....from what I know. To move to any decent city in the country you’re going to be dishing out the cash.
Why do you need a house? Millions of families live in apartments and make use of park space instead of back yards, communal gathering areas instead of decks. Choosing suburbs is more a fear of interaction and not conforming to what is portrayed as a societal standard than it is "wanting a house" or "wanting privacy", and the "I can't afford a decent neighbourhood in the city" argument only expresses their laziness and unwillingness to foster positive change in depressed neighbourhoods. When you get a group of people buying cheap houses in the city and fixing them up, they improve the neighbourhood, increase the value of the home and often make a profit, and don't tax our limited services and resources as much. Instead, they take the easy way out and spend a lot of money on living in a cheap, artificial neighbourhood on the periphery of town.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Onn View Post
As I said earlier, we still have far more land than we know what to do with.
That doesn't mean it has to be paved over for houses. There are other living things on this land. Back in the 1800s and early 1900s, filling in a swamp and building houses on it was referred to as "improving land". Then we realized that swamps play an important role in cleaning waterways and were the reason so much of our water was becoming so polluted, and that the loss of these habitats was causing the local extinction of animals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Onn View Post
Since when has there been a food shortage in the United States of America? That is complete baloney!
Look at how far the food has to travel. Subdivision construction in Ontario has reduced the amount of farmland in the GTA by half. Food has to travel further to get to that city, less food is grown in that region than is consumed by it, and both of those factors drive the price of food up. Just because there is 10 million farms doesn't mean it is OK to build on top of 1 million of them, especially when the population is set to increase by 100 million.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Onn View Post
We could build for the next 100 years and still have enough farmland, and I suspect that is what will happen. Besides, farming has come a long way since the early 20th century. Farmers can be a lot more efficient today than they used to be.
They are more efficient because they use more chemicals, and those chemicals are causing health problems. The food we eat is hurting us because the options on where and how we grow food are too limited to meet an unnecessarily high demand, and once again, just because the land is there, doesn't mean we should build on it. Exactly how much food per acre are you expecting these farms to produce? And back to McDonald's for a moment: To produce one pound of beef (four burgers), you need about 400 gallons of water (the average household's use in one month), and 2 pounds of corn. (That averages to something like 800 pounds of corn per cow.) Now multiply this by all the cows, water and corn these 100,000,000 extra Americans will consume. Do you still think we should decrease the amount of farmland?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Onn View Post
If you need proof why don't you check how other countries get by who are 50 times more landlocked than we are?
It doesn't have anything to do with being landlocked. It has to do with how much of the soil in the country is arable. In Canada, most arable land is also on the periphery of cities and therefore is under direct threat from urban sprawl. Every new subdivision represents a farm that no longer produces food. Only 4% of this planet's land is arable. Only 18% of America is suitable for growing crops. Only 4.5% of Canada's land is suitable for growing crops, so I'm sure you can now appreciate why it is such a concern here, especially in Ontario where the most fertile soils are being replaced by houses at an alarming rate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Onn View Post
I think we still have plenty of room for more people, more than half are states are still more than half empty.
You don't have to fill every corner of the country.

How the planet works is very complex. You can't just build all over it without any regard for how that development will affect things because it puts our long-term survival at risk.

You're missing the bigger picture here. Not only is there more to land use than building on it, but there is more to the world than the US.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted May 10, 2010, 7:06 AM
NYaMtl NYaMtl is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onn View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted May 10, 2010, 9:43 AM
Chicago103's Avatar
Chicago103 Chicago103 is offline
Future Mayor of Chicago
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,060
When I think about all the outer neighborhoods within Chicago city limits including the one I live in now I think to myself "who the hell needs suburbs?", just about everything that a typical middle class family desires from safety, a place with lots of other children, single family houses with yards, etc can be found in the city limts. Oh and yes these neighborhoods are affordable to, in many cases even cheaper than many of the more popular suburbs. The property taxes in Chicago suburbs are just horrendous compared to the city to the point where you can send your kid to a private school in the city and break even with the property taxes you would pay in Naperville if not save money. Suburbs are actually very unaffordable places, they have hidden costs galore.

Most american cities are actually quite low density and filled with neighborhoods with single family detached houses with yards. Granted the yards are usually not huge and the houses are more modest in size but the general gist of what people claim to want for themselves and their children can easily be found in most cities. I work for the census bureau and am sworn to secrecy about details but where I do my fieldwork in the city I realize how crazy people are when they say cities are childless places or non child friendly. What parallel universe are they living in?
__________________
Devout Chicagoan, political moderate and paleo-urbanist.

