Is it possible to have an honest discussion about Austin's traffic? (closing, design)

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by Komeht

It isn't any easier to build densely in East Austin than anywhere else, other than Mueller which actually allows it.

It will be easier because the neighborhoods wont protest as much as others.

[gpurcell]

Originally Posted by Komeht

But this notion that there isn't a strong desire or demand for more central housing is a joke, laughable on its face.

No one is making this argument. The point is that the vast majority of suburbanites are there for that quality of life--townhouse living central isn't an option for them.

[G Grasshopper]

Originally Posted by scm53

If those "things" are so evident, then why do they have to be mandatory?

Things are not always evident. I am not an expert in hydrology, so I could not make a determination as to whether there needs to be water restriction. I have to rely on agencies who do have experts to figure that out. There are many chemicals used in consumer products that might not be "obviously" harmful, but actually are. I would have no way of protecting my self against these because I am not a chemist. I have to rely on the government to control those for the common good. Also, lots of folks have a vested interest that is contrary to the common good. For example, smokers may have wished to continue to smoke freely in restaurants. They may not know or care about harm to others. So the "nanny state" had to step in and make rules. Similarly, building codes are there to protect people like me, who know nothing about building, against builders who have a vested interest in making houses as cheaply as possible, regardless of quality. I could give more examples, but you get the idea. We can't all be experts on everything, so collectively, in the form of representative government and their contractors, we get ourselves experts. Then those protections need to be made universally to be fair. So they are mandatory.

[ScoPro]

Originally Posted by steve78757

Actually, the song was written in reaction to seeing the suburbs of Daly City, Ca. shown below. Drive down a street in Allandale and each house has a unique design from another. Not the same thing, as you suggest.

And it can be applied to today's downtown density advocate's dream... same thing, just vertical at triple the price.




And I've never seen an Austin suburb, new or old, that looks like Daly City.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by G Grasshopper

Things are not always evident. I am not an expert in hydrology, so I could not make a determination as to whether there needs to be water restriction. I have to rely on agencies who do have experts to figure that out. There are many chemicals used in consumer products that might not be "obviously" harmful, but actually are. I would have no way of protecting my self against these because I am not a chemist. I have to rely on the government to control those for the common good. Also, lots of folks have a vested interest that is contrary to the common good. For example, smokers may have wished to continue to smoke freely in restaurants. They may not know or care about harm to others. So the "nanny state" had to step in and make rules. Similarly, building codes are there to protect people like me, who know nothing about building, against builders who have a vested interest in making houses as cheaply as possible, regardless of quality. I could give more examples, but you get the idea. We can't all be experts on everything, so collectively, in the form of representative government and their contractors, we get ourselves experts. Then those protections need to be made universally to be fair. So they are mandatory.

I don't have any disagreement with some of that. It is when government gets into the personal conduct of adults that I have a problem. For instance, smoking in restaurants. If smoking in restaurants is offensive to the majority of the patrons, and they express that, won't the restaurant decide it is in their best interest to bar smoking? If you find it offensive, can't you just shift your business to a restaurant that bars smoking?

Look - I get it. You want a government that is big enough to protect you. I think I am perfectly capable of protecting myself. I am willing to wait until my fellow citizens come around to my way of thinking and acting. If they don't, then maybe it wasn't such a great idea to begin with.

I have a simple test for you: simply imagine the coercive power you advocate in the hands of your worst political enemy. Still happy with it? I bet not.

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by G Grasshopper

Things are not always evident. I am not an expert in hydrology, so I could not make a determination as to whether there needs to be water restriction. I have to rely on agencies who do have experts to figure that out. There are many chemicals used in consumer products that might not be "obviously" harmful, but actually are. I would have no way of protecting my self against these because I am not a chemist. I have to rely on the government to control those for the common good. Also, lots of folks have a vested interest that is contrary to the common good. For example, smokers may have wished to continue to smoke freely in restaurants. They may not know or care about harm to others. So the "nanny state" had to step in and make rules. Similarly, building codes are there to protect people like me, who know nothing about building, against builders who have a vested interest in making houses as cheaply as possible, regardless of quality. I could give more examples, but you get the idea. We can't all be experts on everything, so collectively, in the form of representative government and their contractors, we get ourselves experts. Then those protections need to be made universally to be fair. So they are mandatory.

However, once you're old enough and have paid attention enough to have seen the "experts" reverse themselves numerous times, with the same thing being good for you then bad for you then good for you again, every time an "expert" needs to publish or justify research funding or sell a book and the last "you'll DIE if you eat/drink/smoke this" scare has worn itself out, and after you've seen enough people mindlessly jump on the latest bandwagon because "the experts" say that whatever is Absolutely So, you learn that experts aren't always experts and that some "scientists" (who should know better) are just as vulnerable to seeing what they want to see and claiming it is true, and that making decisions mandatory for the entire population based on this is little more than forcing a particular religion on an entire population and is, in truth, pretty much shoring up your own beliefs by making sure however you can that everyone else at least behaves as if you're absolutely right AND that if you just do the right things you'll live forever.

[gpurcell]

Originally Posted by steve78757

Actually, the song was written in reaction to seeing the suburbs of Daly City, Ca. shown below. Drive down a street in Allandale and each house has a unique design from another. Not the same thing, as you suggest.

Not really true--lots of post-war tract designs all throughout the neighborhood. Scare up some pictures in the first years after its build out and it fits the line of the song just fine.

[steve78757]

Originally Posted by ScoPro

And it can be applied to today's downtown density advocate's dream... same thing, just vertical at triple the price.




And I've never seen an Austin suburb, new or old, that looks like Daly City.

You're missing a huge part of the equation, which is all of the advantages those towers provide regarding energy conservation, traffic reduction, pollution reduction, and a reduction in the destruction of natural environments like the Texas hill country. Theses are the types of benefits that the writer of "Little Boxes", Malvina Reynolds, and its most famous performer, Pete Seeger would certainly promote. You just can't have the song. Sorry. ;-)

[steve78757]

Originally Posted by gpurcell

Not really true--lots of post-war tract designs all throughout the neighborhood. Scare up some pictures in the first years after its build out and it fits the line of the song just fine.

That picture of Daly City is pretty striking. But you have a point in that Allandale used to be a burb.

[G Grasshopper]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

However, once you're old enough and have paid attention enough to have seen the "experts" reverse themselves numerous times, with the same thing being good for you then bad for you then good for you again, every time an "expert" needs to publish or justify research funding or sell a book and the last "you'll DIE if you eat/drink/smoke this" scare has worn itself out, and after you've seen enough people mindlessly jump on the latest bandwagon because "the experts" say that whatever is Absolutely So, you learn that experts aren't always experts and that some "scientists" (who should know better) are just as vulnerable to seeing what they want to see and claiming it is true, and that making decisions mandatory for the entire population based on this is little more than forcing a particular religion on an entire population and is, in truth, pretty much shoring up your own beliefs by making sure however you can that everyone else at least behaves as if you're absolutely right AND that if you just do the right things you'll live forever.

Well, nothing is perfect, and people aren't perfect, so there are changes and mistakes, of course, and we can "vote the bums out" if we want to. But if one understands science and the scientific process, one also understands that it is almost the opposite of religion, because there should never be a factor of "faith" (objective proof only, please) and to equate the two really has no validity. At any rate, this is not too much of a line concerning Austin, so we will probably just have to agree to disagree.