Quote:
Originally Posted by freeweed
1500 sq ft, 2 people. Now, you're bordering on entering ad hominem territory (my personal housing accommodation has zero to do with the merits of my argument) but what the heck.
You want to argue based on "need"? No kidding it's more space than I "need". You should take a look in the mirror some time and reflect on the irony of taking this path of argument - on the Internet, using a computer. Ever watch TV? Ever read a book? Ever own more than one change of clothing per season?
Then get back to me on what the hell "need" has anything to do with it.  |
My argument isn't against you or how much space you use particularily. It's about how much we as Calgarians/ North Americans use. However, no one seems to care as long as they're happy right? Use 10 times more energy and resources than the average, pollute more per capita than almost every other country in the world. You're happy, so who cares...
I find that embarassing.
The fact is, this want that we have is paid for by everyone. Even the people across the world. I doubt the people of Dhaka are stoked on sea level rises, nor the people of Africa looking at even more dismal harvests, let alone the taxpayers of Calgary that subsidize it all.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Non-dense and poorly designed suburbanization, based on the greedy wants of a small percentage of the world's population is disadvantageous, economically, socially and above all environmentally. It is also about the one thing that we could rather, and realistically avoid, because, yes, no one needs that much space. Ad hominem, if anything is telling me to relinquish my use of a computer or not to read a book, as it might full well be hard to get through life, as society has built, without. A smaller living space... not so much. Or are the people of Europe, Africa, Latin America, and Asia not able to live?
Thus, if you then have no problem with that, then so be it. I can't argue that. Everything, objectively, however would speak against it.
Furthermore, if by chance you disagree with the economic part, as I'm sure at least someone will, then take it up further with the economists at the world bank, the people that worked on Plan-it and the many other people that have devoted their life's work on the topic; or come up with a better solution.
I'm not trying to attack you personally, but merely trying to make a general point. I mentioned orginally that we don't need 3000 sq ft homes and was called out on it because not everyone has such a dwelling. My point was obviously that the homes are too big, not that they are necessarily 3000 sq ft and I know full well that you knew that.
I mean the lot sizes alone of some SFH in Germany wouldnt even be able to contain the footprint of a house itself that we put up, and that's Germany where suburbanization isn't an unfamiliar event. And yes, I have absolutely no problem saying the Europeans do it better. (That one was more just for you FW
) Well, because they do. Cities such as Copenhagen, Freiburg, Munich, etc etc, realized decades ago that they were going down a less-desirable path. And yes, I know that Canada isn't Europe and blah, blah is different and so on. The fundamentals remain the same, however.
Subjectively, and I'm sure I'm gonna start a whole new shitstorm with this one, I don't want Calgary and Edmonton, Winnipeg and all in between to be our version of "fly-over" country. I'll leave whether it currently is or not up for debate, but what certainly doesn't help the cause is further suburbanization. I also don't buy the arguement that Calgary is still young and small. It is no longer that small, and being young doesn't give it an excuse to be bigger, area-wise, than a vast majority of its peers. Nor is it an excuse that it's a North American city. It's Canadian and we can strive for better and thus, shouldn't be comparing it to ones that might well be part of the zone I've mentioned above.
Lastly, since I've gone this far, and before I get a "well-if-you-don't-like-it-then-leave," I already have. Not because I don't like it, because let's be realistic here, it isn't that bad of a place, but because I do. I see more potential in the city than I think any city could have, and I've been to a good decent many [cities] (as well as bordering on 40 countries.) I also decided to engage in studying the above to understand it better and look at it more objectively. The one thing that holds the city back, and I have no doubts about it, is continued rampant, poorly-designed suburbanization. I personally think that needs to halt much more drastically than Plan-it could ever call for. What it then subsequently requires, is a fairly fundamental change in the perceptions, expectations, desires and entitlements of Calgarians themselves - that namely and almost exclusively of smaller living spaces. All else will follow.
Anyway, I'm going back to being my normally quiet, barely contributing self on here now, because I don't have much more to say.
Oh, and before anyone picks apart the fact that going to a lot of countries requires flying, which it does, I'd also like to add that there has been no viable alternative to flying that has worthy pollution reductions, again not unlike simply living in a smaller unit. Secondly, I consider it akin to bemoaning someone that writes books (on paper) about saving forests or their destruction. For that matter, greenpeace and using gas and electricity to make a point... Anyway, refer to above paragraph.
Prev
Linear Mode
