Washington, D.C.'s CSA population numbers compared to other U.S. cities
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.
I mean was the flouridation = a communist conspiracy the fault of overzealous advocates of dental hygiene?
Cmon. Conspiracy theories arent always reactions to insults. Im too old to not just call bamboozlement what it is.
That doesnt mean Im against democracy. Aristocrats and authoritarians can also be bamboozled. As Churchill said, democracy is the worst form of govt, except for all the others.
But if someone says 2 + 2 = 5, i can consider them bamboozled, and not blame it on arrogant mathematicians waving their credentials.
In some ways, I find it more interesting to be an observer of this particular culture war/skirmish than a participant in it, in the same way that some journalists prefer to write about the mommy wars (SAH moms vs. working moms) than become sharp-edged partisans.
On the particular concept of "smart growth," I would gently suggest that context matters. In isolation, using a term like that as shorthand to refer to development that is designed to be energy efficient, take advantage of existing knowledge, and improve people's quality of lives would raise no hackles and can readily be embraced. Combine it, however, with other statements made by some individuals (assume that I am not ascribing such statements to you or Bluefly) who tout their academic credentials, do not hide their disdain for post-WW II suburbs, seek to limit future growth on the periphery, talk about being "car-free" the way that some dieters describe being "carb-free" and/or blithely tell their acquaintances that "I could never live out where you live" and you have the ingredients for cultural misunderstanding and hostility, whereupon a term like "smart growth" takes on a very different connotation, no matter how many times you suggest that this is "faux" outrage manufactured to deceive the unwary.
I do recognize that there is a competing narrative, in which urban dwellers just want to go about their business, but are besieged by those who accuse them of being selfish hedonists or, if they have children, are accused of putting their interests above those of their children if they allow them to attend local schools or live in an area where the crime rates have been even marginally higher than in Chevy Chase or Arlington.
My only problem with this is you're framing it as a simple lifestyle choice rather than the realities that one development pattern does, in fact, cause significant more damage to farmland, rural communities, forests, and air quality than the other, denser development. Whether that matters to people is another story, but we really should be critical of always creating a new periphery whenever we get bored with the old one.
I also don't think urban growth boundaries are the answer, but, as this article suggests:
"Less than 10 percent of the entire metropolitan land mass is where development wants to go over the next generation,” Leinberger says. “We don’t need to add another square foot – or, in the case of sprawl, another square mile – of land to the metropolitan area. We’ve already urbanized as much as we need to.
Also, to the larger conversation:
Quote:
He isn’t advocating that suburbanites move downtown. If he’s imploring anyone to action, it’s the builders and real estate developers who don’t seem to have picked up on shifting market demand yet ...
"There’s no value judgment here," Leinberger says. "For people who want the big back yard, this is also good news, because it’s cheap. And the reason it’s cheap is because we as an industry built too much of it."
My only problem with this is you're framing it as a simple lifestyle choice rather than the realities that one development pattern does, in fact, cause significant more damage to farmland, rural communities, forests, and air quality than the other, denser development.
I too think that many of the features urbanists like (including density, mixed use, design that eases walkability, etc) are good things for society, and are PART of the tool chest to reduce energy usage and thus global warming, as well as to economize on infrastructure and other "sprawl" related costs, etc. That its more than a consumer choice, like preferring vanilla to strawberry, or sam adams to PBR.
BUT that does not mean I want to lumped with immature cads who ignore A. peoples circumstances B. the many other aspects of sustainibilty C the many other aspects of being an ethical human being D basic manners.
The only problem i have with the above is the apparent binary - that a smart growth advocate is either the arrogant cad of the second part of the first paragraph, or that they just want to go about their business. To me there is a very important middle ground between those - someone who thinks that changes in development patterns and transportation choices are good AND important things, that enabling car free living is a good idea and that those who do it are admirable, that there are major social negatives to the design of most 1945-1990 era suburbs - but who A. explicitly acknowledge a place for the automobile (and not ONLY for car lite households) B. acknowledge a significant percentage of the housing stock should be "autocentric" C. would never say something rude like "I could never live out where you live" to someone IRL
I don't think I was suggesting such a "binary," and that my articulation of the "best" interpretation of "smart growth" allowed for the possibility that it could entail some degree of advocacy. To be effective, however, advocacy has to be persuasive and cannot simply be based on scientific data by those who may have given the issues considerable thought.
In the context of a discussion about "smart growth," it seems to me that one has to recognize that there are now several generations of Americans who have grown up in the suburbs. It's what they've known; it's where their memories were formed; and it's what many of them want for their own families (of course, there are others who grew up in suburbs, just as prior generations grew up on farms, and very deliberately have left for the cities with the goal of never returning). You simply cannot engage a subsantial number of people with a tag line such as "there are major social negatives to the design of most 1945-1990 era suburbs." You end up simply preaching to your own choir. It strikes me that the far better way to approach the discussion is to acknowledge the positives associated with the design of such suburbs (sanitary living conditions, places to play, the frequent association with good schools), and then make the argument that, given increasing population growth in major metropolitan areas, and what we now know about things like climate change, it is in our collective best interests to explore alternatives that will reduce energy consumption and commuting times, and give them more time to spend with their families. To some degree, I think that dialogue is taking place already, and that the increase in the number of new TODs in a variety of places bears witness to its success. However, "smart-growth" advocacy, at times, has a tone-deaf character.
My only problem with this is you're framing it as a simple lifestyle choice rather than the realities that one development pattern does, in fact, cause significant more damage to farmland, rural communities, forests, and air quality than the other, denser development. Whether that matters to people is another story, but we really should be critical of always creating a new periphery whenever we get bored with the old one.
I also don't think urban growth boundaries are the answer, but, as this article suggests:
Interesting article - I also like this quote, which is consistent with my recent response to BBD:
Quote:
It helps his argument that he’s talking in market trends and not moral imperatives. Much of the conversation around "walkable urbanism" sounds almost paternalistic to suburban ears, as if everyone should and must decamp to high-rise condos above a Whole Foods. In fact, although Leinberger has labeled these communities “walkable urban places,” more than half of them in the Washington region are actually located outside of the District (including, for example, this one). "This is about the urbanization of the suburbs," he says.
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.
