4 ms·

There are many people, usually in so-called "urban planing" positions in cities, that believe that suburbs are something that shouldn't exist. They detest the o

• TulliusCicero 10y ago
  No, they detest what suburbs are in the US. Which, besides all the problems mentioned in the article, are often funded via a Ponzi scheme of development: http://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme/ http://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme/
  • jayess 10y ago
    Your completely un-sourced article has nothing to do with the OP article, which detests the option of people living in suburbs. Do suburbs pay for themselves? Maybe, maybe not. But you can't also then turn around and argue for cities that have massively subsidized transit systems that themselves, despite the massive subsidies, are breaking down and crappy.
    • TulliusCicero 10y ago
      > Your completely un-sourced article has nothing to do with the OP article Yes, you noticed that I was addressing something in your comment rather than the OP, good job on noticing the obvious. > which detests the option of people living in suburbs. He does not, in fact, detest the option of people living in suburbs. He detests American suburban design. I'm sure he would love to live in a more European-style suburb, but in most of America (and especially somewhere like Atlanta) they don't even exist. > But you can't also then turn around and argue for cities that have massively subsidized transit systems that themselves, despite the massive subsidies, are breaking down and crappy. Wow, way to completely misunderstand both transit and sprawly American suburbs. Here, let me explain it to you: Transit is subsidized, yes. So are roads built for cars, so are sidewalks and bike lanes. Every form of transport is paid for by taxes. Property taxes are ostensibly designed to support the extra services and infrastructure that more people and businesses require. If the replacement cost of infrastructure for a new suburban development is greater than the amount of tax revenue those suburbs bring in, when it comes time to replace that stuff, the city will go into the red. Meaning, either it draws the revenue from somewhere else, likely the more economically productive urban core (or even more development, furthering the problem), or it goes bankrupt. That's not good!
      • dang 10y ago
        This comment breaks the HN guidelines by being uncivil ('good job on noticing the obvious', 'Wow, way to completely misunderstand'). Please edit this kind of thing out of your comments here. We want thoughtful, substantive discourse on HN, and nothing corrodes that more than personal abrasiveness. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
        • TulliusCicero 10y ago
          Understood. Apologies for my tone. Actually it appears I can't edit my comment anymore.
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• abalashov 10y ago
  If there were so many people in such positions who held that view, the inhabited areas of the US wouldn't be 90% sprawl.