4 ms·

If you advocate for this kind of city to be built, despite not actually wanting to live there yourself, then all the people in your city who want this kind of c

If you advocate for this kind of city to be built, despite not actually wanting to live there yourself, then all the people in your city who want this kind of city will move there, leaving more space for you. The US has a shocking amount of uniformity in it's building styles, because most people don't want to live in the dense environment that is advocated in the article. I wish the people that didn't want to live in this kind of environment wouldn't simultaneously oppose it. Let it be built, let people move there who want to move there.

chc 9y ago
Dense cities already exist. People already live there. The OP even contains examples. As far as I can tell, what people are advocating for is to make existing cities harder (or impossible) to get around in when you're not on foot. I think that's why this meets with opposition.
- bluGill 9y ago
  No, what we are advocating is that we make more areas where people can get around their own neighborhood on foot. That it makes the neighborhood harder for outsiders to get around is a side effect. However the neighborhood doesn't need outsiders in this model.
- wonder_er 9y ago
  There's a group of people that believe that most current "dense cities" in the united states are very poorly designed. So, when you say "dense cities already exist", that group hears "your concerns are invalid/useless". Conversely, "making cities harder to get around when not on foot" also means "making cities easier to get around if you don't own a car". Individuals who live in cities and don't have a car are comfortable with this. Or, they live in cities and a car is not their dominant method of travel. This whole issue is extremely complex, and not amenable to a simple solution, like "making cities easier to get around on foot" or "make it easier to drive around a city". Jane Jacobs's "Death And Life of Great American Cities" is a fantastic (and beautifully written) exposé of the topic. Believe it or not, I finished the book this morning.

chc 9y ago

Dense cities already exist. People already live there. The OP even contains examples. As far as I can tell, what people are advocating for is to make existing cities harder (or impossible) to get around in when you're not on foot. I think that's why this meets with opposition.

bluGill 9y ago
No, what we are advocating is that we make more areas where people can get around their own neighborhood on foot. That it makes the neighborhood harder for outsiders to get around is a side effect. However the neighborhood doesn't need outsiders in this model.
wonder_er 9y ago
There's a group of people that believe that most current "dense cities" in the united states are very poorly designed. So, when you say "dense cities already exist", that group hears "your concerns are invalid/useless". Conversely, "making cities harder to get around when not on foot" also means "making cities easier to get around if you don't own a car". Individuals who live in cities and don't have a car are comfortable with this. Or, they live in cities and a car is not their dominant method of travel. This whole issue is extremely complex, and not amenable to a simple solution, like "making cities easier to get around on foot" or "make it easier to drive around a city". Jane Jacobs's "Death And Life of Great American Cities" is a fantastic (and beautifully written) exposé of the topic. Believe it or not, I finished the book this morning.