Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I completely agree. I spent a week in the huge, densely populated city of Seoul a few years ago, and I felt perfectly safe at all times. The fact is, politics and culture play a HUGE role in the relative safety and desirability of different places. The fact that Seoul is populated almost entirely by Koreans, with a Korean culture, has a great deal to do with the fact that it felt so safe. However, these are issues that are beyond the scope of urban planning, so that's why I didn't want to bring them up in this forum.
Neither do I, but unfortunately it is used here as the main argument against cities, although it is not one. And that's why the discussions here always go in circles.
Neither do I, but unfortunately it is used here as the main argument against cities, although it is not one. And that's why the discussions here always go in circles.
We don't live in the land of the theoretical. We live in the land of reality. In reality, most cities (and yes, I include the European/Asian ones in this) are not the most pleasant or easiest places to live, regardless of the reason.
Arguably the density makes the problems more noticeable.
We don't live in the land of the theoretical. We live in the land of reality. In reality, most cities (and yes, I include the European/Asian ones in this) are not the most pleasant or easiest places to live, regardless of the reason.
The problem is the argumentation of the anti-urbanist side is not against most cities, but cities in general as a concept of built environments. They argue against cities regardless of location and the composition and structure of its society. And this is where my defense of cities becomes a valid counter argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by albert648
Arguably the density makes the problems more noticeable.
The problem is the argumentation of the anti-urbanist side is not against most cities, but cities in general as a concept of built environments. They argue against cities regardless of location and the composition and structure of its society. And this is where my defense of cities becomes a valid counter argument.
Ok. My objection to cities is primarily cities in their execution. A poorly executed concept is still a poor outcome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stadtmensch
Granted, but also the good sides of community.
Sure. But you don't need to live on top of each other to have community.
Ok. My objection to cities is primarily cities in their execution. A poorly executed concept is still a poor outcome.
Poorly executed concept of society, not cities. It's not the concept of walkability, bicycle infrastructure, mixed-use, middle and high density housing and public transportation that causes these issues. These issues are caused by the same type of wrong social policies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by albert648
Sure. But you don't need to live on top of each other to have community.
Never said that, on the contrary, it is part of my argument to separate social issues like community and urban planning issues.
that makes sense cause the urban cities in the south for the most part are not appealing. Now the large southern cities like Atlanta are making appealing cities making their suburbs look more unattractive by the day.
Southern cities have great potential; particularly in their residential areas. Atlanta's east side intown being a great example of the compromise between suburbanish SFH type housing with a level of density, walkable commercial areas and some transit access that makes the majority of non-urbanite people desire it; thats why its so popular. Va-Hi, O4W, Druid Hills, EAV, Inman Park are some of the best examples of streetcar/railroad suburbs anywhere.
If the southern cities can get transportation in check and build up their downtowns to be more residential its possible they would be even more desirable for the average person that wants a level of walkability and density but not at New York levels and desires a SFH with a small yard.
In other words, you are not against density or cities in general, you are against having to live together with people you despise.
Ah Donnerwetter aka Stadthaus aka Centralplanner and now Stadtmensch - so you've had to find another alias?
I absolutely oppose your vision of density for me or anyone else.
The requirement for more personal private space has little to do with any assessment of others. It's a fundamental, non-negotiable requirement for many.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stadtmensch
In fact every family household living in Suburbia has less privacy, higher density and more shared spaces and shared property than what I have as an single apartment household in the city (not that families can not live successfully in cities), but you don't complain about that, because they are your family members.
You have no outside privacy, no yard, and a much smaller indoor space. Your math needs work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stadtmensch
But you complain about shared spaces and so on if it is not your family members. From the standpoint of urban planning in the sense of strict physical engineering of places you and the rest of the anti-urbanists have no arguments at all.
You don't have a choice. You don't have private space other than the inside of your unit. You share your walls and ceiling and have zero yard. Maybe you simply don't have a choice in Germany. But that's one of many things that sets our countries apart. Others are not interested in foregoing private space for "shared space" - and we don't have to!
The great thing is no matter how much you complain about the U.S., we have choices! As much as it may irk you, the vast majority of folks seeking housing here do not share your opinion nor care about how you believe we should all live! Demographics show that people disperse away from high-density areas. There are many reasons but in short people prefer more private space. You might not but is that relevant to anyone else?
The problem is the argumentation of the anti-urbanist side is not against most cities, but cities in general as a concept of built environments. They argue against cities regardless of location and the composition and structure of its society. And this is where my defense of cities becomes a valid counter argument.
The "problem" is that the deserati equate "city" to a built environment description. "City" is a legal construct, not a physical one. It describes a governmental entity operating within a territory defined by a geopolitical boundary.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
