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

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]“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. [/quote]

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.  [/quote]

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.[/quote]
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.

[/quote]

That study is from 2011.

I think things have changed a little since then, no?[/quote]

What specifically that would make the findings untrue? [/quote]

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.[/quote]
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.[/quote]

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
[i]
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.[/i]

This is really not a hard concept. Thanks for playing.[/quote]

None of the studies looks at consumption based emissions. Thanks for playing.[/quote]

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

― Mark Twain [/quote]
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. 🤡[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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

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.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics