Seriously, what's wrong with living in the suburbs?? (Detroit, Michigan, downtown)

[nei]

Originally Posted by Yankeerose00

Another note, I hope you all realize that the model of grocery shopping that most urbanists use is the LEAST cost effective method of shopping. It's pretty much proven that small trips to the grocery store add up to more money than buying in bulk when stuff is on sale. Take out and having food delivered also results in paying top dollar for food.

Buying food in bulk takes up space (something many urbanists might not have much of) and possibly refrigeration. Especially if one buying for just yourself, buying in bulk might be impractical.

Grocery shopping can be hard to plan out, for me it's often "I feel like eating X the next few days", so buy whatever is needed whether it's on sale. Or I'm out of Y so I should buy it and I don't want to buy in bulk or stock up on lots of food.

[Yankeerose00]

Originally Posted by nei

Buying food in bulk takes up space (something many urbanists might not have much of) and possibly refrigeration. Especially if one buying for just yourself, buying in bulk might be impractical.

Grocery shopping can be hard to plan out, for me it's often "I feel like eating X the next few days", so buy whatever is needed whether it's on sale. Or I'm out of Y so I should buy it and I don't want to buy in bulk or stock up on lots of food.

Bulk shopping works best for either large families or people like myself with big @ss pantries. It would not be your best option. Also, these days, many people only have X amount of dollars leftover after bills and savings and I'm sure they would rather that money go for shopping or hobbies than groceries. I know I do.

But I would never suggest a single person shopping in bulk. When I was single I shopped exactly as you do. I'm sure I spent way more on food than I could have but I had the funds so I could easily get a lot of take out, go to restaurants and make more frequent and smaller stops. It worked for me when I was younger and single as it works for a lot of urban dwellers and singletons.

The cost differential is not going to be as noticeable for one person, but would be very noticeable if a large family tried to shop that way.

That's why I just don't think it's very fair or realistic if a person tells someone that grocery shopping for a family in the city is going to be easy. If a person is going to move a family to the city, they are going to need to raise their grocery budget significantly.

[jfre81]

Originally Posted by Katiana

This forum is fairly new as of sometime this year; some posts were moved from other forums as "seed". You have way too much time on your hands if you have enough time to go back and read posts three years old.

Well, I had to see who these still-unnamed "urbanists" are just in case I felt like continuing to pursue a rational discussion here, to see exactly what I was dealing with, since for some yet unexplained reason I had these people's viewpoints projected onto me as if they were my own. I did see a few of the posts of these "radical urbanists" that aren't members here anymore and were probably just trolling. Anyway, I thought the beginning was as good a place as any to start. I didn't get too far in, because I had work to do. And so I went to work.

Driving.

In a car.

Not only out of the city, but past the suburbs and back to a rather humble industrial town of c. 40,000 where I was born and where I lived the first 20 years or so of my life. I still do work there sometimes.

What I do for work absolutely requires a car, although there has been the odd assignment downtown where I did ride rail/bus and I wasn't facing a strict deadline the same night. If that was the case, I'd drive. But just going downtown for a ballgame or to have a drink? I'd just as soon not deal with the hassle of parking. Save the gas for work, get reimbursed. Win.

I'm a writer and journalist, by trade, something of a photographer too, in case you needed that information to evaluate my prerequisites for stating my opinions on planning matters. You asked again people's "credentials" just the other day so don't try to say you don't remember it. Which reminds me of what I intended to ask you earlier....

Who the hell do you think you are even thinking of suggesting that someone isn't qualified to express an opinion on an issue? Get over yourself.

Build a bridge if you have to.

And then, as soon as you're off your properly credentialed high horse, come talk to me about being arrogant. I might be more receptive to what you have to say at that point.

Originally Posted by Yankeerose00

And what would be an example of a skilled debater?

Since you're not audacious enough to demand people on a quasi-anonymous Internet forum post their "credentials" (what a joke - "My credentials? Well, I'm Batman! No, really, prove I'm not!) I'll help you out here.

