4 ms·

I hear the latter from plenty of YIMBY organizations. Even in so-called urban cores, there are often strict restrictions on what you can build, and demand exist

by geofft 6y ago

I hear the latter from plenty of YIMBY organizations. Even in so-called urban cores, there are often strict restrictions on what you can build, and demand exists for bland modern apartment tower blocks but they just can't be built. There are often rules on maximum height, mandatory parking (pointed out in the article), design / "character" requirements, etc. Getting rid of zoning and review processes and letting the market take care of things is exactly what folks are calling for. But more generally I don't understand your complaint. You're saying that people should not advocate for changing how the suburbs work, because if people wanted to change how the suburbs work, they would advocate for it? Like, I'm sorry you feel that a claim of fact comes with an attitude, but it's a testable, refutable claim. Do you think the claim is wrong? Or do you just not like it?

IG_Semmelweiss 6y ago
Correct > I'd like to hear about people with skin in the game, meaning residents or people tied to that land, about what they are looking to do, boots on the ground style, to change the situation they are in. Not some outsider having an opinion on it with no stake in the outcome. For example, if the academic was calling certain things he has an opinion on, about how to make things better, and to be done in the city of New York (presumably where he lives) then he would be a lot more credible.
- geofft 6y ago
  But... people can move? I live in New York because it's where I can get a one-person home in a walkable neighborhood with good transit. If I could get that in a suburb, I'd be happy to live somewhere cheaper! What is so offensive about saying that people like me exist in large numbers? Also... the point of academics is to study and report on things they're not personally involved with? The article specifically talks about how these changes are already happening, driven by actual residents of the suburbs, and the academics found that there was little awareness of them and wanted to make more people aware of it.
  - IG_Semmelweiss 6y ago
    With respect to moving, shouldn't the burden of changing something to presumably make something better, fall on people willing to take a risk, though ? There is nothing offensive with you moving, yet the point of what is offensive was better explained by user theNJR >>> the point of academics is to study and report on things they're not personally involved with? This is right if we make distinctions on scientists vs academics. Academics opine on things with no risk to themselves and usually what they report is a test that cannot be reproduced scientifically. Scientists present facts on which they personally have a stake on (for example, a microbiologist studying a dangerous bacteria; a chemist trying not to accidentally blow up, etc) . To your point, you are correct RE: academic reporting. My argument is that maybe we should listen with a high degree of skepticism when such people talk. It doesn't completely invalidate any report (although in this example, there's no data to back assertions) , but as with most things from academics go, they are usually not testable, so. (What people say and people do are different things)

by geofft 6y ago

IG_Semmelweiss 6y ago

Correct > I'd like to hear about people with skin in the game, meaning residents or people tied to that land, about what they are looking to do, boots on the ground style, to change the situation they are in. Not some outsider having an opinion on it with no stake in the outcome. For example, if the academic was calling certain things he has an opinion on, about how to make things better, and to be done in the city of New York (presumably where he lives) then he would be a lot more credible.

geofft 6y ago
But... people can move? I live in New York because it's where I can get a one-person home in a walkable neighborhood with good transit. If I could get that in a suburb, I'd be happy to live somewhere cheaper! What is so offensive about saying that people like me exist in large numbers? Also... the point of academics is to study and report on things they're not personally involved with? The article specifically talks about how these changes are already happening, driven by actual residents of the suburbs, and the academics found that there was little awareness of them and wanted to make more people aware of it.
- IG_Semmelweiss 6y ago
  With respect to moving, shouldn't the burden of changing something to presumably make something better, fall on people willing to take a risk, though ? There is nothing offensive with you moving, yet the point of what is offensive was better explained by user theNJR >>> the point of academics is to study and report on things they're not personally involved with? This is right if we make distinctions on scientists vs academics. Academics opine on things with no risk to themselves and usually what they report is a test that cannot be reproduced scientifically. Scientists present facts on which they personally have a stake on (for example, a microbiologist studying a dangerous bacteria; a chemist trying not to accidentally blow up, etc) . To your point, you are correct RE: academic reporting. My argument is that maybe we should listen with a high degree of skepticism when such people talk. It doesn't completely invalidate any report (although in this example, there's no data to back assertions) , but as with most things from academics go, they are usually not testable, so. (What people say and people do are different things)