Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There's no objectivity in much of this forum - it is often nothing more than personal preferences.
1. You are right. There is a minority of people that "want" the housing you promote. Sounds like they found what they wanted. End of story.
2. They've been leaving cities for decades. I was on a plane that happened to have representatives from city of San Jose, CA and Austin, TX when the San Jose folks were trying to figure out what to do to stem the tide of talent fleeing San Jose. When the topic of housing prices (and what you got for the money) came up, their position was "forget it". Well that's probably the singular most important issue for many, many of the people fleeing - even if everything else was the same. No reason to pay 3-5 times as much and get a dump.
3. Seattle? Was that the CHAZ part or somewhere else? What a lovely place to live. The retail theft flash mobs and local government's tolerance of the same make national news regularly. Your argument is akin to arguing that numerosity is the same as popularity. That isn't true for people or cockroaches.
Chicago? Downtown? Why so specific as to "downtown"? Chicago and its metro have been losing population for years. Why is it particularly pertinent that one area within the metro had some increase when the net is decline?
Because it is only certain areas of Chicago that are losing population and others are gaining that's why and this is what you are not getting during this whole discussion, the granularity of the situation. Dense urban neighborhoods that have been kept in good shape or that have been revived are far from losing population in the US. On the opposite, they are gaining population and many Americans are noticing how great it could be to live in a neighborhood like this now. You are just falling for the propaganda of Randal O'Toole, who does a very superficial analysis and just like you has a personal issue with urbanism and not a rational one. Your entire vocabulary and the way you attack others who have differing opinions on a personal level is very revealing.
Because it is only certain areas of Chicago that are losing population and others are gaining that's why and this is what you are not getting during this whole discussion, the granularity of the situation.
Yeah Chicago and the metro it is located in lost population.
As far as "granularity", I have introduced you to that term on numerous occasions and you've never been receptive to the concept. You've also not been able to commit to definitions for city, urban, high density, etc. because all you want to do is argue. There is no argument that Chicago and its metro are losing population and have been for quite some time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stadtmensch
Dense urban neighborhoods that have been kept in good shape or that have been revived are far from losing population in the US. On the opposite, they are gaining population and many Americans are noticing how great it could be to live in a neighborhood like this now. You are just falling for the propaganda of Randal O'Toole, who does a very superficial analysis and just like you has a personal issue with urbanism and not a rational one. Your entire vocabulary and the way you attack others who have differing opinions on a personal level is very revealing.
It's not an "attack" to expect you to commit to a definition of the terms you are using. Your response is always evasive because you are only interested in argument - and it is important to you to be vague in order to perpetuate misinformation and argument.
For example, you refuse to define "dense" or "urban". So your claim that "dense urban neighborhoods...are far from losing population" is nothing more than meaningless dribble. The population is dispersing away from density even as it grows overall.
Regarding attacks, it was you under your various aliases who claimed Americans had houses that are too big, useless yards, too many personal possessions, their neighborhoods weren't designed to facilitate you bicycling through them, and a litany of other similar claims. You tried presenting your opinions as facts and repeatedly argued they were facts. You argued ad nauseam claiming German superiority on everything. Yet you claim folks are attacking you. What narcissism. Apparently you have finally conceded your personal preferences are just that. Congratulations on your evolution.
There's no objectivity in much of this forum - it is often nothing more than personal preferences.
Maybe but there are still facts that are represented through studies, surveys, and research. I'm more interested in discussing those than what your personal feelings are on how a person whose lifestyle doesn't affect you is wrong. The information you presented on MUDs and non-municipal utilities was good. Let's try to aim for that level of discussion.
Quote:
1. You are right. There is a minority of people that "want" the housing you promote. Sounds like they found what they wanted. End of story.
Couple of issues here:
1. I'm not promoting anything. I'm simply reading data as far as what the populace demands. I have said nothing about my personal preferences, which is different from you.
2. 42% of people surveyed on housing preference said they'd pick a smaller home with nearby amenities over a larger home with further amenities. A cursory glance at most U.S. cities would suggest that the demand for non single family homes has not been satisfied.
3. You said "Sounds like they found what they wanted." What data are you looking at that shows these folks found what they wanted?
Quote:
2. They've been leaving cities for decades. I was on a plane that happened to have representatives from city of San Jose, CA and Austin, TX when the San Jose folks were trying to figure out what to do to stem the tide of talent fleeing San Jose. When the topic of housing prices (and what you got for the money) came up, their position was "forget it". Well that's probably the singular most important issue for many, many of the people fleeing - even if everything else was the same. No reason to pay 3-5 times as much and get a dump.
