4 ms·

Correct. However, I do partly disagree with avianlyric: > I guess I’m confused why people wouldn’t want this. > Visiting the U.S. I’m honestly bamboozled that

by db48x 3y ago

Correct. However, I do partly disagree with avianlyric: > I guess I’m confused why people wouldn’t want this. > Visiting the U.S. I’m honestly bamboozled that people seem to want… It is very parochial to believe that everyone will want the same things as you. Some people want open fields of wildflowers, farmland, pastures, creeks, shady forests, mountain paths, and perhaps a few neighbors. You can’t get any of that in an urban area. Yes, you might find parks and shaded avenues in a nice urban area, but those are a far cry from real nature. Many others want to live in a suburban area. They want everything within 15 minutes walk of them to be a school, or a church, or a neighbor’s house. They want to sit in the back yard with a cold drink on a hot day and hear children playing near by, with the drone of a lawn mower in the distance. They want to build a deck there in the back yard, and invite their friends over for dinner on that deck. They want to plant an oak tree when they move in, and one day hang a rope swing from it for their grandchildren to swing on. For these people, driving to a grocery store and parking in parking lots are just things they put up with in order to get what they really want.

avianlyric 3y ago
> It is very parochial to believe that everyone will want the same things as you. I appreciate the point you make, and I certainly don’t believe that everyone wants the same things I do. But I also think that it’s false dichotomy to say you can either have walkability or you can have cars and car parks. That’s simply not true. The Netherlands has plenty of fantastic examples of cities, towns, villages, business parks and industrial areas that are all friendly to pedestrians and bikes, and not just endless slabs of asphalt. Plentiful public transport, that makes it easy to get anywhere without a car. I personally don’t accept the idea that cars are essential for people to have options in their living environments, to say they are just strikes me as an immense lack of imagination. > For these people, driving to a grocery store and parking in parking lots are just things they put up with in order to get what they really want. Your point here would carry more weight, if it was legal in the U.S. to build anything except huge empty suburbs, with soulless car park shops miles away. US planning law simply doesn’t allow any other form of building, so people can’t choose anything else. There are obviously small fragments of the U.S. that buck this trend, built before modern planning laws, but there’s so much demand for them, only the wealthiest can afford to live there.
- db48x 3y ago
  >> For these people, driving to a grocery store and parking in parking lots are just things they put up with in order to get what they really want. > Your point here would carry more weight, if it was legal in the U.S. to build anything except huge empty suburbs, with soulless car park shops miles away. This is completely and utterly false. Any laws governing what can and cannot be built are entirely _local_. There are no laws that govern construction on a national scale, or even a state–wide scale. And you are the one that judges a suburb to be “empty”, and the parking lots to be “soulless”. That is just your opinion; not everyone shares it. The majority of people in America prefer suburbs precisely because it maximizes the type of neighborhood that they want and choose to live in.
  - avianlyric 3y ago
    The US use a zoning systems almost to the exclusion of any form of planning system, and pretty simple zoning systems at that. As a general rule the zoning systems simply don't allow mix used zones, you simply can't build a shop or business in a residential area. As a consequence you force a design where shops and homes must be kept physically separated, and usually with a significant distance between them. Are there exceptions to these patterns? Of course there are, but a general rule, zoning with no mixed used land areas is the only allowed development pattern. > The majority of people in America prefer suburbs precisely because it maximizes the type of neighborhood that they want and choose to live in. What are you basing this on? Just because it dominant doesn't mean people want. Stupidly expensive healthcare bills are dominant in the US, do you think people want that? Where mixed used developments exist in the US, demand far outstrips supply, resulting in crazy high house prices. Given the huge premium these developments command, you have ask the question, why doesn't more of it exist? People are willing to pay, so aren't other people taking that cash? Mixed used, walkable developments demand much higher $/sqft than suburban development does, and is cheaper to construct due to the density. So all the right market signals for medium and high density development exist, what's preventing the market from responding? > And you are the one that judges a suburb to be “empty”, and the parking lots to be “soulless”. That is just your opinion; not everyone shares it True, it's an opinion. But are you honestly trying to argue that Americans find parking lots soulful? I'm not sure what you find so exciting about a featureless slab of asphalt with some painted lines on it, but I've yet to encounter a parking lot with architectural protection, or awards for beauty.

by db48x 3y ago

avianlyric 3y ago

> It is very parochial to believe that everyone will want the same things as you. I appreciate the point you make, and I certainly don’t believe that everyone wants the same things I do. But I also think that it’s false dichotomy to say you can either have walkability or you can have cars and car parks. That’s simply not true. The Netherlands has plenty of fantastic examples of cities, towns, villages, business parks and industrial areas that are all friendly to pedestrians and bikes, and not just endless slabs of asphalt. Plentiful public transport, that makes it easy to get anywhere without a car. I personally don’t accept the idea that cars are essential for people to have options in their living environments, to say they are just strikes me as an immense lack of imagination. > For these people, driving to a grocery store and parking in parking lots are just things they put up with in order to get what they really want. Your point here would carry more weight, if it was legal in the U.S. to build anything except huge empty suburbs, with soulless car park shops miles away. US planning law simply doesn’t allow any other form of building, so people can’t choose anything else. There are obviously small fragments of the U.S. that buck this trend, built before modern planning laws, but there’s so much demand for them, only the wealthiest can afford to live there.

db48x 3y ago
>> For these people, driving to a grocery store and parking in parking lots are just things they put up with in order to get what they really want. > Your point here would carry more weight, if it was legal in the U.S. to build anything except huge empty suburbs, with soulless car park shops miles away. This is completely and utterly false. Any laws governing what can and cannot be built are entirely _local_. There are no laws that govern construction on a national scale, or even a state–wide scale. And you are the one that judges a suburb to be “empty”, and the parking lots to be “soulless”. That is just your opinion; not everyone shares it. The majority of people in America prefer suburbs precisely because it maximizes the type of neighborhood that they want and choose to live in.
- avianlyric 3y ago
  The US use a zoning systems almost to the exclusion of any form of planning system, and pretty simple zoning systems at that. As a general rule the zoning systems simply don't allow mix used zones, you simply can't build a shop or business in a residential area. As a consequence you force a design where shops and homes must be kept physically separated, and usually with a significant distance between them. Are there exceptions to these patterns? Of course there are, but a general rule, zoning with no mixed used land areas is the only allowed development pattern. > The majority of people in America prefer suburbs precisely because it maximizes the type of neighborhood that they want and choose to live in. What are you basing this on? Just because it dominant doesn't mean people want. Stupidly expensive healthcare bills are dominant in the US, do you think people want that? Where mixed used developments exist in the US, demand far outstrips supply, resulting in crazy high house prices. Given the huge premium these developments command, you have ask the question, why doesn't more of it exist? People are willing to pay, so aren't other people taking that cash? Mixed used, walkable developments demand much higher $/sqft than suburban development does, and is cheaper to construct due to the density. So all the right market signals for medium and high density development exist, what's preventing the market from responding? > And you are the one that judges a suburb to be “empty”, and the parking lots to be “soulless”. That is just your opinion; not everyone shares it True, it's an opinion. But are you honestly trying to argue that Americans find parking lots soulful? I'm not sure what you find so exciting about a featureless slab of asphalt with some painted lines on it, but I've yet to encounter a parking lot with architectural protection, or awards for beauty.