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.
The way OP tee'd up this question was odd. The answer is basically this - the thing that is driving interest in cities today is the same thing that caused them to coalesce in the first place. There was an aberration (in the US only - other places cities have always thrived) for the last 50 years. If you look at the whole of human history for the last several millennium is pretty clear the there is a gravitation towards living in connected communities and people have almost always paid a premium to be in the center of it all.
If there was such a "demand" then such gravitation would occur naturally. However, the NUs seek to FORCE their view of what is "natural" via local government mandates and then sit back and suggest that the result is due to consumer demand rather than local government mandate.
It's hard to imagine anything more artificial and unnatural than the planned communities (and the legal entanglement they are accompanied by) touted by new urbanists under the pretext of "community". Not only do many citizens find such places to be abhorrent, they have no interest in paying a premium for a place that simply costs more but offers them nothing of value.
"Connected communities" is a rather nonsense term that implies there was a division to begin with. What's the division? If you are going to define a division between "urban" and "non-urban" you might also recognize that the areas you consider to be divided are already "connected".
There is no "urban trend". Instead there is a philosophy known as "communitarianism" being promoted in both urban and suburban environments. Communitarianism relies on abstract concepts like "community" as rationale for eviscerating individual rights and fundamental concepts of property ownership. Communitarianism is quite old - however, today it uses labels like "New Urbanist" and "planned community".
It boils down to people are being indoctrinated to believe it is a better way to live. We are subliminally bombarded on a daily basis and have grown used to it. Some even believe the hype.
The more posts like this I read, the more I wonder how many urbanists have ever set foot in a so-called subburb, much less lived in one.
Agree. I'm a fan of creative and visual language to get points across in debates/arguments.
I'm not a fan of hyperbole in the same situations, though.
I have lived in cities from 15,000 people to 2,700,000 people, and shades in between.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annuvin
(1)FTR: The easiest place to remain anonymous is in a large city. (2)The volume of people that live within them make them inherently anti-social by nature, (3) and is the reason why the streets of large cities often attract large numbers of mentally ill and schizophrenics. (4)You really should try visiting a rural/small town of less than 30,000 people some time if you truly want to know what living in a social community feels like.
1. Truth.
2. How so? How does "living among many other people = not social"? And how does "living among fewer people = social"? Am I getting it right? If not, correct me.
3. Or maybe we(Americans)/the private sector don't have places for them to go. They could go live in rural areas of the country and fend for themselves. They could go live in suburbs on the streets, but does anyone want a homeless man sleeping on their sidewalk?
Or they could go to the city. They could live/be nomads on some public property. More opportunities to survive. If we(Americans) want to pay to take care of these people, we wouldn't have to worry about them loose on any streets. Just my thoughts.
4. What kind of person are you? Or, more specifically, what kind of ratio person are you?
1:12? (a dime a dozen?)
1:100?
1:10,000?
1:1,000,000? (You're one in a million!)
Let's pretend I'm a 1:10,000 person. Let's pretend I'm a furry.
So I live in/move to a place of 30,000 people. If math holds up, there are going to be about 3 people in that place who also enjoy the same things (I'm pretending) I do.
If I live in/move to a place of 3,000,000 people, if math holds up, there are going to be about 300 people in that place who also enjoy the same things (make-believing) I do.
If there was such a "demand" then such gravitation would occur naturally. However, the NUs seek to FORCE their view of what is "natural" via local government mandates and then sit back and suggest that the result is due to consumer demand rather than local government mandate.
It's hard to imagine anything more artificial and unnatural than the planned communities (and the legal entanglement they are accompanied by) touted by new urbanists under the pretext of "community". Not only do many citizens find such places to be abhorrent, they have no interest in paying a premium for a place that simply costs more but offers them nothing of value.
"Connected communities" is a rather nonsense term that implies there was a division to begin with. What's the division? If you are going to define a division between "urban" and "non-urban" you might also recognize that the areas you consider to be divided are already "connected".
There is no "urban trend". Instead there is a philosophy known as "communitarianism" being promoted in both urban and suburban environments. Communitarianism relies on abstract concepts like "community" as rationale for eviscerating individual rights and fundamental concepts of property ownership. Communitarianism is quite old - however, today it uses labels like "New Urbanist" and "planned community".
You continue your uninterrupted streak of being wrong about everything. Allow me to dismantle this post piece-by-pied - bear with me, since everything is wrong, this will take some time:
1. No one forces anyone to move somewhere. No one points a gun at someones head and says "you will live urban." This is a myth. You can test this out in your home town. Do a price/sf comparison of what people willingly pay in the city and what people willingly pay in the suburbs.
2. You have completely turned New Urbanism on its head. Urbanism has been made illegal in most of the country except for relatively small city cores. New Urbanists seek to reintroduce urbanism into regimes that have been made incredibly complex. That's what makes New Urbanists "new". Oh, and don't believe me - go check out their website - CNU.org.
