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.
Concepts promoted by extreme greens fly in the face of traditional concepts of English Common Law, Natural Rights and economic freedom.
Foremost among such concepts is the branch of social engineering which attempts to make people experience guilt regarding suburban, exurban and rural living. People are pressured to live in multi unit dwellings in areas walking distance from public transit and typically overpriced retail establishments.
I would counter this late 20th century "green" engineered urbanism with concepts being described by Joel Kotkin.
If the world and America continue to destroy the enviornment and it gets very bad, I wouldn't be surprised if one day the American government will have no choice but to force people out of their homes and into dense places. I'm not saying I support that because I know it probably will not end up well for anyone, but someday down the road desparate times call for desparate measures...
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,994,819 times
Reputation: 7333
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKFire108
If the world and America continue to destroy the enviornment and it gets very bad, I wouldn't be surprised if one day the American government will have no choice but to force people out of their homes and into dense places. I'm not saying I support that because I know it probably will not end up well for anyone, but someday down the road desparate times call for desparate measures...
I don't have a hat in this argument as I prefer areas that are both dense and open. I think the real opportunity in the future is to meld the best of both urban and suburban living.
Anyway, I always chuckle when people say the above bolded. Yes, suburban development is very destructive to the environment, but did you ever stop to think what super dense places like say Manhattan were like before?
On the left is Mahattan today, on the right is Mahattan 400 years ago. The only significantly large green space left on the island is Central Park and it's fake. In order to build New York City, they had to cut down all the trees, tear up the swamp lands, and destroy most of the native flora and fauna. Then there is the precending 400 years of human waste, chemicals, and other industrial byproducts that have polluted the land the city sits on. That's not exactly "green" to me and, in a way, more destructive than suburban development since the natural environment was destroyed solely for human habitation.
The reason why the green people want densification is yes, while development destroys natural areas, areas like Manhattan concentrate people so that they don't have to sprawl. Suburban development destroys the environment just as much as the area of Manhattan does, but areas like Manhattan destroy the Earth's enviornment far less overall because there is less development overall in terms of total overall area that is affected by gutting swamps and leeching hazardous chemicals into the environment. I think it is called the human footprint. I've seen many places where pro-freedom Americans and the Tea Party movement are warning about how the United Nations is promoting a different landuse pattern worldwide. I think one day, in our lifetime, we will see drastic changes in how we live because all world governments, including the United States government, will heed the words of the United Nations' plan for densification and ecological stability in a time of great distress.
Last edited by JKFire108; 07-22-2010 at 03:22 PM..
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,994,819 times
Reputation: 7333
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKFire108
The reason why the green people want densification is yes, while development destroys natural areas, areas like Manhattan concentrate people so that they don't have to sprawl.
Sprawl for the most part has morphed into a derogatory term that some people in big cities use to feel better about themselves. In reality, sprawl can not exist with out big cities at it's center (there would be no point).
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKFire108
I've seen many places where pro-freedom Americans and the Tea Party movement are warning about how the United Nations is promoting a different landuse pattern worldwide. I think one day, in our lifetime, we will see drastic changes in how we live because all world governments, including the United States government, will heed the words of the United Nations' plan for densification and ecological stability in a time of great distress.
I've seen the same thing too and it's all a bunch of wild-eyed hooey. At some point there will be a wholesale change in living patterns in the US, but it'll be a while before that happens. America has lots of people and lots of land to build on (most places on Earth usually have just one of those, not both) and we'll continue to spread out for the foreseeable future.
Exactly. The extremists pushing "density" are ridiculous. Cities cause more environmental damage than suburban or rural areas. In nature, any place that suffers extreme population density (of animals) suffers adverse effects. I don't see how it's any different for humanity. Density encourages crime, contagious disease and stress. It's bad.
I will not feel guilty for living in "sprawl" or driving. I won't be forced into a "dense" area. You can pry my car and my freedom from my cold, dead hands.
Concepts promoted by extreme greens fly in the face of traditional concepts of English Common Law, Natural Rights and economic freedom.
Foremost among such concepts is the branch of social engineering which attempts to make people experience guilt regarding suburban, exurban and rural living. People are pressured to live in multi unit dwellings in areas walking distance from public transit and typically overpriced retail establishments.
I would counter this late 20th century "green" engineered urbanism with concepts being described by Joel Kotkin.
Discuss and debate!
I'm not sure what 'pressure' you're talking about when most cities are showing absolutely NO intention of slowing down unplanned and unaffordable growth.
"The battle's over. For half a century, legions of planners, urbanists, environmentalists and big city editorialists have waged war against sprawl. Now it's time to call it a day and declare a victor.
So relax...your expensive, dehumanizing, oil dependant, environmentally irresponsible way of life that turns every local community into a faceless 'Anytown, USA', replete with endless strip malls (sending money to corporate owners in other countries) and gridlocked traffic (cough, cough Asthma rates on the rise), is in no jeopardy of slowing down it's insidious domination over every other option.
My question is why a few people feel so threatened about having a choice in the matter.
Manhattan is an extreme example of density. It has about 70,000 people per square mile with about 1.6 million people living on about 23 square miles. If they were spread out to have the same density as Phoenix AZ, the city would be about 580 square miles. Which do you think would have a greater impact on the environment?
People should live where they want. If people want to live in urban neighborhoods near mass transit, then neighborhoods like that will be developed. Apparently, plenty of people like living in an extremely urban environment, as Manhattan has some of the most expensive real estate in the country. If people had to pay the real cost of driving, many more would want to live in TODs.
I'm just an architect, not an urban planner. So, who are these people "pushing" density and TOD, anyway?
I must've slept through something or was hung over or whatever, because I must have missed this - when was anyone in this country forced to live somewhere they don't want to?
Even if cities become more dense, you don't have to live in the city. Somebody has to produce our food. Go live on a farm.
Sprawl for the most part has morphed into a derogatory term that some people in big cities use to feel better about themselves. In reality, sprawl can not exist with out big cities at it's center (there would be no point).
That doesn't make it the city's fault and it certainly doesn't make it true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyingwriter
Exactly. The extremists pushing "density" are ridiculous. Cities cause more environmental damage than suburban or rural areas. In nature, any place that suffers extreme population density (of animals) suffers adverse effects. I don't see how it's any different for humanity. Density encourages crime, contagious disease and stress. It's bad.
That is just plain incorrect. For one, any smart, well-educated urban planner will tell you that people in dense urban areas pollute WAY LESS per capita than those in suburbs and rural areas. Second of all, a high animal population or population density is not always bad. Just look at ants in ant hills or large schools of fish. They do just fine. In fact, that is how they function the best. Third of all, New York City is said to be the safest big city in the country. Fourth, I don't think contagious diseases are much of a problem when it comes to density unless you are living in a third world country.
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.
