People Who Live In Suburbs: Classy, Icky, or Dudes?

well I'm not really concerned about being wrong about 'is sprawl bad for the environment'

It's weird to me to think of urban zoning restrictions as a way to subsidize suburbs. I don't think people who live in suburbs really care either way about zoning in cities. It's the people living in cities who support these zoning restrictions, largely I think because of NIMBY-ism and misguided fear of change. Cities already seem dense enough to most people, so the thought of additional density tends to be unpopular. People only think of the negative side-effects: congestion, noise, pollution, strain on infrastructure, etc. People don't usually think about the cool new businesses and restaurants that might be able to thrive in their neighborhood if it got a bit denser.

john how long have you been on ilx, you have to realize that acting super sensitive and pouty when iatee is impolitic abt his opinions just makes everyone pile on right

y/n: suburbs make people pouty

all the recent stuff abt zoning aside the big argument here is between people who think that increasing density leads to vastly more efficient and sustainable use of resources and people who get hurt when that's said in a zingy way

but this thread doesn't even read like the suburb defenders are disagreeing wrt denisty being more efficient and sustainable

like jjusten say's its just zings circling around each other at this point

Yeah I'm not being sensitive or pouty dude, I am suggesting that terrible argumentation and logic is pretty transparent when it's repeated 8 million times over in a thread.

I am in favor of increasing urban dentistry

well lets clear some stuff up

people who think that increasing density leads to vastly more efficient and sustainable use of resources

Regardless of zings, this hasn't really proved true over the course of history.

the problem isn't that iatee is wrong, its more that he goes about getting his point across in a really condescending way sometimes and i think that gets peoples dander up and they want to argue with him just because. i feel like at least 90% of the people itt agree that density is probably the most efficient and sustainable way forward, its more just arguing wrt to getting there.

why do you even need to argue with me if you agree with me?

Same reason I used to tutor people in formal logic I guess

for the record, i'm not arguing with you right now, i'm just pointing out where the shitstorms sort of start to spiral out of control. we can agree with your main thesis, but disagree with your supporting points.

voluntary human extinction is the only way

w/r/t subsidization/zoning upthread -- The zoning stuff is really a separate discussion I think that has nothing to do with the suburbs and nothing to do with disputes over higher density. The subsidization of suburbs was a much more direct thing over a long span of time. Mainly it came with homeownership incentives and various construction and tax incentives etc. But people didn't move to the suburbs because they were subsidized! The suburbs were subsidized because the people moving there were an important political force that politicians wanted to cultivate. The thing is really that suburbanization as a trend mainly reversed [or at least transformed] by the late 80s at the latest (with certain sprawl-exceptions in the sunbelt, which was a sort of different thing, and also has now collapsed). So the arguments about the problems with suburbanization all actually are sort of inescapable now, and I don't think there's even real disagreement about them?

i think some people do disagree with me about the new hampshire plan

voluntary human extinction is the only way

― mh, Wednesday, March 14, 2012 2:13 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

that or population control, yeah.

max: in new hampshire will all our food be grown on rooftop gardens or something? or will ppl have to commute to ohio or whatever to raise cows?

new hampshire is surrounded by amazing fertile land! and anyway were talking brooklyn density in NH, so theres plenty of room for community gardens, parks, even rooftop gardens

and there will be no cows in the united states of new hampshire. if there are they will be very expensive.

also new hampshire winters are kinda brutal. maybe we can build a dome over it or something?

no cows sounds like a dealbreaker, tbh.

unless you plan on making all yr united states of new hampshire food in labs, there is no way you're going to have enough rooftop gardens to grow even enough grain for yr country

america doesn't have or need very many farmers ftr

we got really really good at making food a long time ago

well, to be honest, it doesnt actually have to be *in* NH, just a space the size of NH. we can vote on where the city limits will be.

no you misunderstand jon -- most of the food will come in from the farmland that rings new hampshire, where all the teenagers will be sent to farm

as for the cows, unfortunately, they are also a dealbreaker in terms of the continued survival of human life on this planet

xpost - ok, i see now

as for the cows, unfortunately, they are also a dealbreaker in terms of the continued survival of human life on this planet

That's why I'm eating them as fast as I can.

beef is kind of the biggest problem in the farming chain, yes

beef is a big problem in hip-hop I'll grant.

hardsonned beef is more sustainable

re: tearing down brownstones, i just read this:

http://seattletransitblog.com/2012/03/14/we-need-old-buildings/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+seattletransitblog%2Frss+%28Seattle+Transit+Blog%29

I don't know that much about seattle's downtown and I imagine I'd prob agree w/ that author's definition of 'old' and 'heritage' but at the same time it doesn't escape the problem that you have to draw a fairly arbitrary line in the sand somewhere with those words.

Increasing unit size does not seem to be a particularly pressing problem in NYC!

I'll tell you where increasing unit size *is* a pressing problem....

my fly zipper?

xxxp The examples he shows (and are argued over in the comment section) aren't in Downtown proper, but in the historic Pioneer Square neighborhood (Seattle's oldest) and in the International District, both south of downtown. Most of the old buildings in Downtown itself were torn down and replaced with skyscrapers or other modern architecture decades ago. But part of his point, like Max et al were expounding itt earlier in regards to NYC, is that there are plenty of places for infill that don't require tearing down these type of buildings, even within spitting distance of Downtown Seattle.

the area between Denny and, like, Olive? is really calling out for a lot of parking lot replacement.

I imagine it's actually probably inevitable there?

Yeah, Denny Triangle is filling with high-rises even as we speak.

my Seattle recon is a little out of date

Yeah, that place was all surface parking and other garbage for a long time. Still a few lots left, but their days are numbered.

amazon's putting up 3 mil sq/ft of office space in just 3 of those blocks. which is a hell of a lot of office space

yeah it makes a good contrast w/ apple's horrible new headquarters:
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2012/03/how-amazon-got-urban-campus-right/1485/

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/shiller-housing-chance-bottom-suburban-prices-may-not-161914444.html?l=1

let us pray

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204409904574350432677038184.html

Sugrue is a p. great historian. excited to see that he's doing a book on real estate/housing specifically. it's been an underlying theme in his work from the start (& of course he has the whole collection on suburbs he edited).