Why do “YIMBY” urban planners, bloggers & activists constantly cite what they believe are

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“disadvantages” of living in the suburbs? When in reality, they’re precisely the reasons that people CHOOSE to live in the suburbs? I for one, LIKE that my neighborhood has streets you can’t drive through, lacks sidewalks, lacks public transit, has big yards and is mostly houses with few commercial establishments. I don’t want to be able to walk to a bar or 7-eleven, and I don’t want anyone walking from those places to walk through my neighborhood.

Because they feel that the preference for the suburbs is objectively wrong, and vociferously making the case will make them feel justified in their increasingly aggressive efforts to impose their own preferences on people.

Objectively, low density, car-dependent, residential-only, cul-de-sac neighborhoods are a disaster for the environment, local government budgets, and societal well-being.

However, if that's what you prefer, that's not objectively wrong. How can a preference be objectively anything? Your feelings are your feelings.

Just because you say the word “objectively” does not make it true.

Here is a study that demonstrates that downtown Helsinki residents have more carbon intensive lifestyles than their suburban counterparts.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/3/034034/pdf

Consumption based emissions are very real and it turns out significantly more important than transportation emissions for household GHG emissions.

That study is from 2011.

I think things have changed a little since then, no?

What specifically that would make the findings untrue?

We know a lot more about building performance, and particularly the comparison of urban versus suburban where carbon and energy consumption are concerned; bottom line, urban dwellers use less energy, emit less carbon and generally are better for the environment as compared to suburban and exurban dwellers.

That doesn’t answer the question. It is just conjecture. Do you have a study or specific proof that the findings of the study no longer hold? If you do, you should probably email the authors and the journal to let them know. Until you do that, you are talking out of your *ss.

https://climateadaptationplatform.com/who-has-the-bigger-carbon-footprint-rural-or-urban-dwellers/

https://theconversation.com/suburban-living-the-worst-for-carbon-emissions-new-research-149332

and if you are really sciency: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-11184-y/

Or to drive the point: https://phys.org/news/2014-01-carbon-footprint-reveal-urban-suburban.html

Researchers found a striking divide: low-carbon city centers ringed by suburbs where households are responsible for an outsize proportion of greenhouse gas emissions. In many big metropolitan areas like New York or Los Angeles, their research found, a family that lives in the urban core has about a 50 percent smaller carbon footprint than a similar-sized family in a distant suburb.


This is really not a hard concept. Thanks for playing.

None of the studies looks at consumption based emissions. Thanks for playing.

“It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt”

― Mark Twain

One of the findings of the Finland study was that suburban families fly less than their urban, downtown counterparts. They theorized that having a yard and larger family size means that people do not need to get away as much for vacations. Show me where any of the links includes differences air transport emissions or show me your clown mask. 🤡

"Having a yard and larger family size means that people do not need to get away as much for vacations"

The study found that downtown, urban households that lived in apartments took substantially more flights than suburban households.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“disadvantages” of living in the suburbs? When in reality, they’re precisely the reasons that people CHOOSE to live in the suburbs? I for one, LIKE that my neighborhood has streets you can’t drive through, lacks sidewalks, lacks public transit, has big yards and is mostly houses with few commercial establishments. I don’t want to be able to walk to a bar or 7-eleven, and I don’t want anyone walking from those places to walk through my neighborhood.

Because they feel that the preference for the suburbs is objectively wrong, and vociferously making the case will make them feel justified in their increasingly aggressive efforts to impose their own preferences on people.

Objectively, low density, car-dependent, residential-only, cul-de-sac neighborhoods are a disaster for the environment, local government budgets, and societal well-being.

However, if that's what you prefer, that's not objectively wrong. How can a preference be objectively anything? Your feelings are your feelings.

Just because you say the word “objectively” does not make it true.

Here is a study that demonstrates that downtown Helsinki residents have more carbon intensive lifestyles than their suburban counterparts.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/3/034034/pdf

Consumption based emissions are very real and it turns out significantly more important than transportation emissions for household GHG emissions.

That study is from 2011.

I think things have changed a little since then, no?

What specifically that would make the findings untrue?

We know a lot more about building performance, and particularly the comparison of urban versus suburban where carbon and energy consumption are concerned; bottom line, urban dwellers use less energy, emit less carbon and generally are better for the environment as compared to suburban and exurban dwellers.

That doesn’t answer the question. It is just conjecture. Do you have a study or specific proof that the findings of the study no longer hold? If you do, you should probably email the authors and the journal to let them know. Until you do that, you are talking out of your *ss.

https://climateadaptationplatform.com/who-has-the-bigger-carbon-footprint-rural-or-urban-dwellers/

https://theconversation.com/suburban-living-the-worst-for-carbon-emissions-new-research-149332

and if you are really sciency: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-11184-y/

Or to drive the point: https://phys.org/news/2014-01-carbon-footprint-reveal-urban-suburban.html

Researchers found a striking divide: low-carbon city centers ringed by suburbs where households are responsible for an outsize proportion of greenhouse gas emissions. In many big metropolitan areas like New York or Los Angeles, their research found, a family that lives in the urban core has about a 50 percent smaller carbon footprint than a similar-sized family in a distant suburb.


