Since when did owning a huge home surrounded by useless grass become the "American dream"? The native Americans and the European settlers didn't live in sprawling communities. To me the suburbs are what are truly un-American.
"new" urbanism will benefit everyone (even those who are driving cars), and the environment. Most new urbanists don't intend to take away what many to perceive as the "American Dream", we just want add another CHOICE for people who DON'T want to drive everywhere, mow a lawn, etc. New urbanism WILL destroy the countless dead malls and strip centers that are all over the country. People like Glenn Beck trying to scare people out of improving our built landscape annoy the hell out of me.
I don't want a car and, frankly, I think it's funny you think that we even have a choice to continue building suburbia. It's too energy intensive, people spend too much time driving to get where they want, and it destroys community.
I moved 6 months ago to the country, lived in the suburbs all my life and I would never go back. I would rather drive a horse and buggy to town than to ever live around the noise and congestion again. Yes my 2000 sq ft home on 10 acres is a bit bigger than I need living alone but I love it.
If I could get out of my car and walk no more than 5 minutes to the grocery store (instead of having to drive 15 minutes to it) that would be a dream.
omg. soviet style, what is this guy thinking? The Phoenix metropolitan area is the crappiest place in the US and Scottsdale is the crappiest place in Phoenix.
I don't see how new urbanism is going to destroy Scottsdale. Most new buildings build to LEED standards, so have green roofs to reduce heat islands. You can't stop people from moving to Scottsdale and choosing to live in high density, that would be totally against 'the American way'. Housing is about choice and people are choosing to to live in these developments, whether you like it or not.
I am confused. Why do you think that the guy who is speaking is a greedy developer? Just the opposite. We are AGAINST high rise development in Scottsdale. We do not want high rise development, mass transit, pollution, pavements and noise. We want the mountain views, serene desert,trees, and quiet. in Scottsdale. That was the point!
Destroying Scotsdale? It's already a suburban nightmare. This idiot talking has probably never lived in a decent city like NY, Seattle, or Portland, nor have most detractors of city life. We need to reinvent the American Dream to reflect the exigencies of the future, not a nostalgic myth based on cheap gasoline.
Gas at $4 a gallon? Try paying over $100 to fill your tank like in most countries in Europe. We can't afford to be at war over oil forever.
'a high density, soviet style condo' !? The new urbanist developments I've seen are far more visually appealing than what suburbia has produced--it's not even close. Even many of the old preWWII neighborhoods look better than suburbia. Communities designed for people(not cars) always will.
Theres an option for people who dont want to live in the city. Its called the country.
Thats perfectly acceptable. Just dont expect to have Walmart next door. Nobody says you have to live in close quarters, just that the suburban way of design has no lasting value as a city or place. It has no sense of space or character. It has no defined meaning to it. It is a cartoon of the country, with few of its perks. Im saying this as a conservative myself. New urbanism is the way of the future.
you are an idiot. Market-driven forces are causing the demise of suburbia. Market-driven means this is now what people desire, and so how do you know what people really want? Not believing in free markets anymore? and yet you say otherwise, because you are an idiot. You yourself apparently do not know what you believe.
I don't 100% buy into this New Urbanism PIE-IN-THE-SKY BS because Left-Wing have their own GAY FUCKER with BS BRIGHT IDEA such as Barney Frank, too, which gave us HOUSING BUBBLE....
v=2UZ9l_AxKjA
HOUSING BUBBLE is his GAY CRONIES (here is one of them) making BIG MONEY on COMMISSION of selling those OVER-PRICED HOUSES with EASY CREDIT to those that shouldn't be buying them in first place because they really can't afford them at all....
Do those New Urbanism have many PROVEN MODEL CITIES out there!? {roll my eyes}
BTW, I lived in Suburban House, so I know what I have to give up on....
v=GfQOLA2mpoE
Here is more....
v=JxossuON8LY
In my opinion, SUBURBIA can be GOOD, too, if it is in a MEDIUM-SIZE CITY with SHORT DRIVES to work, to shop, and so on! It really is a matter of GOOD CITY PLANNING or not! I mean URBAN CITY with crappy design will be HELL to live-in regardless what BS SPIN to it!! >=P
@IronJackalTw You can finish rolling your eyes.. and then look up The Pearl District in Portland Oregon if you want a PROVEN model of urban planning. While your at it just do some research on Portland's urban growth boundary and the steps the city has taken to create walkable, convenient, pedestrian/bicycle friendly neighborhoods and urban spaces. Suburbia is dying. Built on an unsustainable idea that oil would be cheap forever and that people could simply drive everywhere. Ditch Suburbia.
SEARCH & READ "Money Magazine: Best Place To Live 2007 Portland, OR"
Okay, that seem interesting!! >=)
BTW, U do know that SUBURBIA is really a result of WHITE FLIGHT from INNER CITIES (with URBAN DECAY) of USA, which turn them into GHETTO of today & Racial Segregation! Anyhow, this is WHY most WHITEYS (GOP types) will be up in arms against INNER CITIES RENEWAL (New Urbanism) because it help out BLACKS too much in their typical Closet RACIST mind!! {roll my eyes}
@IronJackalTw Proven model cities? Like San Francisco, Downtown LA, Chicago, Most of the East Coast - New York, DC, Boston, Jonkers, Charleston, etc.
And dont forget Europe. if by model city you mean living close to mass transit, low pollution and safer communities then Europe is your model.
Your conception on what new urbanism is is all wrong. How is an Urban City a crappy design? Have you been to Miwaukee or DC? Its beautiful. And you can live in a house there too.
@pavilionking06 I LIVE in Portland Oregon, in the Pearl District so no, it wasn't "interesting" that I mentioned Portland, Oregon. Yeah we all know that people fled the cities back in the day to escape dirty industry but that was then, and this is 2011. If your comfortable paying a premium to live a car-dependent lifestyle in the suburbs so be it.. God bless you. You can be held hostage to the middle eastern oil men who tell you how much you owe them at the pump if you want even. Enjoy $6/gal
You want to drive your big cars, and your fancy way of life, and keep de co2 up, and when all resourses are over, what will you, and all that american dream do, drink your big cars if you go thirsty,
we all live here, and we all have some complaints about our ways to live, but there are others aho are thinking in what they have to eat in one day, instead of using a big fancy car. (perspectives)
There are plenty of thoughtful responses here that I agree with. I just wanted to point out that, whoever is saying this is clearly angry and clearly ignorant.
There are plenty of thoughtful responses here that I agree with. I just wanted to point out that, whoever is saying this is clearly angry and clearly ignorant.
If everyone lives within a mile or so of work, home, parks, etc, then they dont need cars.Without cars they don't pay gas, insurance, traffic tickets, and car payments. And on top of that, they can socialize with others as they pass, or randomly stop in a bakery because the smell of the fresh cinnamon rolls is too hard to overcome. There will probably always be suburbs because there are people who value privacy, traffic, and a yard to mow over living cheaply, conveniently, and efficiently...
continuing, the commentator also over-simplifies the concept of "new urbanism" in that it requires skyscrapers. The people of Scottsdale/Phoenix shouldn't be opposing New Urbanism, they should be opposing skyscrapers blocking your view of the mountains. Suggest a height limit like they did in Paris France, where they wanted to maintain the view of the Eiffel Tower ;) 3-4 floor limit and the view of the mountains would be maintained while in no way interfering with the pedestrian scale ideal.
The commenter of this video is misinformed. New Urbanism isn't Manhattan. Manhattan is the far extreme of urban. New Urbanism is like a main street with 2 or 3 story buildings. Go to Greenwich Village and it's peaceful, quiet, and convenient pedestrian scaled. This commentator also doesn't realize that suburban sprawl has long been subsidized - and mandated by top down government control.
The funny thing is that New Urbanism is old school, its how its been done for thousands of years before the automobile, and before the 50's dream of not having to live next door to a black family. In country's outside of the US some of them can eat what the want and don't necessarily become obese simply because they can walk to the grocery store and their job and whatnot.
New Urbanism is actually about creating centralized communities, not about the lesser use of cars (however that is a nice side effect), wouldnt most people like to live in a community with a green park, pool and sports park, then have a centralized downtown so that you dont have to drive 5 miles to get groceries, another 5 to get your kids from school, another 5 for clothes shopping, another 5 to the Park so the kids can have fun and 5 more to get gas to go back home ?
@dsjj251 I currently live in a community with a park, pool at my house, and shopping within 1 mile. I don't need to drive to the centralized downtown for anything. In Scottsdale, developers want to build high rises and create high density areas. Noise, overcrowding, and pollution are the result of overbuilding and greedy developers. Plus expansion of the heat island effect. If you want to live in a city
with pollution, mass transit, and crowding, that is your choice. Not mine.
no I understand it, but Im just saying "peaceful open spaces" are costly to keep expanding. Something has to give. Eventually its going to be too expensive for the mass population to live in the suburbs and density will be necessary to survive.
Thats just the way civilized life is. Thats the way it has been for thousands of years.
I don't see anyone FORCING people to live in dense highrise buildings. We as Americans are simply CHOOSING where we want to live, be it downtown urban setting or big mansion on several acres. It's called the American Dream!
@saxmanb777 I think you don't understand the situation in Scottsdale. We have mountain views and open spaces and low rise buildings, with a limit of 3 stories. But developers want to replace those with 15 story buildings that will cause over crowding and traffic congestion. The large buildings will also block our views of Camelback Mountain for example. If people want to live in congested urban settings, that is their choice. But we are chosing open spaces here.
I have a feeling that this guy works for the oil, asphalt, big box, fast food, car companies that benefit from the nasty car-dependent areas like Scottsdale.