"Auto-centric suburban sprawl is the devil physically manifesting himself in the built environment."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted May 10, 2010, 4:24 PM
hammersklavier's Avatar
hammersklavier hammersklavier is offline
Philly -> Osaka -> Tokyo
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The biggest city on earth. Literally
Posts: 5,863
Land security is going to be more and more pressing in the future. As we've already mentioned, nothing is more damaging to land security than suburban construction--and suburban lawns demand arable land. You cannot create suburbia on land that is not fit for growing crops because the myth of the suburb involves that omnipresent Kentucky bluegrass--which is, by the way, related several other extremely important grasses: wheat, rye, barley, oats, rice. The current densities of built suburbia are unsustainable. My prediction: in 50 years you'll have a ring horizon of exurbs, and then behind them a patchwork of older (poorer) suburbia and farmland reclaimed from former suburbia, and then the horizon of the city in the form of the desirable inner suburbs, from which the densities increase to the city center. Throughout the urbanized region--due to our concern with food security--various modes of food production will exist, some of which we're already familiar with (like community gardens) replicated on a vast scale, and others totally new, like inner-city vertical farms (subsidized in part due, again, to this omnipresent food security issue).

Why will food security be important? Stick your head out of your ass and look around you. By 2030 China will be a First World country; by 2050 Brazil; by 2070 India and possibly Indonesia. Between them these countries represent something like a third of the Earth's population and a quarter of its arable land. First World populations tend to shrink qua their underdeveloped counterparts, but at the same time the average food consumption increases exponentially. I think the stat's something like the average First Worlder consumes on average four times more food than the average Third Worlder. China, in pursuing its One Child policy, has managed to curb the overmultiplication of the majority Han, but at the same time the increased food demands of the average Chinese citizen means that the amount of arable land needed is effectively the same as if no One Child had been enacted, and no economic liberalization had taken place. The First World as it now stands can withstand the absorption of China, mainly due to China's internal food security, but it will strain the resources we demand almost to their breaking point, and I highly doubt that the First World can withstand both Chinese and Mercosur (i.e. Brazil + neighbors) ascension--which, as I have said before, current trends point to occurring in the timeframe 2025-2055 (with China coming first, between 2025 and 2040, most likely around 2030, and the Mercosur second, between 2035 and 2055, most likely closer to 2050)--without having to seriously deal with our food security issues. Compound on this QOL equalization between the EU's eastern and western halves, the ascension (also in this timeframe) of Mexico and Turkey and South Africa--assuming they can stop denying their AIDS problem--and quite possibly of some other Second World countries that I haven't thought of to the First World, and by 2060 or so (probably much sooner), at current consumption levels, First Worlders will need the sum total of arable land on Earth to feed themselves and that's not accounting for the still-greater populations of Third and Fourth Worlders, or even of Second Worlders! Yes, there is a real food security crisis approaching us, and when it comes, the collapse of the current suburban system is all but an assurance. We simply can't waste our arable land growing Kentucky bluegrass when we could be using it growing something like, oh, say, wheat for instance. And that's the long and short of it.
__________________
Urban Rambles | Hidden City

Who knows but that, on the lower levels, I speak for you?’ (Ralph Ellison, Invisible Man)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted May 10, 2010, 9:19 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'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.
Not sure about that, it's a part of the economy. You know, jobs are on the line. That's what I'm thinking about, not the wastefulness aspect of it... you could certainly argue against that too. I'm not sure it's wasteful, per say. Wasting what exactly?

Quote:
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.
There are many things that can affect a person's brain, that you would not normally think about. That's my only point. Perhaps having that extra space can affect the way in which a person thinks.

Quote:
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.
Of course you’re going to wipe out ecosystems, but as I said we already have set aside TONS of land, more than most in the world. Why aren't you complaining about the rest of the world? The federal government has already protected A LOT of land. We can't save every ecosystem out there, something else will kill them if humans don't. We've done a good job so far though here in American of keeping land away from developers and people in general.

Quote:
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?
Because you’re making a far bigger issue out of subrubs then they really are. Suburbs are NOT killing the planet for God's sake! As long as there is land to build on people will continue building. It’s not my personal choice, but I can guarantee you that is what will happen.