This is really not a hard concept. Thanks for playing.

None of the studies looks at consumption based emissions. Thanks for playing.

“It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt”

― Mark Twain

One of the findings of the Finland study was that suburban families fly less than their urban, downtown counterparts. They theorized that having a yard and larger family size means that people do not need to get away as much for vacations. Show me where any of the links includes differences air transport emissions or show me your clown mask. 🤡

"Having a yard and larger family size means that people do not need to get away as much for vacations"

The study found that downtown, urban households that lived in apartments took substantially more flights than suburban households.

People with more money fly more than people with less money. Also, water is wet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“disadvantages” of living in the suburbs? When in reality, they’re precisely the reasons that people CHOOSE to live in the suburbs? I for one, LIKE that my neighborhood has streets you can’t drive through, lacks sidewalks, lacks public transit, has big yards and is mostly houses with few commercial establishments. I don’t want to be able to walk to a bar or 7-eleven, and I don’t want anyone walking from those places to walk through my neighborhood.

Because they feel that the preference for the suburbs is objectively wrong, and vociferously making the case will make them feel justified in their increasingly aggressive efforts to impose their own preferences on people.

Objectively, low density, car-dependent, residential-only, cul-de-sac neighborhoods are a disaster for the environment, local government budgets, and societal well-being.

However, if that's what you prefer, that's not objectively wrong. How can a preference be objectively anything? Your feelings are your feelings.

Just because you say the word “objectively” does not make it true.

Here is a study that demonstrates that downtown Helsinki residents have more carbon intensive lifestyles than their suburban counterparts.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/3/034034/pdf

Consumption based emissions are very real and it turns out significantly more important than transportation emissions for household GHG emissions.

That study is from 2011.

I think things have changed a little since then, no?

What specifically that would make the findings untrue?

We know a lot more about building performance, and particularly the comparison of urban versus suburban where carbon and energy consumption are concerned; bottom line, urban dwellers use less energy, emit less carbon and generally are better for the environment as compared to suburban and exurban dwellers.

That doesn’t answer the question. It is just conjecture. Do you have a study or specific proof that the findings of the study no longer hold? If you do, you should probably email the authors and the journal to let them know. Until you do that, you are talking out of your *ss.

https://climateadaptationplatform.com/who-has-the-bigger-carbon-footprint-rural-or-urban-dwellers/

https://theconversation.com/suburban-living-the-worst-for-carbon-emissions-new-research-149332

and if you are really sciency: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-11184-y/

Or to drive the point: https://phys.org/news/2014-01-carbon-footprint-reveal-urban-suburban.html

Researchers found a striking divide: low-carbon city centers ringed by suburbs where households are responsible for an outsize proportion of greenhouse gas emissions. In many big metropolitan areas like New York or Los Angeles, their research found, a family that lives in the urban core has about a 50 percent smaller carbon footprint than a similar-sized family in a distant suburb.


This is really not a hard concept. Thanks for playing.

None of the studies looks at consumption based emissions. Thanks for playing.

“It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt”

― Mark Twain

One of the findings of the Finland study was that suburban families fly less than their urban, downtown counterparts. They theorized that having a yard and larger family size means that people do not need to get away as much for vacations. Show me where any of the links includes differences air transport emissions or show me your clown mask. 🤡

"Having a yard and larger family size means that people do not need to get away as much for vacations"

The study found that downtown, urban households that lived in apartments took substantially more flights than suburban households.

People with more money fly more than people with less money. Also, water is wet.

What is your point? This study demonstrated that: (i) urbanites fly more than their suburban counterparts, (ii) urbanites consume more than their suburban counterparts, and (iii) urban buildings are not as efficient as people like to pretend. The totality of all of these things meant that they had higher household GHG emissions.

This is one of the only bottom-up surveys of household GHG emissions that you can find. Almost all other studies you will find are top-down. It is clear that these top down-down studies miss a lot of important consumption based emissions that make a huge difference.

And if you and your buddies actually cared about the planet, like you claim, you would stop flying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“disadvantages” of living in the suburbs? When in reality, they’re precisely the reasons that people CHOOSE to live in the suburbs? I for one, LIKE that my neighborhood has streets you can’t drive through, lacks sidewalks, lacks public transit, has big yards and is mostly houses with few commercial establishments. I don’t want to be able to walk to a bar or 7-eleven, and I don’t want anyone walking from those places to walk through my neighborhood.

Because they feel that the preference for the suburbs is objectively wrong, and vociferously making the case will make them feel justified in their increasingly aggressive efforts to impose their own preferences on people.

Objectively, low density, car-dependent, residential-only, cul-de-sac neighborhoods are a disaster for the environment, local government budgets, and societal well-being.

