HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted May 11, 2010, 11:32 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
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.
I think it's time for you to read some Plato. Especially the bits where he deals with sophism.
Quote:
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...
This is very much true, but there are very real facts re: the wastefulness of the suburban form, particularly on land, water, and energy resources and the fact that we will need to curb this waste in the very near future.
Quote:
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.
Some would deny that, too. Like these people.

P.S. What you're spouting is why its dangerous to have political scientists who have never studied epistemology running around. The point of political science, as I see it, is to transcend the blind dogmatism of ideology; just dumbly following it does a discredit to you and political scientists everywhere.
P.P.S. Political science isn't a true "science". Not even a social science. History is more scientific than political science. It's a social study with "science" tacked onto the end of it because people think scientists are sexy. This is drawn from the definition of science given in Karl Popper's Conjectures and Refutations, so it's dangerous to try and disagree with it, too.
__________________
Urban Rambles | Hidden City

Who knows but that, on the lower levels, I speak for you?’ (Ralph Ellison, Invisible Man)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted May 12, 2010, 4:29 AM
Onn Onn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: The United States
Posts: 1,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammersklavier View Post
I think it's time for you to read some Plato. Especially the bits where he deals with sophism.
I've read some Plato and Aristotle already, they have their own veiws on everything.

Quote:
This is very much true, but there are very real facts re: the wastefulness of the suburban form, particularly on land, water, and energy resources and the fact that we will need to curb this waste in the very near future.
Of course there are real facts, but none (or no collection) is strong enough to tip the scales to one side, crushing the other. If that were the case we would not be here having a debate on this topic. You know, there is plenty negative you could say about cities too. That they generate increased pollution, are more dangerous, more expensive, louder, dirtier, are unhealthy in general...

Quote:
Some would deny that, too. Like these people.
Right, but something out there still pulls everything to the ground. It doesn’t matter what you call it, it could be gravity, it could be our brain. We're not talking about the mechanics behind gravity, we're talking about whether the action really exists or not. (And yes, the Onion News is a leading expert in intelligent thought...)

Quote:
P.S. What you're spouting is why its dangerous to have political scientists who have never studied epistemology running around. The point of political science, as I see it, is to transcend the blind dogmatism of ideology; just dumbly following it does a discredit to you and political scientists everywhere.
I've actually taken two philosophy courses so far (one specifically on philosophy of the environment, actually), and how I see it...every philosopher (or thinker) has their own way of tackling an issue. I think the perception is that you’re going to learn something in studying philosophy from an expert, which you can take with you for the rest of your life. Although I'm not sure that's the case, when many of the arguments philosophers make conflict with each other from one person to the next. To me that says there is no one right or wrong way to confront an issue. Studying people like Plato and Aristotle is important, but they also lived in a very different time from where we are today.

Now I admit that there are some corners of politics here in the US where ideology takes hold, creating a mass upheaval over something which really is not there. Politicians abuse the system, or do at some point in their career. I know it's a problem. Then again, I'm the one taking the more middle of the road approach here, you are the ones calling the suburbs a blight on society with diminished evidence to support that. Who's taking the ideological approach here?

Quote:
P.P.S. Political science isn't a true "science". Not even a social science. History is more scientific than political science. It's a social study with "science" tacked onto the end of it because people think scientists are sexy. This is drawn from the definition of science given in Karl Popper's Conjectures and Refutations, so it's dangerous to try and disagree with it, too.
I believe it is a science, studying politics. Political science in general works around a framework, just like every other science does out there. It does have rules and a background. How can you honestly say social science is more relevant than political science? Political science is a science, it's just not as book laden as other sciences out there. Politics are ever changing and evolving, yet to be successful at politics you still have to do your homework. You can’t just walk right into it and expect to come out on top. I consider myself a political scientist, politics are what I love.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted May 12, 2010, 4:38 AM
American Dirt's Avatar
American Dirt American Dirt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 28
I like Onn. He/she has proven him/herself a level-headed devil's advocate. I love cities too but I think he's articulating a common sentiment that explains why city-lovers generally feel like they have to operate on the defensive.