Quote:
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.
Fatal car accidents? I don't know what suburbs your talking about specifically, we haven't had any fatal car accidents around here in the neighborhood. I think the chances of a mugging go up by 50%+ in a city, especially at 3 in the morning. What a worse time to go for a walk.

Quote:
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.
I think you’re making that up or it's in your mind. Again, he wouldn't be selling books if he was a crackpot. He wouldn't have articles written about his work online. Think about it. Not all his stuff is necessarily based on fact, he’s a thinker.

Quote:
That barely makes sense.
Well in almost every other country in the world ecosystems were destroyed hundreds of years ago, when everyone could have cared less. The Romans built roads all over Europe. I don't know what you’re complaining about, you just can't save every ecosystem out there. Ecosystems are not the masters of humans. We are the dominate species on planet earth.

Quote:
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.
I don't even need to answer that, you know it's true. Almost every President since Thomas Jefferson has been an advocate of the environment or set aside protected land. Obama has already done it, Bush did it, Clinton did it, Carter, Nixon, FDR...


http://earthtrends.wri.org/images/bi...otect_fig4.gif


http://conservationfinance.files.wor...owth-graph.gif

Quote:
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.
Who says?

Quote:
This is driving me insane. Are you suggesting that the modern suburb "minimizes the damage?" Did you just hear yourself?
No, I mean protecting the environment. Sadly the environment will never be completely free of human interference. Pollution, which cities make, can very much affect ecosystems. And frankly there is little we can do about it, humans generate waste. And global warming may be human caused (I don’t know if it is or not), and that could be caused for any number of things we're doing today, not just carbon emissions. Global warming affects ecosystems too. Even if we don’t touch ecosystems directly we can still indirectly touch them.

Quote:
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.
What "other things"?? That's ridiculous!

Quote:
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.)
Well you seem to be making suburbs out to be the most evil place ever, without admitting that cities can by just as evil. Who's calling the kettle black here. As I said earlier, there are valid points you can make for both cities and suburbs.

Quote:
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.
But an architect still must design the house, or it can't be build. All houses have architectural elements to it, someone has to make the decision about what kind of house it is they're going to build. You could call them "cookie-cutter", yet people still want them. The designs must be good enough for people to consider.

Quote:
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.
Now I do so agree with you, suburbs could be built better. Green technology will come them, it's still coming to the market. Over the long term I'm sure you'll see "green" suburbs. I would be pushing for that if I was in the business.

Quote:
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.
Well it's going to be a lot harder to use something like that in the city where space is tight, and if you’re living in an apartment building you’re obviously not going to have control over something like solar panels, the power from it may not even reach your unit or do anything for you. And again, you may have a building blocking the sun or pollution, certainly solar power would be less efficient in cities than in suburbs.

Quote:
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.
And I said that's a big problem, that there is little between high rises and subs in cities today. Someone needs to work on fixing that so the options are there for the people who want them.

Quote:
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.
Dude, on average I'm sure cities generate tons more pollution than suburbs do, on the fact alone that cities have a lot more people than suburbs do. I know suburbs are not perfect. But again, it's not like they're killing people either. They are sustainable as far as we know, I don’t see any evidence their strangling the country's economy. Again, I would argue they are helping the economy.

Quote:
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.
Probiblity is not fact.

Quote:
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.
Except you forget the fact that Earth has gone through hot and cold spells throughout the course of its history, long before human civilization formed. I think more study needs to be done on it to determine the actual causes of the earth's warming. The UN has even admitted their data is flawed, why are we using flawed data to spook out the world into thinking it's a major crisis?

Quote:
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.
I'm not saying the majority is right, but unless you hold power it's very hard to change the majority's view on things. I would love a greener America, but I just don't see it happening. It's not that kind of issue that holds a lot of weight in our society. Americans aren’t the ones feeling the biggest effects of global warming even. To get them to pay attention is hard.

Quote:
That being said: Theoretically, I'd prefer to be labeled an elitist than a moron.
Well I don't think of you as that, I see you as an advocate. But if you became President (for example) and tried to jam this down the American people's throat’s, and they didn't want it, you would probably get labeled an elitist.

Quote:
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?"
I agree with you, but politics play a significant role too. Politicians aren't going to set aside money for things if people don't want or need them. It makes them unpopular and the people they're serving angry. You know, I question why Obama didn't set aside more money for high-speed rail in the Stimulus Package. I think that was a stupid move on his part. If you’re going to spend nearly a trillion dollars why not spend it on something worthwhile? But that just backs up my point about where things are in this country, the limits of where politicians can go with the money they control.