However, if that's what you prefer, that's not objectively wrong. How can a preference be objectively anything? Your feelings are your feelings.

Just because you say the word “objectively” does not make it true.

Here is a study that demonstrates that downtown Helsinki residents have more carbon intensive lifestyles than their suburban counterparts.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/3/034034/pdf

Consumption based emissions are very real and it turns out significantly more important than transportation emissions for household GHG emissions.

That study is from 2011.

I think things have changed a little since then, no?

What specifically that would make the findings untrue?

We know a lot more about building performance, and particularly the comparison of urban versus suburban where carbon and energy consumption are concerned; bottom line, urban dwellers use less energy, emit less carbon and generally are better for the environment as compared to suburban and exurban dwellers.

That doesn’t answer the question. It is just conjecture. Do you have a study or specific proof that the findings of the study no longer hold? If you do, you should probably email the authors and the journal to let them know. Until you do that, you are talking out of your *ss.

https://climateadaptationplatform.com/who-has-the-bigger-carbon-footprint-rural-or-urban-dwellers/

https://theconversation.com/suburban-living-the-worst-for-carbon-emissions-new-research-149332

and if you are really sciency: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-11184-y/

Or to drive the point: https://phys.org/news/2014-01-carbon-footprint-reveal-urban-suburban.html

Researchers found a striking divide: low-carbon city centers ringed by suburbs where households are responsible for an outsize proportion of greenhouse gas emissions. In many big metropolitan areas like New York or Los Angeles, their research found, a family that lives in the urban core has about a 50 percent smaller carbon footprint than a similar-sized family in a distant suburb.


This is really not a hard concept. Thanks for playing.

None of the studies looks at consumption based emissions. Thanks for playing.

“It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt”

― Mark Twain

One of the findings of the Finland study was that suburban families fly less than their urban, downtown counterparts. They theorized that having a yard and larger family size means that people do not need to get away as much for vacations. Show me where any of the links includes differences air transport emissions or show me your clown mask. 🤡

"Having a yard and larger family size means that people do not need to get away as much for vacations"

The study found that downtown, urban households that lived in apartments took substantially more flights than suburban households.

People with more money fly more than people with less money. Also, water is wet.

What is your point? This study demonstrated that: (i) urbanites fly more than their suburban counterparts, (ii) urbanites consume more than their suburban counterparts, and (iii) urban buildings are not as efficient as people like to pretend. The totality of all of these things meant that they had higher household GHG emissions.

This is one of the only bottom-up surveys of household GHG emissions that you can find. Almost all other studies you will find are top-down. It is clear that these top down-down studies miss a lot of important consumption based emissions that make a huge difference.

And if you and your buddies actually cared about the planet, like you claim, you would stop flying.

No, the study demonstrated that people with more money fly more than people with less money. Apparently in Helsinki, people with more money live in the central city, and people with less money live in the suburbs.

I have flown exactly three times since 2001: twice for work, one for a funeral. How about you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“disadvantages” of living in the suburbs? When in reality, they’re precisely the reasons that people CHOOSE to live in the suburbs? I for one, LIKE that my neighborhood has streets you can’t drive through, lacks sidewalks, lacks public transit, has big yards and is mostly houses with few commercial establishments. I don’t want to be able to walk to a bar or 7-eleven, and I don’t want anyone walking from those places to walk through my neighborhood.

Because they feel that the preference for the suburbs is objectively wrong, and vociferously making the case will make them feel justified in their increasingly aggressive efforts to impose their own preferences on people.

Objectively, low density, car-dependent, residential-only, cul-de-sac neighborhoods are a disaster for the environment, local government budgets, and societal well-being.

However, if that's what you prefer, that's not objectively wrong. How can a preference be objectively anything? Your feelings are your feelings.

Just because you say the word “objectively” does not make it true.

Here is a study that demonstrates that downtown Helsinki residents have more carbon intensive lifestyles than their suburban counterparts.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/3/034034/pdf

Consumption based emissions are very real and it turns out significantly more important than transportation emissions for household GHG emissions.

That study is from 2011.

I think things have changed a little since then, no?

What specifically that would make the findings untrue?

We know a lot more about building performance, and particularly the comparison of urban versus suburban where carbon and energy consumption are concerned; bottom line, urban dwellers use less energy, emit less carbon and generally are better for the environment as compared to suburban and exurban dwellers.

That doesn’t answer the question. It is just conjecture. Do you have a study or specific proof that the findings of the study no longer hold? If you do, you should probably email the authors and the journal to let them know. Until you do that, you are talking out of your *ss.

https://climateadaptationplatform.com/who-has-the-bigger-carbon-footprint-rural-or-urban-dwellers/

https://theconversation.com/suburban-living-the-worst-for-carbon-emissions-new-research-149332

and if you are really sciency: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-11184-y/

Or to drive the point: https://phys.org/news/2014-01-carbon-footprint-reveal-urban-suburban.html

Researchers found a striking divide: low-carbon city centers ringed by suburbs where households are responsible for an outsize proportion of greenhouse gas emissions. In many big metropolitan areas like New York or Los Angeles, their research found, a family that lives in the urban core has about a 50 percent smaller carbon footprint than a similar-sized family in a distant suburb.