Frankly, when he says "Politics is nothing more than winning your side of the argument, it's generally not based on fact at all", I wish far MORE people felt this way. Of course it's ideologically driven. But so is the aestheticization of certain aging urban forms, shrouded through a circumlocution that attempts to pass this city-love off as an objectively superior worldview. And I love cities, but I'd hardly say they offer a panacea for human settlement. Keep in mind that leading intellectual figures a century ago were advocating to leave the filth and corruption of the cities for country living; once that became mainstream they moved back to the cities and started castigating the suburbanites for their lifestyle choices. Even Louis Mumford preferred tightly knit small suburbs.
__________________
_____
Visit American Dirt, my blog on landscapes and the built environment:
http://dirtamericana.blogspot.com/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted May 12, 2010, 2:39 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,736
He might be level headed, but on a board where fact is respected, he's made it clear that he doesn't respect fact.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted May 12, 2010, 4:03 PM
TexasPlaya's Avatar
TexasPlaya TexasPlaya is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: ATX-HTOWN
Posts: 18,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
He might be level headed, but on a board where fact is respected, he's made it clear that he doesn't respect fact.
It seems compromise is less respected on this forum where there is overwhelmingly majority who will push their own views without having a firm ground on reality. With that said, I do generally agree on with the overall theme that we need to better manage our resources. Obviously this is a forum with generally left leaning views and sometimes far left but this isn't a surprise considering this an urban forum. However, facts can be a tricky business especially considering the trivial arguments that occur over facts.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted May 12, 2010, 8:27 PM
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 TexasPlaya View Post
It seems compromise is less respected on this forum where there is overwhelmingly majority who will push their own views without having a firm ground on reality.
And as Onn showed us, the minority does this too.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted May 13, 2010, 1:22 AM
TexasPlaya's Avatar
TexasPlaya TexasPlaya is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: ATX-HTOWN
Posts: 18,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
And as Onn showed us, the minority does this too.
Unfortantely or fortunately, we are all humans and have the same habits.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted May 21, 2010, 9:19 PM
Chicago103's Avatar
Chicago103 Chicago103 is offline
Future Mayor of Chicago
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,060
Auto-centric sprawl is homogeneity incarnate. On the surface it talks about freedom and individuality but in reality its all about conformity and everyone being the same, buying the same stuff and wanting the same stuff and anyone who wants something else is just seen as weird.
__________________
Devout Chicagoan, political moderate and paleo-urbanist.

"Auto-centric suburban sprawl is the devil physically manifesting himself in the built environment."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted May 22, 2010, 1:11 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 Chicago103 View Post
Auto-centric sprawl is homogeneity incarnate. On the surface it talks about freedom and individuality but in reality its all about conformity and everyone being the same, buying the same stuff and wanting the same stuff and anyone who wants something else is just seen as weird.
Video Link


That should be this forum's theme song.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted May 22, 2010, 1:16 AM
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
Houston: Model City


05.20.10

Joel Kotkin



Read More: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/06...n-my-mind.html

Quote:
Do cities have a future? Pessimists point to industrial-era holdovers like Detroit and Cleveland. Urban boosters point to dense, expensive cities like New York, Boston and San Francisco. Yet if you want to see successful 21st-century urbanism, hop on down to Houston and the Lone Star State.

- You won't be alone: Last year Houston added 141,000 residents, more than any region in the U.S. save the city's similarly sprawling rival, Dallas-Fort Worth. Over the past decade Houston's population has grown by 24%--five times the rate of San Francisco, Boston and New York. In that time it has attracted 244,000 new residents from other parts of the U.S., while older cities experienced high rates of out-migration. It is even catching up on foreign immigration, enjoying a rate comparable with New York's and roughly 50% higher than that of Boston or Chicago.

- So what does Houston have that these other cities lack? Opportunity. Between 2000 and 2009 Houston's employment grew by 260,000. Greater New York City--with nearly three times the population of Houston--has added only 96,000 jobs. The Chicago area has lost 258,000 jobs, San Francisco 217,000, Los Angeles 168,000 and Boston 100,004.

