Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I find a lot of people advocating for upzoning and density do not often live in the places that are dense. I have noticed a number of them live in single family homes in the suburbs.
Right, but that means they're advocating for upzoning their own neighborhoods, which is better than if they were advocating for changing only someone else's.
Orrrr…they live in places that are exempt, or they are real estate agents (a surprising number of YIMBYs are), or they live in lower value areas and are looking for cash in. It’s far more likely that it isn’t altruism.
Anonymous wrote:Sad for Americans.
Your jobs were shipped overseas and your schools are psych wards.
Now you think putting families in teepees and yurts or stuffing four people into 500sq. ft. is going to save our society.
Anonymous wrote:
Most Europeans cities and towns were laid out before the advent of the automobile - which is why they are walkable because they had to be. And so they planned public connective transit because they had to and did that very well.
But there are many areas of Europe that are not connected by transit and are not walkable. The poster above is referencing major towns.
They do have some wastelands of parking and strip mall areas, not as much as the US, but they do exist. They are ugly and tucked in the back away from town centers.
There is a difference between advocating for multi-family dwellings and arguing against urban planning centered around the automobile. Don't conflate the two as they are completely different issues.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I find a lot of people advocating for upzoning and density do not often live in the places that are dense. I have noticed a number of them live in single family homes in the suburbs.
Right, but that means they're advocating for upzoning their own neighborhoods, which is better than if they were advocating for changing only someone else's.
Anonymous wrote:I find a lot of people advocating for upzoning and density do not often live in the places that are dense. I have noticed a number of them live in single family homes in the suburbs.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:There are DCYimbys, the Coalition for Smarter Growth and GreaterGreaterWashington - if you are a YIMBY, then support these great groups!
I do. And I appreciate their advocacy but none of their piecemeal approaches is going to accomplish what really needs to happen.
Think about it this way. Have you traveled around Europe? What is so appealing to Americans about Europe? Other than history buffs and foodies, why do people enjoy European cities and towns? Because of the urban planning. Everything accessible by transit, effective planning that centers around historic buildings, compact amenities, walkable streets. You don’t to go Europe to drive down a stroad to a wasteland of parking lots dotted with McDonalds and Walmarts.
In between these dense European cities you get cute little towns and scenic countryside.
You don’t get a 355/Wisconsin Ave or a Georgia Ave or a 29/Columbia Ave etc.
Most Europeans cities and towns were laid out before the advent of the automobile - which is why they are walkable because they had to be. And so they planned public connective transit because they had to and did that very well.
But there are many areas of Europe that are not connected by transit and are not walkable. The poster above is referencing major towns.
They do have some wastelands of parking and strip mall areas, not as much as the US, but they do exist. They are ugly and tucked in the back away from town centers.
There is a difference between advocating for multi-family dwellings and arguing against urban planning centered around the automobile. Don't conflate the two as they are completely different issues.
Anonymous wrote:So with the increasing density, where are all these people supposed to work? In the six or seven stores at the base of the mixed use apartment building?
Anonymous wrote:With all this increased density, how will you handle the next pandemic?
Anonymous wrote:Do you mean the kind that only works in a computer simulation?Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Curiously, the failures of Communism are more often treated as a joke than as a tragedy
No one has ever tried real Communism.
Do you mean the kind that only works in a computer simulation?Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Curiously, the failures of Communism are more often treated as a joke than as a tragedy
No one has ever tried real Communism.
Oh boy.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Curiously, the failures of Communism are more often treated as a joke than as a tragedy
No one has ever tried real Communism.
Anonymous wrote:Curiously, the failures of Communism are more often treated as a joke than as a tragedy