Urban vs Suburban Debate

General discussion on all things Omaha.

Moderators: Coyote, nebugeater, Brad, Omaha Cowboy, BRoss

User avatar
Big E
City Council
Posts: 8017
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:12 am

Post by Big E »

So what context was that in?  I hadn't ever heard that get any coverage before.
Stable genius.
ricko
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1345
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 9:54 pm

Post by ricko »

No coherent context, just talk radio.
StreetsOfOmaha
City Council
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm

Post by StreetsOfOmaha »

Just a little fuel for the embers:

Emerging research is showing that dense, urban areas tend to be much safer places to raise children.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Studie ... story.html
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
User avatar
S33
County Board
Posts: 4441
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:15 pm

Post by S33 »

StreetsOfOmaha wrote:Just a little fuel for the embers:

Emerging research is showing that dense, urban areas tend to be much safer places to raise children.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Studie ... story.html

Gotta love agenda-driven, half-assed research...
Last edited by S33 on Fri Feb 18, 2011 11:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
StreetsOfOmaha
City Council
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm

Post by StreetsOfOmaha »

Well, that was incoherent.

It's just an interesting article that challenges the common wisdom about where is best to raise children.
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
User avatar
S33
County Board
Posts: 4441
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:15 pm

Post by S33 »

StreetsOfOmaha wrote:Well, that was incoherent.

It's just an interesting article that challenges the common wisdom about where is best to raise children.
The article was incoherent. If you are going to try and propagate the study like they are, compare apples to apples. Perhaps a mortality or life expectancy rate, a standard for quality of life indicators, incarceration and drug use rates, crime statistics, etc.

Be clear on the indicators. don't just say, "well, suburban kids die more often by cars than urban kids die from homicide." It's absurd, Streets. (I'm not saying urban living is dangerous, I'm saying the study is ignorable, at best)
User avatar
chaoman45
Home Owners Association
Posts: 116
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 10:43 pm
Location: Omaha Metro Area

Post by chaoman45 »

I dunno, the FBI's UCR still indicates that violent crime rates are higher for larger cities. In addition to that, crime maps generally state crime is more likely to happen in urban areas.

Also, I'd like to know entirely what the article means by "less risky." Crime? Drug use rates? Accident rates? School incidences? Security? Gang rates? Differential association? Which of the above are taken into consideration?
joeglow
Planning Board
Posts: 2655
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:04 pm

Post by joeglow »

StreetsOfOmaha wrote:Just a little fuel for the embers:

Emerging research is showing that dense, urban areas tend to be much safer places to raise children.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Studie ... story.html
So, is this research you chose to believe (since so many choose to not believe research showing dense urban living is worse for population, per capita)?
joeglow
Planning Board
Posts: 2655
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:04 pm

Post by joeglow »

Seth wrote:
joeglow wrote:I have asked many times about revitalizing North Omaha.  I agree that we should, but a byproduct NO ONE seems to want to address is what happens to the people living there now who will no longer be able to afford to do so?
Well, ideally they would become successful and affluent enough to continue to live there, if they were to so choose.  Unfortunately, it seems too many of them only think that is possible by becoming 1) a sports star, 2) a drug dealer, or 3) a rap star (generally by glorifying #2).  There certainly needs to be adequate education and employment opportunities to allow them a better choice, however.  The community college is located nearby, which is a good start, but with the high school dropout rate of nearly 30%, too many are throwing away their own opportunity.
Just heard an NPR piece on DC that says it is not happening.  Instead, the poor are now flooding out to poorer suburbs and DC will no longer be majority black in the next decade.
almighty_tuna
City Council
Posts: 105417
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 1:34 pm
Location: Somewhere between downtown and Colorado
Contact:

Post by almighty_tuna »

joeglow wrote:Just heard an NPR piece on DC
Also, it's apparently only kosher for the Mothership to refer to DC as Chocolate City, not NPR.
George Clinton wrote:They still call it the White house, but that's a temporary condition, too, can you dig it, CC?
User avatar
Big E
City Council
Posts: 8017
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:12 am

Post by Big E »

...and we're workin' on Atlanta.