Quote:
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.
Generally they don't get anywhere though, because there are a large number of people against what they want to do. Large enough to deflect the proposal at least. Or sometimes (I know where I live) the budget would be a problem, there isn’t enough money to go ahead with something major like that.

Quote:
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?
Because they're spread out, you would have to clean out every single house before tearing them down (disconnecting the gas and water and remove any hazardous materials). In the city when you want to tear something down you just cut one line in the basement of the building, that turns everything off for that entire building. The spaces are smaller too, their faster to clear. Taking down a suburb would be a lot more expensive than taking down building in the city.

Quote:
Doesn't make it right.
Again, who says? It depends what your definition of right and wrong is, and on that you aren't going to find two people who think exactly the same.

Quote:
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.
No, I'm working with the realities of the time. By myself I can't stop the cycle we’re in right now. If it's going to stop something major has to happen. I can be against it, I don't have to take part in it, that’s fine, but I can't stop what many others do out there or want. If people are happy in suburbs that's fine with me, they’re not killing anyone as far as I can see right now. Until they start killing people there is not much anyone can do to stop them from being built.

Quote:
You know what's not engraved into the history of America? Sitting around and waiting for someone else to take care of it.
Well generally Americans have been victims of something going on in the world. Americans are usually just trying to get by, but when a crisis evolves Americans will rally to the challenge of solve it. Suburbs are a hypothetical crisis, no one really knows they're future, if it's good or bad, or the effect it will have on society...You can speculate, but you have no clue how it's going to turn out.

Quote:
"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."
Until those problems get to crisis level they're unlikely to be solved.

Quote:
It's complacency, and it's something we should be collectively ashamed for.
Agreed, we are too complacent many times. I think you would find the rest of the world is far worse though...

Quote:
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.
I haven't seen many in the Midwest, nor the Northeast, nor Las Vegas. Those are the major places I've visited in the last 10 years. I haven't been to California since the early 90s and never the south.

Quote:
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'm no expert, I'm just pointing out how the world works. I don't see you as an elitist, but an advocate. That's a good thing. I wish there were more of you out there, the world would be a better place.

Quote:
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.
I will do that, I haven't read much by Joel Kotkin yet. I'll get back to you when I do, I have a lot of things I'm reading right now.

You've given me inspiration though, maybe I should start a SuburbPage.com

Last edited by Onn; May 10, 2010 at 10:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted May 10, 2010, 10:02 PM
rockyi's Avatar
rockyi rockyi is offline
Bah!
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Rock Island, Illinois
Posts: 16,399
I have nothing against owning a house and yard, just buy a pre-existing home. No need to build new. Before the economy tanked there were many for sale signs around here, but the wasteful building outward continued. That was pretty idiotic for a town with 0 population growth. The only positive thing about our economic woes is now there are way more apartments being built around here than ever before.
__________________
My feet hurt!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted May 10, 2010, 10:27 PM
Onn Onn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: The United States
Posts: 1,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
Why do you need a house? Millions of families live in apartments and make use of park space instead of back yards, communal gathering areas instead of decks. Choosing suburbs is more a fear of interaction and not conforming to what is portrayed as a societal standard than it is "wanting a house" or "wanting privacy", and the "I can't afford a decent neighbourhood in the city" argument only expresses their laziness and unwillingness to foster positive change in depressed neighbourhoods. When you get a group of people buying cheap houses in the city and fixing them up, they improve the neighbourhood, increase the value of the home and often make a profit, and don't tax our limited services and resources as much. Instead, they take the easy way out and spend a lot of money on living in a cheap, artificial neighbourhood on the periphery of town.
Why not have a house? If you have the option, why not buy a house? It's cheaper than buying in the city, there's more space, it's quieter...it's not lazy at all. It's just another option you have if you would like to take it. Cities are quite a bit more artificial than suburbs can be.

Quote:
That doesn't mean it has to be paved over for houses. There are other living things on this land. Back in the 1800s and early 1900s, filling in a swamp and building houses on it was referred to as "improving land". Then we realized that swamps play an important role in cleaning waterways and were the reason so much of our water was becoming so polluted, and that the loss of these habitats was causing the local extinction of animals.
I agree, I'm not saying all land should be built over. I never said that...but it's likely that will happen to some extent. It's not something I have any control over. Now some of the advantages that ecosystems offer can be recreated with technology if necessary. It would be really nice if we didn't have to do that, agreed 100%. But there is always that last resort. There is no limit to the power of the human brain.