My opinion - not a judgement, mind - of what makes a good debater is someone who does not assume that, for example, if one person has one particular viewpoint, that they inherently share the ideas of other people you met who shared that viewpoint. For example, I'm for the right to bear arms and I'm for the right for homosexuals to be married, so in isolation either of those could be used to typecast me as either some hardcore right winger or a radical liberal, and neither one would be accurate. Stereotypes are an easy way for people to sort things in their heads with people they don't relate to very well, much in the way assumptions get made about places they're not familiar with.

For example, you say not all suburbs are the same. (Yes, bringing the topic back.) I'm abundantly aware of that. You won't see me say that. Now, I might say that for the most part, the suburbs of Houston are all practically identical to each other, but Katy or Sugar Land are not going to look like Levittown, New York. I might say that I can go to a Wal-Mart in either place and forget what state I'm in let alone what town, but that might not be the case once I've gone back outside.

You seem locked into the assumption that I believe what you describe, because you encountered other people who stated a preference for urban life over suburban life.

For a lot of reasons, this issue is more complex than you credit it. It's not like choosing chocolate or vanilla ice cream. Like you say not all suburbs are the same, well, cities are quite similar. I would hate to come off as "arrogant" when I say we covered this earlier but it was. New York City or San Francisco or inner Chicago is a world of difference in density terms than any Sun Belt city, or most any other place in America for that matter. In the South, 5,000 people per square mile is density. In the northeast, that's suburban-level density. Since you are either from Connecticut or familiar with it, you can probably relate to this. I'm in Texas, where you could take Levittown or Arlington Heights, Ill. and put it in the city core of Houston and it would be of comparable terms as far as density and "space" as it were.

So if this was an ice cream topic, it wouldn't be simply "chocolate or vanilla?" but "chocolate or vanilla and what brand?"

(For the record, if you're ever down south you should totally find some Blue Bell Natural Vanilla Bean.) /productplacement

Truth be told I've never lived in a truly dense urban environment. I know I would like visiting one. I'd love the chance to live in NYC, even just for maybe a year or so, for the experience.

I have lived in a suburban environment, at least as it exists anywhere in Texas. It's not for me, on several levels. I understand having a big house if you have a big family, but I have no desire for one just to make it look like I'm wealthier than I am. I'm just shy of 30 years old and I don't have any children. And this falls into another stereotype that has been thrown around - there are people who raise kids in the city! I know quite a few of them. They're not like the archetypical big Catholic family but up to 4-5 - they make it work one way or another.

And concerning the shopping - one thing I consider is after I'm done working or hitting the streets with the camera or whatever, do I really want to haul 20 bags of stuff in all the time? I don't have an army of kids to help. Come to think of it, when I was growing up my mom would do exactly what you do, and even with three others I'm looking at two trips to and from the car to put everything away.

Products of our environments and upbringings, we are. (For that matter, I notice the most hardcore "urbanists" I've ever encountered were raised in the burbs from birth. Everyone ends up wanting a change after awhile. Native New Yorkers find having space and, in a lot of cases, driving a car to be a novel thing if they don't fall in love with it immediately. I might get old and retire off to some ranch in the middle of nowhere one day.)

Back to shopping, suppose I do bring in the 20 bags - then I have to put all that stuff away? I think I'll stick with stopping by the store to pick up enough for the next day or two. Any direction I go, I'm going to go right by a grocery store anyway, I get some sort of sale paper in the mail about every third day and I can "save" money without needing a semi truck to bring enough food to feed a small nation's army.

I do hope you have taken the time to read this and that you better understand where I'm coming from.

[Katiana]

Just what is wrong with asking someone what their credentials are? There are lots of bloviators on CD and IRL as well who think they are experts on topics they know absolutely nothing about. This is nowhere as obvious as regarding health care. Everyone receives health care, so everyone is an expert.

A good debater does not make personal attacks on people. A good debater does not make the debate personal at all, something you have done many times over, just in this thread.