BTW, they were all on Craig Ferguson a few weeks ago.
StreetsOfOmaha
City Council
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm

Post by StreetsOfOmaha »

S33 wrote:
StreetsOfOmaha wrote:Well, that was incoherent.

It's just an interesting article that challenges the common wisdom about where is best to raise children.
The article was incoherent. If you are going to try and propagate the study like they are, compare apples to apples. Perhaps a mortality or life expectancy rate, a standard for quality of life indicators, incarceration and drug use rates, crime statistics, etc.

Be clear on the indicators. don't just say, "well, suburban kids die more often by cars than urban kids die from homicide." It's absurd, Streets. (I'm not saying urban living is dangerous, I'm saying the study is ignorable, at best)
Again, it's an interesting article that challenges us to examine our assumptions about safety and child-rearing. All I did was share the article. Are we all on fact-check duty now every time we post an article? If you have so many problems with it and think it's incoherent, then the burden is on you to produce the facts that go with your assertions.

And, yes, your initial response was completely incoherent and belligerent and further proves how thoughtless and knee-jerk your responses are to anything I post; You see a post by Streets and your mind goes into militant-auto-post mode.
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
User avatar
justnick
Human Relations
Posts: 893
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 3:47 pm
Location: Downtown

Post by justnick »

Oh god.
This thread is back.
User avatar
S33
County Board
Posts: 4441
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:15 pm

Post by S33 »

StreetsOfOmaha wrote:And, yes, your initial response was completely incoherent and belligerent and further proves how thoughtless and knee-jerk your responses are to anything I post; You see a post by Streets and your mind goes into militant-auto-post mode.
I'll make you a deal: You stop being a turd and posting your moronic cr-ap, and I will stop responding to your moronic cr-ap.
Erik
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1330
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 12:55 am

Post by Erik »

StreetsOfOmaha wrote:
S33 wrote:
StreetsOfOmaha wrote:Well, that was incoherent.

It's just an interesting article that challenges the common wisdom about where is best to raise children.
The article was incoherent. If you are going to try and propagate the study like they are, compare apples to apples. Perhaps a mortality or life expectancy rate, a standard for quality of life indicators, incarceration and drug use rates, crime statistics, etc.

Be clear on the indicators. don't just say, "well, suburban kids die more often by cars than urban kids die from homicide." It's absurd, Streets. (I'm not saying urban living is dangerous, I'm saying the study is ignorable, at best)
Again, it's an interesting article that challenges us to examine our assumptions about safety and child-rearing. All I did was share the article. Are we all on fact-check duty now every time we post an article? If you have so many problems with it and think it's incoherent, then the burden is on you to produce the facts that go with your assertions.

And, yes, your initial response was completely incoherent and belligerent and further proves how thoughtless and knee-jerk your responses are to anything I post; You see a post by Streets and your mind goes into militant-auto-post mode.
I'll check out the article when I have time and let you know what I see.
DeWalt
Human Relations
Posts: 531
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 7:12 am
Location: Omaha

Post by DeWalt »

StreetsOfOmaha wrote:Just a little fuel for the embers:

Emerging research is showing that dense, urban areas tend to be much safer places to raise children.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Studie ... story.html

From the article...  "It was a beautiful house, but we just ended up living in our car..."


That is one of the problems with life in the suburbs.  


But let's be honest and face reality here.  Everywhere you could live has it's ups and downs.  My wife & I have lived in a tiny town (400 people), on an acreage in the country, in a moderate-sized town (12,000 people) and now in the middle of metro Omaha.  There are things we have loved about everywhere we've lived, and things we didn't like so well.  Such is life.
User avatar
chaoman45
Home Owners Association
Posts: 116
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 10:43 pm
Location: Omaha Metro Area

Post by chaoman45 »

I only got to page 3 of reading this topic so far, so sorry if I'm asking something that's been answered already: Do people in this debate distinguish between suburban and exurban? I ask because somewhere like Hawthrone is much different than the area around Joslyn Castle, but both are obviously not considered urban.
Last edited by chaoman45 on Thu Feb 24, 2011 3:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
joeglow
Planning Board
Posts: 2655
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:04 pm

Post by joeglow »