Quote:
Look at how far the food has to travel. Subdivision construction in Ontario has reduced the amount of farmland in the GTA by half. Food has to travel further to get to that city, less food is grown in that region than is consumed by it, and both of those factors drive the price of food up. Just because there is 10 million farms doesn't mean it is OK to build on top of 1 million of them, especially when the population is set to increase by 100 million.
Food prices and a lack of food are two totally different issues. Food prices don't kill people, lack of food does.

Quote:
They are more efficient because they use more chemicals, and those chemicals are causing health problems. The food we eat is hurting us because the options on where and how we grow food are too limited to meet an unnecessarily high demand, and once again, just because the land is there, doesn't mean we should build on it. Exactly how much food per acre are you expecting these farms to produce? And back to McDonald's for a moment: To produce one pound of beef (four burgers), you need about 400 gallons of water (the average household's use in one month), and 2 pounds of corn. (That averages to something like 800 pounds of corn per cow.) Now multiply this by all the cows, water and corn these 100,000,000 extra Americans will consume. Do you still think we should decrease the amount of farmland?
Until there's a crisis, no. I wouldn't intensify efforts beyond what we are already doing (which is a lot). I agree more space should be set aside, as much as possible. Developers should get some space too. I think we need to figure out where that line is, which is something that probably won't happen any time soon. There is still more land out there than we know what to do with in North America.

Quote:
It doesn't have anything to do with being landlocked. It has to do with how much of the soil in the country is arable. In Canada, most arable land is also on the periphery of cities and therefore is under direct threat from urban sprawl. Every new subdivision represents a farm that no longer produces food. Only 4% of this planet's land is arable. Only 18% of America is suitable for growing crops. Only 4.5% of Canada's land is suitable for growing crops, so I'm sure you can now appreciate why it is such a concern here, especially in Ontario where the most fertile soils are being replaced by houses at an alarming rate.
It depends what you want to grow. I mean, you can grow food in a greenhouse even. Urban gardens are the big new thing now. Cattle can be herded in a number of places.

Quote:
You don't have to fill every corner of the country.

How the planet works is very complex. You can't just build all over it without any regard for how that development will affect things because it puts our long-term survival at risk.
Speak to the rest of the world, in North America we still have a long way to go before reaching our quota of people/land. There's still a lot of land out there that is usable for building, and enough resources to support it. 100 years from now I suspect people will be thinking differently, that there is too much food in many parts of the world, and farmers are losing their jobs.

Quote:
You're missing the bigger picture here. Not only is there more to land use than building on it, but there is more to the world than the US.
Of course, but the US has done a far better job of protecting land than most others have, especially countries of our size. We deserve credit for that.

Last edited by Onn; May 11, 2010 at 4:34 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted May 11, 2010, 2:33 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 Onn View Post
Why not have a house? If you have the option, why not buy a house? It's cheaper than buying in the city
Not in the long term. A suburban house costs more per month to operate than a small urban house or an apartment. I pay, in total, for rent, utilities, and transportation, $900 a month. If I had a similar sized house in the suburbs, I would probably be paying over $900 a month on the mortgage alone, another $900 on utilities, $200 on property tax, $650 on a vehicle (gas, insurance, maintenance, lease payments), and probably more money on useless shit like a front lawn.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Onn View Post
there's more space
I live near downtown. This is my backyard:



