Atlanta Top Example in "The steep costs of living so far apart from each other" -Washington Post (apartment, renters)

[AnsleyPark]

Originally Posted by TripTychTwo

I did not misread any posts. If you had read the article, you would understand that 'elbow room' is not a 'fair' or sustainable.

I was responding to a post that said people deserve "fair options." People have options. People can live in town. People can live in the suburbs or people can move to grumpyville like you apparently did. They have options. That's fair.

[TripTychTwo]

Originally Posted by AnsleyPark

I was responding to a post that said people deserve "fair options." People have options. People can live in town. People can live in the suburbs or people can move to grumpyville like you apparently did. They have options. That's fair.

I'm not completely sure if you are being intentionally obtuse, but generalizing on a majority of your posts, I can only assume you are not being willfully ignorant, I do not think you have acquired that level of intellect. The jsvh was referring to the fact that the options are not, in fact, fair. The suburbs do not pay the same percentage of taxes, costs into a society that those that live in town pay. That's inherently unfair. Just take, 30-40 minutes, and read the article. I'm sure you can figure it out!

[bu2]

Originally Posted by TripTychTwo

I'm not completely sure if you are being intentionally obtuse, but generalizing on a majority of your posts, I can only assume you are not being willfully ignorant, I do not think you have acquired that level of intellect. The jsvh was referring to the fact that the options are not, in fact, fair. The suburbs do not pay the same percentage of taxes, costs into a society that those that live in town pay. That's inherently unfair. Just take, 30-40 minutes, and read the article. I'm sure you can figure it out!

The author is pretty skeptical of the study author's numbers and methodology.

If you read the article you would see that its not about taxes, the additional cost he claims is primarily due to intangibles like pollution and congestion.

[AnsleyPark]

Originally Posted by TripTychTwo

I'm not completely sure if you are being intentionally obtuse, but generalizing on a majority of your posts, I can only assume you are not being willfully ignorant, I do not think you have acquired that level of intellect. The jsvh was referring to the fact that the options are not, in fact, fair. The suburbs do not pay the same percentage of taxes, costs into a society that those that live in town pay. That's inherently unfair. Just take, 30-40 minutes, and read the article. I'm sure you can figure it out!

TTT - it is clear you failed to understand the article and your personal attacks warrant no further response.

[Spade]

Originally Posted by robertjhajek

I didn't know Buenos Aires was in Europe.

Mexico City is in South America too.

[jsvh]

Ansley - I think you are the one missing the points of the article here. Do I need paste quotes from the article a third time how it is not a fair choice?

[TripTychTwo]

Originally Posted by AnsleyPark

TTT - it is clear you failed to understand the article and your personal attacks warrant no further response.

Please point out where I "personally attacked" you. I questioned your genuineness regarding your stance on the matter of 'fair' options, which really has absolutely no relevance to the topic at hand. And that's a personal attack? I always thought you were a man, for some reason, but I should have known better I guess?

[AnsleyPark]

Originally Posted by jsvh

Ansley - I think you are the one missing the points of the article here. Do I need paste quotes from the article a third time how it is not a fair choice?

jsvh - it is someone's opinion. I do agree in part; however, people don't alays make the same lifestyle choices. That we can, is, in part, what makes our country great. I don't think I should pay more income tax than most, but that is what makes our country run. Happy to do it, in fact. So, no, you need not repost anything. It's okay to have differing opinions.

[10 feet tall]

It should be noted that they are talking about "Atlanta" density when calculating the data, not the suburbs. In other words, this apparent problem is actually based on in town data. Not sure why the suburb hate exists here. ITP Atlanta isn't much different density wise from most of the suburbs. If you are driving around much of ITP Atlanta, you won't see much urban utopia.

[Saintmarks]

Originally Posted by 10 feet tall

It should be noted that they are talking about "Atlanta" density when calculating the data, not the suburbs. In other words, this apparent problem is actually based on in town data. Not sure why the suburb hate exists here. ITP Atlanta isn't much different density wise from most of the suburbs. If you are driving around much of ITP Atlanta, you won't see much urban utopia.

Exactly. And the fact that all the American cities are at the upper end of the chart including the highly vaunted and prized utopia for dense, walkable, urban citydom... New York... makes this suburban vs. city argument rather silly in my opinion. Using this broad brush article that brings in one set of facts to measure every city in the world while ignoring other factors is really neither here nor there. Land in America is still relatively cheap. Why create false density when market factors do not dictate the need for it? That some want this feel of community is being shown in communities being built that facilitate New Urbanist ideals to a degree. But to dictate that all should live in such a community when the demand is not there and the supply for the other is still in abundance and affordable and showing no signs of NOT being sustainable (despite the Chicken Little cries) smacks of Big Brother just a tad too much for this 'Merican.