I don't really care for anecdotes because anyone can presenting conflicting stories but I'll entertain this one:
San Jose might be one of the worst examples that you could've brought to this discussion. 80%+ of the land in San Jose is zoned SFH only. 56% of units in San Jose are 1 family, detached; this is nearly the same number as Phoenix, which is 57%. If people are "fleeing" San Jose, they are either believe the value of homes are too expensive or they cannot afford the cost of a home because they are too expensive. This proves nothing about dense living. However, there's a potential that it is too sprawled; increasing other forms of housing, such as the <10% of 1 unit attached (townhomes), <3% of 2 unit (duplexes), or <7% 3-4 unit (tri and fourplexes) could help to satisfy demand. This is turn could potentially push overall prices down. There are probably a ton of people that would be willing to remain in San Jose where they are close to family and friends and compromise some housing wants in order to do so. A townhome with shared walls and a sizeable backyard may be a fine compromise for someone instead uprooting their entire life to move elsewhere.
Quote:
3. Seattle? Was that the CHAZ part or somewhere else? What a lovely place to live. The retail theft flash mobs and local government's tolerance of the same make national news regularly. Your argument is akin to arguing that numerosity is the same as popularity. That isn't true for people or cockroaches.
None of what you said or linked addresses the fact that Seattle increased population. Density is not driving them away.
Quote:
Chicago? Downtown? Why so specific as to "downtown"? Chicago and its metro have been losing population for years. Why is it particularly pertinent that one area within the metro had some increase when the net is decline?
Your contention was that people are fleeing dense areas. Yet downtown Chicago has increased in population despite being a dense area. The area of Chicago that is losing population is the southside. The reason the southside is losing population is because of crime. However, the relative safety of downtown and the north side actually makes the area very attractive, which has resulted in people moving to a dense area.
So the density of the area has less to do with why people are moving away. The driving factor is the state of an area in terms of crime, safety, homelessness, jobs, housing costs, etc. Which is why people are moving away from both a dense city like southside Chicago and a suburban city like Indianapolis.
Yeah Chicago and the metro it is located in lost population.
As far as "granularity", I have introduced you to that term on numerous occasions and you've never been receptive to the concept. You've also not been able to commit to definitions for city, urban, high density, etc. because all you want to do is argue. There is no argument that Chicago and its metro are losing population and have been for quite some time.
It's not an "attack" to expect you to commit to a definition of the terms you are using. Your response is always evasive because you are only interested in argument - and it is important to you to be vague in order to perpetuate misinformation and argument.
For example, you refuse to define "dense" or "urban". So your claim that "dense urban neighborhoods...are far from losing population" is nothing more than meaningless dribble. The population is dispersing away from density even as it grows overall.
Regarding attacks, it was you under your various aliases who claimed Americans had houses that are too big, useless yards, too many personal possessions, their neighborhoods weren't designed to facilitate you bicycling through them, and a litany of other similar claims. You tried presenting your opinions as facts and repeatedly argued they were facts. You argued ad nauseam claiming German superiority on everything. Yet you claim folks are attacking you. What narcissism. Apparently you have finally conceded your personal preferences are just that. Congratulations on your evolution.
It's kind of absurd that someone who constantly wants to have certain terms defined that everyone already knows would accuse someone else of only arguing because he wants to argue.
In addition, your double standards come into play here again because while you ask me to define the terms urban with a precisely defined population density, you yourself do not define what density means in numbers. You constantly claim that people disperse from density but can't even provide a definition of density.
Furthermore, it is arrogant of you to assume that you have introduced the term granularity. But it is much worse to ignore the accusation of a lack of granularity and not adhere to the own standard set yourself. If granularity were that important to you, then you wouldn't talk about people dispersing away from density, but you would acknowledge that this would be a gross and careless generalization that doesn't apply in every case and you would look at the cases in which this doesn't apply and you would come to a different conclusion because of that. But that would assume that you were intellectually honest going into this debate, which is not the case and is revealed in such double standards and your rhetorical tricks.
Furthermore, I didn't say that compact cities and density weren't a personal preference of mine, but I underlined my arguments with facts about sustainability and efficient use of space. In contrast to you, who only uses personal preference as a criterion and who doesn't care at all about the impact on society and the environment due to his libertarian worldview.