Sure, I share it with people, but they're nice people, so I don't mind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Onn View Post
it's quieter
Actually, our suburbs are near the airport and highways, and residents of one subdivision are fighting the expansion of that subdivision because the trees buffer them from "the excessively loud noises at the hospital".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Onn View Post
...it's not lazy at all.
Yes it is. If it wasn't, people would be using the sidewalks out there and the old houses that get swallowed up would be renovated instead of razed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Onn View Post
It's just another option you have if you would like to take it.
It isn't that people "would like to take it". It's that the way the government and corporations have set up our society, suburbs are presented as the only acceptable place to live to the masses. The media makes the problem worse by exaggerating problems in the cities and making people fear them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Onn View Post
Cities are quite a bit more artificial than suburbs can be.
!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Onn View Post
I agree, I'm not saying all land should be built over. I never said that...but it's likely that will happen to some extent. It's not something I have any control over.
Some extent would, ideally, be limited to filling in brownfields in existing urban areas. Rebuilding on land that was previously built on and is now derelict. (My city's inner city has enough brownfield space to meet about 10 years of single detached housing construction demand should our current market trends continue!) New subdivisions may be built, but rarely should they be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Onn View Post
Now some of the advantages that ecosystems offer can be recreated with technology if necessary. It would be really nice if we didn't have to do that
It would be nicer if we didn't destroy them in the first place and as I explained before, ecosystems are extremely complex. There are still aspects to them that we do not understand enough to protect. Ecosystems are too complex to recreate with technology.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Onn View Post
Food prices and a lack of food are two totally different issues. Food prices don't kill people, lack of food does.
If food prices are too high people can't afford food. Many people today don't buy vegetables very often because "they're too expensive". It is the source of many health problems which are a drain on our health care systems.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Onn View Post
Until there's a crisis, no.
BUT THAT'S THE FUCKING PROBLEM! We're too greedy to think "Hey, all this shit we're doing is really going to fuck us up down the road! Should we correct our behaviour now or wait until we're too deep in the hole?" "Well gee, Bob, I want lots of Chinese-made crap and a giant house with three cars so lets just sit on our asses for a couple decades then let the whole thing blow up in our face!" "Great idea!" NOOOO!!!!!!!

I hope this juvenile prose will get the idea through to you!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Onn View Post
I wouldn't intensify efforts beyond what we are already doing (which is a lot). I agree ore space should be set aside, as much as possible. Developers should get some space too. I think we need to figure out where that line is, which is something that probably won't happen any time soon.
We never will figure out where that line is because almost every aspect of society is subject to different interpretations. No one will ever agree on where the line should be or what kind of line it will be. Never. We simply have to build a society where people respect the land on which they depend.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Onn View Post
There is still more land out there then we know what to do with in North America.
Just because the land is there doesn't mean we have to do anything with it! The only reason we have to "save the animals" is because we keep fucking with them! Why don't we, oh I don't know, stop fucking with them??

Quote:
Originally Posted by Onn View Post
It depends what you want to grow. I mean, you can grow food in a greenhouse even. Urban gardens are the big new thing now. Cattle can be herded in a number of places.
Hothouse tomatoes cost more than two times what outdoor-grown tomatoes cost. If you're arguing in favour of something that costs more, then there goes a good chunk of your argument in favour of suburbia!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Onn View Post
Speak to the rest of the world, in North America we still have a long way to go before reaching our quota of people/land.
There is no quota of "people per land"! It's a more complex dynamic involving how and what people consume, how many consume it and how much of it the planet is capable of producing. The earth actually does have enough food to feed everyone and then some. But most of it is in the first world countries, where we eat more food "than we know what to do with".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Onn View Post
There's still a lot of land out there that is usable for building, and enough resources to support it. 100 years from now I suspect people will be thinking differently, that there is too much food in many parts of the world, and farmers are losing their jobs.
Farmers are loosing their jobs because corporations are buying the farms and firing them to maximize their profits. The southwest is running out of water and wants to build a giant fucking pipe!!! from the Great Lakes to their cities (that's over 2,000 miles!) to pump water into the desert. That means that there are not enough resources to support it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Onn View Post
Of course, but the US has done a far better job of protecting land than most others have, especially countries of our size. We deserve credit for that.
You get credit for that. All the time. But you waste that credit on irresponsible development and wasteful consumption.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted May 11, 2010, 3:22 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,736
Onn doesn't have the same moral system that many of us have (that's the classiest way I can phrase it). Arguing with him is pointless.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted May 11, 2010, 5:20 PM
JBoston's Avatar
JBoston JBoston is offline
Dandy Lion
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Long Island City, Queens, NY USA
Posts: 930
Onn, please follow this link: http://www.storyofstuff.com/
__________________
“Architecture is a social act and the material theater of human activity.” - Spiro Kostof
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted May 11, 2010, 6:11 PM
Onn Onn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: The United States
Posts: 1,937
I don't know why you’re railing on me and suggesting I'm morally corrupt, you should go complain to your city, state, and federal governments. I would love a greener America, as I said, but it's just not the reality of the situation. And I’m not a part of the government which has influence to push an agenda like that (at least not today) so there's not much I can do to push a greener agenda for North America. Things could be done better in regard to land and resource use, and cutting down on overconsumption, I agree on that. Me personally, I bought a green car a couple years ago. It's not like I don't give a rats tail about the environment and the efficiency of our world.

