Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P.
I fully agree with all of your points, but you left out one other important one. There has been an abandonment of fiscal responsibility at the federal level due in part to Covid, in part to Junior Trudeau continually running for re-election in the Liberal Party way of buying votes with reckless spending, partly due to HRM being awash in cash due to explosive growth and not wanting to give taxpayers any sort of dividend from that, and instead funding every planning department crazy idea. So far the province has been somewhat resistant, but once the Fed largesse starts coming their way, look out. The result of it all will be a generation that will only ever see deficit spending, and ever-higher taxes.
We do not need govts trying to solve every perceived problem with no prioritization, nor with any regard for how massive the bureaucracy to try to do that would be. Once created, govt programs and jobs are very resistant to going away even if the problem is either solved or goes away on its own. We will be stuck paying for this expansion pretty much for the foreseeable future.
|
What we are currently experiencing the end-game of neoliberalism but the ones in power for the last couple decades who have put us in this position are the ones who will do anything to avoid relinquishing the power used to put us in this situation in the first place. I've all but come to grips that the post-cold war, pre-9/11 ideology of how our societies should function, like a never ending upwards growth trend is long dead. I've come to grips that this planned demolition of society is all but complete but please let the collapse happen next spring when the weather is at least warm
However, what bothers me the most is that there is a significant portion of the population that still
do not fucking get it and won't until they go to Sobeys and suddenly a loaf of bread is $20 overnight. Too little, too late then. There simply isn't a way to climb out of the hole that's been dug for us both young and old.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good Baklava
I would say the problems with what urbanists preach are even more severe than reckless spending or the demonization of drivers. I was even surprised to see O’Toole tout transit-oriented development as part of his housing strategy. What has the potential to make bike lanes and transit-oriented development so vile are that they represent a certain form of austerity urbanism.
The worst offender here would have to be Tristan Cleveland’s favourite organization “Strong Towns”, which I would almost categorize as a cult. Their argument is that investment in auto-centric infrastructure is wasteful because cities can never recoup the costs from ensuing development, with a follow-up argument to make better use of the infrastructure we have. The downtown is then fetishized as the most prosperous area with the most productive people.
This snapshot of the urbanist ideology is disgusting on multiple fronts. One, painting suburbanites as moochers doesn’t ring nicely with the increasing suburbanization of poverty. Two, few can afford homes near the best transit stations, especially in larger cities. Third but somewhat related to the previous two, if urbanized areas are glorified as “productive”, only the wealthiest would be deemed worthy of living there and enjoying the bike lanes and shops.
I can’t pretend not to support bike lanes or good transit - it’s pretty clear I do. Unfortunately the movement has become self-defeating. You could say I’m criticizing the way bike lanes are preached because I want more of them. The arguments of fiscal responsibility and aversion to deficit spending are a large part of what made bike lanes popular in the first place, a war they are quite frankly winning with perverse outcomes. What I’m proposing is to attack bike lanes and improved transit more surgically.
|
I honestly (didn't?) mind Strong Towns but you're right in that it's pushed into cult sphere recently and I don't appreciate that. The problem with urban planning is that it's susceptible to 'leftist' subversion(?) because of how dogmatic the rhetoric has become, particularly the past 10 years. What became suggestions for improvements, many of which could be quantified in dollars & cents to get the discussion going has now been fully coopted into a my way or the highway mentality. Most people I've met within the planning sphere are far too dogmatic and suffer from poor technical and critical thinking skills. They really don't even understand marketing towards the common people. They mostly fit into (but not exclusively) two categories: Childless urbanites or children of wealthy or upper-middle class parents. The rhetoric changed from literally progressive (i.e. meaning PROGRESS) suggestions into forcing people into changing their way of life or their preferred needs into something they have no say about.
No you will live in the 400sf pod and be happy. Me? No, no I'll still live in the exurbs away from the street shitters that are beneath me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123
It you want to see this approach fast-forwarded by a few years, look at Vancouver or Seattle.
Not long ago I listened to an urban planner who was interviewed about some highway work being done in Seattle. He gave the standard spiel about making places for people and not cars. They asked him what the impact on commute times would be. He said oh, maybe 5-10 extra minutes, no big deal. And then he pointed out that it all worked out because rush hour has expanded so people can just leave home at 6 am now instead of 7 am if they want a quick trip. Perfect!
What he didn't say is that the people places are for those with money who can afford the expensive condos, while the poorer people are driving in or taking transit and are already stretched, often working long hours for low pay.
Vancouverites will often say they love that the city has no highways. I don't really like urban highways but I can't help but notice that it's hard for poorer people in the city to get to some of the nicest natural amenities in the metro area. The West Side has the beaches. If you are in Surrey it takes takes about 1 hour of driving or 1.5 hours of transit to travel about 25 km into those areas. Around the beaches are a bunch of low density houses that have now been bid up in many cases into the double digit millions. Not much construction is allowed. And the area residents resisted the SkyTrain going through there for many years. There is a lot of inequality in who gets to enjoy the scenery and nature in BC.
|
And they cannot even back up their rhetoric.
I may have mentioned this before, but two(?) years ago when I was in Saskatoon I had the 'honour' of chatting with Mitchell Silver the president of the American Planning Association. He previously was the Director of Planning for Raleigh, North Carolina showing examples of their master plan they worked on for 10 years, similar to HRM's Centre Plan, accompanied by a plethora of planner-speak platitudes to back up their decisions regarding land use and transit improvements, eliminating car dependency etc.
I asked him, when your team devised this plan for transit improvements did you factor in climate?
He said "uhh no I guess not"
I say "well a good friend of mine lives in Charlotte and he tells me 7 months of the year the weather is so hot and humid you cannot stand outside for 5 minutes without being angrily uncomfortable and sweaty. from 7am to 7pm people leave their air conditioned homes to their air conditioned cars, to their air conditioned offices, back to their air conditioned cars, to their air conditioned houses, THEN after 7pm they'll go outside and walk the dog or mow their lawn. Were factors like these considered when you spent years and millions of dollars devising a plan to encourage people to sacrifice this cycle for a 'sustainable' one?
The answer I got was a blank: "People who need to take the bus will just take the bus regardless (lmao) and when traffic congestion gets so unsustainably congested the rest will have to follow in line"
Great fucking planning, folks.
FWIW, I thought Mr. Silver seemed like a really nice guy you could have a beer with and watch a football game shooting-the-shit so-to-speak so I don't mean to sound like he's a crappy person or anything. I guess it mostly symbolizes my cynicism for contemporary planning when the literal top dog in the USA has the same mentality as some low-level urbanist type in Halifax.
Prev
Linear Mode