Its hard to trust him... I believe he knows better alternatives, but his group will suffer taking away his obsense profits.
@Cyrus992 It seems that many people are misunderstanding the meaning of this video. In Scottsdale we have open spaces, mountain views, and low rise buildings. Greedy developers will destroy our quality of life
by building high rise buildings, adding to traffic congestion, and noise. We aren't against people who want urban living, just not here where it will destroy our peaceful quality of life.
Listen, you are misunderstanding my point. The idea is not to "force" people to live in high-rises and crowded living. That's what they car, asphalt, and oil companies want you to be brainwashed in.
The idea (which is in the New Urbanism transect) to stop building wasteful cul-de-sacs, collector roads, parking lots, oversized boxy 1-story buildings, land-use segregation that foreces people to drive excessively. I believe the high-density is only and should be infill not outside
"new urbanism" means build the city on the city...do you realy think Scottsdale's old urbanism didn't destroy anything ?? youre seriously retarded... stop living in the 1900's
Im conservative, and very much pro business, but I think new urbanism is actually a really really good idea. THe old grid system was very efficient, compact, and accessible. Lots to do and see within the space of a few miles, and for people watchers it is a treat. FOr some people this is not ideal and I understand that, but the beauty of that system is that you have much more time to spend living and much less driving or waiting. Its not so much about living on top of each other as efficiency
@innotech I think you don't understand the situation in Scottsdale. We have mountain views and open spaces and low rise buildings, with a limit of 3 stories. But developers want to replace those with 15 story buildings that will cause over crowding and traffic congestion. The large buildings will also block our views of Camelback Mountain for example. If people want to live in congested, noisy urban settings, that is their choice. But we are choosing peaceful, open spaces here.
I lived in Tucson Arizona and spent considerable amount of time in Phoenix. If you don´t build with new urbanist principles, you get unsustainable cities. Look at Tucson, it is turning into a dump from the center out. Look at Mesa, AZ. Look at other areas. I moved to Europe and my lifestyle is much healthier and I still drive a car and drive down the street, and I can still live in a house with a yard and a pool but I can also walk anywhere and I don´t have to shuttle my kids to soccer
If he knew anything about new urbanism, he would know it is based on the Transect, which encompasses everything from very low density to very high density development. It's not that your car will be taken from you or that you will be forced to live in dense, Manhattan-like areas, you'll just have the choice of whether to walk or bike or drive to places you need to go. He also has it backwards, right now government 'control' (aka current building codes) FORCE everyone to own a car, no choice.
Unofortunatley, insane Randal O Toole and Wendell Cox bring misleading stats and facts that NU is destructive and forces to hurt freedoms. Yet the fail they realize that what is the norm is dominated by codes and zoning laws that creates forced cul-de-sacs, collector roads, highways, parking requirements, land-use segeregation, etc..
Not only that, they are lobbying for the parties like oil, asphalt, big box, fast food, car companies that benefit.
He's afraid of what he interprets to be a communist like idea. Suburbs and their neighborhoods already are planned from the get go, accept in a highly expanded fashion. The idea isn't to force, but to promote. The reason to live in a new urbanist city is to be close to work and play, to give up the need for a car. It's our American obsession by sociological standards to own automobiles. In many cases, we don't need them. Suburbs only add to commute times, increasing energy and time use.
There can be a compromise. I don't think anybody is suggesting that Scottsdale become like Manhattan.
The 1-2 story devlopment sprawl has destroyed much of the desert around Phoenix. I call this city the "Empire" city. The sprawl goes dozens of miles in all directions, from Anthem past South Mountain, from Buckeye to Apache Junction.
Please, lets focus on in-fill and at least 3-4 story developments.
You mean 2-3 Story developments. Its the collector roads, parking requirements and lots, and oversized big box, strip mall, office park, public buidlings that are very destructive. The help benefit and benefited the oil, asphalt, car companies, etc.. that I belive this man, O Toole, and Cox are lobbying for.
2-Story Single Family homes popular in New Urbanism is not what we need to avoid. You know the area with its adobe/spanish design find 1-story homes marketable.
@theraptorfan100 The condos the video showed in the beginning certainly dont resemble soviet style and look quite livable to me so I am not sure what the video mesg is. The video says one thing and the title another.
It sounds like you have bought into the media propaganda that all white republican people are racists. I can tell you I have black friends, who live in the suburbs.
The greedy developers are responsible for ruining our peaceful life in Scottsdale.
The developers only care about high density buildings, so they can make more money. Noisy, polluted, crowded.. There are plenty of nice affordable places in Scottsdale in open spaces for anyone- black or white.
I agree there should be options for people who don't have cars. More buses, with frequent pick ups. But our problem is with the greedy developers who try to build
high density, crowded, noisy and polluted developments which ruin our scenic views.
Scottsdale has always been a quiet, beautiful place.
I think you need to be careful what you wish for.
Manhattan density sucks. There are shootings daily and its around 60k a sq mile. are you sure you will like that? Its so loud there at night you never get a break.
Big cities have pollution,crime,TRAFFIC,and a High COL.
I lived in NYC since I was born and every night there are guns going off,police/fire sirens,honking cars,etc. I dont even live in Manhattan,I live in Queens.
I think suburbs should be a little dense but not like a big city. People will realize they will want the suburbs back when it gets to be too much. Why do you think suburbs were created in the first place? To get a away from the problems of an urban city.
Idiot! This right-wing schlock jock thinks it's a bad thing for "command and control" new urbanism with dense living arrangements where mass rapid transit would be the best and highest means of getting around? What is the present scheme of things except command and control? By the forces of the "free market" actually manipulated by the govt for benefit of corporations, we are COMMANDED to buy a car and drive if we want to get anywhere, and CONTROLLED by hour-long, twenty-mile commutes each way.
You are absoluetly right. The "command and control" is happening in the car-dependent cities like Scottsdale because for decades the oil, cement, asphalt, big box, fast food, and car companies have lobbied to to create a way of life that helps them make obsense profits.
When we had more of a free market we had efficient & nice streetcar towns. The lobbyists tore them down later on. Today O Toole, Cox, are trying to stop NU to further benefit their parties.
No one would call what he is talking about as New Urbanism. "New Urbanism" (which frankly was a self glorifying commodification by DPZ of what other urban planners and architects were doing and thinking in the wake of Jane Jacobs, Joel Garreau et al) is a reaction to souless, traffic congested, nature destroying sprawl AND to over built, urban canyoned, congested spaces like much of NYC. DPZ has whored the idea for high density folk but traditional small town aesthetic, new or revitalized.
Suburbs were built off a profit and generated revenue for all the major car companies. Its a damn shame so many lives have been ruined over this, but all everyone can do now is move forward and try to reverse it and make this new lifestyle work.
During the late 1800's we designed streetcar Victorian suburbs where people sprawled, had yards, was done in a free market, and had many of the principles of New Urbanism. Why can't we go back and learn from those patterns? Thats all the change we need in our growing patterns. I hope he is NOT against that!
@Cyrus992 Thanks for your comment. I believe there is room for all kinds of City development and you can live in a place that offers you the kind of neighborhood that you want. Our issue is that in downtown Scottsdale, in Arizona, we do NOT want high rise, density development. We can no longer see the mountains downtown. The City used to be beautiful, now it is covered with concrete and black top. Greed from developers and light rail scams are the reason for high density planning in Scottsdale.
@dugger1414 We can.. Just look at Kentlands, MD and Seaside, FL or you can see what we did with the creation of late 1800's we designed streetcar Victorian suburbs.
I'm a proponent for New Urbanism, but the video really does put it bluntly how the ideas behind NU can be against the "American Dream" - in a plural sense. However, there are a large number of younger people, as well as an aging baby-booming population who would enjoy a walkable city that encourages community involvement, creates sociopetal interaction, and allows for the preservation of our natural environment.
@mannequin003 Thanks for your comment. We agree that some peoople would like a walkable City with high rises and light rail. So those people can find a City that offers that kind of high density living. In Scottsdale, we want to preserve the beauty of our City, mountain views and open spaces. We do not want concrete and black top covering our downtown. People used to come here to get away from the chaos of City living. Now we are being sold out to developers and light rail scammers.
@scottsdalestudios I would recommend you look into what new urbanism really is. You say "we want to preserve the beauty of our City, mountain views and open spaces. We do not want concrete and black top covering our downtown," but that is the exact goal of new urbanism as well. New urban development (as in FURTHER urban development) is not the same thing as New Urbanism.
@KrunchyJD Some people don't beleive that peak oil is true, BUT however oil prices MOST LIKELY will rise due to global tentions, higher costs of extraction, weak dollar, rising debt, etc... That will eventually destroy the car-dependent suburbs around the world.
This is a direct assault on my God given right to sit on my fat suburbanite butt three hours a day in traffic in my 11 MPG Jeep Grand Cherokee 4WD. Old fogies don't want COPD from all my smog-forming emissions? Kiddies don't want asthma? Well, they should get their own cars, roll up the windows, and crank up the A/C!
Sarcasm aside (I commute by bike), I have more tolerance for city planners forcing developers to build sustainably, than for oil junkies forcing kids to use inhalers to breathe.
"It's under assault!" Ugh... stop spreading fear. There will always be suburbs. But when you grow old and have to live in a retirement home, don't bitch that you have no freedom because you can't walk to the store. Or the post office. Or the restaurant. Or ANYWHERE, because you CAN'T DRIVE when your eyes are bad. At least, without endangering everyone else. But what does this guy care? Enjoy your life in a meaningless suburb separate from everything. Douche.
