>The solutions to these problems are equally obvious: more density; preserving existing green space to allow for stormwater runoff; better public transportation to decrease reliance on cars; the decommissioning of urban highways; comprehensively transforming the energy sector in pursuit of a post-oil world; and, most of all, building affordable, livable, and—dare I say it—rent-controlled or even government-funded housing.
All of these urbanist types always come to the exact same collectivist conclusions. It treats human culture as a mathematical optimization problem, which it isn't. Everything would just be so much better if we all lived in 20 story 800sqft apartments and took the bus everywhere.
I don't want to live like that. I want a car, maybe two for my family so that we can go where we want when we want. I want a home large enough to entertain friends, host holidays, and house my children. I want a yard with grass, and I want to spend my saturday mornings mowing it. And I think that's exactly what most other Americans want.
There has to be a solution that doesn't involve the loss of individual autonomy, privacy, and freedom that we value in the US. I will not eat the bugs. I will not get into the pod.
> I want a car, maybe two for my family so that we can go where we want when we want.
You want a car because it's not possible to live in the US without them. So that's rational.
> I want a yard with grass, and I want to spend my saturday mornings mowing it. And I think that's exactly what most other Americans want.
Nope. I skipped out on "grass" a long time ago. Water costs, time expenditure, grubs in your lawn causing local wildlife to dig it up - yeah, I don't want that. And actually lots of people around me don't either.
> I will not eat the bugs. I will not get into the pod.
Ok pal. Nothing you say is going to be forced on you.
I think what gets lost in this debate is the fact that in most major US cities you can have two cars, a yard with a lawn you can mow and a guest room without sacrificing walkability and public transportation.
I live in a working class neighborhood in a major coastal city and still have everything I listed above: I bike or ride the bus to work but a lot of my coworkers drive; I have front and backyards (with lawns!) but I can walk a few blocks to a commercial district with dozens of shops and restaurants. Not every city looks like Manhattan. Not even all of NYC looks like Manhattan.
> I think what gets lost in this debate is the fact that in most major US cities you can have two cars, a yard with a lawn you can mow and a guest room without sacrificing walkability and public transportation.
My city qualifies! The house might even be pretty damn cheap and surprisingly big!
But the schools will suck. You have to move somewhere with terrible walkability to get decent public schools.
> I don't want to live like that. I want a car, maybe two for my family so that we can go where we want when we want. I want a home large enough to entertain friends, host holidays, and house my children. I want a yard with grass, and I want to spend my saturday mornings mowing it. And I think that's exactly what most other Americans want.
Cool, whatever, but people trying to enforce that on everyone else is exactly what's landed us in the current hellscape of wildly overpriced homes everywhere people want to actually live, because everything is zoned to only allow single family homes and as it turns you can't actually physically fit enough of those to cover the demand for everyone who wants to live in most big cities.
I think you’re strawmaning, and extrapolating the worst possible argument from the broad statement. I’ve not seen western urbanists who are extreme. I think every one would say “ya, that sounds nice”.
For example, it’s usually the conservatives that want to zone a town so that it’s literally impossible, even with massive free market demand, to build anything but large houses on large plots. A hell of a lot of urbanists just want the government to stop telling them that they can’t build a 4-plex or open a coffee shop on their property because it’s not zoned for it, or doesn’t have the government-approved-totally-well-thought-out number of parking spaces.
Instead of spending 2 billion building a bigger highway, how about 1 billion to get people off of the highway in the first place?
None of these restrict personal liberty.
Only the ever terrifying Straw Man is about restricting liberties. Especially when it comes to land use, (most) actual modern urbanists are individual autonomy and freedom oriented.
See, for example, the Japanese zoning plans that a lot of progressives in the US are in love with, which amount to setting a maximum density/nuisance level for a fairly large area and letting people just build whatever as long as it falls within that bound.
All of these urbanist types always come to the exact same collectivist conclusions. It treats human culture as a mathematical optimization problem, which it isn't. Everything would just be so much better if we all lived in 20 story 800sqft apartments and took the bus everywhere.
I don't want to live like that. I want a car, maybe two for my family so that we can go where we want when we want. I want a home large enough to entertain friends, host holidays, and house my children. I want a yard with grass, and I want to spend my saturday mornings mowing it. And I think that's exactly what most other Americans want.
There has to be a solution that doesn't involve the loss of individual autonomy, privacy, and freedom that we value in the US. I will not eat the bugs. I will not get into the pod.