- Houston, however, has kept the cost of government low while investing in ports, airports, roads, transit and schools. A person or business moving there gets an immediate raise through lower taxes and cheaper real estate. Houston just works better at nurturing jobs.
__________________
ASDFGHJK
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted May 22, 2010, 2:27 AM
Onn Onn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: The United States
Posts: 1,937
^^
It's an interesting issue, because as soon as cities trip they tend to fall into a money hole. And the debt grows quickly because cities are so large. I think most cities have a future, however I'm from Detroit and I have to say things are VERY bad here. The city is in a permanent recession that there seems to be no way out of. The problem is no wants to move to the neighborhoods in Detroit because they're not safe to live in. When the white flight happened decades ago the money went with it and hasn't come back. Unlike many cities in the country which today are growing again after the move to suburbs the last 50 years, Detroit continues to hemorrhage jobs and people. There hasn't been anything major built in he city in nearly 20 years and NO urban residential buildings. None. The transportation is a complete mess too. Instead of what is happening in the rest of the country, the opposite is happening here. The suburbs are being strengthened further while the city falls into further decay.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted May 22, 2010, 7:06 AM
TexasPlaya's Avatar
TexasPlaya TexasPlaya is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: ATX-HTOWN
Posts: 18,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by M II A II R II K View Post
Houston: Model City


05.20.10

Joel Kotkin



Read More: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/06...n-my-mind.html
Meh, Houston has it shares of problems like any other cities and is hardly a model city. It certainly performs well in certain aspects but a model city is definitely a stretch. I can't wait to hear responses to the article from SSP.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted May 22, 2010, 6:12 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,736
We might be beyond sinking to Forbes and Joel Kotkin. They're not taken seriously on SSP.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted May 29, 2010, 6:25 AM
Chicago103's Avatar
Chicago103 Chicago103 is offline
Future Mayor of Chicago
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
We might be beyond sinking to Forbes and Joel Kotkin. They're not taken seriously on SSP.
Joel Kotkin and people like him is to sprawl what agents are to the Matrix. Many people are taking the red pill and starting to understand the benefits of walkable urban environments and Kotkin is there to protect the dillusion of people still connected to the matrix of auto-centric sprawl.
__________________
Devout Chicagoan, political moderate and paleo-urbanist.

"Auto-centric suburban sprawl is the devil physically manifesting himself in the built environment."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted May 29, 2010, 3:22 PM
American Dirt's Avatar
American Dirt American Dirt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 28
I think Kotkin has as viable of an opinion as any other writer on urban issues. I don't always agree with him, and I know what I prefer to live in personally, but he may be better attuned than a lot of other writers to how people genuinely prioritize what they're seeking in urban environments. Houston may not be an urbanist's paradise, but it offers tremendously affordable housing, a robust job market, and, at least in the suburbs, quite a few good school systems. For a lot of people, that is of the utmost importance.

Conformity isn't limited to sprawl-type settings. Cambridge MA offers a wonderfully compact urban environment, but its residents react sharply to corporate homogeneity and suburban conformity, while at the same time their kneejerk reaction is often incredibly conformist. Anti-establishment attitudes are remarkably similar across the map, and sometimes they elicit their own homogeneous chains; Whole Foods and Target have thrived on finding communities where everyone is perfectly above average and moderately defiant against the corporate mainstream (Kroger, Wal-Mart), creating an anti-mainstream corporation in itself. Many times I have felt like everyone in Cambridge feels the exact same way about everything.
__________________
_____
Visit American Dirt, my blog on landscapes and the built environment:
http://dirtamericana.blogspot.com/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted May 29, 2010, 3:47 PM
pacarlson pacarlson is offline
Borneo Expat
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Balikpapan, Indonesia
Posts: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by American Dirt View Post
I think Kotkin has as viable of an opinion as any other writer on urban issues. I don't always agree with him, and I know what I prefer to live in personally, but he may be better attuned than a lot of other writers to how people genuinely prioritize what they're seeking in urban environments. Houston may not be an urbanist's paradise, but it offers tremendously affordable housing, a robust job market, and, at least in the suburbs, quite a few good school systems. For a lot of people, that is of the utmost importance.