This is really not a hard concept. Thanks for playing.

None of the studies looks at consumption based emissions. Thanks for playing.

“It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt”

― Mark Twain

One of the findings of the Finland study was that suburban families fly less than their urban, downtown counterparts. They theorized that having a yard and larger family size means that people do not need to get away as much for vacations. Show me where any of the links includes differences air transport emissions or show me your clown mask. 🤡

This thread is about YIMBY planners and the built environment between urban and suburban dwellers. You are adding the whole airplane carbon thing. I would submit, more urbanists are using trains when possible to travel, which is a lot less carbon intensive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“disadvantages” of living in the suburbs? When in reality, they’re precisely the reasons that people CHOOSE to live in the suburbs? I for one, LIKE that my neighborhood has streets you can’t drive through, lacks sidewalks, lacks public transit, has big yards and is mostly houses with few commercial establishments. I don’t want to be able to walk to a bar or 7-eleven, and I don’t want anyone walking from those places to walk through my neighborhood.

Because they feel that the preference for the suburbs is objectively wrong, and vociferously making the case will make them feel justified in their increasingly aggressive efforts to impose their own preferences on people.

Objectively, low density, car-dependent, residential-only, cul-de-sac neighborhoods are a disaster for the environment, local government budgets, and societal well-being.

However, if that's what you prefer, that's not objectively wrong. How can a preference be objectively anything? Your feelings are your feelings.

Just because you say the word “objectively” does not make it true.

Here is a study that demonstrates that downtown Helsinki residents have more carbon intensive lifestyles than their suburban counterparts.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/3/034034/pdf

Consumption based emissions are very real and it turns out significantly more important than transportation emissions for household GHG emissions.

That study is from 2011.

I think things have changed a little since then, no?

What specifically that would make the findings untrue?

We know a lot more about building performance, and particularly the comparison of urban versus suburban where carbon and energy consumption are concerned; bottom line, urban dwellers use less energy, emit less carbon and generally are better for the environment as compared to suburban and exurban dwellers.

That doesn’t answer the question. It is just conjecture. Do you have a study or specific proof that the findings of the study no longer hold? If you do, you should probably email the authors and the journal to let them know. Until you do that, you are talking out of your *ss.

https://climateadaptationplatform.com/who-has-the-bigger-carbon-footprint-rural-or-urban-dwellers/

https://theconversation.com/suburban-living-the-worst-for-carbon-emissions-new-research-149332

and if you are really sciency: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-11184-y/

Or to drive the point: https://phys.org/news/2014-01-carbon-footprint-reveal-urban-suburban.html

Researchers found a striking divide: low-carbon city centers ringed by suburbs where households are responsible for an outsize proportion of greenhouse gas emissions. In many big metropolitan areas like New York or Los Angeles, their research found, a family that lives in the urban core has about a 50 percent smaller carbon footprint than a similar-sized family in a distant suburb.


This is really not a hard concept. Thanks for playing.

None of the studies looks at consumption based emissions. Thanks for playing.

“It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt”

― Mark Twain

One of the findings of the Finland study was that suburban families fly less than their urban, downtown counterparts. They theorized that having a yard and larger family size means that people do not need to get away as much for vacations. Show me where any of the links includes differences air transport emissions or show me your clown mask. 🤡

This thread is about YIMBY planners and the built environment between urban and suburban dwellers. You are adding the whole airplane carbon thing. I would submit, more urbanists are using trains when possible to travel, which is a lot less carbon intensive.

Do you have evidence for that assertion?

Back on topic: YIMBY planners have delivered none of what they’ve promised. Compact transit-oriented development was supposed to cost less, but now we have to subsidize it. Downtown areas were supposed to have plentiful housing and prices were supposed to fall but we have anemic growth and high rents. It’s time for a rethink about whether we have this right. I want growth, but what we’ve been doing the past decade or so has not worked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“disadvantages” of living in the suburbs? When in reality, they’re precisely the reasons that people CHOOSE to live in the suburbs? I for one, LIKE that my neighborhood has streets you can’t drive through, lacks sidewalks, lacks public transit, has big yards and is mostly houses with few commercial establishments. I don’t want to be able to walk to a bar or 7-eleven, and I don’t want anyone walking from those places to walk through my neighborhood.

Because they feel that the preference for the suburbs is objectively wrong, and vociferously making the case will make them feel justified in their increasingly aggressive efforts to impose their own preferences on people.

Objectively, low density, car-dependent, residential-only, cul-de-sac neighborhoods are a disaster for the environment, local government budgets, and societal well-being.

However, if that's what you prefer, that's not objectively wrong. How can a preference be objectively anything? Your feelings are your feelings.

