The Urbanist Cult

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It’s hard to see how one can add infill development of 12 stories to historic district blocks that vary from one to four stories without basically saying that the historic district shouldn’t really matter anymore. Even DC’s guidelines for infill in his Otis districts generally limit height to within one additional story of the adjacent structures.

Not really. We've written historic district regulations based on "compatibility," i.e., the new stuff has to look like the old stuff. But it doesn't have to be that way. For example, historic districts could require preservation of the historic buildings but allow new, infill buildings to look different, have different heights, etc.

But then it wouldn’t be much of an historic district anymore. But that’s the Trumpy DC Smart Growth objective, isn’t it?

Why wouldn't it? All of the historic buildings would still be there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There has to be some line drawn on historic neighborhoods. If you can’t do that, why would anyone think the urbanists can be trusted.

Well, sure, but what line, drawn where? And trusted with (or for?) what, by whom?

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymo
the
You would think that a college professor would have more important things to do with his time, but apparently not.

One would thing so. However, for some college programs engaging via social media is part of how they maintain their ranking, power, and build their cache for higher positions. For instance, in Kingman Park they have a local DC ANC advocate-UM Professor Coomber who regularly engages in promoting the pro-urbanist agenda. Promoting the urbanist agenda regardless of the concerns of long term residents has been their primary focus. Urbanists have a long history of dislocating Black populations in favor of more privileged white and higher socio-economical populations. For example, Professor Coomber recently identified themselves as a Capitol Hill parent even though they do not live in what has been traditionally considered Capitol Hill. I guess it's similar to what happened in areas such as southwest DC when the freeway system came and destroyed primarily Black neighborhoods in the name of "progress" or when the urbanists "re-named" neighborhoods like "NoMa" that came to be known no longer by the neighborhood's historic non-urbanist name but a name that appeared to serve as a facilitator of a new vernacular in the interest of what appears to primarily maximize the profit of the privileged and push out historic communities. Such privileged urbanist constructs push out historic Black neighborhoods in favor of primarily white socio-economically privileged constructs. Unfortunately, as the recent census shows, it appears the pro-urbanist agenda advocated by Professor Coomber is more of a feature as opposed to a bug in our current system. If historically Black neighborhoods such as Kingman Park are to survive, the negative externalities associated with the urbanist agenda must be mitigated. Granted, with the influx of new, primarily privileged white, residents it's possible the movement that was, in part, started by college Professor Coomber may not be able to be stopped in Kingman Park. Granted, similar to the historicity of Georgetown, I guess some parts of the city are okay with the erasure of Black history?

[Anonymous]

The only reason why urbanists have become influential is because their message supports monied interests. There is no other reason. It is certainly not because it is popular nor is it about "racial justice"

Vast majority of Americans prefer not only the exurban to the urban lifestyle, including vast majority of Blacks. Even more hilarious, half of all people that live in urban areas prefer to leave for the exurbs.

These people and their agenda are very and deeply unpopular and thank god that the pandemic is likely to bury them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only reason why urbanists have become influential is because their message supports monied interests. There is no other reason. It is certainly not because it is popular nor is it about "racial justice"

Vast majority of Americans prefer not only the exurban to the urban lifestyle, including vast majority of Blacks. Even more hilarious, half of all people that live in urban areas prefer to leave for the exurbs.

These people and their agenda are very and deeply unpopular and thank god that the pandemic is likely to bury them.

Monied interests? SFH NIMBYs have made hundreds of billions in wealth because of the lack of new housing. That's where the money is. Apartment dwellers are "monied interests" now?

LMAO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only reason why urbanists have become influential is because their message supports monied interests. There is no other reason. It is certainly not because it is popular nor is it about "racial justice"

Vast majority of Americans prefer not only the exurban to the urban lifestyle, including vast majority of Blacks. Even more hilarious, half of all people that live in urban areas prefer to leave for the exurbs.

These people and their agenda are very and deeply unpopular and thank god that the pandemic is likely to bury them.

I mean, you're right, it is deeply concerning that 42% of self-identified liberal Democrats, who would presumably say that climate change is an important issue, still prefer to live in spread-out areas exposed to fire and flood hazards, where they have to drive everywhere.

If there's something that's going to bury the "urbanist cult"ists who believe we should build places where people can walk to their destinations instead of having to drive, it will be climate change - by burying all of us, whether we live in the exurbs, the suburbs, or the central cities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only reason why urbanists have become influential is because their message supports monied interests. There is no other reason. It is certainly not because it is popular nor is it about "racial justice"

Vast majority of Americans prefer not only the exurban to the urban lifestyle, including vast majority of Blacks. Even more hilarious, half of all people that live in urban areas prefer to leave for the exurbs.

These people and their agenda are very and deeply unpopular and thank god that the pandemic is likely to bury them.

Then the republicans who prefer drivable communities should pay the full costs to live there rather than depend on the subsidies from the urban dwellers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only reason why urbanists have become influential is because their message supports monied interests. There is no other reason. It is certainly not because it is popular nor is it about "racial justice"

Vast majority of Americans prefer not only the exurban to the urban lifestyle, including vast majority of Blacks. Even more hilarious, half of all people that live in urban areas prefer to leave for the exurbs.

These people and their agenda are very and deeply unpopular and thank god that the pandemic is likely to bury them.

Then the republicans who prefer drivable communities should pay the full costs to live there rather than depend on the subsidies from the urban dwellers.

They do and then some. You don’t seem to know how subdivisions are built.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only reason why urbanists have become influential is because their message supports monied interests. There is no other reason. It is certainly not because it is popular nor is it about "racial justice"

Vast majority of Americans prefer not only the exurban to the urban lifestyle, including vast majority of Blacks. Even more hilarious, half of all people that live in urban areas prefer to leave for the exurbs.