[wburg]

The storage thing is key. Buying things in bulk implies bulk storage, a luxury many folks in small apartments (whether they live in city or country) don't have. Buying large quantities of, say, lettuce or bananas is pretty impractical for one person, as they generally can't use much before it rots, and any "refrigerate after opening" package starts going bad once you open it.

One of the better choices my wife and I made was to downgrade our refrigerator. The one in our current house was a bit too big anyhow, as the kitchen was designed for little 1930s era refrigerators (which were an upgrade from 1900s era iceboxes, admittedly.) So instead of a big fridge we got one about 10 cubic feet (most modern fridges are more like 14-20 cf)--it fit comfortably in the kitchen, but it also held less food, which meant it was harder to ignore things that had been shoved in back and allowed to decay. Less storage actually meant saving some money on fresh groceries, as we didn't have a place to put excess refrigerated stuff that would often end up just going bad. And because most fresh vegetables cost the same per pound no matter how much you buy, there aren't many efficiencies of scale available (unless you're buying a case from a wholesaler, which is generally too much for a two-person wholesaler anyhow.)

Of course, a lot of our fresh vegetables are growing out in the garden--which is pretty small (less than 100 square feet of growing space) but producing like heck right now. Think I'll go get some squash blossoms and tomatoes for breakfast.

Now, there are plenty of storage options even for someone living in a single room (I saw amazing storage creativity displayed in residential hotels, and used to give the residents rides to IKEA to buy compact storage furniture and components) and in the case of things like cases of canned goods, or dry goods that can be resealed to protect against bugs, it's perfectly practical to buy in bulk for one. It just takes some creativity in planning.

[Katiana]

When I was single (though I barely remember the time, lol) I thnk my idea of "buying in bulk" was buying the 4 pack of toilet paper instead of a two pack. One does have to consider spoilage, and storage space. ALL food will go bad eventually, even commercially canned food. It is also true that many apts and duplexes don't have huge amounts of storage space. Still, the one bugaboo to frequent, small trips to the grocery store is the impulse buying.

Now, most of us don't think of it as such, think we're too smart to do that, myself included. However, there is hardly a shopping trip that I don't go to the deli and buy a cup of coffee, and then while I'm there, don't those cinnamon rolls look good, etc? Oh, doesn't this magazine look interesting? Wow, this is on sale this week? It's not on my list, but I'll get it. (OK if you are going to use it anyway, but maybe it's not that great of a sale to begin with.) Sometimes you put stuff away and forget you have it, then when you need it, you buy another package. The grocery stores know this, that's why they market like they do. Who among us doesn't have a lot of unused food in their cupboards, stuff that may have been bought years ago, and never prepared, eaten, whatever?

[Yankeerose00]

Since you're not audacious enough to demand people on a quasi-anonymous Internet forum post their "credentials"

Where did I demand someone's credentials? The only credential to know what is best for our future, IMO, would be a crystal ball. In other words, IMO, there ARE no credentials that anyone can have to determine what is best for America's future.

You are still making this all about you. I am not here debating because I'm out to get to the bottom of what Jfre thinks believe it or not.
And in no way shape or form did any of my posts up until #435 have you in mind. The only reason I even spoke to you in #435 was because I was responding to you.

If you aren't a "new urbanist" who thinks that people who live in the burbs are deluded, selfish pricks, then great. My posts were directed toward the people who think they know what is best for other people and have the nerve to say they know the "real" reason people move to the burbs ( racist, elitist etc)

I do hope you have taken the time to read this and that you better understand where I'm coming from.

I get where you're coming from and with all due respect, I really don't care. Once again, this isn't about you.
It's addressing the people who feel that because they live in the city, they are somehow better, wiser, greener, more cosmopolitan than those who don't.

You keep responding to my posts and telling me that you don't feel that way. I'm finding this......weird. I'm not telling you what you personally think. I don't have you in mind when I'm posting. Just the general tone of vitrol many people have for the suburbs.