Just because you say the word “objectively” does not make it true.

Here is a study that demonstrates that downtown Helsinki residents have more carbon intensive lifestyles than their suburban counterparts.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/3/034034/pdf

Consumption based emissions are very real and it turns out significantly more important than transportation emissions for household GHG emissions.

That study is from 2011.

I think things have changed a little since then, no?

What specifically that would make the findings untrue?

We know a lot more about building performance, and particularly the comparison of urban versus suburban where carbon and energy consumption are concerned; bottom line, urban dwellers use less energy, emit less carbon and generally are better for the environment as compared to suburban and exurban dwellers.

That doesn’t answer the question. It is just conjecture. Do you have a study or specific proof that the findings of the study no longer hold? If you do, you should probably email the authors and the journal to let them know. Until you do that, you are talking out of your *ss.

https://climateadaptationplatform.com/who-has-the-bigger-carbon-footprint-rural-or-urban-dwellers/

https://theconversation.com/suburban-living-the-worst-for-carbon-emissions-new-research-149332

and if you are really sciency: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-11184-y/

Or to drive the point: https://phys.org/news/2014-01-carbon-footprint-reveal-urban-suburban.html

Researchers found a striking divide: low-carbon city centers ringed by suburbs where households are responsible for an outsize proportion of greenhouse gas emissions. In many big metropolitan areas like New York or Los Angeles, their research found, a family that lives in the urban core has about a 50 percent smaller carbon footprint than a similar-sized family in a distant suburb.


This is really not a hard concept. Thanks for playing.

None of the studies looks at consumption based emissions. Thanks for playing.

“It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt”

― Mark Twain

One of the findings of the Finland study was that suburban families fly less than their urban, downtown counterparts. They theorized that having a yard and larger family size means that people do not need to get away as much for vacations. Show me where any of the links includes differences air transport emissions or show me your clown mask. 🤡

This thread is about YIMBY planners and the built environment between urban and suburban dwellers. You are adding the whole airplane carbon thing. I would submit, more urbanists are using trains when possible to travel, which is a lot less carbon intensive.

Do you have evidence for that assertion?

Back on topic: YIMBY planners have delivered none of what they’ve promised. Compact transit-oriented development was supposed to cost less, but now we have to subsidize it. Downtown areas were supposed to have plentiful housing and prices were supposed to fall but we have anemic growth and high rents. It’s time for a rethink about whether we have this right. I want growth, but what we’ve been doing the past decade or so has not worked.

No one said prices were going to fall. But more supply mitigates the rate of increase. Do you really think the price of a Watergate Condo would ever decrease? You can't be that dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“disadvantages” of living in the suburbs? When in reality, they’re precisely the reasons that people CHOOSE to live in the suburbs? I for one, LIKE that my neighborhood has streets you can’t drive through, lacks sidewalks, lacks public transit, has big yards and is mostly houses with few commercial establishments. I don’t want to be able to walk to a bar or 7-eleven, and I don’t want anyone walking from those places to walk through my neighborhood.

Because they feel that the preference for the suburbs is objectively wrong, and vociferously making the case will make them feel justified in their increasingly aggressive efforts to impose their own preferences on people.

Objectively, low density, car-dependent, residential-only, cul-de-sac neighborhoods are a disaster for the environment, local government budgets, and societal well-being.

However, if that's what you prefer, that's not objectively wrong. How can a preference be objectively anything? Your feelings are your feelings.

Just because you say the word “objectively” does not make it true.

Here is a study that demonstrates that downtown Helsinki residents have more carbon intensive lifestyles than their suburban counterparts.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/3/034034/pdf

Consumption based emissions are very real and it turns out significantly more important than transportation emissions for household GHG emissions.

That study is from 2011.

I think things have changed a little since then, no?

What specifically that would make the findings untrue?

We know a lot more about building performance, and particularly the comparison of urban versus suburban where carbon and energy consumption are concerned; bottom line, urban dwellers use less energy, emit less carbon and generally are better for the environment as compared to suburban and exurban dwellers.

That doesn’t answer the question. It is just conjecture. Do you have a study or specific proof that the findings of the study no longer hold? If you do, you should probably email the authors and the journal to let them know. Until you do that, you are talking out of your *ss.

https://climateadaptationplatform.com/who-has-the-bigger-carbon-footprint-rural-or-urban-dwellers/

https://theconversation.com/suburban-living-the-worst-for-carbon-emissions-new-research-149332

and if you are really sciency: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-11184-y/

Or to drive the point: https://phys.org/news/2014-01-carbon-footprint-reveal-urban-suburban.html

Researchers found a striking divide: low-carbon city centers ringed by suburbs where households are responsible for an outsize proportion of greenhouse gas emissions. In many big metropolitan areas like New York or Los Angeles, their research found, a family that lives in the urban core has about a 50 percent smaller carbon footprint than a similar-sized family in a distant suburb.


This is really not a hard concept. Thanks for playing.

