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.
San Francisco has been crowded and expensive since the Gold Rush. Unless you're a busy seaport on a peninsula with a large population and a knack for being the epicenter of enormous boom/bust economies and city-shattering earthquakes, don't worry about ending up like San Francisco!
No. New urbanism is a true subsidized form of urbanism. It raises the cost of living tremendously and nearly every city of its kind has aggressively pushed out its minorities, people of color, poor women, immigrants, and the poor in general. This is subsidizing the rich and largely white urban dwellers and their lifestyles by excluding the non white and the have less. But it requires the poor to live two hours from San francisco so that they can commute and serve the whites who give lip service to the loss of colored people that they caused. This is not a small subsidy, nor is it just. New urbanism, at its core, is imposing an European lifestyle for the llargely white and so called educated people and making it nearly impossible for the poor and others to enjoy the very amenities that are supposed to help them. They move away, far, far away. Many, including white middle class families, move to cheaper cities where building a family isn't going to break an arm.
People of color are moving to suburbs for its safety, education quality, and upward mobility. Many immigrants who arrive at our shores today move directly to suburbs where the American dream is still obtainable. They are doing it just like how the white middle class did it in the 50s. After all, we are all human. This is a good trend, from the perspective of racial equality. I guess it is ironic that we have well educated whites in Portland who are unemployed and we have suburban people of color who are enjoying their careers. I guess that's progress in a way. But ideally everyone should have upward mobility.
I want to have an honest, transparent conversation about the costs and benefits of various built forms. Trying to make NU sound actively and insidiously racist is dishonest and polarizing; you're suggesting, because of the decisions of officials to limit growth and raise the cost of construction and thereby push up housing costs, that new urbanism, which seeks growth, is racist.
We've been over this stuff many times before, haven't we? Just about everything in "the city" is subsidized-roads, pubic buildings, schools (but the NUs don't care about schools), public housing; businesses get subsidies and tax rebates to locate in particular areas, just like in the burbs; somehow that's all OK as applied to the city, but not in the burbs.
Drop the talking point. No-one serious is denying that cities, suburban or urban, are places of subsidy.
There are real and identifiable differences in the per-capita and per-square-mile costs and tax revenue of different built forms; what built form is more self-sustaining in terms of city income and expenditures is the question at hand.
Drop the talking point. No-one serious is denying that cities, suburban or urban, are places of subsidy.
There are real and identifiable differences in the per-capita and per-square-mile costs and tax revenue of different built forms; what built form is more self-sustaining in terms of city income and expenditures is the question at hand.
I disagree. The talk on this forum is usually about the subsidies the suburbs receive, with no thought given to those in the city. And talk about dropping talking points, how about this one from this very thread, which is what I was responding to: Because, of course, freeways didn't cost the taxpayers anything or have any social or environmental consequences.
Back on topic, I do think that the uber-urban hipster lifestyle probably appeals only to a small subset of people, and that most outgrow that lifestyle as they enter their 30s, kids or not.
I disagree. The talk on this forum is usually about the subsidies the suburbs receive, with no thought given to those in the city. And talk about dropping talking points, how about this one from this very thread, which is what I was responding to: Because, of course, freeways didn't cost the taxpayers anything or have any social or environmental consequences.
Back on topic, I do think that the uber-urban hipster lifestyle probably appeals only to a small subset of people, and that most outgrow that lifestyle as they enter their 30s, kids or not.
Even if that's true (which I don't think it is true), why should those of us who are "uber-urban hipsters" care? When it comes to picking where one wants to live, why does the opinion of the majority matter? I base my decision on where to live on what I want to do, not what people I don't even know want to do.
By the way, I'm in my 30s, and so far no sign of my "uber-urban hipster" preferences changing. I'll give you an update in ten years
I disagree. The talk on this forum is usually about the subsidies the suburbs receive, with no thought given to those in the city. And talk about dropping talking points, how about this one from this very thread, which is what I was responding to: Because, of course, freeways didn't cost the taxpayers anything or have any social or environmental consequences.
Back on topic, I do think that the uber-urban hipster lifestyle probably appeals only to a small subset of people, and that most outgrow that lifestyle as they enter their 30s, kids or not.