3. New Urbanists seek to allow what was once legal, and has been made illegal, legal again. That's is pretty much the heart and soul of New Urbanism. So it's 180 degrees opposite of what you proposed - it the suburbanites who have mandated auto-dependecy on most cities in the US. In fact, if municipalities would simply step out of the way and give people the option to develop in an urban way a large part of the problem would be corrected over time because developers seek to maximize profits and urbanity commands premiums.
4. The scope of the areas and projects that New Urbanists practice in is extremely broad from individual parcels, to revitalization of a block or a neighborhood to re-introducing vitality into the city core to planned developments outside the city core. Although you attack one facet of new urbanism - planned development - the movement encompasses so very much more than this.
5. The purpose of planned new urban developments is to give a way to OPT OUT of the current regime that makes urbanism impossible. It's the only tool new urbanists have at their disposal to build urbanism in places that have deemed it illegal.
6. Contrary to what you stated - the new urban developments that are well done command a HUGE premium the similarly situated standard suburban fair. I'll direct you to Kentlands, Seaside, Stapleton, Sunrise, l'on and many many more. Why do people pay a huge premium to live in places they find "abhorrent".
7. Building "connected communities" is far from nonsense, is the antidote to building auto-dependent suburbs where everything is single use and almost all trips require a car. Connected simply refers to having a network of options available to all.
8. I have no idea what you are talking about re "communitarianism" but it suggests that you've been listening to Alex Jones a bit too much….put down the tin hat and step away from the black helicopter.
Right. I didn't see any "Live. Work. Play!" banners in the video you posted.
I'm sorry - what exactly is your issue with stating that downtowns are areas that people can live, work and play? Seems that's a fairly efficient way to describe urbanism.
The internet is killing TV and now that everyone is unbecoming a zombie they want to go back to being a human. They city is the only place you can continue to have a life outside of public school and college. What is actually strange is that americans were ever against city living. If you look at most of the world humans tend to live densely.
If you get in now you can get in a good neighborhood cheap before all the major cities turn into san francisco's and you couldn't have urban living if you wanted to
3. New Urbanists seek to allow what was once legal, and has been made illegal, legal again. That's is pretty much the heart and soul of New Urbanism. So it's 180 degrees opposite of what you proposed - it the suburbanites who have mandated auto-dependecy on most cities in the US. In fact, if municipalities would simply step out of the way and give people the option to develop in an urban way a large part of the problem would be corrected over time because developers seek to maximize profits and urbanity commands premiums.
8. I have no idea what you are talking about re "communitarianism" but it suggests that you've been listening to Alex Jones a bit too much….put down the tin hat and step away from the black helicopter.
#3 makes no sense. What was once legal, and has been made illegal, legal again? That is rather vague.
You can't pin auto dependency on any one demographic group as all drive cars of every variety. City dwellers like their MBs, BMWs and Porsches as much as suburbanites like their Prius, Accords, and minivans. Urbanity cannot command the premiums a private 25 acre lot commands as there are none in urban settings unless they be public parks. What other premiums are commanded?
More people should listen to Alex Jones versus 60 Minutes. One makes you think while the other tells a bland tale of ZZZZZZZ... That bland guy is usually Scott Pelly, the wost television journalist CBS has put on the air. I wait for him to break down and cry crocodile tears at times.
2. How so? How does "living among many other people = not social"? And how does "living among fewer people = social"? Am I getting it right? If not, correct me.
Ironically, the larger the population, the less you matter. As I stated earlier, when I was in Newfoundland I stood out like a sore thumb. Everyone knew everyone so it was obvious I was not from around there. They also had a much greater sense of community there, so I was approached by numerous Newfies and met a lot more of them than I did anytime I have been in Toronto (where I was born and now work). In a city, people are far more impersonal. Because there is a fairly good chance that you won't encounter any random person on the street again, proper manners go out the window. You are merely one face among many and don't matter as much to other members of the public. It is a much colder existence without any sense of community whatsoever. There was an example not too long ago where a homeless man died outside one of Japan's largest malls and people were stepping over him for three days before anyone told the authorities.
Quote:
3. Or maybe we(Americans)/the private sector don't have places for them to go. They could go live in rural areas of the country and fend for themselves. They could go live in suburbs on the streets, but does anyone want a homeless man sleeping on their sidewalk?
Even urbanites do not want this. But as I explained above, the larger the group, the easier it is to stay anonymous. Many mental conditions cause paranoia, so these people naturally avoid smaller communities where they would draw unwanted attention.
Quote:
4. What kind of person are you? Or, more specifically, what kind of ratio person are you?
1:12? (a dime a dozen?)
1:100?
1:10,000?
1:1,000,000? (You're one in a million!)
Let's pretend I'm a 1:10,000 person. Let's pretend I'm a furry.
So I live in/move to a place of 30,000 people. If math holds up, there are going to be about 3 people in that place who also enjoy the same things (I'm pretending) I do.
If I live in/move to a place of 3,000,000 people, if math holds up, there are going to be about 300 people in that place who also enjoy the same things (make-believing) I do.
That is what the internet is for.
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.