To sum up the thread:  One side is more beneficial for my life, in its current state, so it MUST work for EVERYONE in EVERY situation.  Thus, everyone should live that way.
User avatar
Big E
City Council
Posts: 8017
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:12 am

Post by Big E »

joeglow wrote:To sum up the thread:  One side is more beneficial for my life, in its current state, so it MUST work for EVERYONE in EVERY situation.  Thus, everyone should live that way.
You forgot to add that they're all Communists.
DeWalt
Human Relations
Posts: 531
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 7:12 am
Location: Omaha

Post by DeWalt »

Big E wrote:
joeglow wrote:To sum up the thread:  One side is more beneficial for my life, in its current state, so it MUST work for EVERYONE in EVERY situation.  Thus, everyone should live that way.
You forgot to add that they're all Communists.
They are?  Then by all means, let's nuke 'em!
Zilla
Library Board
Posts: 299
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 10:04 am
Location: Omaha Metro Area

Post by Zilla »

Wow, what an absurd article.  Proof of how one can twist information to a particular angle.  Consistently bringing up how kids who live in the suburbs have to drive more places are more subject to car accidents than kids who don't have to drive places is a horrible argument.  It's like saying kids who live on a mountain are more likely to fall off a cliff than kids living in a valley.  Duh.  I'm sure there is some statistic that kids in an urban area is more likely to be subject to that kids in the suburbs are not.

The family in that article were concerned for their kids because they lived next to an extremely busy street.  I have to wonder what they thought when they bought the house.  Was the street busy then?  Did they not think about their kids at that point?  They paint this picture that any suburban home is inches away from certain death because there is a street with cars on it.   :roll:
Families like Ms. Roux-Vlachova's say they find safety in their tightly packed urban communities, where tiny lots mean neighbours keep a watchful eye, where condominiums are staffed with security guards and parents can walk to most stores, schools and playgrounds.
LOL....yes, because there is no neighborhood watch in the suburbs and neighbors would rather spit on you than keep a watchful eye.  Incidentally, I can walk to a local store, the elementary school, and several parks from my neighborhood.  Nooo...wait, that can't be possible!!  I live in the suburbs.  Nothing like that exists there!!  I read it on the internets!!!

Yeah, that article isn't slanted at all.....
Equal Opportunity Hater.

Proudly oppressing the rest of Omaha with my suburbia lifestyle since 1999.
StreetsOfOmaha
City Council
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm

Post by StreetsOfOmaha »

I can't help but think back to this article from The Atlantic in March of 2008.

The Next Slum?
By Christopher B. Leinberger

At Windy Ridge, a recently built starter-home development seven miles northwest of Charlotte, North Carolina, 81 of the community’s 132 small, vinyl-sided houses were in foreclosure as of late last year. Vandals have kicked in doors and stripped the copper wire from vacant houses; drug users and homeless people have furtively moved in. In December, after a stray bullet blasted through her son’s bedroom and into her own, Laurie Talbot, who’d moved to Windy Ridge from New York in 2005, told The Charlotte Observer, “I thought I’d bought a home in Pleasantville. I never imagined in my wildest dreams that stuff like this would happen.”

In the Franklin Reserve neighborhood of Elk Grove, California, south of Sacramento, the houses are nicer than those at Windy Ridge—many once sold for well over $500,000—but the phenomenon is the same... Graffiti, broken windows, and other markers of decay have multiplied. Susan McDonald, president of the local residents’ association and an executive at a local bank, told the Associated Press, “There’s been gang activity. Things have really been changing, the last few years.”