Conformity isn't limited to sprawl-type settings. Cambridge MA offers a wonderfully compact urban environment, but its residents react sharply to corporate homogeneity and suburban conformity, while at the same time their kneejerk reaction is often incredibly conformist. Anti-establishment attitudes are remarkably similar across the map, and sometimes they elicit their own homogeneous chains; Whole Foods and Target have thrived on finding communities where everyone is perfectly above average and moderately defiant against the corporate mainstream (Kroger, Wal-Mart), creating an anti-mainstream corporation in itself. Many times I have felt like everyone in Cambridge feels the exact same way about everything.
Good piece. Interesting, thought provoking, and well written IMO.
__________________
Suburbia is great. Big houses, big yards, good schools, & less crime. Do your family a favor & move out of the city and to the suburbs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted May 29, 2010, 7:27 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,736
My disrespect for Kotkin, Cox, et al isn't about ideology...it's about dishonesty. They cherry pick points to support broad theories. A true academic looks at all sides (not that they all do), and Kotkin and Cox don't.

The media loves them because the US media wants to have an opinion from each side. With scientific topics, this results in the common "scientists vs. opposition" we used to see with cigarettes and now see with climate change for example. With urban issues it becomes "academic vs. apologist." The academic is often advocating something that's unpalatable to a lot of people, while the apologist is giving people a way to feel good about what they're already doing, which of course makes people like them. People who like apologists can probably be generalized as people who don't care about intellectual honesty as much.

Edit: I put some urban-side types like Florida in the same boat.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted May 30, 2010, 6:41 AM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
I am a typical
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 41,172
Florida and Kunstler are Kotkin and Cox's equal opposites, and it is against forum rules to create another profile so you can congratulate yourself in front of others.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted May 30, 2010, 11:09 AM
Trae's Avatar
Trae Trae is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles and Houston
Posts: 4,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago103 View Post
Joel Kotkin and people like him is to sprawl what agents are to the Matrix. Many people are taking the red pill and starting to understand the benefits of walkable urban environments and Kotkin is there to protect the dillusion of people still connected to the matrix of auto-centric sprawl.
Really? I watched a new interview by Kotkin not too long ago, and he doesn't seem to advocate any of that. Here: http://www.hulu.com/watch/151619/cha...-kotkin-author.

Suburbs are going to always exist. You can't make every square mile in American metro areas have 9,000 people in it. You can create little "downtown" areas in these suburbs (TODs, lifestyle/town centers, etc.). And while this goes on in the suburbs, the urban core continues to get larger (Houston and Dallas are perfect examples). I don't see the problem in that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted May 30, 2010, 3:35 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 American Dirt View Post
I think Kotkin has as viable of an opinion as any other writer on urban issues. I don't always agree with him, and I know what I prefer to live in personally, but he may be better attuned than a lot of other writers to how people genuinely prioritize what they're seeking in urban environments. Houston may not be an urbanist's paradise, but it offers tremendously affordable housing, a robust job market, and, at least in the suburbs, quite a few good school systems. For a lot of people, that is of the utmost importance.

Conformity isn't limited to sprawl-type settings. Cambridge MA offers a wonderfully compact urban environment, but its residents react sharply to corporate homogeneity and suburban conformity, while at the same time their kneejerk reaction is often incredibly conformist. Anti-establishment attitudes are remarkably similar across the map, and sometimes they elicit their own homogeneous chains; Whole Foods and Target have thrived on finding communities where everyone is perfectly above average and moderately defiant against the corporate mainstream (Kroger, Wal-Mart), creating an anti-mainstream corporation in itself. Many times I have felt like everyone in Cambridge feels the exact same way about everything.
Whoa how much time have you spent in Cambridge? Yes it is notorious (at least in the Boston area) for being a bastion of liberalism. But conformist? I don't know about that. You make some interesting points but what you wrote clearly displays your ignorance of Cambridge. The residents there are diverse in opinion and there are varying nuances within their overreaching liberal sentiments. I'm also willing to bet that if you were to bring this issue up with a Cambridgite they would be open to discussion instead of the dismay that I'm sure you'd get among your typical suburbanite in say Tewksbury or North Reading.
__________________
“Architecture is a social act and the material theater of human activity.” - Spiro Kostof
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 2:09 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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