I didn't claim that Germany was superior to the USA in everything, but I also cited examples from other countries such as Japan and the Netherlands and I cited negative examples such as Canada. However, you won't get me to say something positive about a bad situation in a country just to avoid conflict. In addition, a lot of negative things were said about Germany that had absolutely nothing to do with the topic I was talking about and which made me feel compelled to clarify the situation using facts. The fact is that many Americans are very allergic to criticism of their country or things in their country that are not right. This may also be the reason why some things don't go right in the USA, including car dependency and the resulting damage to the environment and society.
There's no objectivity in much of this forum - it is often nothing more than personal preferences.
1. You are right. There is a minority of people that "want" the housing you promote. Sounds like they found what they wanted. End of story.
2. They've been leaving cities for decades. I was on a plane that happened to have representatives from city of San Jose, CA and Austin, TX when the San Jose folks were trying to figure out what to do to stem the tide of talent fleeing San Jose. When the topic of housing prices (and what you got for the money) came up, their position was "forget it". Well that's probably the singular most important issue for many, many of the people fleeing - even if everything else was the same. No reason to pay 3-5 times as much and get a dump.
3. Seattle? Was that the CHAZ part or somewhere else? What a lovely place to live. The retail theft flash mobs and local government's tolerance of the same make national news regularly. Your argument is akin to arguing that numerosity is the same as popularity. That isn't true for people or cockroaches.
Chicago? Downtown? Why so specific as to "downtown"? Chicago and its metro have been losing population for years. Why is it particularly pertinent that one area within the metro had some increase when the net is decline?
Whether a city is in a time of not growing.. does not lessen its legacy, history, what it built and what it has IS still America good and bad and I enjoyed many cities over my years... I am not sure why Chicago still has just its Loop area used as downtown. The Loop original downtown is less than a square mile. City-Data says the true downtown Chicago area is as much as 8 square miles. In that it has approaching 300,000 people. Just the Loop is so much as offices vs residential. Houston has a 2-square mile downtown. Not sure if it warrants more at this time but it does boast multiple business districts.
Anyway, I want to add some HUMOR to this form. If it is begun to watch. I recommend it get finished as the last half is also so tied into your labels and transit that gets labeled money pits and cities all bad. Still how billionaires work against transit in our cities is not how their wealth is IMO. Generally it is one side who has billionaires accused of promoting political agendas at least from what I gather.
The HUMOR had me rolling yet so true including the political swipes to both sides. I thought of you and Standmensch with this video.... when you both hit a wall of extremism.
Maybe but there are still facts that are represented through studies, surveys, and research. I'm more interested in discussing those than what your personal feelings are on how a person whose lifestyle doesn't affect you is wrong. The information you presented on MUDs and non-municipal utilities was good. Let's try to aim for that level of discussion.
Well you've missed out on some history with Stadtmensch aka Donnerwetter aka Stadthaus aka Stadtfluss aka Centralplanner who has claimed those in the U.S. that don't share his lifestyle preferences are harming him in Germany.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orlando-calrissian
Couple of issues here:
1. I'm not promoting anything. I'm simply reading data as far as what the populace demands. I have said nothing about my personal preferences, which is different from you.
2. 42% of people surveyed on housing preference said they'd pick a smaller home with nearby amenities over a larger home with further amenities. A cursory glance at most U.S. cities would suggest that the demand for non single family homes has not been satisfied.
3. You said "Sounds like they found what they wanted." What data are you looking at that shows these folks found what they wanted?
Smaller than what? Bigger than what?
There is no information on the actual question asked nor on the demographics of the people surveyed. The survey is rather useless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orlando-calrissian
I don't really care for anecdotes because anyone can presenting conflicting stories but I'll entertain this one:
San Jose might be one of the worst examples that you could've brought to this discussion. 80%+ of the land in San Jose is zoned SFH only. 56% of units in San Jose are 1 family, detached; this is nearly the same number as Phoenix, which is 57%. If people are "fleeing" San Jose, they are either believe the value of homes are too expensive or they cannot afford the cost of a home because they are too expensive. This proves nothing about dense living. However, there's a potential that it is too sprawled; increasing other forms of housing, such as the <10% of 1 unit attached (townhomes), <3% of 2 unit (duplexes), or <7% 3-4 unit (tri and fourplexes) could help to satisfy demand. This is turn could potentially push overall prices down. There are probably a ton of people that would be willing to remain in San Jose where they are close to family and friends and compromise some housing wants in order to do so. A townhome with shared walls and a sizeable backyard may be a fine compromise for someone instead uprooting their entire life to move elsewhere.