Charlotte’s crime rates have stayed flat overall in recent years—but from 2003 to 2006, in the 10 suburbs of the city that have experienced the highest foreclosure rates, crime rose 33 percent.
And for those of you who were about to say, "this is a side effect of the mortgage crisis, not specifically related to suburbia..."
The decline of places like Windy Ridge and Franklin Reserve is usually attributed to the subprime-mortgage crisis, with its wave of foreclosures. And the crisis has indeed catalyzed or intensified social problems in many communities. But the story of vacant suburban homes and declining suburban neighborhoods did not begin with the crisis, and will not end with it. A structural change is under way in the housing market—a major shift in the way many Americans want to live and work. It has shaped the current downturn, steering some of the worst problems away from the cities and toward the suburban fringes. And its effects will be felt more strongly, and more broadly, as the years pass. Its ultimate impact on the suburbs, and the cities, will be profound.
Arthur C. Nelson, director of the Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech, has looked carefully at trends in American demographics, construction, house prices, and consumer preferences... Nelson forecasts a likely surplus of 22 million large-lot homes (houses built on a sixth of an acre or more) by 2025—that’s roughly 40 percent of the large-lot homes in existence today.
For 60 years, Americans have pushed steadily into the suburbs, transforming the landscape and (until recently) leaving cities behind. But today the pendulum is swinging back toward urban living, and there are many reasons to believe this swing will continue. As it does, many low-density suburbs and McMansion subdivisions, including some that are lovely and affluent today, may become what inner cities became in the 1960s and ’70s—slums characterized by poverty, crime, and decay.

Well, I should probably stop quoting, or I'll just quote the whole article eventually.

OK, one more.
Many Americans, meanwhile, became disillusioned with the sprawl and stupor that sometimes characterize suburban life. These days, when Hollywood wants to portray soullessness, despair, or moral decay, it often looks to the suburbs—as The Sopranos and Desperate Housewives attest—for inspiration.
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
User avatar
S33
County Board
Posts: 4441
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:15 pm

Post by S33 »

Welp, it's all over, suburbia. Streets found another article alluding to the complete and total decay of suburban living. Pack your |expletive| and head east of 72nd to the promise land. Make sure you blow your suburban track home to pieces before you leave as I hear you will be rewarded 72 inner-city virgins and a pocket full of food stamps.
DeWalt
Human Relations
Posts: 531
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 7:12 am
Location: Omaha

Post by DeWalt »

S33 wrote:Welp, it's all over, suburbia. Streets found another article alluding to the complete and total decay of suburban living. Pack your |expletive| and head east of 72nd to the promise land. Make sure you blow your suburban track home to pieces before you leave as I hear you will be rewarded 72 inner-city virgins and a pocket full of food stamps.
Actually, most of those houses built out there within the last 10 years will fall apart within the next 10 years.  Most farmers' machine sheds are built better than those houses!
User avatar
S33
County Board
Posts: 4441
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:15 pm

Post by S33 »

DeWalt wrote:
S33 wrote:Welp, it's all over, suburbia. Streets found another article alluding to the complete and total decay of suburban living. Pack your |expletive| and head east of 72nd to the promise land. Make sure you blow your suburban track home to pieces before you leave as I hear you will be rewarded 72 inner-city virgins and a pocket full of food stamps.
Actually, most of those houses built out there within the last 10 years will fall apart within the next 10 years.  Most farmers' machine sheds are built better than those houses!
I bet your place in Albany is gorgeous.
DeWalt
Human Relations
Posts: 531
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 7:12 am
Location: Omaha

Post by DeWalt »

S33 wrote:
DeWalt wrote:
S33 wrote:Welp, it's all over, suburbia. Streets found another article alluding to the complete and total decay of suburban living. Pack your |expletive| and head east of 72nd to the promise land. Make sure you blow your suburban track home to pieces before you leave as I hear you will be rewarded 72 inner-city virgins and a pocket full of food stamps.
Actually, most of those houses built out there within the last 10 years will fall apart within the next 10 years.  Most farmers' machine sheds are built better than those houses!
I bet your place in Albany is gorgeous.
Oh it is!  It's a lot like the Joslyn Castle, except bigger and more luxurious.
StreetsOfOmaha
City Council
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm

Post by StreetsOfOmaha »

:what:

Anyway, S33, you have successfully reduced your presence on the forum to utterly predictable hyperbole. Congrats.
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
joeglow
Planning Board
Posts: 2655
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:04 pm

Post by joeglow »

StreetsOfOmaha wrote::what:

Anyway, S33, you have successfully reduced your presence on the forum to utterly predictable hyperbole. Congrats.
Really?  REALLY?????
joeglow
Planning Board
Posts: 2655
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:04 pm

Post by joeglow »

StreetsOfOmaha wrote:I can't help but think back to this article from The Atlantic in March of 2008.

