Anonymous wrote:Liberalism!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Show me a walkable, “15-minute” municipality, the kind where you can walk to a large grocery store, that has good ZONED (read: not magnet, charter or lottery) with excellent k-12 public schools, and I’ll show you 20 that don’t have that.

They exist in Europe, a land with fairly tight immigration.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe because urban planners are, by default, biased towards urbanism. It's in their job title.
If one is an urban planner, then one has to think as an urban planner when tasked to a project as an urban planner.

Planning encompasses a lot of issues and there has to be future thinking involved, e.g. adequate water supply services for residential development areas, same with electrical, schools, where will all the rainfall go when most of the land gets paved over (here are your warnings about flash flooding), wastewater capacity, etc..

Basically, every suburban development puts pressure on the adjacent urban core to provision for transit and parking. Nearby commercial zones have to be developed to serve the needs of the suburban residents. Infrastructure also needs to be developed (water, electrical grid, where your poop will wash away...)

Unless you are in a rural area with your own septic tank on your property, chances are you had an urban planner figuring out how to make your suburban plot liveable.

While this is true of the worker bees, you won’t find the people getting rich from YIMBY policies (owners of the development companies) living in urban density utopia.

Anonymous wrote:Maybe because urban planners are, by default, biased towards urbanism. It's in their job title.
If one is an urban planner, then one has to think as an urban planner when tasked to a project as an urban planner.

Planning encompasses a lot of issues and there has to be future thinking involved, e.g. adequate water supply services for residential development areas, same with electrical, schools, where will all the rainfall go when most of the land gets paved over (here are your warnings about flash flooding), wastewater capacity, etc..

Basically, every suburban development puts pressure on the adjacent urban core to provision for transit and parking. Nearby commercial zones have to be developed to serve the needs of the suburban residents. Infrastructure also needs to be developed (water, electrical grid, where your poop will wash away...)

Unless you are in a rural area with your own septic tank on your property, chances are you had an urban planner figuring out how to make your suburban plot liveable.

Anonymous wrote:

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

Most poor people these days live in suburban "blight". Or rural "blight".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Show me a walkable, “15-minute” municipality, the kind where you can walk to a large grocery store, that has good ZONED (read: not magnet, charter or lottery) with excellent k-12 public schools, and I’ll show you 20 that don’t have that.

They exist in Europe, a land with fairly tight immigration.

Anonymous wrote:Show me a walkable, “15-minute” municipality, the kind where you can walk to a large grocery store, that has good ZONED (read: not magnet, charter or lottery) with excellent k-12 public schools, and I’ll show you 20 that don’t have that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Most poor people these days live in suburban "blight". Or rural "blight".

They live in their own litter, crime, noise, random objects on porches & filth.

Anonymous wrote:

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

Most poor people these days live in suburban "blight". Or rural "blight".

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

Anonymous wrote: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.