How about no more City vs. Suburbs debates (homes, neighborhoods)

[airwave09]

This wording just so happens to be very divisive, inaccurate, and counter-productive. Many suburbs in Allegheny county can be confused with neighborhoods in the city, so obviously they should not be pitted against the city in these debates. Only an outdated political boundary separates them in many cases.

Instead, there are other more productive ways to frame this debate.

Here are a few arguments:

1) Well designed continuous urban fabric vs. disconnected sprawl

2) Architecture and "sense of place" vs. cheaply made bland and 100% car-oriented


Thoughts?

[BrianTH]

My thought is this is a good idea, but it will be a constant struggle to get everyone to think in those terms. Nonetheless, it is worth trying in my view.

[ferraris]

Originally Posted by airwave09

This wording just so happens to be very divisive, inaccurate, and counter-productive. Many suburbs in Allegheny county can be confused with neighborhoods in the city, so obviously they should not be pitted against the city in these debates. Only an outdated political boundary separates them in many cases.

Instead, there are other more productive ways to frame this debate.

Here are a few arguments:

1) Well designed continuous urban fabric vs. disconnected sprawl

2) Architecture and "sense of place" vs. cheaply made bland and 100% car-oriented


Thoughts?

The terms you are using remind me of pro-choice people using "anti-choice" and pro-life people using "anti-life"

"Well designed" is subjective -- Cranberry and Robinson are swell designs if you prefer an auto-centric lifestyle. Cheaply made does not always go hand in hand with sprawling suburbs, nor does "sense of place" go hand in hand with urban neighborhoods. Also, if you are including cheaply made, you have to include the age of homes and infrastructure in the city. Old designs in the homes (no "great rooms", a toilet in the basement, no garage, narrow streets, etc.) are a disadvantage to many people.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by ferrarisnowday

"Well designed" is subjective -- Cranberry and Robinson are swell designs if you prefer an auto-centric lifestyle. Cheaply made does not always go hand in hand with sprawling suburbs, nor does "sense of place" go hand in hand with urban neighborhoods. Also, if you are including cheaply made, you have to include the age of homes and infrastructure in the city. Old designs in the homes (no "great rooms", a toilet in the basement, no garage, narrow streets, etc.) are a disadvantage to many people.

It seems to me you are just pointing out that with multiple issues under consideration, you get more than two boxes in which you can put neighborhoods. But I think the whole spirit of this thread is to stop trying to force all neighborhoods into just one of two boxes.

[airwave09]

Originally Posted by ferrarisnowday

The terms you are using remind me of pro-choice people using "anti-choice" and pro-life people using "anti-life"

"Well designed" is subjective -- Cranberry and Robinson are swell designs if you prefer an auto-centric lifestyle. Cheaply made does not always go hand in hand with sprawling suburbs, nor does "sense of place" go hand in hand with urban neighborhoods. Also, if you are including cheaply made, you have to include the age of homes and infrastructure in the city. Old designs in the homes (no "great rooms", a toilet in the basement, no garage, narrow streets, etc.) are a disadvantage to many people.

Yes, I am aware that not all suburbs or cities can be stereotyped by the arguments that I made, that is the whole point of this thread actually. I did not label or even mention either one at all in my arguments.

The point is so we can actually have these discussions without even using the terms "cities" or "suburbs", which have become inaccurate stereotypes themselves.

If we instead admit that both types of areas need improved in certain ways and get past that initial bickering, maybe we can have more productive discussions about the real issues at hand here.

[ferraris]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

It seems to me you are just pointing out that with multiple issues under consideration, you get more than two boxes in which you can put neighborhoods. But I think the whole spirit of this thread is to stop trying to force all neighborhoods into just one of two boxes.

Well, no, that is not what I was trying to point out. I agree with that, though. My point was just that the terms the OP used were still biased, and could be just as divisive as "city vs suburb."

I thought the whole spirit of this thread was to change the terminology being used for the two categories so that it would be more clear what was being debated, not to point out that there are more than two categories. If you accept that there are just two categories, then calling it "city vs suburbs" can make people in the inner-ring, urban suburbs feel like they are on the defensive.

[SammyKhalifa]

Originally Posted by airwave09

The point is so we can actually have these discussions without even using the terms "cities" or "suburbs", which have become inaccurate stereotypes themselves.

Yeah, the only real differences in some of the places people talk about here is just whether or not the area happens to fall within city borders.

[ferraris]

Originally Posted by airwave09

Yes, I am aware that not all suburbs or cities can be stereotyped by the arguments that I made, that is the whole point of this thread actually. I did not label or even mention either one at all in my arguments.

The point is so we can actually have these discussions without even using the terms "cities" or "suburbs", which have become inaccurate stereotypes themselves.

If we instead admit that both types of areas need improved in certain ways and get past that initial bickering, maybe we can have more productive discussions about the real issues at hand here.

I agree with your sentiment, but defining one category as "well designed" with a "sense of place" while they other is defined as "cheaply made" and "disconnected sprawl" is still coming at the issue with a bias.

[irishvan]

Agree to Disagree!

[squarian]

Originally Posted by airwave09

This wording just so happens to be very divisive, inaccurate, and counter-productive.

Er...no. Terminological exactitude is not so very difficult to achieve that a useful and necessary debate should be suspended. Anyone in doubt may consult a dictionary (an early information retrieval technology - google the term if in doubt).