3 ms·

I hear this a lot -- this notion that suburbs are some sort of artificially propped up and sustained artifact of automobile life -- and I wonder how people can

by ergo98 16y ago

I hear this a lot -- this notion that suburbs are some sort of artificially propped up and sustained artifact of automobile life -- and I wonder how people can ignore the overwhelming historical evidence to the contrary. Virtually every large pre-automobile city had a very similar population density distribution to modern cities, albeit with a gentler distribution curve. Usually the poor clustered densely together in the center, the wealthy layered out in decreased density patterns (essentially suburbs), and then the rural areas surrounded. The desire for a bit of space and not to be around quite as many people -- aside from being simply more hygienic and less fragile -- goes back through time, just as it exists today. I don't want to live in a 500 sq. ft condo and like it. I don't want to cluster in crowds everything I do. And if you do find yourself living in some shady little inner-city apartment, don't fall to the classic justification pattern of suddenly pretending that you're doing the world a favour. You aren't.

philwelch 16y ago
We all want different things. For instance, I would like to have a way to get around that didn't involve a non-negligible risk of death, the stress of spending an hour or two trapped in a metal box on a congested freeway, the complete isolation from the surrounding environment, or the desolate, isolating distance between various places I may want to go. I would also like having shops near where I live instead of across town. It would be a nice bonus if I could get along without spending thousands of dollars of borrowed money on a depreciating asset, or spending hundreds of dollars a month to maintain, insure, and operate it. But only one of us has had their desires subsidized by various levels of government for decades. That's you, so I guess you already win. You even get the right add insult to injury by calling it "social engineering" when someone asks them to stop.
- ergo98 16y ago
  You've pretty much covered the gamut of ridiculous urbanism hyperbole, so there's that. >But only one of us has had their desires subsidized by various levels of government for decades. This is almost comically wrong, but given the ridiculous hyperbole you engage in, you won't be convinced otherwise.
  - philwelch 16y ago
    Ridicule isn't very convincing. What exactly are you disagreeing with? Did you only spend hundreds of dollars on your car and maybe a few dozen a month for gas, insurance, and (amortized) repairs and maintenance? Have you never lived anywhere with chronic traffic jams? Have you never noticed the statistics on traffic accidents? Or do you think roads are paid for by pixie dust and good wishes? Also, why are my personal desires "urbanist hyperbole" while yours are, evidently, something I should be forced to not only pay for, but live in myself?
    - ergo98 16y ago
      It isn't ridicule. It's a simple statement of fact that you're so far down the justify-my-life hyperbole well (you sound like any early-20 year old living in a tiny dump downtown) that you won't be convinced to the contrary. And I don't want to live in a dirty, squalid, crime-filled ghetto of overcrowding and limited accommodation that is the city. Of course that's hyperbole, but given that I'm responding to a guy who referred to suburbs as "the desolate, isolating distance between various places", it sounds like it's the colour of the argument. Of course, I like driving in my comfortable, air-conditioned, very safe vehicle (without the risks of dangers and olfactory offenses of public transit -- again, just borrowing some of your style) while listening to music of my own choice. >something I should be forced to not only pay for Yes, you've covered this again and again. It turns out that in a modern society all of us pay for a lot of things that we don't personally benefit from. I pay towards mass transit that I don't use. I pay towards welfare that I don't use. I pay towards police that aren't policing me, and doctors that aren't tending to me. I pay for arts facilities that I don't use, and sports facilities that I don't play at. That's aggregate living for you. Of course cities simply can't exist without the transportation networks around them (the products and foods that you exist on most certainly weren't made locally), so your argument smells a little more ripe. Let me make it totally clear that I engaged in this discussion with a full expectation of being downvoted (even for absolute statements of fact such as the reason for parking space regulations). People who live in the suburbs generally just enjoy life. People who live in the city sit online justifying why living in the city is the ideal form of existence.

by ergo98 16y ago

philwelch 16y ago

We all want different things. For instance, I would like to have a way to get around that didn't involve a non-negligible risk of death, the stress of spending an hour or two trapped in a metal box on a congested freeway, the complete isolation from the surrounding environment, or the desolate, isolating distance between various places I may want to go. I would also like having shops near where I live instead of across town. It would be a nice bonus if I could get along without spending thousands of dollars of borrowed money on a depreciating asset, or spending hundreds of dollars a month to maintain, insure, and operate it. But only one of us has had their desires subsidized by various levels of government for decades. That's you, so I guess you already win. You even get the right add insult to injury by calling it "social engineering" when someone asks them to stop.

ergo98 16y ago
You've pretty much covered the gamut of ridiculous urbanism hyperbole, so there's that. >But only one of us has had their desires subsidized by various levels of government for decades. This is almost comically wrong, but given the ridiculous hyperbole you engage in, you won't be convinced otherwise.
- philwelch 16y ago
  Ridicule isn't very convincing. What exactly are you disagreeing with? Did you only spend hundreds of dollars on your car and maybe a few dozen a month for gas, insurance, and (amortized) repairs and maintenance? Have you never lived anywhere with chronic traffic jams? Have you never noticed the statistics on traffic accidents? Or do you think roads are paid for by pixie dust and good wishes? Also, why are my personal desires "urbanist hyperbole" while yours are, evidently, something I should be forced to not only pay for, but live in myself?
  - ergo98 16y ago
    It isn't ridicule. It's a simple statement of fact that you're so far down the justify-my-life hyperbole well (you sound like any early-20 year old living in a tiny dump downtown) that you won't be convinced to the contrary. And I don't want to live in a dirty, squalid, crime-filled ghetto of overcrowding and limited accommodation that is the city. Of course that's hyperbole, but given that I'm responding to a guy who referred to suburbs as "the desolate, isolating distance between various places", it sounds like it's the colour of the argument. Of course, I like driving in my comfortable, air-conditioned, very safe vehicle (without the risks of dangers and olfactory offenses of public transit -- again, just borrowing some of your style) while listening to music of my own choice. >something I should be forced to not only pay for Yes, you've covered this again and again. It turns out that in a modern society all of us pay for a lot of things that we don't personally benefit from. I pay towards mass transit that I don't use. I pay towards welfare that I don't use. I pay towards police that aren't policing me, and doctors that aren't tending to me. I pay for arts facilities that I don't use, and sports facilities that I don't play at. That's aggregate living for you. Of course cities simply can't exist without the transportation networks around them (the products and foods that you exist on most certainly weren't made locally), so your argument smells a little more ripe. Let me make it totally clear that I engaged in this discussion with a full expectation of being downvoted (even for absolute statements of fact such as the reason for parking space regulations). People who live in the suburbs generally just enjoy life. People who live in the city sit online justifying why living in the city is the ideal form of existence.