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.
It is subsidized, yes, in the suburbs and in urban environments. The difference between those built forms is in how much benefit is generated and how that cost is shared, along the axes of time and of population.
And I brought up walking and biking to enumerate the built form which NU seeks so that you had to confront the details of NU, not just New Urbanists as the disruptive "other". You, yourself, summarily dismissed NU. So, I ask you again, why is it wrong to want more for and from the form of my city? Why is it wrong to want more resilient and adaptable neighborhoods? To want safe streets built for everyone in the city, not just for people using cars to accomplish tasks? Why can't the built form of a city be discussed honestly, openly, and civilly?
No, I did not. I used the term NU one time, to talk about schools, a topic most urbanists, new old and in-between, want to avoid, as evidenced by no one replying to my comment about it. And how is it OK for an urbanist to use sarcasm, when you accuse me of dishonesty, "un-openness" and incivility? Where was I any of those things? I did not bring up the topic of subsidies, I might add.
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 12-19-2014 at 04:59 PM..
No, I did not. I used the term NU one time, to talk about schools, a topic most urbanists, new old and in-between, want to avoid, as evidenced by no one replying to my comment about it. And how is it OK for an urbanist to use sarcasm, when you accuse me of dishonesty, "un-openness" and incivility? Where was I any of those things? I did not bring up the topic of subsidies, I might add.
In a thread specifically about "opportunity urbanism" as a response to NU, you said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
Back on topic, I do think that the uber-urban hipster lifestyle probably appeals only to a small subset of people, and that most outgrow that lifestyle as they enter their 30s, kids or not.
It's OK to be sarcastic to make a point. There is nothing dishonest about using a form of language to express an opinion or perspective.
To pack a whole world view in to "uber-urban hipster lifestyle" or any other phrase; it's a straw man, something you can easily dismiss by pretending NU is a niche, elitist thing that has nothing to offer broader society.
How are we supposed to talk about the costs and benefits of different built forms if we pretend the contexts are falsely equivalent?
Last edited by nei; 12-20-2014 at 02:00 PM..
Reason: rude
No, I did not. I used the term NU one time, to talk about schools, a topic most urbanists, new old and in-between, want to avoid, as evidenced by no one replying to my comment about it. And how is it OK for an urbanist to use sarcasm, when you accuse me of dishonesty, "un-openness" and incivility? Where was I any of those things? I did not bring up the topic of subsidies, I might add.
I am gonna guess no one responded to you comment about schools because it always tends to lead to arguing about general things about schools that never amounts to anything.
As someone who is somewhat of an urbanist, schools are a very important part of that factor, but one the urban planning part, they are not other than the placement of schools.
I am gonna guess no one responded to you comment about schools because it always tends to lead to arguing about general things about schools that never amounts to anything.
As someone who is somewhat of an urbanist, schools are a very important part of that factor, but one the urban planning part, they are not other than the placement of schools.
While many other things are a part of urban planning, and I am not being sarcastic here, although apparently that's now OK - e.g. availability of all manner of bars, movie theaters, live theater, and other forms of entertainment; transit though transit services are usually run by a separate agency; etc.
If you want a "sense of community", schools are a great provider of this, especially for people who have kids in the school, but also for community members who may enjoy some services the schools provide such as sporting events, theater, carnivals and the like.
Go to any city forum and look at the threads started by people planning to move there. If the people have kids, they want to know about schools. That schools are irrelevant to this forum says a lot.
I don't think anyone is discounting the importance of schools to urban issues, but New Urbanism is design-oriented. In that context it is the location that matters.
I'm not entirely sure I know what an uber-urban hipster lifestyle is (how urban or hip does one have to be to obtain uber status? I kind of like the sound of it myself, although am not sure I qualify), but I think I know many families who fit the bill. Not sure why one would think being a parent precludes you from being urban, a hipster, or an urban hipster. Or why being uber-urban is considered something only suitable or achievable for the very young. You'll find people of all ages living urban (and uber-urban, even!) lifestyles, just as you find old people and empty-nesters and single people likewise living in the 'burbs.
Maybe some of you aren't as hip as you think. I used a term (uber) I picked up from my 20-something kids and one person thinks I'm being dishonest, "un-open", and in civil;
And schools alone, of all parts of the "urban fabric", have no place in urban planning. Go figure.
Sorry for any typos; I'm on my kindle and autocorrect is driving me crazy.
Last edited by nei; 12-20-2014 at 08:38 AM..
Reason: Rude
While many other things are a part of urban planning, and I am not being sarcastic here, although apparently that's now OK - e.g. availability of all manner of bars, movie theaters, live theater, and other forms of entertainment; transit though transit services are usually run by a separate agency; etc.
If you want a "sense of community", schools are a great provider of this, especially for people who have kids in the school, but also for community members who may enjoy some services the schools provide such as sporting events, theater, carnivals and the like.
Go to any city forum and look at the threads started by people planning to move there. If the people have kids, they want to know about schools. That schools are irrelevant to this forum says a lot.
Technically none of those things are involved with urban planning, though they are things that one may like to have in an urban setting.
I agree, schools are a great place for communities, locating elementary schools in neighborhoods so that people who live nearby are able to walk their children to school is a great thing. Even better if that school actually preforms well.
That is also true, schools are very important to people, though for the profession of urban planning they are more about location of the schools than anything else.
Technically none of those things are involved with urban planning, though they are things that one may like to have in an urban setting.
I agree, schools are a great place for communities, locating elementary schools in neighborhoods so that people who live nearby are able to walk their children to school is a great thing. Even better if that school actually preforms well.
That is also true, schools are very important to people, though for the profession of urban planning they are more about location of the schools than anything else.
We discuss a lot of things on this board that are way outside the purview of the profession of urban planning. And really, since school districts are usually separate from city governments, the city has no control over where schools are sited. Schools are usually zoned a use by right, just about anywhere a district wants to put one. Many cities actually have joint-use agreements with their local schools for the joint use of facilities, so there is a place for schools in urban planning. For example, a school in my city was built with a larger gymnasium for joint-use purposes. There is a joint-use agreement for some of the city parks to be used by the schools. And so on.
I must say I'm confused. I thought New Urbanism was a sort of development out in the suburbs where houses are close together, have sidewalks, and some sort of commercial center is provided. When did it start to apply to urban hipsters who usually prefer older buildings. Isn't that old or original Urbanism?
I must say I'm confused. I thought New Urbanism was a sort of development out in the suburbs where houses are close together, have sidewalks, and some sort of commercial center is provided. When did it start to apply to urban hipsters who usually prefer older buildings. Isn't that old or original Urbanism?
yes.
Regarding the article on "Opportunity Urbanism..."
It is mostly a puff piece for Houston, with standard suburban apologetics thrown in. It has little to do with urban planning. Strangely enough it doesn't mention San Jose, which is as suburban as it gets and has led the nation in job growth for years. Maybe because it is also one of the most expensive places in the country, which doesn't fit into the author's narrative that suburbs (Houston) are the land of opportunity because they are cheap.
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.
