3 ms·

I agree. Today’s “urbanists” are so very opinionated and unable to process or accept that not everyone wants to live in their version of the world. Cities with

I agree. Today’s “urbanists” are so very opinionated and unable to process or accept that not everyone wants to live in their version of the world. Cities with lesser density have many quality of life benefits and cultural differences that denser cities cannot replicate. The correct question is indeed “should LA urbanize” and my answer is “no”. I suspect most Angelenos would agree. Here in Seattle, most long time Seattleites also don’t want it to urbanize further and turn into another SF. The urbanists, however, are quite vocal and will likely continue to push for their monoculture, a one size fits all recipe on how everyone everywhere should live. I really wish they would accept that different people and different locales have different ways of doing things, and that this is a good thing.

ajmurmann 7y ago
Another SF? Most problems SF has are because it's refusing to urbanize.
- throwawaysea 7y ago
  I feel this is a narrow perspective because it focuses on a subset of problems and doesn’t recognize all the other problems of benefits that are in the balance. Low density living is great for many of us - the open spaces and air gives the city a certain aesthetic, and it does create a certain culture and sense of community that has been disappearing as the city has changed in the last several years. I would like to see us retain those things.
- keiferski 7y ago
  This person meant from the perspective of the original SF inhabitants. 50-60 years ago, before the tech industry moved in, SF was sort of a weird, sleepy counter-cultural city where hippies and Beats hung out. Sort of like: a crowd of people moves into your house, making it uncomfortably overcrowded. You refuse to build an extension to the house in order to give everyone more space, as it would destroy the architectural reasons that made you wanted to live there in the first place. Who’s at fault? Tough question. It’s unclear if urbanization trends made this inevitable or if there are/were better ways to deal with gentrification.

ajmurmann 7y ago

Another SF? Most problems SF has are because it's refusing to urbanize.

throwawaysea 7y ago
I feel this is a narrow perspective because it focuses on a subset of problems and doesn’t recognize all the other problems of benefits that are in the balance. Low density living is great for many of us - the open spaces and air gives the city a certain aesthetic, and it does create a certain culture and sense of community that has been disappearing as the city has changed in the last several years. I would like to see us retain those things.
keiferski 7y ago
This person meant from the perspective of the original SF inhabitants. 50-60 years ago, before the tech industry moved in, SF was sort of a weird, sleepy counter-cultural city where hippies and Beats hung out. Sort of like: a crowd of people moves into your house, making it uncomfortably overcrowded. You refuse to build an extension to the house in order to give everyone more space, as it would destroy the architectural reasons that made you wanted to live there in the first place. Who’s at fault? Tough question. It’s unclear if urbanization trends made this inevitable or if there are/were better ways to deal with gentrification.