Quote:
Originally Posted by MonctonRad
Improvements can be made, but there are a lot of urban elitist snobs on this forum who think that anyone who does not want to live in a tiny downtown condo is nothing more than a Neanderthal and a "breeder" who should be called out and castigated within an inch of his/her life...………..
|
I actually don't think that that's true at all. I think that's 90% people being overly sensitive of any (real or perceived) criticism of their lifestyle.
For example, I don't think anyone who is promoting sustainable development expects an entire metro area to be the city's downtown. That wouldn't even make sense because the downtown is the center of a city that makes up a small proportion of the whole and generally is as much or more focused on non-residential uses (offices, retail, institutional etc.) as on housing. But statements like "We can't all live in a downtown condo" are often used in rebuttals as a way to caricature the opposing position as something extreme and impractical which is common when someone doesn't like the actual opposing position despite it being too sound to refuse directly.
What advocates of sustainable development actually want is for all neighbourhoods - downtown and otherwise - to simply be more sustainable and efficient. That involves many of the things that you mentioned such as making them more walkable and better connected by transit. But there is one thing that is inescapable which is that for the most part, designing things in a way that makes them inviting/convenient for cars also makes them less inviting/convenient/safe for transit and active transportation
Fortunately, people don't really need to give up the things that you mention in order to live in a more sustainable setting. For instance, most houses in urban/semi-urban Halifax have backyards. Areas like
this or
this are green, quiet, and have parking either on-street or in a side alley driveway allowing the residents to all have cars if they want them. But they're on the street grid rather than in curvy culs-de-sac, are smaller, and occupy less land than modern low density sprawl. There's nothing about the things that you mention people wanting which would prevent outer neighbourhoods from being designed more like this. In fact, when these streets and lots were developed they
were outer areas.
Bottom line for me is that, I'm tired of people saying "Oh well some people want this" and "Some people don't want that" as a way to defend the status quo despite it being clear that things need to change. Yes we always need to consider what people want when designing a neighbourhood, but at a societal level we must design within our means (aka build what can be sustained long term both economically and environmentally). Just like it isn't an excuse for an individual to over-extend their budget when buying a car by saying "Well, I only really like exotic sports cars" there's no excuse for society to overextend its budget when designing communities. Society, like an individual person, should always endeavor toward the most enjoyable thing it/they can
actually afford.
Prev
Linear Mode
