3 ms·

> Living in the suburbs doesn't mean you avoid the sardines feeling You're not wrong, but I'm not sure it's really relevant to what I'm saying. So what, some s

> Living in the suburbs doesn't mean you avoid the sardines feeling You're not wrong, but I'm not sure it's really relevant to what I'm saying. So what, some suburbs aren't ideal to my particular way of life? Yeah? So? > Cars aren't manifestly bad, but that kind of neighborhood is. sigh...

wtallis 13y ago
Do you care to elaborate on the "sigh" with any actual discussion? It seems you're trying to portray any detractors of suburbs as radical tree-huggers, whilst ignoring the fact that the kind of suburban sprawl happening today has a ton of other downsides, and fails to even meet your own standards for a nice neighborhood. Edit: To give you some context, I live on the opposite side of town from the neighborhood I linked to. My neighborhood is much lower-density than that one, but while still unquestionably suburban, has schools and a large variety of shops within walking distance and safely accessible by foot and greenways and bike routes leading toward the city centers. My neighborhood was built in the 1970s. There are similar neighborhoods in the area covering a broad range of density and property values. We don't even have a mass-transit system worth mentioning, but it's still a much better place for getting around without a car. Yes, suburbs can be done well. But at least in my area, the new residential development is mostly comically tragic, and it's affecting what people mean by suburban sprawl.
- burntsushi 13y ago
  The "sigh" was because it seems my point was missed. The particulars of what I happen to enjoy as a living arrangement are borderline irrelevant. The point I was making is that a bunch of people are pushing their way of life on to others (through sin taxes and policy changes and the like) based on the premise that their way of life is obviously superior. I'm saying the dual of "my way of life is better." Someone else brought up that there are subsidies supporting my way of life though. I'm fine with removing those. But I personally haven't seen that position advocated in this thread. So I didn't account for it. > radical tree-huggers Radical tree huggers? Come now. No need for the flamebait. I love nature. I frequent it whenever I get the chance. But I don't feel entitled to it wherever I happen to be. > whilst ignoring the fact that the kind of suburban sprawl happening today has a ton of other downsides, and fails to even meet your own standards for a nice neighborhood. I didn't ignore anything. I never said suburbs were always the best. I didn't even say that I prefer every suburb to any city. I didn't speak with exact precision because the details of "my way of life" weren't crucial to my point. I didn't say any of this because I never argued that suburbs were, in any way, shape or form better than cities. I merely stated that I prefer them. And that's enough.
  - wtallis 13y ago
    You're making a false dichotomy, between the urban no-car life you don't want, and the suburbs that make it impossible to get anywhere without a car. A happy middle ground is possible and exists in many places, and can be done without much extra effort, but it requires some. Zoning regulations and the like have proven to be insufficient for preventing developers from throwing down several square miles of cookie-cutter homes at a time embedded in a fractal maze of cul-de-sacs with no room for commercial development, meaning those neighborhoods end up car-mandatory and impossible to service with mass transit even when they're very dense. There are plenty of sound public policy reasons for wanting alternative forms of transportation to be viable, so even if it feels like someone shoving their way of life down your throat, it'll still probably save you tax money in the long run even if it has to be achieved through blunt means like "sin taxes". Edit: Many of the subsidies the car-only lifestyle gets are really negative externalities the burden of which is shared by everyone: the public health nightmare of obesity, pollution in the form of smog and runoff, political downsides of dependence on oil. How could those be dealt with in a way that doesn't feel to you like an unjust sin tax or someone forcing their way of life on you?
    - burntsushi 13y ago
      I'm sorry I gave you the impression that I think there are only two options. I don't think that. I don't think my way of life is better. I don't think yours is. I just want people to stop saying their way of life is obviously better (even if it is some sort of middle ground), and that because of that, we should just start taxing people for doing things they don't happen to like. If you feel the desire to press me more for my view on taxes (because you perceive some inconsistency), and in general, government, then I implore you not to. It's a waste of time, and in all probability, we will vehemently disagree.
      - wtallis 13y ago
        When I've been saying "better" here, I'm using it in the sense of Pareto efficiency - more preferred even by people with different preferences. I'm not imposing a single linear scale along which to rank things. If you don't think taxation or other government intervention are justified in order to achieve a Pareto improvement that the free market demonstrably cannot achieve on its own, then yeah, talking government with you is a waste of time.
- burntsushi 13y ago
  [responding to your edit] I truthfully don't see anything to disagree with you there. I think it'd be fantastic to live in a small town with good public transit (even if only good bike paths). There are unfortunately few of them where I live (central Massachusetts). Hell, I love a good bike path. I've been on the one up in Burlington, VT. It's awesome. Same with paths in Amherst and around Cambridge. But the fact that I can walk/bike/scooter down to the corner pub in my little town has very very little to do with why I have a car. For example, my parents live about 25 minutes away. Some of my good friends live 35 minutes away. When I visit, it's common for me to lug stuff back and forth (whether it be food or other various items). My job is about 45-60 minutes away in the city. (That's by car. Want to know how long it'd take with public transit? Over two hours. And it's just as expensive as owning a car!) There's just no viable way for me to do that with anything other than a car. And some day, when kids get added to the mix, I fret to think of how much more difficult it would be without a car. Hell, I even live in walking distance to the T! (That's the commuter rail that goes from Worcester to Boston.)

