Why do so much people hate on the Suburbs?? (metro, suburban, market)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"A is the ONLY ethical issue, and someone who makes the less ethical choice on A is a bad person"
Who said that? In a nutshell, UU's view is that a person who decides to live in a car-dependent exurban development 35 miles away from the center city has made a less ethical choice than someone who lives in the city (thanks for confirming that in the quote above). Clearly, there are people in this forum who fundamentally disagree with that view. Some people don't even believe that's it's an ethical choice at all.
Who said that? In a nutshell, UU's view is that a person who decides to live in a car-dependent exurban development 35 miles away from the center city has made a less ethical choice than someone who lives in the city (thanks for confirming that in the quote above). Clearly, there are people in this forum who fundamentally disagree with that view. Some people don't even believe that's it's an ethical choice at all.
Im not sure from UU's posts that he believes that someone living in a car dependent suburb 35 miles from the center city has made a less ethical choice independent of A. Employment location (where I at least would argue that a long reverse commute can overcome other energy saving associated with high density living) and B. Other aspects of the choice ("I couldnt afford 3brs in the city, so I put my 3rd and 4th kids up for adoption" or "I moved 35 miles away, but I still live in a tiny townhome, and I used the resulting cash savings to build wells in villages in the Sahel")
Anyway, UU definitely seems more concerned with policy questions than with evaluating others for their "goodness" or "badness"
of course not all here agree. Thats what makes it interesting. I would suggest that all or almost all of the "urbanist" regulars (as opposed to the "drive by" folks) are mostly interested in policy discussions, and that its certain of their regular adversaries who like to turn it into a discussion of personal morality.
Im not sure from UU's posts that he believes that someone living in a car dependent suburb 35 miles from the center city has made a less ethical choice independent of A. Employment location (where I at least would argue that a long reverse commute can overcome other energy saving associated with high density living) and B. Other aspects of the choice ("I couldnt afford 3brs in the city, so I put my 3rd and 4th kids up for adoption" or "I moved 35 miles away, but I still live in a tiny townhome, and I used the resulting cash savings to build wells in villages in the Sahel")
Anyway, UU definitely seems more concerned with policy questions than with evaluating others for their "goodness" or "badness"
of course not all here agree. Thats what makes it interesting. I would suggest that all or almost all of the "urbanist" regulars (as opposed to the "drive by" folks) are mostly interested in policy discussions, and that its certain of their regular adversaries who like to turn it into a discussion of personal morality.
I think people shouldn't use the words "ethical" or "moral". Nobody on this forum was given the authority to tell people what is moral or immoral. I realize that may be tough for you people, because we know you urbanist love to sit on your high horse and believe you are on the same level as God.
And many do have a choice. My brother lives in a "sprawling" neighborhood in metro Atlanta and wouldn't have it any other way. If it were up to him, there would be much more sprawl than there already is. This would be, in UU's view, an ethically inferior choice, would it not? The choice to live in a sprawling, auto-dependent suburb is inferior to a choice to live in a more compact, walkable suburb.
You're missing the point. Your brother may LIKE it like that, but that doesn't mean that the regulations should be drawn up to encourage that pattern. I think that style of development is the problem, not the people who choose to live there. (Although yes, I do think that it would help if people would have more conversations about the relationship between lifestyle, design, and financial and environmental sustainability. Right now it's next to impossible to bring up issues like that, as people take it as a personal attack.)
I'm guessing that your brother and his neighbors aren't picking up all of the associated costs with their sprawl. When the costs are hidden or spread out, people often don't realize just what it costs (including financially) to live like that. I don't have a problem with your brother, but it makes no sense that society as a whole would be subsidizing his lifestyle preference (in the process making that the default development option available, meaning a whole lot less choice for people who would prefer something different -- a smaller lot or being able to walk more places, for example -- are stuck with what's on the market, especially if they are limited by budget or location). I would prefer that policies and zoning would encourage forms of development that make the most sense for community as a whole, but barring that, it would be nice if they were at least neutral. And while there are still plenty of options like his neighborhood around for those who want that, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't start changing policies for the next wave of development. Times change. Needs change. New policies should reflect that.
And how come everyone cares so much about what I think? I'm flattered, but I'm not a major decision-maker. I'm just one other person on a forum that is devoted to discussing urban planning issues. I happen to think that towns and suburbs should be sustainable, and new policies should make it easier for people to find housing that meets both their needs/wants as well as the needs of the community as whole.
Last edited by uptown_urbanist; 08-22-2012 at 02:26 PM..
that's pretty much what uptown urbanist is saying there, otherwise, why bring ethics into this discussion?
because making public policy can be an ethical issue. IE "is it ethical to vote for the new zoning code" or "is it ethical to support the new subway line" are questions. They are somewhat different questions from "is it ethical to buy a Prius" or 'is it ethical to buy a mcmansion in Ashburn" or even "is it ethical to buy a mcmansion given that I work in arlington and there are closer in suburbs with good schools I could live in if I could see my way to raising my children in a townhouse" Though there will naturally be overlap in the kinds of empirical data needed to answer those questions.
(Although yes, I do think that it would help if people would have more conversations about the relationship between lifestyle, design, and financial and environmental sustainability. Right now it's next to impossible to bring up issues like that, as people take it as a personal attack.)
I would say taking policy questions as personal attacks is a tactic more widespread than questions of urban planning. If you want higher marginal tax rates on higher incomes, you "hate the rich" or "hate the producing class". If you oppose gay marriage, you "hate gays" and if you support gay marriage "you hate christians".
There ARE of course ways of expressing policy positions that DO express or imply hatreds for individuals or groups - but I think increasingly we personalize these positions too much, and I think some parts of our political culture like to use that kind of personalizing for tactical purposes.
You're missing the point. Your brother may LIKE it like that, but that doesn't mean that the regulations should be drawn up to encourage that pattern. I think that style of development is the problem, not the people who choose to live there. (Although yes, I do think that it would help if people would have more conversations about the relationship between lifestyle, design, and financial and environmental sustainability. Right now it's next to impossible to bring up issues like that, as people take it as a personal attack.)
I'm guessing that your brother and his neighbors aren't picking up all of the associated costs with their sprawl. When the costs are hidden or spread out, people often don't realize just what it costs (including financially) to live like that. I don't have a problem with your brother, but it makes no sense that society as a whole would be subsidizing his lifestyle preference (in the process making that the default development option available, meaning a whole lot less choice for people who would prefer something different -- a smaller lot or being able to walk more places, for example -- are stuck with what's on the market, especially if they are limited by budget or location). I would prefer that policies and zoning would encourage forms of development that make the most sense for community as a whole, but barring that, it would be nice if they were at least neutral. And while there are still plenty of options like his neighborhood around for those who want that, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't start changing policies for the next wave of development. Times change. Needs change. New policies should reflect that.
And how come everyone cares so much about what I think? I'm flattered, but I'm not a major decision-maker. I'm just one other person on a forum that is devoted to discussing urban planning issues. I happen to think that towns and suburbs should be sustainable, and new policies should make it easier for people to find housing that meets both their needs/wants as well as the needs of the community as whole.
whenever you bring morality and ethics into any discussion, you pretty much are acting as if you are responsible for telling people what is moral and what is immoral. You make it seem like a car-dependent suburb is somehow solely responsible for all the problems with the environment. I'm failing to understand how a suburb that may be 20-40 minutes away, is affecting a community that lives in the city?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