None of the studies looks at consumption based emissions. Thanks for playing.

“It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt”

― Mark Twain

One of the findings of the Finland study was that suburban families fly less than their urban, downtown counterparts. They theorized that having a yard and larger family size means that people do not need to get away as much for vacations. Show me where any of the links includes differences air transport emissions or show me your clown mask. 🤡

This thread is about YIMBY planners and the built environment between urban and suburban dwellers. You are adding the whole airplane carbon thing. I would submit, more urbanists are using trains when possible to travel, which is a lot less carbon intensive.

Do you have evidence for that assertion?

Back on topic: YIMBY planners have delivered none of what they’ve promised. Compact transit-oriented development was supposed to cost less, but now we have to subsidize it. Downtown areas were supposed to have plentiful housing and prices were supposed to fall but we have anemic growth and high rents. It’s time for a rethink about whether we have this right. I want growth, but what we’ve been doing the past decade or so has not worked.

It is actually the century of songle family 1/4 to acre lots that have been the development failure. The goal now is to try to remediate it. Please point to a other urban pattern in the history of mankind that is as wasteful as US policies from 1935 to now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“disadvantages” of living in the suburbs? When in reality, they’re precisely the reasons that people CHOOSE to live in the suburbs? I for one, LIKE that my neighborhood has streets you can’t drive through, lacks sidewalks, lacks public transit, has big yards and is mostly houses with few commercial establishments. I don’t want to be able to walk to a bar or 7-eleven, and I don’t want anyone walking from those places to walk through my neighborhood.

Because they feel that the preference for the suburbs is objectively wrong, and vociferously making the case will make them feel justified in their increasingly aggressive efforts to impose their own preferences on people.

Objectively, low density, car-dependent, residential-only, cul-de-sac neighborhoods are a disaster for the environment, local government budgets, and societal well-being.

However, if that's what you prefer, that's not objectively wrong. How can a preference be objectively anything? Your feelings are your feelings.

Just because you say the word “objectively” does not make it true.

Here is a study that demonstrates that downtown Helsinki residents have more carbon intensive lifestyles than their suburban counterparts.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/3/034034/pdf

Consumption based emissions are very real and it turns out significantly more important than transportation emissions for household GHG emissions.

That study is from 2011.

I think things have changed a little since then, no?

What specifically that would make the findings untrue?

We know a lot more about building performance, and particularly the comparison of urban versus suburban where carbon and energy consumption are concerned; bottom line, urban dwellers use less energy, emit less carbon and generally are better for the environment as compared to suburban and exurban dwellers.

That doesn’t answer the question. It is just conjecture. Do you have a study or specific proof that the findings of the study no longer hold? If you do, you should probably email the authors and the journal to let them know. Until you do that, you are talking out of your *ss.

https://climateadaptationplatform.com/who-has-the-bigger-carbon-footprint-rural-or-urban-dwellers/

https://theconversation.com/suburban-living-the-worst-for-carbon-emissions-new-research-149332

and if you are really sciency: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-11184-y/

Or to drive the point: https://phys.org/news/2014-01-carbon-footprint-reveal-urban-suburban.html

Researchers found a striking divide: low-carbon city centers ringed by suburbs where households are responsible for an outsize proportion of greenhouse gas emissions. In many big metropolitan areas like New York or Los Angeles, their research found, a family that lives in the urban core has about a 50 percent smaller carbon footprint than a similar-sized family in a distant suburb.


This is really not a hard concept. Thanks for playing.

None of the studies looks at consumption based emissions. Thanks for playing.

“It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt”

― Mark Twain

One of the findings of the Finland study was that suburban families fly less than their urban, downtown counterparts. They theorized that having a yard and larger family size means that people do not need to get away as much for vacations. Show me where any of the links includes differences air transport emissions or show me your clown mask. 🤡

This thread is about YIMBY planners and the built environment between urban and suburban dwellers. You are adding the whole airplane carbon thing. I would submit, more urbanists are using trains when possible to travel, which is a lot less carbon intensive.

Do you have evidence for that assertion?

Back on topic: YIMBY planners have delivered none of what they’ve promised. Compact transit-oriented development was supposed to cost less, but now we have to subsidize it. Downtown areas were supposed to have plentiful housing and prices were supposed to fall but we have anemic growth and high rents. It’s time for a rethink about whether we have this right. I want growth, but what we’ve been doing the past decade or so has not worked.

It is actually the century of songle family 1/4 to acre lots that have been the development failure. The goal now is to try to remediate it. Please point to an other urban pattern in the history of mankind that is as wasteful as US policies from 1935 to now.

That’s not responsive to the PP. But planners’ recent record is indefensible so I can understand why you want to change the subject. Oh and you know who promoted that wasteful pattern of single family homes on 1/4 acre lots? Planners! Show some humility and spend some time trying to figure out why you don’t have this right or get out of the way and let the market work.