This was in the 90s - and it wasn't just individuals and their families. The city was concerned about corporations leaving or expanding only out-of-state. Where were they going? Many, many to Texas. This is why Austin city council members were on the plane. One of the big reasons was the housing prices were about 1/3 at that time. The schools in Texas were better. The houses in Texas were larger and had a decent yard. People were ecstatic to leave. The San Jose city council was not interested in addressing housing. If the option was to make housing even smaller (i.e., density), the result wasn't going to change! The loss is not limited to San Jose or the Bay Area.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orlando-calrissian
None of what you said or linked addresses the fact that Seattle increased population. Density is not driving them away.
The city itself or the general metro area? There are articles claiming increase and others claiming decrease depending on time frame. At any rate, Seattle is but one city in the U.S. It could be that the job market overcame the aversion to density - for now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orlando-calrissian
Your contention was that people are fleeing dense areas. Yet downtown Chicago has increased in population despite being a dense area. The area of Chicago that is losing population is the southside. The reason the southside is losing population is because of crime. However, the relative safety of downtown and the north side actually makes the area very attractive, which has resulted in people moving to a dense area.
Small fraction of the whole. Yes there are people who are religious zealots for density.
"There's a sucker born every minute” - P.T. Barnum
But who cares that there are some people that want to live in a "dense" area? Go live in a dense area instead of trying to denigrate those that prefer not to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orlando-calrissian
So the density of the area has less to do with why people are moving away. The driving factor is the state of an area in terms of crime, safety, homelessness, jobs, housing costs, etc. Which is why people are moving away from both a dense city like southside Chicago and a suburban city like Indianapolis.
Those negatives go hand-in-hand with density. Other negatives of density include worse schools, smaller/more expensive houses, etc. Density creates or leads to many of the negatives and many, many if not most folks for the bulk of their lives want both to avoid the negatives of density and reap the positives of lower density in the form of more space personal and private than what density offers them, better schools, less crime, etc.
Well you've missed out on some history with Stadtmensch aka Donnerwetter aka Stadthaus aka Stadtfluss aka Centralplanner who has claimed those in the U.S. that don't share his lifestyle preferences are harming him in Germany.
I really don't care about Internet beef.
Quote:
Smaller than what? Bigger than what?
There is no information on the actual question asked nor on the demographics of the people surveyed. The survey is rather useless.
This was in the 90s - and it wasn't just individuals and their families. The city was considered about corporations leaving. Where were they going? Mostly to Texas. One of the big reasons was the housing prices were about 1/3 at that time. The schools were better. The house in Texas was larger and had a decent yard. People were ecstatic to leave. The city council was not interested in addressing housing. If the option was to make housing even smaller, the result wasn't going to change.
"There is no information on the actual question asked nor on the demographics of the people surveyed."
We have no idea what percentage of people would have been willing to stay if they could afford housing. You're speculating that no one would have stayed based on your personal beliefs. I don't find that speculation meaningful.
Quote:
The city itself or the general metro area? There are articles claiming increase and others claiming decrease depending on time frame. At any rate, Seattle is but one city in the U.S. It could be that the job market overcame the aversion to density - for now.
I have specifically said downtown Chicago, which is the area within the loop. The article stated that these estimates are post-pandemic. The timeframe and location were explicitly detailed.
And it doesn't matter that Seattle is a single city. It debunks your claim that density is driving people to flee cities.
Quote:
Small fraction of the whole. Yes there are people who are religious zealots for density.
"There's a sucker born every minute” - P.T. Barnum
But who cares that there are some people that want to live in a "dense" area? Go live in a dense area instead of trying to denigrate those that prefer not to.
So because people prefer density and choose to live in a dense area, they must be religious zealots for density? And then you complain about people denigrating those that prefer to live in more suburban areas? Do you not see the irony in those two sentences?
I haven't denigrated your personal choices at any point in our interaction.
Quote:
Those negatives go hand-in-hand with density. Other negatives of density include worse schools, smaller/more expensive houses, etc. Density creates or leads to many of the negatives and many, many if not most folks for the bulk of their lives want both to avoid the negatives of density and reap the positives of lower density in the form of more space personal and private than what density offers them, better schools, less crime, etc.
Humor us: why does density lead to worse schools? Why are smaller houses bad if some people prefer them because of the amenities? Why is more expensive housing bad? Why does density lead to more crime? You keep stating these things as associated without explaining the reasons why they are.