wtallis 13y ago

Do you care to elaborate on the "sigh" with any actual discussion? It seems you're trying to portray any detractors of suburbs as radical tree-huggers, whilst ignoring the fact that the kind of suburban sprawl happening today has a ton of other downsides, and fails to even meet your own standards for a nice neighborhood. Edit: To give you some context, I live on the opposite side of town from the neighborhood I linked to. My neighborhood is much lower-density than that one, but while still unquestionably suburban, has schools and a large variety of shops within walking distance and safely accessible by foot and greenways and bike routes leading toward the city centers. My neighborhood was built in the 1970s. There are similar neighborhoods in the area covering a broad range of density and property values. We don't even have a mass-transit system worth mentioning, but it's still a much better place for getting around without a car. Yes, suburbs can be done well. But at least in my area, the new residential development is mostly comically tragic, and it's affecting what people mean by suburban sprawl.

burntsushi 13y ago
The "sigh" was because it seems my point was missed. The particulars of what I happen to enjoy as a living arrangement are borderline irrelevant. The point I was making is that a bunch of people are pushing their way of life on to others (through sin taxes and policy changes and the like) based on the premise that their way of life is obviously superior. I'm saying the dual of "my way of life is better." Someone else brought up that there are subsidies supporting my way of life though. I'm fine with removing those. But I personally haven't seen that position advocated in this thread. So I didn't account for it. > radical tree-huggers Radical tree huggers? Come now. No need for the flamebait. I love nature. I frequent it whenever I get the chance. But I don't feel entitled to it wherever I happen to be. > whilst ignoring the fact that the kind of suburban sprawl happening today has a ton of other downsides, and fails to even meet your own standards for a nice neighborhood. I didn't ignore anything. I never said suburbs were always the best. I didn't even say that I prefer every suburb to any city. I didn't speak with exact precision because the details of "my way of life" weren't crucial to my point. I didn't say any of this because I never argued that suburbs were, in any way, shape or form better than cities. I merely stated that I prefer them. And that's enough.
- wtallis 13y ago
  You're making a false dichotomy, between the urban no-car life you don't want, and the suburbs that make it impossible to get anywhere without a car. A happy middle ground is possible and exists in many places, and can be done without much extra effort, but it requires some. Zoning regulations and the like have proven to be insufficient for preventing developers from throwing down several square miles of cookie-cutter homes at a time embedded in a fractal maze of cul-de-sacs with no room for commercial development, meaning those neighborhoods end up car-mandatory and impossible to service with mass transit even when they're very dense. There are plenty of sound public policy reasons for wanting alternative forms of transportation to be viable, so even if it feels like someone shoving their way of life down your throat, it'll still probably save you tax money in the long run even if it has to be achieved through blunt means like "sin taxes". Edit: Many of the subsidies the car-only lifestyle gets are really negative externalities the burden of which is shared by everyone: the public health nightmare of obesity, pollution in the form of smog and runoff, political downsides of dependence on oil. How could those be dealt with in a way that doesn't feel to you like an unjust sin tax or someone forcing their way of life on you?
  - burntsushi 13y ago
    I'm sorry I gave you the impression that I think there are only two options. I don't think that. I don't think my way of life is better. I don't think yours is. I just want people to stop saying their way of life is obviously better (even if it is some sort of middle ground), and that because of that, we should just start taxing people for doing things they don't happen to like. If you feel the desire to press me more for my view on taxes (because you perceive some inconsistency), and in general, government, then I implore you not to. It's a waste of time, and in all probability, we will vehemently disagree.
    - wtallis 13y ago
      When I've been saying "better" here, I'm using it in the sense of Pareto efficiency - more preferred even by people with different preferences. I'm not imposing a single linear scale along which to rank things. If you don't think taxation or other government intervention are justified in order to achieve a Pareto improvement that the free market demonstrably cannot achieve on its own, then yeah, talking government with you is a waste of time.
burntsushi 13y ago
[responding to your edit] I truthfully don't see anything to disagree with you there. I think it'd be fantastic to live in a small town with good public transit (even if only good bike paths). There are unfortunately few of them where I live (central Massachusetts). Hell, I love a good bike path. I've been on the one up in Burlington, VT. It's awesome. Same with paths in Amherst and around Cambridge. But the fact that I can walk/bike/scooter down to the corner pub in my little town has very very little to do with why I have a car. For example, my parents live about 25 minutes away. Some of my good friends live 35 minutes away. When I visit, it's common for me to lug stuff back and forth (whether it be food or other various items). My job is about 45-60 minutes away in the city. (That's by car. Want to know how long it'd take with public transit? Over two hours. And it's just as expensive as owning a car!) There's just no viable way for me to do that with anything other than a car. And some day, when kids get added to the mix, I fret to think of how much more difficult it would be without a car. Hell, I even live in walking distance to the T! (That's the commuter rail that goes from Worcester to Boston.)