Destroying Scottsdale?? Tell me where the best places in Scottsdale are. Oldtown comes up. Dense places come up, at least in my mind they do. The ugliest places in the valley are the suburbs, and people migrate to the dense places for pleasure. Why not densify everything, so that everywhere you ARE is pleasurable??? I'm getting the fuck out of this desert. What a wasteland. If you think the Valley is great, then you haven't been ANYWHERE, this is fact.
What this radio guy doesn't realize is that New Urbanism isn't just a synonym for 'high density' or big city life. I'm relatively new to all this, but I thought the whole idea was mixed-use planning? It applies beautifully to a lot of small towns, and some cities here in America. What's so un-American about small towns?
Thanks. It's surprising that so few people realize that different people want to live in different areas--or that people should have a choice: five buildings per acre or five acres per building.
If a person is willing to pay for the cost and for the negative externalities that his suburban life style imposes on other then that's fine to me. Otherwise he better get use to "high density", I don't want to pay for his suburban life style.
What negative externalities? Because of improved agriculture there is more forrest and wilderness than 100 years ago, we have less air pollution, water pollution, noise pollution.
I was not talking about agriculture, I was talking about suburbs. Suburb externalities and other cost imposed on others : extra roads (expensive + pollution), extra cars (more pollution), extra congestion, use of more land for less people etc.
But there hasn't been more pollution, pollution has steadily dropped for a century. And why is using more land a problem if land is cheap? Suburbs still take up less thatn 2% land used and the amount of forrest and wilderness is growing.
Who is this radio douchebag? His rhetoric is typical "We are American, we deserve everything" garbage. 1) Just because we are "Americans", doesn't just endow us with any divine right. e.g. It doesn't give us the RIGHT to exploit nature.
One of the consequences of this sprawling way of life is that we have to concentrate things like nature, farms, etc. With respect to farms (for meat production), the result is that animals are kept in concentration camp like confines... essentially tortured...
I don't think many people think of this at all, which is why I chose to use it as one example (out of many) of why the sprawling "American dream" is outdated.
I also believe that we have become so sprawled out, that any freedom we get, we give away because *everyone* lives that way too--so that's why it takes :30 to get across town (5 mile drive), or we waste hours in traffic going anywhere these days.
Sure we have a right to exploit nature to make our lives better even Communists belive that. The issue is do we in a free society allow governmetn to prevent useful land from being developed and let ourselves be confomed into a complex system of houseing regulations that don't make sence.
Urbanism is being handled by the departments which sets codes on how people should live.
Solution:
Make New Urbanism a free market product therefore this guy who whined about it wont live there and instead he could choose to live in other system.
Deciding on what urbanism works for everyone is difficult, therefore you should provide urban options and choices. I like NU towns therefore I will live there, but it wont dominate planning.
I think you may be missing the point. Phoenix metro area, Az., was just listed as one of the 10 most desirable places to live. And New York City was named one of the top 2 most undesireable.
Greedy developers try to sell us on high density development to line their pockets. If people want the New York City lifestyle (and based on the recent study, they dont) let them move to New York. We dont want high density. We want sunsets, mountain views, and open space. The free market has worked.
LOL. You're making no sense. You say people don't want high density living. Yet you also say that "greedy developers" build high density (how is building high density any more "greedy" than building crappy sprawling single-family homes).
If people don't want high density housing, than none of these high density units will sell, and the "greedy" developers won't make any money.
There is WITHOUT QUESTION a segment of the new urbanism movement (liberals) that believes oil is evil and seeks to tell everybody how they should live. Its frustrating because they pollute new urbanism with political agenda and thats what this guy is responding to.
I am 1000% percent in favor of new urbanism but people will always have a choice. Thats why I enjoy watching lectures by Andres Duany because he is incredibly practical in his approach.
What a pile of rubbish. Increase in density means saving the resources and providing better services and if you want to drive a huge pick up truck and have few cows you can still do it, but not in the metropolitan boundaries.
How does it save resources? Taller buildingts need stronger foundations and to be build of concrete. More Resources. Denser cities mena cars are idleing in traffic and stop and go more. they use more fuel. More resources. You do save land, but land is cheap.
There are few areas where you save on materials, maintenance, transport etc. When you build a house you need foundations and you need piping and you also need services such as transport and piping water sewerage and electricity. Energy losses on services due to spread of the population is enormous. In US much of electricity is lost due to transfer losses. Pumping costs are very high. another thing is by building high rises you save on space that can be used for agriculture or parks
@mrmaciejm -- You sill need to pump water way up to high floors which takes a lot more energy then moving water along the ground. You need elevators wich use more energy than cars and there is lot of land. Agriculture requires less land all the time and why have parks when people can have yards.
Well... yes, but you have to compare energy costs. This pumping up the building is done in the building, therefore you don't have to have such high pressures in the pipes that run hundreds km just to provide regular homes with reasonable pressure. Have you ever seen flat cities? Water has to be pumped up too. Elevators.. its a long story... The devil is in detail. Anyway there is a lot of data that supports claims that high density is better than low density.
Then why not let people do ass they please with thier property and not regulate everything. Let price and people's desires control how they want to live,
If you would let people do anything... you would have anarchy and chaos. Just have a look at shanty towns... That's how people are like. The governments, local and state must work to use the available resources (infrastructure) to reduce energy use, maximize use of services (hospitals, security) and create efficient city. Efficient and maybe one day sustainable.
First off I didn't say let people do anything, I do belive that property rights are important. As far as shanty towns go they are the result of people urbanizing and are and important steping stone towards the middle class. A lot is being learned from studying shanty towns and slums.
Let's keep in mind these shock jocks arn't really conservative. Theres nothing conservative about demanding that we pay for the highway system that these people use because they choose to live a life that requires a car to survive.
New Urbanism is much closer to libertarian conservatism than the current republican party. Calling some one conservative you don't agree with is just using buzzwords similar to the shock jocks. Increase your lexicon and you'll help the new urbanism movement.
Actually - the reason these reicht-wing shock jocks are against "New Urbanism" is because it would also have the side effect of taking away the land-vote that has kept ignorant, holy-rolling Republicans in power for so long...
Whaaa? I don't get it... Is that Rush Limbaugh's voice?
Rush Limbaugh loves the sprawl of his own ass...
New Urbanism does not confine people... that's what the current grid is doing. New Urbanism allows this city to spread out into little pockets where everybody can be close to where they live, play and grow their food... duh.
"Soviet Style"and"Command/Control" catch phrases pandering to a conservative audience. I was born/raised in Maryvale, a suburban 'American Dream' tract that was, in the 60's & 70's the very edge of urban development. Expansive, open & full of promise. It is now a neglected, crime troubled wasteland. The Phoenix area for the last 60 years has developed like a ringworm fungus; all activity at the outer edges. If you wanna know what your McMansion cul-de-sac will be in 30 years? Visit Maryvale!
Destroying Scottsdale? I had the misfortune of living in this pit for eight miserable months. I lived in an awful little apartment miles away from everything. i wish I could have lived in downtown or old town Scottsdale where the buildings made some sense and you didn't have to drive 5 miles for a cup of coffee. The worst part of this video is that it ignores the fact that south Scottsdale, built in the narrator's ideal model of sprawl is largely abandoned and economically depressed.
I think this video overlooks one of the key issues that New Urbanism is addressing. New Urbanism is a reaction to unsustainable resource consumption. New Urbanism is trying to create sustainable cities in order to create a high quality of life for the immediate future. It is not an attack on ones' personal freedoms. It is a recognition that oil futures are murky. Without cheap oil, our current way of life is impossible. If oil goes to 80 dollars a barrel, long commutes and cheap goods disappear.
if this guy wants all that, then his house price should reflect the cost of the roads to get to his house, the cost of infrastructure required to be delivered to his house (pipes cables etc) and the cost on the environment his 3 or 4 cars are creating. then, once those costs are completely covered by the USERS rather than the TAX PAYER, there wont be a problem. get educated mate.
Or you could use tolls to reflect the cost of the road. People aready pay for thier cars and this indevidual investment is part of why highways work the way they do. The only environmental impact not covvered by cost is global warming, but it is virtualy imposible to stop global warming and according to many studies it is unnecesary.
I have a question for you... do you simply not care about those of us who DON'T want to feel compelled drive everywhere? Newsflash: not everyone wants to be confined to their cars, and the number of us is growing. Do you not understand that some of us want something that doesn't revolve completely around driving? For all of the talk about "freedom", some of you have little concern with the freedom of others. We've bent over backwards for cars exclusively for the last 60 years. Time for change.
You are free to use your car as much or as little as you wish. The problem is when tax money is used to subsidize a certain lifestyle and regulations like development boundaries force people to live a lifestyle which they may not want and many can not afford to live in your ideal.
Subsidizing like the way my taxes pay for city roads whether I drive or not? Subsidizing like the way my taxes pay to rescue the auto industry? Regulations like minimum car parking lot spaces (read: gargantuan) while pedestrian and bicycle accomodations are ignored? Show me where NU mandates that you CAN'T drive if you want to. NU is about giving people options and building in a way that makes sense over the long term. Suburbia practically requires driving. NU fosters a variety of modes.
Some cities have maximum parking spaces. and, i agree roads should be funded by tolls and not taxes, but it is possible to fund highways with fuel tax alone, but rail lines can not exist without transit. many bus lines would exist without subsidization but many are undefiled buses which waste fuel going to suburbs where people own three cars and don't want to go downtown.
*Some* cities have maximum parking spaces, but the much more ubiquitous regulation is minimums. Just look at some of our parking lots. Many of them aren't even half full the vast majority of the time. There's a lot in my city that is only more than half full twice a year - the other 363 days out of the year, there's enough space for an entire walkable downtown with residences, a street, and a variety of shops... yet there's practically no accomodations for bicycles. The epitome of waste.