These people and their agenda are very and deeply unpopular and thank god that the pandemic is likely to bury them.

Then the republicans who prefer drivable communities should pay the full costs to live there rather than depend on the subsidies from the urban dwellers.

They do and then some. You don’t seem to know how subdivisions are built.

I don't think you understand the externalities - pollution, middle east military intervention, environmental degradation of arable land and factoring those costs into the equation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only reason why urbanists have become influential is because their message supports monied interests. There is no other reason. It is certainly not because it is popular nor is it about "racial justice"

Vast majority of Americans prefer not only the exurban to the urban lifestyle, including vast majority of Blacks. Even more hilarious, half of all people that live in urban areas prefer to leave for the exurbs.

These people and their agenda are very and deeply unpopular and thank god that the pandemic is likely to bury them.

I have a very hard time believing that "Asian" number. What was the sample size? It doesn't reflect my experience at all here in NOVA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only reason why urbanists have become influential is because their message supports monied interests. There is no other reason. It is certainly not because it is popular nor is it about "racial justice"

Vast majority of Americans prefer not only the exurban to the urban lifestyle, including vast majority of Blacks. Even more hilarious, half of all people that live in urban areas prefer to leave for the exurbs.

These people and their agenda are very and deeply unpopular and thank god that the pandemic is likely to bury them.

Then the republicans who prefer drivable communities should pay the full costs to live there rather than depend on the subsidies from the urban dwellers.

They do and then some. You don’t seem to know how subdivisions are built.

I don't think you understand the externalities - pollution, middle east military intervention, environmental degradation of arable land and factoring those costs into the equation.

I don’t think you understand where govt revenue is generated to pay for transit subsidies. SFHs in subdivisions are the cash cow that pays for everything. Who do you think pays for your subsidized services? You never wondered where capital budgets come from and why they are separated from operating budgets? Which budget gets cut first? Who is subsidizing who exactly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only reason why urbanists have become influential is because their message supports monied interests. There is no other reason. It is certainly not because it is popular nor is it about "racial justice"

Vast majority of Americans prefer not only the exurban to the urban lifestyle, including vast majority of Blacks. Even more hilarious, half of all people that live in urban areas prefer to leave for the exurbs.

These people and their agenda are very and deeply unpopular and thank god that the pandemic is likely to bury them.

Then the republicans who prefer drivable communities should pay the full costs to live there rather than depend on the subsidies from the urban dwellers.

They do and then some. You don’t seem to know how subdivisions are built.

I don't think you understand the externalities - pollution, middle east military intervention, environmental degradation of arable land and factoring those costs into the equation.

I don’t think you understand where govt revenue is generated to pay for transit subsidies. SFHs in subdivisions are the cash cow that pays for everything. Who do you think pays for your subsidized services? You never wondered where capital budgets come from and why they are separated from operating budgets? Which budget gets cut first? Who is subsidizing who exactly?

Yeah, no. Every study has proven that suburbs are subsidized by city taxes. The cost of maintaining a sprawling SFH community with roads, utilities, etc is way more than in a city. Sorry :/.

And roads and subsidized way more than transit. Please do your research. And even IF that weren't true, it would be a good tradeoff because it removes cars from the roads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I don’t think you understand where govt revenue is generated to pay for transit subsidies. SFHs in subdivisions are the cash cow that pays for everything. Who do you think pays for your subsidized services? You never wondered where capital budgets come from and why they are separated from operating budgets? Which budget gets cut first? Who is subsidizing who exactly?

You literally have no idea what you are talking about. The GDP is generated in cities, the tax revenue engines are in cities. The suburbs, are so heavily subsidized, it is ridiculous to even have the conversation. Sorry, do some research and then come back to this forum.

Here is a start

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/urbs/we-have-always-subsidized-suburbia/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only reason why urbanists have become influential is because their message supports monied interests. There is no other reason. It is certainly not because it is popular nor is it about "racial justice"

Vast majority of Americans prefer not only the exurban to the urban lifestyle, including vast majority of Blacks. Even more hilarious, half of all people that live in urban areas prefer to leave for the exurbs.

These people and their agenda are very and deeply unpopular and thank god that the pandemic is likely to bury them.

Then the republicans who prefer drivable communities should pay the full costs to live there rather than depend on the subsidies from the urban dwellers.

They do and then some. You don’t seem to know how subdivisions are built.

I don't think you understand the externalities - pollution, middle east military intervention, environmental degradation of arable land and factoring those costs into the equation.

I don’t think you understand where govt revenue is generated to pay for transit subsidies. SFHs in subdivisions are the cash cow that pays for everything. Who do you think pays for your subsidized services? You never wondered where capital budgets come from and why they are separated from operating budgets? Which budget gets cut first? Who is subsidizing who exactly?

Nothing could be further from the truth. Infrastructure costs incurred by a locality are amortized across its residents. DC benefits from economies of scale in a way that Prince William County does not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only reason why urbanists have become influential is because their message supports monied interests. There is no other reason. It is certainly not because it is popular nor is it about "racial justice"

Vast majority of Americans prefer not only the exurban to the urban lifestyle, including vast majority of Blacks. Even more hilarious, half of all people that live in urban areas prefer to leave for the exurbs.

These people and their agenda are very and deeply unpopular and thank god that the pandemic is likely to bury them.

Monied interests? SFH NIMBYs have made hundreds of billions in wealth because of the lack of new housing. That's where the money is. Apartment dwellers are "monied interests" now?

LMAO.

The monied interests are developers. They’ve made even more money than SFH owners. The only goal that urbanist policies support coherently is maximizing developer profit. Otherwise, it’s an intellectually inconsistent mess of propaganda and hot takes.