3 ms·
Why does everything that isn't maximal urbanism have to have some nefarious motivation to it? Maybe people just want privacy, a certain architectural aesthetic
by nitrogen 5y ago
Why does everything that isn't maximal urbanism have to have some nefarious motivation to it? Maybe people just want privacy, a certain architectural aesthetic, and a lifestyle that isn't possible with overcrowding.
- wait_a_minute 5y agoit’s easier to control people if they’re all living inside a huge city.
- jazzyjackson 5y agoI have no idea what kind of control you're insinuating.
- ipaddr 5y agoFrom recent history covid lockdowns come to mind.
- bcrosby95 5y agoMost people are just pissed (me included) that in the vast majority of the US it's literally illegal to build housing and neighborhoods that many of us would like to live in.
- ipaddr 5y agoIt is not illegal to build housing in the vast majority of the US. Building neighbourhoods in existing cities takes city approval. You may want to throw up condos on the waterfront or knockdown low income housing to put up your storefront or build low rises on farms. Those ideas could work but your low rises need millions of dollars of work to get pumping,electrical,fiber. Removing low income housing or building condos in front of the waterfront has tradeoffs for society as a whole you must be weighted. Most people understand this on some level and are not pissed off.
- cheriot 5y agoMost residential zoned land is single family house exclusive. Allow development there and there's no need to knock down low income housing or sprawl over green space. But that's not the choice municipalities make. The municipal financial argument doesn't hold water. Urban areas generate tax revenue beyond their cost of infrastructure.
- cheriot 5y agoIt takes a certain motivation look at modern segregation and say, "but my aesthetic."