[Anonymous]

Yes, planners did the indefensible and now the whole practice has changed to try to mitigate it. Learning from the past portends to a better future. What is your point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, planners did the indefensible and now the whole practice has changed to try to mitigate it. Learning from the past portends to a better future. What is your point?

It looks like they’re still messing up in Montgomery County unless the plan was to maximize some developers’ profits at the expense of affordable housing and the county’s property tax revenue along with skyrocketing rents and negative job growth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“disadvantages” of living in the suburbs? When in reality, they’re precisely the reasons that people CHOOSE to live in the suburbs? I for one, LIKE that my neighborhood has streets you can’t drive through, lacks sidewalks, lacks public transit, has big yards and is mostly houses with few commercial establishments. I don’t want to be able to walk to a bar or 7-eleven, and I don’t want anyone walking from those places to walk through my neighborhood.

Because they feel that the preference for the suburbs is objectively wrong, and vociferously making the case will make them feel justified in their increasingly aggressive efforts to impose their own preferences on people.

Objectively, low density, car-dependent, residential-only, cul-de-sac neighborhoods are a disaster for the environment, local government budgets, and societal well-being.

However, if that's what you prefer, that's not objectively wrong. How can a preference be objectively anything? Your feelings are your feelings.

Just because you say the word “objectively” does not make it true.

Here is a study that demonstrates that downtown Helsinki residents have more carbon intensive lifestyles than their suburban counterparts.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/3/034034/pdf

Consumption based emissions are very real and it turns out significantly more important than transportation emissions for household GHG emissions.

That study is from 2011.

I think things have changed a little since then, no?

What specifically that would make the findings untrue?

We know a lot more about building performance, and particularly the comparison of urban versus suburban where carbon and energy consumption are concerned; bottom line, urban dwellers use less energy, emit less carbon and generally are better for the environment as compared to suburban and exurban dwellers.

That doesn’t answer the question. It is just conjecture. Do you have a study or specific proof that the findings of the study no longer hold? If you do, you should probably email the authors and the journal to let them know. Until you do that, you are talking out of your *ss.

https://climateadaptationplatform.com/who-has-the-bigger-carbon-footprint-rural-or-urban-dwellers/

https://theconversation.com/suburban-living-the-worst-for-carbon-emissions-new-research-149332

and if you are really sciency: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-11184-y/

Or to drive the point: https://phys.org/news/2014-01-carbon-footprint-reveal-urban-suburban.html

Researchers found a striking divide: low-carbon city centers ringed by suburbs where households are responsible for an outsize proportion of greenhouse gas emissions. In many big metropolitan areas like New York or Los Angeles, their research found, a family that lives in the urban core has about a 50 percent smaller carbon footprint than a similar-sized family in a distant suburb.


This is really not a hard concept. Thanks for playing.

None of the studies looks at consumption based emissions. Thanks for playing.

“It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt”

― Mark Twain

One of the findings of the Finland study was that suburban families fly less than their urban, downtown counterparts. They theorized that having a yard and larger family size means that people do not need to get away as much for vacations. Show me where any of the links includes differences air transport emissions or show me your clown mask. 🤡

This thread is about YIMBY planners and the built environment between urban and suburban dwellers. You are adding the whole airplane carbon thing. I would submit, more urbanists are using trains when possible to travel, which is a lot less carbon intensive.

Do you have evidence for that assertion?

Back on topic: YIMBY planners have delivered none of what they’ve promised. Compact transit-oriented development was supposed to cost less, but now we have to subsidize it. Downtown areas were supposed to have plentiful housing and prices were supposed to fall but we have anemic growth and high rents. It’s time for a rethink about whether we have this right. I want growth, but what we’ve been doing the past decade or so has not worked.

It is actually the century of songle family 1/4 to acre lots that have been the development failure. The goal now is to try to remediate it. Please point to an other urban pattern in the history of mankind that is as wasteful as US policies from 1935 to now.

That’s not responsive to the PP. But planners’ recent record is indefensible so I can understand why you want to change the subject. Oh and you know who promoted that wasteful pattern of single family homes on 1/4 acre lots? Planners! Show some humility and spend some time trying to figure out why you don’t have this right or get out of the way and let the market work.

You're mixing your messages here. Either planners imposed wasteful 1/4 acre lots with detached houses on an unwilling populace (in which case, it's high time that were changed), or 1/4 acre lots with detached houses is what the populace wants so it shouldn't be changed (in which case, it's not because of the planners).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, planners did the indefensible and now the whole practice has changed to try to mitigate it. Learning from the past portends to a better future. What is your point?

It looks like they’re still messing up in Montgomery County unless the plan was to maximize some developers’ profits at the expense of affordable housing and the county’s property tax revenue along with skyrocketing rents and negative job growth.