I read a lot of these negative opinions of suburbs, usually on message boards.(Notice I'm saying they are on message boards. Not coming from you Jfre!) I'd love for someone to say these things to me in real life. Tell me that because my parents took me out of the city and into the burbs as a child that my parents actually did more harm than good. Tell me that because I choose to drive under 30 minutes to work that I'm destroying the environment, lol. They will get their @ss handed to them.

I have to ask....does this board have some kind of rule I don't know about that states a person's posts have to address a particular person? Because I can honestly say that if I'm addressing a particular person I always put quotes around the issue I'm addressing. If I'm not putting quotes, then I'm speaking in general on a topic. Is that not allowed? I'm just not understanding why Wberg was asking that I give actual poster's names in a prior post and why now Jfre keeping thinking my posts are referring to him. Honestly, it's baffling me. If you don't see me quoting what you are saying, then it's not about you. It's about the topic in general. Is that something not allowed on this board?

[jfre81]

Originally Posted by Yankeerose00

Where did I demand someone's credentials?

You didn't. I said you didn't, in the very same sentence you quoted.

Am I really that hard to read?

My posts were directed toward the people

....who aren't involved in the discussion anymore.

Try directing your posts, instead, at the ones who are. Everyone will be better off.

[Katiana]

Originally Posted by Yankeerose00

I have to ask....does this board have some kind of rule I don't know about that states a person's posts have to address a particular person? Because I can honestly say that if I'm addressing a particular person I always put quotes around the issue I'm addressing. If I'm not putting quotes, then I'm speaking in general on a topic. Is that not allowed? I'm just not understanding why Wberg was asking that I give actual poster's names in a prior post and why now Jfre keeping thinking my posts are referring to him. Honestly, it's baffling me. If you don't see me quoting what you are saying, then it's not about you. It's about the topic in general. Is that something not allowed on this board?

No. In fact, the TOS says:

Be civil, no personal attacks, flaming, or insults. We may attack ideas (politely) but we do not attack the speaker of the idea. Be careful with your words, there is a point where being direct crosses a line into blunt, in-your-face hostility. Please, report bad posts instead of engaging in flame wars on the boards. Insulting another member or a moderator will not be tolerated anywhere on this website. This includes Direct Messages and Reputation Comments.

Stay on topic. Attempts to hi-jack threads by switching topics or going off topic will be deleted and infractions issued. This is not a chat room - when people hi-jack threads by posting messages that are of interest to only few people, the threads often stop being useful discussions of initial topics.

In practice, this is often interpreted to mean no posting to and/or about specific posters, e.g. "you said this", "you said that", blah, blah. Having been here a while, I know this rule is not always strictly adhered to, but it's there and can be used against you.

[jfre81]

Could declaring someone unqualified to express an opinion (based on your own subjective opinion) be classed as a personal attack? You are essentially attempting to dismiss someone's credibility without even offering a counterpoint of any sort, and it's hardly on-topic. It's a rather cowardly thing to do, and useless, considering we're on the Internet and people can claim to be whatever they want to be. You can BS people into thinking anything. As evidence abounds in this thread, reading comprehension skills are fairly uncommon and people just seem to skim posts, seize on one or two lines that confirm whatever opinion they had going in and firing away from there.

In practice, this is often interpreted to mean no posting to and/or about specific posters, e.g. "you said this", "you said that"

On what planet is mentioning what someone said and debating that point a "personal attack?" Here on Earth, that's part of debating a topic. If there are moderators who see that as a personal attack, then they were probably poor choices for moderators to begin with. And if this is your idea of a "personal attack" then you attack people on the politics forum and elsewhere regularly. Calling people "arrogant" is a rather common trope in your posts from my observations. If that is acceptable but rationally discussing something is not, then we can basically shut down this entire place except for the politic, immigration, city-vs-city sections. Basically the intellectual sewer of city-data. The bottom of the barrel, if you might.

the threads often stop being useful discussions of initial topics.

That ship sailed out of port a long time ago. I suppose your accusations of arrogance and demanding credentials help keep those discussions running smoothly. If that was the case, then I've been doing it wrong.