I agree parking lots size should not be regulated and wasted space increases land values. However, it may be that the spaces are used during peak times. If parking spaces weren't regulated in area and store owners allowed to charge fees, especially for workers, they would encourage carpooling or reduced trips.
The reality is that the land value taken up by roads outstrips 10000:1 the total value of the entire public transit system. Not seeing how you're making the argument you think you are here. The biggest tax money subsidy goes to not only building more roads, but simply NOT selling the existing ones in exchange for the money the land is worth, thus forcing people to live a lifestyle that they may not want because they can't afford to live in your ideal.
WHO IS THIS F-KHEAD TALKING? Is he a radio host or something? I'd LIKE TO have ten acres alone to myself.
It's not socially responsible.
This guy is typical American: totally thoughtless. Average American is so damn wasteful, it's an f-n joke. They've become accustomed to it; like it's normal to get a new car every five years (when your previous car works perfectly well). I wish people would watch the movie "Earthlings" to get a sense of how we (humans) abuse the natural world (animals).
If we were truly striving for sustainable living to save the earth, we would live in earth friendly houses with sunlight for light and heat. We would collect rain water, recycle everything & fertilize with compost. And the land would not be in the middle of noisy, urban settings with dirty air and mass transit. Anyone who tries to sell urban living as earth friendly is buying the propaganda being sold be greedy developers who's only goal is to build higher, to make more and more money.
While that is sustainable, I wasn't saying everything needs to go in that direction.
The urban settings you mentioned with "dirty air" and being "noisy" is likely due to the effects of many cars traveling in a more congested environment. Mass transit is not bad if deployed right, with a reasonable budget and crews working around the clock to keep things in ship-shape.
When you build more houses on more land, instead of going up, you're taking up the Earth's land. Suburbs are NOT green.
But that's not reality. I mean, individually, yeah... we should all do those things. But--in heavy concentration areas (including the suburbs) having a mass transit system has to beat bumper-to-bumper in terms of the environment, in terms of quality of life, and socially.
Be careful about this. Busses at peak times with high use are more efficient then cars but empty buses are not. That is why buses should be privatized and funded by user fees. bumpber to bumper does hurt the environment but so do trains, the solution is better highways and HOTs. As for quality of life and social disconect, social disconnect may be desired and the best quality of life is the one people freely choose.
Be careful about this. Highways at peak times with high use are more efficient than empty busses. But empty highways are not. That is why highways should be privatized and funded by user fees. Bumper to bumper does hurt the environment, but so does free flowing traffic. Social disconnect may lead to people believing that that choose it, because they can't live with the possibility that there's something they've missed out of through not having another option as a choice.
Is the video poster aware of the current problems facing suburbs today? I live in one, and car crashes are frequent, traffic problems increase (building more roads KILLS good open space and businesses!), people barely have enough money anymore spending on car maintenance and paying for their new house, kids aren't safe on the streets anymore, etc.
You obviously chose photos and videos that were pretty twisted in your favor, and that's not how it always is.
If we were truly striving for sustainable living to save the earth, we would live in earth friendly houses with sunlight for light and heat. We would collect rain water, recycle everything & fertilize with compost. And the land would not be in the middle of noisy, urban settings with dirty air and mass transit. Anyone who tries to sell urban living as earth friendly is buying the propaganda being sold be greedy developers who's only goal is to build higher, to make more and more money.
So the author of the video stated that life styles. American lifestyles are being destroyed by better city planning. Then it means that those life styles are not healthy or even good to start with.
There's more wrongs with suburbs than the character allowance on Youtube.
This has been flagged as spam show
Since when did owning a huge home surrounded by useless grass become the "American dream"? The native Americans and the European settlers didn't live in sprawling communities. To me the suburbs are what are truly un-American.
Pino4649 1 week ago
Comment removed
Pino4649 1 week ago
"new" urbanism will benefit everyone (even those who are driving cars), and the environment. Most new urbanists don't intend to take away what many to perceive as the "American Dream", we just want add another CHOICE for people who DON'T want to drive everywhere, mow a lawn, etc. New urbanism WILL destroy the countless dead malls and strip centers that are all over the country. People like Glenn Beck trying to scare people out of improving our built landscape annoy the hell out of me.
onionofdeath 2 weeks ago
The vast majority of people who talk about sorts of "Agenda's" turn out to be paranoid creepers. Get a life.
themizzu12 1 month ago 2
is that satire?
Depotmaster 1 month ago
"soviet styloe condo", lol, he has no idea!
Depotmaster 1 month ago
I don't want a car and, frankly, I think it's funny you think that we even have a choice to continue building suburbia. It's too energy intensive, people spend too much time driving to get where they want, and it destroys community.
jbibm81 1 month ago
Dear Scottsdale, you are in a fucking desert, behave accordingly.
jcmik 1 month ago
Is this guy retarded, or an actor?
SaturnEternity 2 months ago
U ever heard of brownstownes its called ur own house
bmp456 2 months ago
large size apartment complexes have very little to do with New Urbanism. Get an education, maybe read a book.
DrummerBoyJason 2 months ago
I moved 6 months ago to the country, lived in the suburbs all my life and I would never go back. I would rather drive a horse and buggy to town than to ever live around the noise and congestion again. Yes my 2000 sq ft home on 10 acres is a bit bigger than I need living alone but I love it.
notlazy69 2 months ago
This idiot spelled "don't" wrong
xxx2397 3 months ago
If I could get out of my car and walk no more than 5 minutes to the grocery store (instead of having to drive 15 minutes to it) that would be a dream.
21centuryg 3 months ago
This is the stupidest video I have seen on youtube
xxx2397 3 months ago 7
Your going to have to "live that way" when there's no more oil left
mrSWEETnLOWE 4 months ago
is this guy an idiot? The "American dream" to live in suburbs is all based on an infeasible economic plan built 14 million dollars of credit.
i no longer want my tax money to be used to subsidize your irresponsible life style
lazyazn147 5 months ago
omg. soviet style, what is this guy thinking? The Phoenix metropolitan area is the crappiest place in the US and Scottsdale is the crappiest place in Phoenix.
mkieltyka 5 months ago
what an idiot.
roobqt 5 months ago 3
I don't see how new urbanism is going to destroy Scottsdale. Most new buildings build to LEED standards, so have green roofs to reduce heat islands. You can't stop people from moving to Scottsdale and choosing to live in high density, that would be totally against 'the American way'. Housing is about choice and people are choosing to to live in these developments, whether you like it or not.
halifaxboyns 6 months ago
I am confused. Why do you think that the guy who is speaking is a greedy developer? Just the opposite. We are AGAINST high rise development in Scottsdale. We do not want high rise development, mass transit, pollution, pavements and noise. We want the mountain views, serene desert,trees, and quiet. in Scottsdale. That was the point!
scottsdalestudios 6 months ago
@scottsdalestudios
Well you are against that kind of development, but are you aware that some are willing to buy and live in these areas?
Cyrus992 3 months ago
This guy is probably a greedy developer who doesn't care about any kind of evolution.
HoGraz 6 months ago
Destroying Scotsdale? It's already a suburban nightmare. This idiot talking has probably never lived in a decent city like NY, Seattle, or Portland, nor have most detractors of city life. We need to reinvent the American Dream to reflect the exigencies of the future, not a nostalgic myth based on cheap gasoline.
Gas at $4 a gallon? Try paying over $100 to fill your tank like in most countries in Europe. We can't afford to be at war over oil forever.
blogleftbanker 6 months ago
Suburbs :(
bmp456 8 months ago
Is it just me or does it seem like every american talk radio needs to get angry about something
nosequiters 8 months ago
'a high density, soviet style condo' !? The new urbanist developments I've seen are far more visually appealing than what suburbia has produced--it's not even close. Even many of the old preWWII neighborhoods look better than suburbia. Communities designed for people(not cars) always will.
rktech68fl 8 months ago
Theres an option for people who dont want to live in the city. Its called the country.
Thats perfectly acceptable. Just dont expect to have Walmart next door. Nobody says you have to live in close quarters, just that the suburban way of design has no lasting value as a city or place. It has no sense of space or character. It has no defined meaning to it. It is a cartoon of the country, with few of its perks. Im saying this as a conservative myself. New urbanism is the way of the future.
innotech 8 months ago
you are an idiot. Market-driven forces are causing the demise of suburbia. Market-driven means this is now what people desire, and so how do you know what people really want? Not believing in free markets anymore? and yet you say otherwise, because you are an idiot. You yourself apparently do not know what you believe.
clkdv888 8 months ago
hmm
fdh2006 9 months ago
"Soviet style condo?' WHAT A MORON only conservatives...
pavilionking06 9 months ago 2
pavilionking06,
Alex Jones is self-described "PaleoCon", which he'll attack any Left-Wing People even FDR (Left-Wing)!! =/
PEARL HARBOR Was An INSIDE JOB: FDR KNEW....
v=GtkLE3vj99c
Alex Jones on Evolution vs Creationism....
v=O4AlAojU7H8
He is Jew-Christian Closet GAY! Evolution is certainly 100% REAL SCIENCE, and ABORT GAY GENES R on its way to abort his GAY ARSE soon enough!! >=)
Anyhow, his SUBURBAN Utopia/Nightmare is coming to END with PEAK OIL....
v=Q3uvzcY2Xug
IronJackalTw 9 months ago
pavilionking06,
I don't 100% buy into this New Urbanism PIE-IN-THE-SKY BS because Left-Wing have their own GAY FUCKER with BS BRIGHT IDEA such as Barney Frank, too, which gave us HOUSING BUBBLE....
v=2UZ9l_AxKjA
HOUSING BUBBLE is his GAY CRONIES (here is one of them) making BIG MONEY on COMMISSION of selling those OVER-PRICED HOUSES with EASY CREDIT to those that shouldn't be buying them in first place because they really can't afford them at all....
v=rIMOgnnZ2Nw
IronJackalTw 9 months ago
@IronJackalTw
You're obviously not educated on the subject, because I can't read any of what you said
xxx2397 3 months ago
pavilionking06,
Do those New Urbanism have many PROVEN MODEL CITIES out there!? {roll my eyes}
BTW, I lived in Suburban House, so I know what I have to give up on....
v=GfQOLA2mpoE
Here is more....
v=JxossuON8LY
In my opinion, SUBURBIA can be GOOD, too, if it is in a MEDIUM-SIZE CITY with SHORT DRIVES to work, to shop, and so on! It really is a matter of GOOD CITY PLANNING or not! I mean URBAN CITY with crappy design will be HELL to live-in regardless what BS SPIN to it!! >=P
IronJackalTw 9 months ago
@IronJackalTw You can finish rolling your eyes.. and then look up The Pearl District in Portland Oregon if you want a PROVEN model of urban planning. While your at it just do some research on Portland's urban growth boundary and the steps the city has taken to create walkable, convenient, pedestrian/bicycle friendly neighborhoods and urban spaces. Suburbia is dying. Built on an unsustainable idea that oil would be cheap forever and that people could simply drive everywhere. Ditch Suburbia.
pavilionking06 9 months ago
pavilionking06,
SEARCH & READ "Money Magazine: Best Place To Live 2007 Portland, OR"
Okay, that seem interesting!! >=)
BTW, U do know that SUBURBIA is really a result of WHITE FLIGHT from INNER CITIES (with URBAN DECAY) of USA, which turn them into GHETTO of today & Racial Segregation! Anyhow, this is WHY most WHITEYS (GOP types) will be up in arms against INNER CITIES RENEWAL (New Urbanism) because it help out BLACKS too much in their typical Closet RACIST mind!! {roll my eyes}
IronJackalTw 9 months ago
@IronJackalTw Proven model cities? Like San Francisco, Downtown LA, Chicago, Most of the East Coast - New York, DC, Boston, Jonkers, Charleston, etc.
And dont forget Europe. if by model city you mean living close to mass transit, low pollution and safer communities then Europe is your model.
Your conception on what new urbanism is is all wrong. How is an Urban City a crappy design? Have you been to Miwaukee or DC? Its beautiful. And you can live in a house there too.
Sevenfold120 8 months ago
@pavilionking06 I LIVE in Portland Oregon, in the Pearl District so no, it wasn't "interesting" that I mentioned Portland, Oregon. Yeah we all know that people fled the cities back in the day to escape dirty industry but that was then, and this is 2011. If your comfortable paying a premium to live a car-dependent lifestyle in the suburbs so be it.. God bless you. You can be held hostage to the middle eastern oil men who tell you how much you owe them at the pump if you want even. Enjoy $6/gal
pavilionking06 9 months ago
You want to drive your big cars, and your fancy way of life, and keep de co2 up, and when all resourses are over, what will you, and all that american dream do, drink your big cars if you go thirsty,
we all live here, and we all have some complaints about our ways to live, but there are others aho are thinking in what they have to eat in one day, instead of using a big fancy car. (perspectives)
jediaz74 10 months ago
There are plenty of thoughtful responses here that I agree with. I just wanted to point out that, whoever is saying this is clearly angry and clearly ignorant.
djloki6227 11 months ago
There are plenty of thoughtful responses here that I agree with. I just wanted to point out that, whoever is saying this is clearly angry and clearly ignorant.
djloki6227 11 months ago
...for those who value the latter, older style towns and new urban developments are the answer.
onionofdeath 11 months ago
If everyone lives within a mile or so of work, home, parks, etc, then they dont need cars.Without cars they don't pay gas, insurance, traffic tickets, and car payments. And on top of that, they can socialize with others as they pass, or randomly stop in a bakery because the smell of the fresh cinnamon rolls is too hard to overcome. There will probably always be suburbs because there are people who value privacy, traffic, and a yard to mow over living cheaply, conveniently, and efficiently...
onionofdeath 11 months ago
continuing, the commentator also over-simplifies the concept of "new urbanism" in that it requires skyscrapers. The people of Scottsdale/Phoenix shouldn't be opposing New Urbanism, they should be opposing skyscrapers blocking your view of the mountains. Suggest a height limit like they did in Paris France, where they wanted to maintain the view of the Eiffel Tower ;) 3-4 floor limit and the view of the mountains would be maintained while in no way interfering with the pedestrian scale ideal.
RomanV101 11 months ago
The commenter of this video is misinformed. New Urbanism isn't Manhattan. Manhattan is the far extreme of urban. New Urbanism is like a main street with 2 or 3 story buildings. Go to Greenwich Village and it's peaceful, quiet, and convenient pedestrian scaled. This commentator also doesn't realize that suburban sprawl has long been subsidized - and mandated by top down government control.
RomanV101 11 months ago 4
The funny thing is that New Urbanism is old school, its how its been done for thousands of years before the automobile, and before the 50's dream of not having to live next door to a black family. In country's outside of the US some of them can eat what the want and don't necessarily become obese simply because they can walk to the grocery store and their job and whatnot.
TheGoodChap 1 year ago 2
New Urbanism is actually about creating centralized communities, not about the lesser use of cars (however that is a nice side effect), wouldnt most people like to live in a community with a green park, pool and sports park, then have a centralized downtown so that you dont have to drive 5 miles to get groceries, another 5 to get your kids from school, another 5 for clothes shopping, another 5 to the Park so the kids can have fun and 5 more to get gas to go back home ?
dsjj251 1 year ago 4
@dsjj251 I currently live in a community with a park, pool at my house, and shopping within 1 mile. I don't need to drive to the centralized downtown for anything. In Scottsdale, developers want to build high rises and create high density areas. Noise, overcrowding, and pollution are the result of overbuilding and greedy developers. Plus expansion of the heat island effect. If you want to live in a city
with pollution, mass transit, and crowding, that is your choice. Not mine.
scottsdalestudios 1 year ago
@scottsdalestudios that's not new urbanism, idiot
andrewaquart 11 months ago
Who killed the electric car in the 90s? and the streetcars in the 40s and 50s?
fdh2006 1 year ago
no I understand it, but Im just saying "peaceful open spaces" are costly to keep expanding. Something has to give. Eventually its going to be too expensive for the mass population to live in the suburbs and density will be necessary to survive.
Thats just the way civilized life is. Thats the way it has been for thousands of years.
innotech 1 year ago
I don't see anyone FORCING people to live in dense highrise buildings. We as Americans are simply CHOOSING where we want to live, be it downtown urban setting or big mansion on several acres. It's called the American Dream!
saxmanb777 1 year ago
@saxmanb777 I think you don't understand the situation in Scottsdale. We have mountain views and open spaces and low rise buildings, with a limit of 3 stories. But developers want to replace those with 15 story buildings that will cause over crowding and traffic congestion. The large buildings will also block our views of Camelback Mountain for example. If people want to live in congested urban settings, that is their choice. But we are chosing open spaces here.
samw1222 1 year ago
I have a feeling that this guy works for the oil, asphalt, big box, fast food, car companies that benefit from the nasty car-dependent areas like Scottsdale.
Its hard to trust him... I believe he knows better alternatives, but his group will suffer taking away his obsense profits.
Cyrus992 1 year ago
@Cyrus992 It seems that many people are misunderstanding the meaning of this video. In Scottsdale we have open spaces, mountain views, and low rise buildings. Greedy developers will destroy our quality of life
by building high rise buildings, adding to traffic congestion, and noise. We aren't against people who want urban living, just not here where it will destroy our peaceful quality of life.
samw1222 1 year ago
@samw1222
Listen, you are misunderstanding my point. The idea is not to "force" people to live in high-rises and crowded living. That's what they car, asphalt, and oil companies want you to be brainwashed in.
The idea (which is in the New Urbanism transect) to stop building wasteful cul-de-sacs, collector roads, parking lots, oversized boxy 1-story buildings, land-use segregation that foreces people to drive excessively. I believe the high-density is only and should be infill not outside
Cyrus992 1 year ago 5
Scottsdale was destroyed when it was built
scottishlowoflow 1 year ago
"new urbanism" means build the city on the city...do you realy think Scottsdale's old urbanism didn't destroy anything ?? youre seriously retarded... stop living in the 1900's
Frankzi1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I admire many New Urbanist viewpoints, but there is a few things we must improve:
-DO NOT implement new codes. Just sell the product. Look at how codes made the post WW2 disaster
-DO NOT try to solve climate change. GW is not manmade.
-Fight for PRIVATE light rail. Learn from the subsidized highway disaster
-DO NOT lobby. NU will get tons of criticism for "forcing" people. Look at how GM and Big Oil lobbied and made the mess we have today
Fight for a Free Market New Urbanism!
Cyrus992 1 year ago
Im conservative, and very much pro business, but I think new urbanism is actually a really really good idea. THe old grid system was very efficient, compact, and accessible. Lots to do and see within the space of a few miles, and for people watchers it is a treat. FOr some people this is not ideal and I understand that, but the beauty of that system is that you have much more time to spend living and much less driving or waiting. Its not so much about living on top of each other as efficiency
innotech 1 year ago
@innotech I think you don't understand the situation in Scottsdale. We have mountain views and open spaces and low rise buildings, with a limit of 3 stories. But developers want to replace those with 15 story buildings that will cause over crowding and traffic congestion. The large buildings will also block our views of Camelback Mountain for example. If people want to live in congested, noisy urban settings, that is their choice. But we are choosing peaceful, open spaces here.
samw1222 1 year ago
I lived in Tucson Arizona and spent considerable amount of time in Phoenix. If you don´t build with new urbanist principles, you get unsustainable cities. Look at Tucson, it is turning into a dump from the center out. Look at Mesa, AZ. Look at other areas. I moved to Europe and my lifestyle is much healthier and I still drive a car and drive down the street, and I can still live in a house with a yard and a pool but I can also walk anywhere and I don´t have to shuttle my kids to soccer
italozonda 1 year ago 2
If he knew anything about new urbanism, he would know it is based on the Transect, which encompasses everything from very low density to very high density development. It's not that your car will be taken from you or that you will be forced to live in dense, Manhattan-like areas, you'll just have the choice of whether to walk or bike or drive to places you need to go. He also has it backwards, right now government 'control' (aka current building codes) FORCE everyone to own a car, no choice.
samthelima 1 year ago 5
@samthelima
You said bro! Right on!
Unofortunatley, insane Randal O Toole and Wendell Cox bring misleading stats and facts that NU is destructive and forces to hurt freedoms. Yet the fail they realize that what is the norm is dominated by codes and zoning laws that creates forced cul-de-sacs, collector roads, highways, parking requirements, land-use segeregation, etc..
Not only that, they are lobbying for the parties like oil, asphalt, big box, fast food, car companies that benefit.
Cyrus992 1 year ago
He's afraid of what he interprets to be a communist like idea. Suburbs and their neighborhoods already are planned from the get go, accept in a highly expanded fashion. The idea isn't to force, but to promote. The reason to live in a new urbanist city is to be close to work and play, to give up the need for a car. It's our American obsession by sociological standards to own automobiles. In many cases, we don't need them. Suburbs only add to commute times, increasing energy and time use.
mobius1aic 1 year ago
There can be a compromise. I don't think anybody is suggesting that Scottsdale become like Manhattan.
The 1-2 story devlopment sprawl has destroyed much of the desert around Phoenix. I call this city the "Empire" city. The sprawl goes dozens of miles in all directions, from Anthem past South Mountain, from Buckeye to Apache Junction.
Please, lets focus on in-fill and at least 3-4 story developments.
RpKingman 1 year ago
@RpKingman
You mean 2-3 Story developments. Its the collector roads, parking requirements and lots, and oversized big box, strip mall, office park, public buidlings that are very destructive. The help benefit and benefited the oil, asphalt, car companies, etc.. that I belive this man, O Toole, and Cox are lobbying for.
2-Story Single Family homes popular in New Urbanism is not what we need to avoid. You know the area with its adobe/spanish design find 1-story homes marketable.
Cyrus992 1 year ago
How is living in the suburbs and having multiple cars the de facto "American Dream?"
diozent 1 year ago 25
Privatize all streets and freeways. If you can't pay to drive on it, you can't drive on it.
diozent 1 year ago
A Soviet-style condo? Is this idiot serious?
theraptorfan100 1 year ago 11
@theraptorfan100 The condos the video showed in the beginning certainly dont resemble soviet style and look quite livable to me so I am not sure what the video mesg is. The video says one thing and the title another.
Sevenfold120 1 year ago
i stumbled across this video by accident and all i can say is WOW.
suburbs were created to escape black people. republicans will never change.
philvia 1 year ago
@philvia
It sounds like you have bought into the media propaganda that all white republican people are racists. I can tell you I have black friends, who live in the suburbs.
The greedy developers are responsible for ruining our peaceful life in Scottsdale.
The developers only care about high density buildings, so they can make more money. Noisy, polluted, crowded.. There are plenty of nice affordable places in Scottsdale in open spaces for anyone- black or white.
samw1222 1 year ago
@samw1222
maybe you ignore the whole part of our history referring to "white flight"
philvia 1 year ago
not everyone can afford a car so why make it harder on poor people to get around town.
Itravelbackintime 1 year ago
@Itravelbackintime
I agree there should be options for people who don't have cars. More buses, with frequent pick ups. But our problem is with the greedy developers who try to build
high density, crowded, noisy and polluted developments which ruin our scenic views.
Scottsdale has always been a quiet, beautiful place.
samw1222 1 year ago
The problem is oil is at its peak. America is just addicted to gas...All suburbs do is create traffic congestion.
keopera91 1 year ago
I think you need to be careful what you wish for.
Manhattan density sucks. There are shootings daily and its around 60k a sq mile. are you sure you will like that? Its so loud there at night you never get a break.
Police sirens 24/7.
keinaan12345 1 year ago
@keinaan12345
Exactly my point when I posted the video. In Scottsdale, we do not want to be like every other big, crowded, noisy, polluted, and crime ridden city.
scottsdalestudios 1 year ago
@scottsdalestudios exactly
Big cities have pollution,crime,TRAFFIC,and a High COL.
I lived in NYC since I was born and every night there are guns going off,police/fire sirens,honking cars,etc. I dont even live in Manhattan,I live in Queens.
I think suburbs should be a little dense but not like a big city. People will realize they will want the suburbs back when it gets to be too much. Why do you think suburbs were created in the first place? To get a away from the problems of an urban city.
keinaan12345 1 year ago
@keinaan12345 dude queens is a shithole!
there are very nice places that are compact and walkable without the ghetto in your face queens attitude.
TheYaom 1 year ago
@keinaan12345 shootings everyday?????
heheheeheheheheheheh liar
TheYaom 1 year ago
@keinaan12345 Thereason big cities have pollution and noise is cars, introduce a congestion tax, problem solved.
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
Soviet styled? You do not know one thing about Soviet styled
mugshotesp 1 year ago 2
Idiot! This right-wing schlock jock thinks it's a bad thing for "command and control" new urbanism with dense living arrangements where mass rapid transit would be the best and highest means of getting around? What is the present scheme of things except command and control? By the forces of the "free market" actually manipulated by the govt for benefit of corporations, we are COMMANDED to buy a car and drive if we want to get anywhere, and CONTROLLED by hour-long, twenty-mile commutes each way.
EdM021 1 year ago
@EdM021
You are absoluetly right. The "command and control" is happening in the car-dependent cities like Scottsdale because for decades the oil, cement, asphalt, big box, fast food, and car companies have lobbied to to create a way of life that helps them make obsense profits.
When we had more of a free market we had efficient & nice streetcar towns. The lobbyists tore them down later on. Today O Toole, Cox, are trying to stop NU to further benefit their parties.
Cyrus992 1 year ago
No one would call what he is talking about as New Urbanism. "New Urbanism" (which frankly was a self glorifying commodification by DPZ of what other urban planners and architects were doing and thinking in the wake of Jane Jacobs, Joel Garreau et al) is a reaction to souless, traffic congested, nature destroying sprawl AND to over built, urban canyoned, congested spaces like much of NYC. DPZ has whored the idea for high density folk but traditional small town aesthetic, new or revitalized.
ellisdrummond 1 year ago
@ellisdrummond I seen you somewhere before lol.
Suburbs were built off a profit and generated revenue for all the major car companies. Its a damn shame so many lives have been ruined over this, but all everyone can do now is move forward and try to reverse it and make this new lifestyle work.
MrRuigni 1 year ago
During the late 1800's we designed streetcar Victorian suburbs where people sprawled, had yards, was done in a free market, and had many of the principles of New Urbanism. Why can't we go back and learn from those patterns? Thats all the change we need in our growing patterns. I hope he is NOT against that!
Cyrus992 1 year ago
@Cyrus992 Thanks for your comment. I believe there is room for all kinds of City development and you can live in a place that offers you the kind of neighborhood that you want. Our issue is that in downtown Scottsdale, in Arizona, we do NOT want high rise, density development. We can no longer see the mountains downtown. The City used to be beautiful, now it is covered with concrete and black top. Greed from developers and light rail scams are the reason for high density planning in Scottsdale.
scottsdalestudios 1 year ago
@scottsdalestudios Exactly which comment did you like...???
Cyrus992 1 year ago
What an idiotic video. Stay in your 3 cars, if you like, until gas gets to $20/gallon. See what you think then.
sobesm 1 year ago
At no point does this emotional rant consider WHY new urbanism is taking off.
kz1000ps 1 year ago
Who says smart car free cities are at the exclusion of sprawl? Right now we just have one. Can we try both?
dugger1414 1 year ago
@dugger1414 We can.. Just look at Kentlands, MD and Seaside, FL or you can see what we did with the creation of late 1800's we designed streetcar Victorian suburbs.
Cyrus992 1 year ago
not sure what this video has to do with the destruction Scottsdale.
thepriesthood 1 year ago
I'm a proponent for New Urbanism, but the video really does put it bluntly how the ideas behind NU can be against the "American Dream" - in a plural sense. However, there are a large number of younger people, as well as an aging baby-booming population who would enjoy a walkable city that encourages community involvement, creates sociopetal interaction, and allows for the preservation of our natural environment.
mannequin003 1 year ago
@mannequin003 No one ever said the American dream was to create suburbs which this video implies. Suburbs are like 50-60 years old American is 200.
Sevenfold120 1 year ago
@mannequin003 Thanks for your comment. We agree that some peoople would like a walkable City with high rises and light rail. So those people can find a City that offers that kind of high density living. In Scottsdale, we want to preserve the beauty of our City, mountain views and open spaces. We do not want concrete and black top covering our downtown. People used to come here to get away from the chaos of City living. Now we are being sold out to developers and light rail scammers.
scottsdalestudios 1 year ago
@scottsdalestudios I would recommend you look into what new urbanism really is. You say "we want to preserve the beauty of our City, mountain views and open spaces. We do not want concrete and black top covering our downtown," but that is the exact goal of new urbanism as well. New urban development (as in FURTHER urban development) is not the same thing as New Urbanism.
mannequin003 10 months ago
Wow, what a stupid, uneducated video. You clearly don't care about the environment getting whipped out to build cookie cutter, car dependant estates.
soulvisionq1 1 year ago 4
@soulvisionq1 Exactly.. all the change is needed is just to move the puzzle pieces around and make the areas more mixed-use and diverse.. Agreed?
Cyrus992 1 year ago
@Cyrus992 Agreed!
soulvisionq1 1 year ago
Stupid video, how is sitting in a car all day to go anywhere a good idea. Ever heard of peak oil?
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD Some people don't beleive that peak oil is true, BUT however oil prices MOST LIKELY will rise due to global tentions, higher costs of extraction, weak dollar, rising debt, etc... That will eventually destroy the car-dependent suburbs around the world.
Cyrus992 1 year ago
Good to know someone's out there confirming people's stereotypes about places like Scottsdale.
Anyway, to the rest of the world: know that most people in Scottsdale aren't like the idiot in this video.
doesurmindglow 1 year ago 2
The entire country has become one awful sprawling suburb where you have to use a car to do anything and everything.
.... all to serve our oil masters.
That's the tyrrany.
They've used the power of law and their influence over corrupt elected officials to force us all to live in soul-crushing suburbs.
zideaz 1 year ago 3
Gas will only get more expensive. And when it does, these kinds of twits will be BEGGING for the chance to live in a New Urbanist community.
dharmicangel 1 year ago 3
This is a direct assault on my God given right to sit on my fat suburbanite butt three hours a day in traffic in my 11 MPG Jeep Grand Cherokee 4WD. Old fogies don't want COPD from all my smog-forming emissions? Kiddies don't want asthma? Well, they should get their own cars, roll up the windows, and crank up the A/C!
Sarcasm aside (I commute by bike), I have more tolerance for city planners forcing developers to build sustainably, than for oil junkies forcing kids to use inhalers to breathe.
robopaladin 1 year ago
FEAR, FEAR, FEARmongering..... that's all this is...
thebigskynow 1 year ago 5
Let's see how many people will want suburban sprawl when gas goes to $4/gallon and doesn't come back down.
TenderTrap86 1 year ago 22
"It's under assault!" Ugh... stop spreading fear. There will always be suburbs. But when you grow old and have to live in a retirement home, don't bitch that you have no freedom because you can't walk to the store. Or the post office. Or the restaurant. Or ANYWHERE, because you CAN'T DRIVE when your eyes are bad. At least, without endangering everyone else. But what does this guy care? Enjoy your life in a meaningless suburb separate from everything. Douche.
jeffsandychelsea 1 year ago 4
Destroying Scottsdale?? Tell me where the best places in Scottsdale are. Oldtown comes up. Dense places come up, at least in my mind they do. The ugliest places in the valley are the suburbs, and people migrate to the dense places for pleasure. Why not densify everything, so that everywhere you ARE is pleasurable??? I'm getting the fuck out of this desert. What a wasteland. If you think the Valley is great, then you haven't been ANYWHERE, this is fact.
tourdefrance 1 year ago
What this radio guy doesn't realize is that New Urbanism isn't just a synonym for 'high density' or big city life. I'm relatively new to all this, but I thought the whole idea was mixed-use planning? It applies beautifully to a lot of small towns, and some cities here in America. What's so un-American about small towns?
TheZav88 1 year ago
People need to have the choice, and neither side seems to be listening. Do you want to live in
T6: Urban core (Manhattan/Boston)
T5: Town Center (traditional New England center)
T4: General Urban (Duplex, Mixed Uses, 40 foot frontages)
T3: Suburban
T2: Rural
T1: Conservation/Frontier
That choice should be up to you. You shouldn't have politicians deciding whether you stuck with either urban or suburban sprawl.
maxxoccupancy 2 years ago
maxxoccupancy:
Best comment ever!! I will use that from know on... I would prefer T3....I guess...
Cyrus992 2 years ago
Thanks. It's surprising that so few people realize that different people want to live in different areas--or that people should have a choice: five buildings per acre or five acres per building.
maxxoccupancy 2 years ago
maxxoccupancy:
Tell that to user Scottit....!!
Cyrus992 2 years ago
If a person is willing to pay for the cost and for the negative externalities that his suburban life style imposes on other then that's fine to me. Otherwise he better get use to "high density", I don't want to pay for his suburban life style.
anarkoFred 2 years ago
What negative externalities? Because of improved agriculture there is more forrest and wilderness than 100 years ago, we have less air pollution, water pollution, noise pollution.
Knoss 1 year ago
I was not talking about agriculture, I was talking about suburbs. Suburb externalities and other cost imposed on others : extra roads (expensive + pollution), extra cars (more pollution), extra congestion, use of more land for less people etc.
anarkoFred 1 year ago
But there hasn't been more pollution, pollution has steadily dropped for a century. And why is using more land a problem if land is cheap? Suburbs still take up less thatn 2% land used and the amount of forrest and wilderness is growing.
Knoss 1 year ago
Who is this radio douchebag? His rhetoric is typical "We are American, we deserve everything" garbage. 1) Just because we are "Americans", doesn't just endow us with any divine right. e.g. It doesn't give us the RIGHT to exploit nature.
One of the consequences of this sprawling way of life is that we have to concentrate things like nature, farms, etc. With respect to farms (for meat production), the result is that animals are kept in concentration camp like confines... essentially tortured...
JohnLeeMD 2 years ago 2
...to accomodate this lifestyle.
I don't think many people think of this at all, which is why I chose to use it as one example (out of many) of why the sprawling "American dream" is outdated.
I also believe that we have become so sprawled out, that any freedom we get, we give away because *everyone* lives that way too--so that's why it takes :30 to get across town (5 mile drive), or we waste hours in traffic going anywhere these days.
"destroying Scottsdale" gimme a f-n break.
JohnLeeMD 2 years ago
Sure we have a right to exploit nature to make our lives better even Communists belive that. The issue is do we in a free society allow governmetn to prevent useful land from being developed and let ourselves be confomed into a complex system of houseing regulations that don't make sence.
Knoss 1 year ago
This is the problem:
Urbanism is being handled by the departments which sets codes on how people should live.
Solution:
Make New Urbanism a free market product therefore this guy who whined about it wont live there and instead he could choose to live in other system.
Deciding on what urbanism works for everyone is difficult, therefore you should provide urban options and choices. I like NU towns therefore I will live there, but it wont dominate planning.
Cyrus992 2 years ago
I think you may be missing the point. Phoenix metro area, Az., was just listed as one of the 10 most desirable places to live. And New York City was named one of the top 2 most undesireable.
Greedy developers try to sell us on high density development to line their pockets. If people want the New York City lifestyle (and based on the recent study, they dont) let them move to New York. We dont want high density. We want sunsets, mountain views, and open space. The free market has worked.
ScottsdaleElections 2 years ago
@ScottsdaleElections
LOL. You're making no sense. You say people don't want high density living. Yet you also say that "greedy developers" build high density (how is building high density any more "greedy" than building crappy sprawling single-family homes).
If people don't want high density housing, than none of these high density units will sell, and the "greedy" developers won't make any money.
theraptorfan100 1 year ago 4
There is WITHOUT QUESTION a segment of the new urbanism movement (liberals) that believes oil is evil and seeks to tell everybody how they should live. Its frustrating because they pollute new urbanism with political agenda and thats what this guy is responding to.
I am 1000% percent in favor of new urbanism but people will always have a choice. Thats why I enjoy watching lectures by Andres Duany because he is incredibly practical in his approach.
pincfx 2 years ago
What a pile of rubbish. Increase in density means saving the resources and providing better services and if you want to drive a huge pick up truck and have few cows you can still do it, but not in the metropolitan boundaries.
mrmaciejm 2 years ago
How does it save resources? Taller buildingts need stronger foundations and to be build of concrete. More Resources. Denser cities mena cars are idleing in traffic and stop and go more. they use more fuel. More resources. You do save land, but land is cheap.
Knoss 1 year ago
Simple really
There are few areas where you save on materials, maintenance, transport etc. When you build a house you need foundations and you need piping and you also need services such as transport and piping water sewerage and electricity. Energy losses on services due to spread of the population is enormous. In US much of electricity is lost due to transfer losses. Pumping costs are very high. another thing is by building high rises you save on space that can be used for agriculture or parks
mrmaciejm 1 year ago
@mrmaciejm -- You sill need to pump water way up to high floors which takes a lot more energy then moving water along the ground. You need elevators wich use more energy than cars and there is lot of land. Agriculture requires less land all the time and why have parks when people can have yards.
Knoss 1 year ago
@Knoss
Well... yes, but you have to compare energy costs. This pumping up the building is done in the building, therefore you don't have to have such high pressures in the pipes that run hundreds km just to provide regular homes with reasonable pressure. Have you ever seen flat cities? Water has to be pumped up too. Elevators.. its a long story... The devil is in detail. Anyway there is a lot of data that supports claims that high density is better than low density.
mrmaciejm 1 year ago
Then why not let people do ass they please with thier property and not regulate everything. Let price and people's desires control how they want to live,
Knoss 1 year ago
If you would let people do anything... you would have anarchy and chaos. Just have a look at shanty towns... That's how people are like. The governments, local and state must work to use the available resources (infrastructure) to reduce energy use, maximize use of services (hospitals, security) and create efficient city. Efficient and maybe one day sustainable.
mrmaciejm 1 year ago
First off I didn't say let people do anything, I do belive that property rights are important. As far as shanty towns go they are the result of people urbanizing and are and important steping stone towards the middle class. A lot is being learned from studying shanty towns and slums.
Knoss 1 year ago
That's not the point.... never mind.
mrmaciejm 1 year ago
Let's keep in mind these shock jocks arn't really conservative. Theres nothing conservative about demanding that we pay for the highway system that these people use because they choose to live a life that requires a car to survive.
New Urbanism is much closer to libertarian conservatism than the current republican party. Calling some one conservative you don't agree with is just using buzzwords similar to the shock jocks. Increase your lexicon and you'll help the new urbanism movement.
nak807 2 years ago 2
Actually - the reason these reicht-wing shock jocks are against "New Urbanism" is because it would also have the side effect of taking away the land-vote that has kept ignorant, holy-rolling Republicans in power for so long...
informatist 2 years ago 28
@informatist You have an interesting point, but there are plenty of high-density congressional districts represented by Republicans.
JohnRhysMusician 1 year ago
Whaaa? I don't get it... Is that Rush Limbaugh's voice?
Rush Limbaugh loves the sprawl of his own ass...
New Urbanism does not confine people... that's what the current grid is doing. New Urbanism allows this city to spread out into little pockets where everybody can be close to where they live, play and grow their food... duh.
informatist 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
total bull shit!
eshhy100 2 years ago
"Soviet Style"and"Command/Control" catch phrases pandering to a conservative audience. I was born/raised in Maryvale, a suburban 'American Dream' tract that was, in the 60's & 70's the very edge of urban development. Expansive, open & full of promise. It is now a neglected, crime troubled wasteland. The Phoenix area for the last 60 years has developed like a ringworm fungus; all activity at the outer edges. If you wanna know what your McMansion cul-de-sac will be in 30 years? Visit Maryvale!
scrapplejc 2 years ago 6
And 30 years from now it may be an emergin neighborhood.
Knoss 1 year ago
Destroying Scottsdale? I had the misfortune of living in this pit for eight miserable months. I lived in an awful little apartment miles away from everything. i wish I could have lived in downtown or old town Scottsdale where the buildings made some sense and you didn't have to drive 5 miles for a cup of coffee. The worst part of this video is that it ignores the fact that south Scottsdale, built in the narrator's ideal model of sprawl is largely abandoned and economically depressed.
SBYoungDems 2 years ago 6
I think this video overlooks one of the key issues that New Urbanism is addressing. New Urbanism is a reaction to unsustainable resource consumption. New Urbanism is trying to create sustainable cities in order to create a high quality of life for the immediate future. It is not an attack on ones' personal freedoms. It is a recognition that oil futures are murky. Without cheap oil, our current way of life is impossible. If oil goes to 80 dollars a barrel, long commutes and cheap goods disappear.
dlcruseturner 2 years ago 4
what the fuck?!?
this to me as an European urbanist sounds upright retarded. Something a brain-damaged person from the 30's would say and worse, believe.
tiefkuhler 2 years ago 32
But Europe is moving towards suburban living.
Knoss 1 year ago
if this guy wants all that, then his house price should reflect the cost of the roads to get to his house, the cost of infrastructure required to be delivered to his house (pipes cables etc) and the cost on the environment his 3 or 4 cars are creating. then, once those costs are completely covered by the USERS rather than the TAX PAYER, there wont be a problem. get educated mate.
barrysville 2 years ago
Or you could use tolls to reflect the cost of the road. People aready pay for thier cars and this indevidual investment is part of why highways work the way they do. The only environmental impact not covvered by cost is global warming, but it is virtualy imposible to stop global warming and according to many studies it is unnecesary.
Knoss 2 years ago
I have a question for you... do you simply not care about those of us who DON'T want to feel compelled drive everywhere? Newsflash: not everyone wants to be confined to their cars, and the number of us is growing. Do you not understand that some of us want something that doesn't revolve completely around driving? For all of the talk about "freedom", some of you have little concern with the freedom of others. We've bent over backwards for cars exclusively for the last 60 years. Time for change.
kmcrawford111 2 years ago
You are free to use your car as much or as little as you wish. The problem is when tax money is used to subsidize a certain lifestyle and regulations like development boundaries force people to live a lifestyle which they may not want and many can not afford to live in your ideal.
Knoss 2 years ago
Subsidizing like the way my taxes pay for city roads whether I drive or not? Subsidizing like the way my taxes pay to rescue the auto industry? Regulations like minimum car parking lot spaces (read: gargantuan) while pedestrian and bicycle accomodations are ignored? Show me where NU mandates that you CAN'T drive if you want to. NU is about giving people options and building in a way that makes sense over the long term. Suburbia practically requires driving. NU fosters a variety of modes.
kmcrawford111 2 years ago 4
Some cities have maximum parking spaces. and, i agree roads should be funded by tolls and not taxes, but it is possible to fund highways with fuel tax alone, but rail lines can not exist without transit. many bus lines would exist without subsidization but many are undefiled buses which waste fuel going to suburbs where people own three cars and don't want to go downtown.
Knoss 2 years ago
*Some* cities have maximum parking spaces, but the much more ubiquitous regulation is minimums. Just look at some of our parking lots. Many of them aren't even half full the vast majority of the time. There's a lot in my city that is only more than half full twice a year - the other 363 days out of the year, there's enough space for an entire walkable downtown with residences, a street, and a variety of shops... yet there's practically no accomodations for bicycles. The epitome of waste.
kmcrawford111 2 years ago
I agree parking lots size should not be regulated and wasted space increases land values. However, it may be that the spaces are used during peak times. If parking spaces weren't regulated in area and store owners allowed to charge fees, especially for workers, they would encourage carpooling or reduced trips.
Knoss 2 years ago
The reality is that the land value taken up by roads outstrips 10000:1 the total value of the entire public transit system. Not seeing how you're making the argument you think you are here. The biggest tax money subsidy goes to not only building more roads, but simply NOT selling the existing ones in exchange for the money the land is worth, thus forcing people to live a lifestyle that they may not want because they can't afford to live in your ideal.
rodrye 2 years ago
WHO IS THIS F-KHEAD TALKING? Is he a radio host or something? I'd LIKE TO have ten acres alone to myself.
It's not socially responsible.
This guy is typical American: totally thoughtless. Average American is so damn wasteful, it's an f-n joke. They've become accustomed to it; like it's normal to get a new car every five years (when your previous car works perfectly well). I wish people would watch the movie "Earthlings" to get a sense of how we (humans) abuse the natural world (animals).
JohnLeeMD 2 years ago
If we were truly striving for sustainable living to save the earth, we would live in earth friendly houses with sunlight for light and heat. We would collect rain water, recycle everything & fertilize with compost. And the land would not be in the middle of noisy, urban settings with dirty air and mass transit. Anyone who tries to sell urban living as earth friendly is buying the propaganda being sold be greedy developers who's only goal is to build higher, to make more and more money.
earcandyproductions 2 years ago
While that is sustainable, I wasn't saying everything needs to go in that direction.
The urban settings you mentioned with "dirty air" and being "noisy" is likely due to the effects of many cars traveling in a more congested environment. Mass transit is not bad if deployed right, with a reasonable budget and crews working around the clock to keep things in ship-shape.
When you build more houses on more land, instead of going up, you're taking up the Earth's land. Suburbs are NOT green.
quikboy2 2 years ago
But since agriculture is more efficient there is less human demand for land. Suburbs cover very little of the Earths surface.
Knoss 2 years ago
But that's not reality. I mean, individually, yeah... we should all do those things. But--in heavy concentration areas (including the suburbs) having a mass transit system has to beat bumper-to-bumper in terms of the environment, in terms of quality of life, and socially.
JohnLeeMD 2 years ago
Be careful about this. Busses at peak times with high use are more efficient then cars but empty buses are not. That is why buses should be privatized and funded by user fees. bumpber to bumper does hurt the environment but so do trains, the solution is better highways and HOTs. As for quality of life and social disconect, social disconnect may be desired and the best quality of life is the one people freely choose.
Knoss 2 years ago
Be careful about this. Highways at peak times with high use are more efficient than empty busses. But empty highways are not. That is why highways should be privatized and funded by user fees. Bumper to bumper does hurt the environment, but so does free flowing traffic. Social disconnect may lead to people believing that that choose it, because they can't live with the possibility that there's something they've missed out of through not having another option as a choice.
rodrye 2 years ago
Is the video poster aware of the current problems facing suburbs today? I live in one, and car crashes are frequent, traffic problems increase (building more roads KILLS good open space and businesses!), people barely have enough money anymore spending on car maintenance and paying for their new house, kids aren't safe on the streets anymore, etc.
You obviously chose photos and videos that were pretty twisted in your favor, and that's not how it always is.
quikboy2 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If we were truly striving for sustainable living to save the earth, we would live in earth friendly houses with sunlight for light and heat. We would collect rain water, recycle everything & fertilize with compost. And the land would not be in the middle of noisy, urban settings with dirty air and mass transit. Anyone who tries to sell urban living as earth friendly is buying the propaganda being sold be greedy developers who's only goal is to build higher, to make more and more money.
earcandyproductions 2 years ago
So the author of the video stated that life styles. American lifestyles are being destroyed by better city planning. Then it means that those life styles are not healthy or even good to start with.
There's more wrongs with suburbs than the character allowance on Youtube.
gw2005 2 years ago