I’m a political science major, not an environmental major. I’m sure many of you know more on this subject than I do. However, you are forgetting that there are many angles which come into play when talking about this subject. It’s not all black and white, it’s not all “you either support the cause or you don’t”. This issue is not one which weighs heavily on our society today, and I would argue even less so during an economic recession. The climate bill that was supposed to pass Congress last year has been put on the back burner until a yet to be announced date. There may be an impending crisis, I don’t know. Until the situation turns into a crisis I don’t see how anything major is ever going to be done about the problem. That is if there really a crisis at all. I myself do not see the concrete evidence that suburbs are the “be-all, end-all” of human society.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted May 11, 2010, 8:30 PM
JBoston's Avatar
JBoston JBoston is offline
Dandy Lion
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Long Island City, Queens, NY USA
Posts: 930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onn View Post
I’m a political science major, not an environmental major. I’m sure many of you know more on this subject than I do. However, you are forgetting that there are many angles which come into play when talking about this subject.
Well I'm an architect and insinuating that suburbia is architecturally relevant is an insult to my profession. How about you go buy some books instead of cheap siding or a new hose to water your massive lawn. Excessive consumption is a problem not a solution. Money can be invested in a LOT of things and a lot of those things don't have to be crap.
__________________
“Architecture is a social act and the material theater of human activity.” - Spiro Kostof
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted May 11, 2010, 9:23 PM
hammersklavier's Avatar
hammersklavier hammersklavier is offline
Philly -> Osaka -> Tokyo
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The biggest city on earth. Literally
Posts: 5,863
Onn, if you're a political science major, then you should be able to discern between politically relevant statements and blind ideology.

What you're spouting is blind ideology.
__________________
Urban Rambles | Hidden City

Who knows but that, on the lower levels, I speak for you?’ (Ralph Ellison, Invisible Man)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted May 11, 2010, 9:57 PM
Onn Onn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: The United States
Posts: 1,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammersklavier View Post
Onn, if you're a political science major, then you should be able to discern between politically relevant statements and blind ideology.

What you're spouting is blind ideology.
Politics is nothing more than winning your side of the argument, it's generally not based on fact at all. The reason it's not based on fact is the issues dealt with have many different viewpoints, where generally no one viewpoint has a single fact which overrides all the other viewpoints on the issue. Most issues have a + and a -, there are good and bad arguments you can make for both sides. That is certainly the case in suburbs vs. cities. Some look at cities as ideal, some look at suburbs as ideal, some may lean one way or the other, some may be totally indifferent, some may like both, some may hate both, some may hate both and have a third option which is neither suburbs nor cities...

The possibilities are endless, and the reason for favoring cities or suburbs could be endless too. This issue is not like gravity, where here on Earth anything you drop falls to the ground. The fact that gravity exists is undeniable.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted May 11, 2010, 10:02 PM
mwadswor's Avatar
mwadswor mwadswor is offline
The Man
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Tempe, AZ
Posts: 1,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onn View Post
Politics is nothing more than winning your side of the argument, it's generally not based on fact at all.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you everything wrong with politics in this country today. Unfortunately, FAR too many people think like this.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted May 11, 2010, 10:06 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwadswor View Post
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you everything wrong with politics in this country today. Unfortunately, FAR too many people think like this.
In essence that statement has an element of truth to it, partisan politics does include bias and bias against the opposing side on the spot.

Best to argue the facts, and the opinions too but of course what those opinions are based upon.
__________________
ASDFGHJK
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted May 11, 2010, 10:39 PM
Onn Onn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: The United States
Posts: 1,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwadswor View Post
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you everything wrong with politics in this country today. Unfortunately, FAR too many people think like this.
It’s not wrong. The people who make policies are the ones who win their side of the argument, it's true in any political system in the world. There are also compromises. In a compromise though one side still wins out over the other, and the one side that first brokered it doesn’t get everything they wanted.

Now if I were in the government I would certainly be pushing for a greener future, but at the same time I'm going to be fighting with everyone else. They all have different objectives for being there and different reasons for supporting what they do. Those objectives will surely come into contact with each other. Am I ever going to get everything I want? No, I'm not.
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 2:17 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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