3 ms·

> these same people would protest because it would “destroy the character of the neighborhood.” It's not the same people. The bikes-and-trains people understan

> these same people would protest because it would “destroy the character of the neighborhood.” It's not the same people. The bikes-and-trains people understand and accept that America's suburbs are not fit for purpose and would require radical redevelopment to be even remotely green[0]. They want to vaporize the zoning code to allow this to happen. The NIMBYs who are shouting about neighborhood character specifically want to keep their cars and lawns, and think all the environmental problems America has are someone else's fault. People are suspect of quick-fix solutions because we've had decades of being sold quick-fix solutions (plastic recycling, clean coal, electric vehicles) when climate change and environmental damage are complicated, multivariate problems. TBH I have been skeptical of degrowth's left-wing credentials. I'm not entirely sure how we retain democracy without unbounded economic growth when... a) Human society has an unlimited capacity for elite propagation[1] b) Elites will absolutely cannibalize the rest of us if further growth is not possible [0] No, having a green lawn does not make your house green. [1] Gestures vaguely at The Tyranny of Structurelessness

throw0101a 3y ago
> The NIMBYs who are shouting about neighborhood character specifically want to keep their cars and lawns, and think all the environmental problems America has are someone else's fault. Oh The Urbanity! has a good (7m) video, 'The Problem of “Neighborhood Character”': * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bkC8YlBxoM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bkC8YlBxoM
api 3y ago
Rationally speaking the NIMBYs and pro-transit urbanists should not be the same people but people often hold absurdly contradictory views. I recall meeting people in California who were anti-development and wanted California to be a “sanctuary state” for immigrants and LGBTQ people who feel unwelcome elsewhere. So where will they live? Usually a complicated answer that boiled down to “not next to me.” The suburbs probably can’t be as efficient as dense cities but they can be improved. The gap is also not as huge as you might think. A lot of a person’s footprint is in the food they eat and the stuff they buy not their house. People in cities still eat and buy things. I agree that degrowth won’t work out well in any currently understood political system for numerous reasons. The “continued growth is impossible” argument is built on the fallacy that growth must equal increased resource use when in advanced economies these have been decoupling for a while. The real limits to growth probably relate to the physical limits on the information density of mass-energy. How much value can exist per unit of “stuff?” Then there are things like space flight but I’m not even sure you have to go there.

throw0101a 3y ago

> The NIMBYs who are shouting about neighborhood character specifically want to keep their cars and lawns, and think all the environmental problems America has are someone else's fault. Oh The Urbanity! has a good (7m) video, 'The Problem of “Neighborhood Character”': * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bkC8YlBxoM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bkC8YlBxoM

api 3y ago

Rationally speaking the NIMBYs and pro-transit urbanists should not be the same people but people often hold absurdly contradictory views. I recall meeting people in California who were anti-development and wanted California to be a “sanctuary state” for immigrants and LGBTQ people who feel unwelcome elsewhere. So where will they live? Usually a complicated answer that boiled down to “not next to me.” The suburbs probably can’t be as efficient as dense cities but they can be improved. The gap is also not as huge as you might think. A lot of a person’s footprint is in the food they eat and the stuff they buy not their house. People in cities still eat and buy things. I agree that degrowth won’t work out well in any currently understood political system for numerous reasons. The “continued growth is impossible” argument is built on the fallacy that growth must equal increased resource use when in advanced economies these have been decoupling for a while. The real limits to growth probably relate to the physical limits on the information density of mass-energy. How much value can exist per unit of “stuff?” Then there are things like space flight but I’m not even sure you have to go there.