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

[Anonymous]

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.

So basically cul de sac street patters force people to drive more, and also to stymie walking as you can't get from one place to another without going though someone's yard. Grid patterns are MUCH more efficient.
Lacking sidewalks means it is less safe for pedestrians or little kids on bikes.
Lack of public traffic means people have to drive. From an equity standpoint, it is simply more expensive thus shutting out people who can't even consider living there.
Few commercial establishments means you have to basically drive everywhere everytime you need anything.

It is an incredibly wasteful and unsustainable way of life if you actually think about it.

The more I think about it, the more I prefer to spend time with self-selected populations, in environments that someone has to make an effort to access, both literally & figuratively. I don’t want to be anywhere that someone could end up accidentally, or somewhere that someone can access without trying really hard to.

Buy an island, move to it, build a wall around it, put barbed wire on top.

[Anonymous]

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.

So basically cul de sac street patters force people to drive more, and also to stymie walking as you can't get from one place to another without going though someone's yard. Grid patterns are MUCH more efficient.
Lacking sidewalks means it is less safe for pedestrians or little kids on bikes.
Lack of public traffic means people have to drive. From an equity standpoint, it is simply more expensive thus shutting out people who can't even consider living there.
Few commercial establishments means you have to basically drive everywhere everytime you need anything.

It is an incredibly wasteful and unsustainable way of life if you actually think about it.

The paternalism.

[Anonymous]

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.

So basically cul de sac street patterns force people to drive more, and also to stymie walking as you can't get from one place to another without going though someone's yard. Grid patterns are MUCH more efficient.
Lacking sidewalks means it is less safe for pedestrians or little kids on bikes.
Lack of public traffic means people have to drive. From an equity standpoint, it is simply more expensive thus shutting out people who can't even consider living there.
Few commercial establishments means you have to basically drive everywhere everytime you need anything.

It is an incredibly wasteful and unsustainable way of life if you actually think about it.

The paternalism.

Evidently it's paternalistic to state facts.

[Anonymous]

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.

So basically cul de sac street patterns force people to drive more, and also to stymie walking as you can't get from one place to another without going though someone's yard. Grid patterns are MUCH more efficient.
Lacking sidewalks means it is less safe for pedestrians or little kids on bikes.
Lack of public traffic means people have to drive. From an equity standpoint, it is simply more expensive thus shutting out people who can't even consider living there.
Few commercial establishments means you have to basically drive everywhere everytime you need anything.

It is an incredibly wasteful and unsustainable way of life if you actually think about it.

The paternalism.

Evidently it's paternalistic to state facts.

You don’t get to decide what’s “efficient” or not.

[Anonymous]

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.

So basically cul de sac street patterns force people to drive more, and also to stymie walking as you can't get from one place to another without going though someone's yard. Grid patterns are MUCH more efficient.
Lacking sidewalks means it is less safe for pedestrians or little kids on bikes.
Lack of public traffic means people have to drive. From an equity standpoint, it is simply more expensive thus shutting out people who can't even consider living there.
Few commercial establishments means you have to basically drive everywhere everytime you need anything.

It is an incredibly wasteful and unsustainable way of life if you actually think about it.

The paternalism.

Evidently it's paternalistic to state facts.

You don’t get to decide what’s “efficient” or not.

Correct. Efficient is not a question of opinion, it's a question of fact. Cul-de-sacs are extremely inefficient for transportation; grid patterns are much more efficient.

[Anonymous]

it's trending and blogs earn income.

Unfortunately, millions of people will suffer the consequences indefinitely. And ultimately, the poor who cannot just pack up and move to the next low crime, un-urbanized ex-burb with pretty schools will be the ones who suffer the most, yet ironically, the urbanization was all done in the name/excuse of helping them.

[Anonymous]

poor people benefit living in nice suburbs rather than urban blight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:poor people benefit living in nice suburbs rather than urban blight.

Those “nice suburbs” don’t stay nice for long in that case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:poor people benefit living in nice suburbs rather than urban blight.

Entire towns aren’t charities.

[Anonymous]

and we all know who moves into the new shiny townhome and "luxury" condos or apartments. It's not the poor. Oh brother.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:poor people benefit living in nice suburbs rather than urban blight.

Those “nice suburbs” don’t stay nice for long in that case.

what I meant is, they benefit living in suburbs, not urban areas that were formerly suburbs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:poor people benefit living in nice suburbs rather than urban blight.

Those “nice suburbs” don’t stay nice for long in that case.

what I meant is, they benefit living in suburbs, not urban areas that were formerly suburbs.

That’s nice for them. Don’t expect anyone in the “nice” neighborhood to agree to that unless there’s a mutual benefit at play.

[Anonymous]

1 last thought - you can pick just about any run down, undesirable apartment building, and it may still have the original "luxury" apartments sign. They all start out as "luxury" apartments. They do not stay that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:poor people benefit living in nice suburbs rather than urban blight.

Those “nice suburbs” don’t stay nice for long in that case.

what I meant is, they benefit living in suburbs, not urban areas that were formerly suburbs.

That’s nice for them. Don’t expect anyone in the “nice” neighborhood to agree to that unless there’s a mutual benefit at play.

The do now. Nobody needs to agree to anything.

[Anonymous]

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.

So basically cul de sac street patters force people to drive more, and also to stymie walking as you can't get from one place to another without going though someone's yard. Grid patterns are MUCH more efficient.
Lacking sidewalks means it is less safe for pedestrians or little kids on bikes.
Lack of public traffic means people have to drive. From an equity standpoint, it is simply more expensive thus shutting out people who can't even consider living there.
Few commercial establishments means you have to basically drive everywhere everytime you need anything.

It is an incredibly wasteful and unsustainable way of life if you actually think about it.

I mean, if OP likes it, then OP likes it. There's no arguing with taste. It's terrible public policy, but OP likes it!

Define “terrible public policy.” I think that destroying nature to build say, subsidized housing, anywhere except in unused buildings in DC or close-in is terrible for the environment.

Exactly Jiwanka would you propose to house a growing population?

It’s not my job to “house” you.

Says the person who was born on third base to the person whose family has had centuries of discrimination.

If you are an American citizen by birth, you were born on third base.

Tell that to Appalachia