Sure I can. The questions and methodology go to the heart of validity/competency of the survey.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orlando-calrissian
"There is no information on the actual question asked nor on the demographics of the people surveyed."
We have no idea what percentage of people would have been willing to stay if they could afford housing. You're speculating that no one would have stayed based on your personal beliefs. I don't find that speculation meaningful.
Who said they weren't affording it at the time? At a minimum they were still better off economically with a move - and they did. There isn't any speculation going on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orlando-calrissian
I have specifically said downtown Chicago, which is the area within the loop. The article stated that these estimates are post-pandemic. The timeframe and location were explicitly detailed.
Okay one example. Of course the COVID rent incentives evaporating might see that change. But I'm looking more at a trend, not that every data point must line up with the trend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orlando-calrissian
And it doesn't matter that Seattle is a single city. It debunks your claim that density is driving people to flee cities.
Of course it matters Seattle is a single city. One data point hardly disproves a trend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orlando-calrissian
So because people prefer density and choose to live in a dense area, they must be religious zealots for density?
Who says they prefer either one? They may be living there simply because of a job, not because they prefer it or like it. Those who claim they are personally being harmed by American lifestyles, litter posts with snarky NJB videos, and promote density as something more than their own personal preference - yes density is their religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orlando-calrissian
And then you complain about people denigrating those that prefer to live in more suburban areas? Do you not see the irony in those two sentences?
I don't claim there are not people that want density. I don't claim density somewhere else is harming me. This is distinguished from folks claiming they or society in general is harmed because of a lack of density.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orlando-calrissian
I haven't denigrated your personal choices at any point in our interaction.
You, unlike others, perhaps realize it is a personal choice - not a factual matter that is ripe for argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orlando-calrissian
IHumor us: why does density lead to worse schools? Why are smaller houses bad if some people prefer them because of the amenities? Why is more expensive housing bad? Why does density lead to more crime? You keep stating these things as associated without explaining the reasons why they are.
1. Paying more for less - such as what you get with density - is going to be seen by most folks as a negative, not a positive. You have less personal space, less private space, more congestion, more noise, etc. with density. In addition, wherever you have more people crammed together you have more conflict.
2. More expensive houses - perhaps you can ask San Jose residents this question? if you want to pay
more for the same or less then perhaps you would be the type to remain in San Jose or to be content with a condominium unit with considerably less personal and private space. But people and companies tend to leave at some point. Prices affect affordability as well. The equal and opposite reaction to density is "sprawl" which inherently must result. Density begets sprawl. As housing in the area becomes too expensive, workers have to live further out. Teachers, firefighters, police, service technicians, cooks, waiters, baristas, and a long litany of others... where do they live - unless you were planning to live somewhere that requires none of these? Is Elysium the end goal? Expensive housing is not inherently "good". . Most homeowners would prefer to have more in their pocket instead of being mortgage poor and living in "units" surrounded by other mortgage poor inhabitants.
3. Density leads to more crime in this country because the more people you cram together the more conflict and opportunity for crime exists. There is less personal and private space. For whatever reason, proponents of density tend to be on the left side of the political aisle which is also the side that "defunds police", refuses to prosecute crimes, and generally has policies which cultivate crime. Maybe you can tell me how policies in Portland, San Francisco, Seattle, etc. are working?
Folks can argue correlation rather than causation all they want. However, whether the existence of A causes or is highly correlated with something you want to avoid such as B - then you avoid A and let other people waste time arguing causation all they want.
..In addition, your double standards come into play here again because while you ask me to define the terms urban with a precisely defined population density, you yourself do not define what density means in numbers. You constantly claim that people disperse from density but can't even provide a definition of density.
There is no double standard. All you need to know is which point is denser and the direction of population flow or growth. One does not need absolute numbers or thresholds for either endpoint to make the statement. It is a differential.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stadtmensch
Furthermore, I didn't say that compact cities and density weren't a personal preference of mine, but I underlined my arguments with facts about sustainability and efficient use of space. In contrast to you, who only uses personal preference as a criterion and who doesn't care at all about the impact on society and the environment due to his libertarian worldview.
A little defensive for someone not identified by name, aren't you?
Your version of "efficient use of space" = proclaiming Americans' houses are too big, they have too much personal space, they have too much private space, they have too much personal property, and they have useless yards (which should therefore be eliminated according to you). The space isn't yours nor some community property to begin with.
"Society" is not a juristic entity. It is an excuse collectivists/communitarians use to rationalize taking from others.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
