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 an enduring stereotype – conservatives prefer suburban McMansions while liberals like urban enclaves – but one that is grounded in reality. Given the choice, three-quarters (75%) of consistent conservatives say they would opt to live in a community where “the houses are larger and farther apart, but schools, stores and restaurants are several miles away,” and just 22% say they’d choose to live where “the houses are smaller and closer to each other, but schools, stores and restaurants are within walking distance.” The preferences of consistent liberals are almost the exact inverse, with 77% preferring the smaller house closer to amenities, and just 21% opting for more square footage farther away.
This is precisely why leftists should not be allowed to set public policy. Apartments stacked one atop another ... town houses jammed into postage stamp sized lots ... and huray! We should walk everywhere, or ride a bus. This, the liberal mind views as superior to having a more private residence, with a nice backyard for the kids and dogs to play ... to have friends over for a BBQ ... to have a garage ... this is considered McMansions?
It's very Orwellian to call liberals "progressive" ... because their idea of progress is to revert back to richshaws and eliminate those horseless carriages. LOL
This is precisely why leftists should not be allowed to set public policy. Apartments stacked one atop another ... town houses jammed into postage stamp sized lots ... and huray! We should walk everywhere, or ride a bus. This, the liberal mind views as superior to having a more private residence, with a nice backyard for the kids and dogs to play ... to have friends over for a BBQ ... to have a garage ... this is considered McMansions?
It's very Orwellian to call liberals "progressive" ... because their idea of progress is to revert back to richshaws and eliminate those horseless carriages. LOL
Rows of identical houses in the middle of nowhere are not progress. Abandoning neighborhoods every generation for new ones ten minutes down the road is not progress. Kids doing drugs in their bedrooms because they don't (lacking cars) have anywhere interesting to go is not progress.
I think one issue with this sort of poll (aside from a lack of geographical crosstabs) is that it conflates urbanism with good building practices. There are plenty of rural small towns with walkable downtowns far superior to the average suburb or many city neighborhoods. It's perfectly possible to build suburbs which are walkable but no more dense than the typical McMansion cul du sac. There's a difference between density preferences, and bad neighborhood design.
This is precisely why leftists should not be allowed to set public policy. Apartments stacked one atop another ... town houses jammed into postage stamp sized lots ... and huray! We should walk everywhere, or ride a bus. This, the liberal mind views as superior to having a more private residence, with a nice backyard for the kids and dogs to play ... to have friends over for a BBQ ... to have a garage ... this is considered McMansions?
It's very Orwellian to call liberals "progressive" ... because their idea of progress is to revert back to richshaws and eliminate those horseless carriages. LOL
Interesting that you think that type of generalization is true, as a liberal I prefer walkable neighborhoods, but that doesn't mean one can't have a yard with their single family house to invite friends over for a barbecue. There are many bikeable and walkable communities in Portland where one can enjoy that lifestyle and have friends over to enjoy a barbecue. I should know, I have been to a number of those.
Also, another great factor about walkable and bikeable communities is that it best protects the rural and countryside for when one wishes to get out of the city and enjoy some nature. Another great factor about Oregon.
Rows of identical houses in the middle of nowhere are not progress. Abandoning neighborhoods every generation for new ones ten minutes down the road is not progress. Kids doing drugs in their bedrooms because they don't (lacking cars) have anywhere interesting to go is not progress.
Yesterday, my family went to breakfast in an inner ring suburb of a large city. It also happened to be the day of the farmer's market. All of my kids hopped out of the car and exclaimed, "Wouldn't it be wonderful to live here? There's so much to do!" I though it was an interesting glimpse into their preferences. Although we don't live that far out, and they can get to a handful of places by foot or bike (e.g., the pool, the library, a few shops and restaurants), their eyes just lit up when they saw just how much was walkable in that inner ring suburb, and they couldn't stop talking about how great it all was. Clearly, they are not the only ones who think so. Prices for small, century-old bungalows in that area are out of sight, and homes sell within hours of hitting the MLS.
Last edited by randomparent; 06-16-2014 at 09:24 AM..
Interesting that you think that type of generalization is true, as a liberal I prefer walkable neighborhoods, but that doesn't mean one can't have a yard with their single family house to invite friends over for a barbecue. There are many bikeable and walkable communities in Portland where one can enjoy that lifestyle and have friends over to enjoy a barbecue. I should know, I have been to a number of those.
Also, another great factor about walkable and bikeable communities is that it best protects the rural and countryside for when one wishes to get out of the city and enjoy some nature. Another great factor about Oregon.
Thomas Sowell is quoted as saying .... " much of the social history of the wester world over the past three decades is a history of replacing what worked with what sounded good". The wisdom in that statement is the point I'm driving at.
