5 ms·
Yes I know that last line is the only socially acceptable thing to say. But when the money meets the real estate contract, most people won't live that way unle
by VLM 10y ago
Yes I know that last line is the only socially acceptable thing to say. But when the money meets the real estate contract, most people won't live that way unless laws are passed to force them to live that way, to prevent suburbia, to destroy existing suburban areas.
We both agree there is only one politically correct opinion for the only "correct" lifestyle. Pointing out that most people don't like it, don't live it, and will not tolerate laws to annihilate their current lifestyle, is useful in that there's no real point in talking about legally working to destroy the suburbs when so many people like it there as opposed to the very small number in the city.
No matter how many people post on HN about how they love the city and the burbs must be destroyed by any means necessary legal or otherwise, meanwhile ten real estate contracts were signed by people upgrading to the burbs. Obviously whatever strategy is being used for urban boosterism is socially popular yet in a practical business sense is a complete economic failure.
- yarrel 10y agoYou are confusing being unable to pay with desire. They are very different things.
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago> most people don't like it, don't live it, and will not tolerate [urban density] Some don't and won't. But others do. I live in a small apartment in the centre of Manhattan. I measure my commute in minutes, and that only because I choose to detour to the many coffee, tea, bagel, juice and breakfast-ramen-in-a-cup shops nearby. My laundry gets picked and dropped off for free, maintenance is someone else's worry and I have an abundance of city services available to me (for which I pay out the nose for through taxes). Going home to my parents' suburbia is relaxing but not how I'd like to live. These perks I enjoy--diverse people, foods and cultural experiences nearby--are a function of density. Give us city folk more space and you reduce the number of customers within walking distance of each store, reducing their carrying capacities, thereby changing the fundamental dynamic that gives cosmopolitan life its colour. This isn't for everyone. But lots of people willingly--aspirationally, even--move to cities. Note that chateau life is costly--many Americans don't see why their taxes should subsidise it. (Particularly when it appears to be low-income Americans paying for richer Americans' suburbs [1].) Democratic debate is how we'll find a balance. [1] https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason-your-city-has-no-money https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason...
- skewart 10y agoWhat are these laws forcing people to live in cities or somehow aimed at destroying suburbia? In reality, the laws that do exist tend to be aimed at trying to force people to live in suburbia and _not_ a dense city. Lots of municipalities ban density - either out-right or through absurd minimum parking requirements and other design specifications that severely limit what people can build on their land. Plus decades of transportation planning, and current funding decisions, have been aimed at undermining urban neighborhoods in favor of suburban sprawl. In general, people who advocate for legal reform to facilitate more urban living are saying there should be _less_ regulation and government intervention into how people live and what they do with their land. Of course some people want to live in suburbia. That's great. No one is trying to stop them. The tens of millions of people who want to live in dense walkable neighborhoods are sick of people trying to stop them.
- Symbiote 10y agoIf you think I'm distorting what I write to appear socially acceptable, the discussion is pointless.