Quote:
Originally Posted by gunnar777
The trouble with stupid comments like this one is that they assume that the city is static and has never absorbed intense growth before. If it were up to people with these notions, Toronto would be pastoral.  |
The trouble with stupid comments like this one is that they try to force the argument into a a false binary. It first assumes that all superficially similar sounding arguments across varying times and contexts are in fact the same argument inspired by the same mindset or motive. Then it concludes that since other people were wrong to oppose other density increases in the past, it's therefore wrong for anyone to oppose any increase in the present. In other words, there's no such thing as considering each case individually with different increases potentially being better or worse. No possibility that it was wrong to oppose increase A and B while correct to oppose increase C. Since the only choices are "all or nothing" and nothing is too little (pastoral, aka reductio ad absurdum) the only remaining option is "all".
The correct approach would be to explain why you think this increase in density is beneficial and address the apprehensions that others might have. For example, "While you may be concerned that the common spaces will be too crowded, if they're well designed and connected to adjacent public areas this can be avoided. Development X in city Y is a good example" You might need to ask for details on the specific issues they have with it but that's all part of productive discussion.
Threaded Mode