Well of course suburbs get a lot of talk. They're big, we're all familiar with them, and they have been and continue to be the dominant form.
You're unfairly treating obvious sarcasm--the freeway comment--as earnest. Many suburban dwellers--not you--honestly believe that freeways are all good, nothing but roses and pixie dust, and that the long-term costs of this infrastructure is not only under control, but also cheap and 100% already paid for.
And what's wrong with wanting cities designed to be more financially resilient and adaptable and for all people, not just people-as-drivers, wherein walking and biking isn't just for pleasure but can be used, practically and comfortably, for serious purposes? Why does that desire have to be dismissed offhand with snide comments about the "uber-urban hipster lifestyle"?
Well of course suburbs get a lot of talk. They're big, we're all familiar with them, and they have been and continue to be the dominant form.
You're unfairly treating obvious sarcasm--the freeway comment--as earnest. Many suburban dwellers--not you--honestly believe that freeways are all good, nothing but roses and pixie dust, and that the long-term costs of this infrastructure is not only under control, but also cheap and 100% already paid for.
And what's wrong with wanting cities designed to be more financially resilient and adaptable and for all people, not just people-as-drivers, wherein walking and biking isn't just for pleasure but can be used, practically and comfortably, for serious purposes? Why does that desire have to be dismissed offhand with snide comments about the "uber-urban hipster lifestyle"?
It's commentary disguised as sarcasm, and it gets repeated over and over again. We can't discuss anything w/o certain posters bringing up subsidized freeways, subsidized this in the suburbs, subsidized that in the suburbs, when in reality the same stuff is subsidized everywhere!
I didn't think we were talking about walking and biking for more than just pleasure. I sure didn't bring it up. The OP didn't bring it up.
Even if that's true (which I don't think it is true), why should those of us who are "uber-urban hipsters" care? When it comes to picking where one wants to live, why does the opinion of the majority matter? I base my decision on where to live on what I want to do, not what people I don't even know want to do.
By the way, I'm in my 30s, and so far no sign of my "uber-urban hipster" preferences changing. I'll give you an update in ten years
I see a lot of people my age (59+) embracing urban, walkable living.
Great way to downsize and simplify.
Some people say new urbanism is better because there is density and museums and sushi restaurants and bike trails.
Some people say opportunity urbanism is better because housing is cheaper and you get to save and invest your money. you have more upward mobility in an opportunity urbanism city like Houston.
Here is what it really comes down to. Live in a city like Houston, Dallas, or Atlanta. Vacation in a city like Portland and San Francisco. Living in an opportunity urbanism city, you get to save money and invest and eventually have a bit more in your life. If you have a good job you can find great homes a nice neighborhoods.with all that money that you save, you have vacation in high density urban environments if you crave that. If you live in San Francisco, you're trapped financially to San Francisco and the people that you have to put up with. If you save money in Dallas, you can vacation in San Francisco or Madrid or Sydney. Loving museums doesn't mean that you have to live by museums. The reality of life is that you do need money to be able to deal with emergencies and eventually retirement.
I am not sure I understand the thread title compared to this post. If one craves a more urban environment, why should they live in a suburban environment and visit urban places?
Portland I get to live a more urban lifestyle with money to save and a good paying job. Moving to a suburban city and only visiting Portland would be counterproductive.
It's commentary disguised as sarcasm, and it gets repeated over and over again. We can't discuss anything w/o certain posters bringing up subsidized freeways, subsidized this in the suburbs, subsidized that in the suburbs, when in reality the same stuff is subsidized everywhere!
I didn't think we were talking about walking and biking for more than just pleasure. I sure didn't bring it up. The OP didn't bring it up.
It is subsidized, yes, in the suburbs and in urban environments. The difference between those built forms is in how much benefit is generated and how that cost is shared, along the axes of time and of population.
And I brought up walking and biking to enumerate the built form which NU seeks so that you had to confront the details of NU, not just New Urbanists as the disruptive "other". You, yourself, summarily dismissed NU. So, I ask you again, why is it wrong to want more for and from the form of my city? Why is it wrong to want more resilient and adaptable neighborhoods? To want safe streets built for everyone in the city, not just for people using cars to accomplish tasks? Why can't the built form of a city be discussed honestly, openly, and civilly?
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.