You see, the leftist policy trends relative to "sustainable development" is well defined in the United Nations Agenda 21. This calls for compact urban development ... smaller living quarters, and judicious use land (read: more people packed in smaller space). Regardless of some ideas such that you refer to, the agenda is simple ... pack as many people as is feasible into more compact communities, thereby making development more profitable, and service delivery more profitable. This bill of goods is being sold to the public under the guise of "greener living", often coinciding with the myth of vast overpopulation problems.
Of course, jamming more people into smaller and smaller spaces will create the illusion of overpopulation, while the truth is, it's completely artificial. Here in Texas, there is enough undeveloped and uninhabited land to house the entire population of the US ... not that I advocate such a thing, but mention this to illustrate a point.
This holds true for most of the states too .... especially out west where you can travel for hours through open land that remains undeveloped, only to come across a community with houses jammed together, and apartments and town houses cramped together. The idea of "townhouse" was to maximize the amount of living quarters in towns with limited space available .... yet, what we now see are townhouse communities created in rural outlying areas where plenty of space exists.
Trust me when I tell you ... the banks and real estate mogals and developers don't give a rat's azz about mother earth. All they care about is $$$ ..... and if they can create multiple dwelling structures in the same space that one house could and should occupy ... that just increases their profits exponentially.
So in an ironic twist .... the agenda is indeed "green" ... but not environmentally green ... money green!
Thomas Sowell is quoted as saying .... " much of the social history of the wester world over the past three decades is a history of replacing what worked with what sounded good". The wisdom in that statement is the point I'm driving at.
Sounds like a stinging rebuke of the car-centric post-war housing model.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
You see, the leftist policy trends relative to "sustainable development" is well defined in the United Nations Agenda 21. This calls for compact urban development ... smaller living quarters, and judicious use land (read: more people packed in smaller space). Regardless of some ideas such that you refer to, the agenda is simple ... pack as many people as is feasible into more compact communities, thereby making development more profitable, and service delivery more profitable. This bill of goods is being sold to the public under the guise of "greener living", often coinciding with the myth of vast overpopulation problems.
Again, aside from the nonsensical conspiracy-mongering, this is confusing "walkability" with "density". Cul-de-sac neighborhoods on highway exits down the road from the shopping mall are not necessarily less dense than a pre-war streetcar suburb with sidewalks and an accessible, thriving downtown commercial district.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Trust me when I tell you ... the banks and real estate mogals and developers don't give a rat's azz about mother earth. All they care about is $$$ ..... and if they can create multiple dwelling structures in the same space that one house could and should occupy ... that just increases their profits exponentially.
Well then, I guess it's a good thing we've been sticking it to the banks and real estate developers with all this suburban sprawl the last couple decades!
Again, aside from the nonsensical conspiracy-mongering, this is confusing "walkability" with "density". Cul-de-sac neighborhoods on highway exits down the road from the shopping mall are not necessarily less dense than a pre-war streetcar suburb with sidewalks and an accessible, thriving downtown commercial district.
I think much of what appealed about the experience I mentioned above was the scale. Shops, houses, playgrounds, and streets were human-sized, not car-sized, as reflects the time in which the neighborhoods were built. Where I live, a moving truck could park out front with room to spare for a couple of cars to pass. Even the park across the street is absolutely enormous, which is terrific for organized soccer games or frisbee golf, but the vast expanse is a little intimidating for young kids who just want to play with one another. For older kids, I think the diminished walkability stifles young teens in developing responsible independence, because they must rely on Mom & Dad to shuttle them around.
Last edited by randomparent; 06-16-2014 at 10:13 AM..
It is an enduring stereotype – conservatives prefer suburban McMansions while liberals like urban enclaves – but one that is grounded in reality. Given the choice, three-quarters (75%) of consistent conservatives say they would opt to live in a community where “the houses are larger and farther apart, but schools, stores and restaurants are several miles away,” and just 22% say they’d choose to live where “the houses are smaller and closer to each other, but schools, stores and restaurants are within walking distance.” The preferences of consistent liberals are almost the exact inverse, with 77% preferring the smaller house closer to amenities, and just 21% opting for more square footage farther away.
I have friends who are liberal democrats, and they like their big lawns, and I also saw big lawns around election time with those '0bama 2012' yard signs.
Interesting that you think that type of generalization is true, as a liberal I prefer walkable neighborhoods, but that doesn't mean one can't have a yard with their single family house to invite friends over for a barbecue. There are many bikeable and walkable communities in Portland where one can enjoy that lifestyle and have friends over to enjoy a barbecue. I should know, I have been to a number of those.
Also, another great factor about walkable and bikeable communities is that it best protects the rural and countryside for when one wishes to get out of the city and enjoy some nature. Another great factor about Oregon.
Bayonne is actually a decent mix of urban and suburban with walkability.
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.