The planners recommend. The elected officials decide. The elected officials are elected by the voters. Your disagreement is with the voters. You say everybody wants what you want, but the election results say otherwise. Your issue is not with the planners, it's with the voters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“disadvantages” of living in the suburbs? When in reality, they’re precisely the reasons that people CHOOSE to live in the suburbs? I for one, LIKE that my neighborhood has streets you can’t drive through, lacks sidewalks, lacks public transit, has big yards and is mostly houses with few commercial establishments. I don’t want to be able to walk to a bar or 7-eleven, and I don’t want anyone walking from those places to walk through my neighborhood.

Because they feel that the preference for the suburbs is objectively wrong, and vociferously making the case will make them feel justified in their increasingly aggressive efforts to impose their own preferences on people.

Objectively, low density, car-dependent, residential-only, cul-de-sac neighborhoods are a disaster for the environment, local government budgets, and societal well-being.

However, if that's what you prefer, that's not objectively wrong. How can a preference be objectively anything? Your feelings are your feelings.

Just because you say the word “objectively” does not make it true.

Here is a study that demonstrates that downtown Helsinki residents have more carbon intensive lifestyles than their suburban counterparts.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/3/034034/pdf

Consumption based emissions are very real and it turns out significantly more important than transportation emissions for household GHG emissions.

That study is from 2011.

I think things have changed a little since then, no?

What specifically that would make the findings untrue?

We know a lot more about building performance, and particularly the comparison of urban versus suburban where carbon and energy consumption are concerned; bottom line, urban dwellers use less energy, emit less carbon and generally are better for the environment as compared to suburban and exurban dwellers.

That doesn’t answer the question. It is just conjecture. Do you have a study or specific proof that the findings of the study no longer hold? If you do, you should probably email the authors and the journal to let them know. Until you do that, you are talking out of your *ss.

https://climateadaptationplatform.com/who-has-the-bigger-carbon-footprint-rural-or-urban-dwellers/

https://theconversation.com/suburban-living-the-worst-for-carbon-emissions-new-research-149332

and if you are really sciency: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-11184-y/

Or to drive the point: https://phys.org/news/2014-01-carbon-footprint-reveal-urban-suburban.html

Researchers found a striking divide: low-carbon city centers ringed by suburbs where households are responsible for an outsize proportion of greenhouse gas emissions. In many big metropolitan areas like New York or Los Angeles, their research found, a family that lives in the urban core has about a 50 percent smaller carbon footprint than a similar-sized family in a distant suburb.


This is really not a hard concept. Thanks for playing.

None of the studies looks at consumption based emissions. Thanks for playing.

“It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt”

― Mark Twain

One of the findings of the Finland study was that suburban families fly less than their urban, downtown counterparts. They theorized that having a yard and larger family size means that people do not need to get away as much for vacations. Show me where any of the links includes differences air transport emissions or show me your clown mask. 🤡

This thread is about YIMBY planners and the built environment between urban and suburban dwellers. You are adding the whole airplane carbon thing. I would submit, more urbanists are using trains when possible to travel, which is a lot less carbon intensive.

Do you have evidence for that assertion?

Back on topic: YIMBY planners have delivered none of what they’ve promised. Compact transit-oriented development was supposed to cost less, but now we have to subsidize it. Downtown areas were supposed to have plentiful housing and prices were supposed to fall but we have anemic growth and high rents. It’s time for a rethink about whether we have this right. I want growth, but what we’ve been doing the past decade or so has not worked.

No one said prices were going to fall. But more supply mitigates the rate of increase. Do you really think the price of a Watergate Condo would ever decrease? You can't be that dumb.

This is some impressive goalpost-moving, because a whole lot of YIMBYs assert on a daily basis that simply adding more housing will make prices automatically fall. You're saying that's not true?

You all should get your story straight before trying to convince people of its merits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, planners did the indefensible and now the whole practice has changed to try to mitigate it. Learning from the past portends to a better future. What is your point?

It looks like they’re still messing up in Montgomery County unless the plan was to maximize some developers’ profits at the expense of affordable housing and the county’s property tax revenue along with skyrocketing rents and negative job growth.

The planners recommend. The elected officials decide. The elected officials are elected by the voters. Your disagreement is with the voters. You say everybody wants what you want, but the election results say otherwise. Your issue is not with the planners, it's with the voters.

If the planners aren’t making recommendations that elected officials are willing to implement then they’re doing a bad job. There’s always a path to progress but it requires reading the room and moving the ball where you can. Just thinking about the past few years, our genius planning staff has opposed the one county-wide upzoning bill that was put forward and then poured a lot of resources into duplexes only to have developers tell them that the math didn’t work in all but a few places. That’s not reading the room. That’s pursuing maximalist positions from the start and getting nothing done.

You also conveniently omit the planners’ role in development review, which is expensive and time consuming for developers. That process is terrible, runs for a long time before the matter even gets to the board, and delivers very little benefit to neighbors or developers. This process should go away but it won’t because planning uses it to justify headcount and because planners like rubbing elbows with real engineers and real economists.

Finally, the one elected official who’s openly hostile to growth has nothing to do with land use or planning, though he’d like to change that.