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.
Suburbs mimic nature, cities do not. I never said cities were natural, or that they mimicked nature.
So you despise "suburbia" because you believe it mimicks nature but cities are okay because although they are artificial they aren't mimicking anything? Really?
I don't see "suburbia" as mimicking anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR_C
So now, will you provide your documentation?
Feel free to identify the city and the suburbia and we'll work from there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR_C
I never claimed urban environments used farmland more efficiently. What I've been saying, since my first post in this thread, was that urban environments destroy less farmland--per capita--than suburban environments.
.... and that's a meaningless argument if the location of the urban environment or the suburban environment was not farmland to begin with. It's also meaningless if the "farmland" was used primarily as a tax break by the owner as opposed to actually producing goods. The only reason a farm would be "destroyed" by development is if the development is taking place on the farmland. Otherwise the creation of new residential developments tends to support ongoing demand for produce, etc. not destruction of such property. So are you concerned solely with the real estate footprint utilized by the physical structures?
This doesn't make any sense to me. Are you saying that suburbanites don't drink coffee, watch sports (even on TV, demanding that the sport take place somewhere), eat out, have parks or huge lawns that add to "private park space"? I don't get it.
And from my experience, urban establishments take up less space than suburban establishments (not even including parking), often times serving more people per square foot. Regardless, seems like a strange argument.
You quoted two people in that post, though we often agree. I'll respond to my post. The urban lifestyle espoused here by many young urbanists is wasteful. Going out to dinner 5-6 nights a week or more, is wasteful of resources, far more wasteful than cooking yourself.
Regarding the bold, that's so far out I say "document it"! Most restaurants in small strip malls are small themselves, at least where I am. The occupancy load is based on people per square foot, and I'd imagine those are similar from municipality to municipality. Most restaurants in Denver, the city, have some parking as well, other than those right downtown.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR_C
Suburbs mimic nature, cities do not. I never said cities were natural, or that they mimicked nature.
So now, will you provide your documentation?
I never claimed urban environments used farmland more efficiently. What I've been saying, since my first post in this thread, was that urban environments destroy less farmland--per capita--than suburban environments.
That doesn't make sense to me. People don't live in tents in the burbs, they live in houses.
Your last paragraph doesn't make sense. Efficiency is tied into how much land you're talking about. Per capita is interesting. Most suburban homes house families. A lot of these urban lofts house singles or couples.
What doesn't make sense about the last paragraph? Per capita land use can be measured with density; it's a rare city that less dense than suburbs overall. And a lot of times posters use urban to mean high-density, regardless of whether you like the usage.
Most urban restaurants here aren't in strip malls; they're in buildings along the street. Wouldn't have expected that to be true in Denver, usually restaurants cluster in "main-street style" buildings
What doesn't make sense about the last paragraph? Per capita land use can be measured with density; it's a rare city that less dense than suburbs overall. And a lot of times posters use urban to mean high-density, regardless of whether you like the usage.
If I posted anything that snippy, you'd delete the whole post!
Here's JR_C's post: "I never claimed urban environments used farmland more efficiently. What I've been saying, since my first post in this thread, was that urban environments destroy less farmland--per capita--than suburban environments."
If he's saying urban environments destroy less famland per capita, he's saying they use farmland more efficiently!
Jeez, how is that snippy? It was a disclaimer because I knew you wouldn't like the usage, acknowledging I know you disagree. Can't win either way
I don't get what the objection is in the last sentence
I can't explain it to you any better than I already tried to do. Efficiency is tied to acreage. Maybe you have to live in "Big Ag" country to understand this.
You quoted two people in that post, though we often agree. I'll respond to my post. The urban lifestyle espoused here by many young urbanists is wasteful. Going out to dinner 5-6 nights a week or more, is wasteful of resources, far more wasteful than cooking yourself.
What does that matter? Who cares if you disapprove of people going out to eat multiple times a week? Is it wasteful to drive to work by yourself every day? How about if you cook at home and waste groceries? I mean, this is absurd. That's beside the fact that many people who live in dense urban environments cook at home quite often as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt
Regarding the bold, that's so far out I say "document it"! Most restaurants in small strip malls are small themselves, at least where I am. The occupancy load is based on people per square foot, and I'd imagine those are similar from municipality to municipality. Most restaurants in Denver, the city, have some parking as well, other than those right downtown.
Document that it doesn't. Do you think that a suburban grocery store in Jersey is often times the same square footage as urban grocery stores in an urban neighborhood in Philadelphia? In South Philly there are tons of corner stores that are tiny. I can tell you the common bar in my neighborhood is nothing the size of something you'd find near a suburban mall.
That doesn't preclude the city from having large establishments either. However, very few dense urban establishments have parking even close to the size of suburban establishments. The land use between the two is often times a much smaller footprint.
What does that matter? Who cares if you disapprove of people going out to eat multiple times a week? Is it wasteful to drive to work by yourself every day? How about if you cook at home and waste groceries? I mean, this is absurd. That's beside the fact that many people who live in dense urban environments cook at home quite often as well.
Document that it doesn't. Do you think that a suburban grocery store in Jersey is often times the same square footage as urban grocery stores in an urban neighborhood in Philadelphia? In South Philly there are tons of corner stores that are tiny. I can tell you the common bar in my neighborhood is nothing the size of something you'd find near a suburban mall.
That doesn't preclude the city from having large establishments either. However, very few dense urban establishments have parking even close to the size of suburban establishments. The land use between the two is often times a much smaller footprint.
No, I will not refute your statements. It's your job to verify them. That's how it works on every message board I post on, your assertion, you document. That's the standard of debate. Anything else is not "cricket". You don't make someone else "prove you wrong". Talk about absurd.
No, I will not refute your statements. It's your job to verify them. That's how it works on every message board I post on, your assertion, you document. That's the standard of debate. Anything else is not "cricket". You don't make someone else "prove you wrong". Talk about absurd.
Having worked at a grocery store when I was younger, I know grocery stores waste a huge amount of food:
I doubt the factors at play that drive suburban vs. urban build have a proven difference in food waste. In fact, when I moved to Philadelphia, I was shocked at how much less waste I could dispose of compared to my suburban life. There are strict limits, so I recycle more and I eat what I buy. Regardless, it's pretty far outside the scope of this discussion.
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.