The Next Slum?
By Christopher B. Leinberger

At Windy Ridge, a recently built starter-home development seven miles northwest of Charlotte, North Carolina, 81 of the community’s 132 small, vinyl-sided houses were in foreclosure as of late last year. Vandals have kicked in doors and stripped the copper wire from vacant houses; drug users and homeless people have furtively moved in. In December, after a stray bullet blasted through her son’s bedroom and into her own, Laurie Talbot, who’d moved to Windy Ridge from New York in 2005, told The Charlotte Observer, “I thought I’d bought a home in Pleasantville. I never imagined in my wildest dreams that stuff like this would happen.”

In the Franklin Reserve neighborhood of Elk Grove, California, south of Sacramento, the houses are nicer than those at Windy Ridge—many once sold for well over $500,000—but the phenomenon is the same... Graffiti, broken windows, and other markers of decay have multiplied. Susan McDonald, president of the local residents’ association and an executive at a local bank, told the Associated Press, “There’s been gang activity. Things have really been changing, the last few years.”

Charlotte’s crime rates have stayed flat overall in recent years—but from 2003 to 2006, in the 10 suburbs of the city that have experienced the highest foreclosure rates, crime rose 33 percent.
And for those of you who were about to say, "this is a side effect of the mortgage crisis, not specifically related to suburbia..."
The decline of places like Windy Ridge and Franklin Reserve is usually attributed to the subprime-mortgage crisis, with its wave of foreclosures. And the crisis has indeed catalyzed or intensified social problems in many communities. But the story of vacant suburban homes and declining suburban neighborhoods did not begin with the crisis, and will not end with it. A structural change is under way in the housing market—a major shift in the way many Americans want to live and work. It has shaped the current downturn, steering some of the worst problems away from the cities and toward the suburban fringes. And its effects will be felt more strongly, and more broadly, as the years pass. Its ultimate impact on the suburbs, and the cities, will be profound.
Arthur C. Nelson, director of the Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech, has looked carefully at trends in American demographics, construction, house prices, and consumer preferences... Nelson forecasts a likely surplus of 22 million large-lot homes (houses built on a sixth of an acre or more) by 2025—that’s roughly 40 percent of the large-lot homes in existence today.
For 60 years, Americans have pushed steadily into the suburbs, transforming the landscape and (until recently) leaving cities behind. But today the pendulum is swinging back toward urban living, and there are many reasons to believe this swing will continue. As it does, many low-density suburbs and McMansion subdivisions, including some that are lovely and affluent today, may become what inner cities became in the 1960s and ’70s—slums characterized by poverty, crime, and decay.

Well, I should probably stop quoting, or I'll just quote the whole article eventually.

OK, one more.
Many Americans, meanwhile, became disillusioned with the sprawl and stupor that sometimes characterize suburban life. These days, when Hollywood wants to portray soullessness, despair, or moral decay, it often looks to the suburbs—as The Sopranos and Desperate Housewives attest—for inspiration.
Perfect example of a piece that tries to take something going on in America and use it to push an agenda.  This is not a shock, but not for the reasons agenda driven people would have you believe.  I even posed the question here 4 or 5 years ago when we were discussing pouring money into NE Omaha - what happens when values rise and people who live there can no longer afford to do so?  This is exactly what is happening in DC - as it is becoming more expensive to live there, people are fleeing to areas that are more affordable.  Most cities show us that it is extremely expensive to live in a dense, urban environment - property values (and, by extension, property taxes and insurance) shoot up because of scarcity of land.

As cities pump money into their urban core, this is playing out all over the country.  I am not trying to turn this into an urban versus suburbs debate, but am pointing out Streets distorting what is going on to push an agenda.  People like him will say "see.  Surburbs bad.  Urban good."  Unfortunately, they ignore that it is their agenda that is highlighting/creating this problem.  However, rather than address what is going on with the affordability for lower income people, they would rather distort the problem to use it as ammunition to further their cause.
User avatar
S33
County Board
Posts: 4441
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:15 pm

Post by S33 »

StreetsOfOmaha wrote::what:

Anyway, S33, you have successfully reduced your presence on the forum to utterly predictable hyperbole. Congrats.
I think I joined in '08, and you're just now telling me this?
User avatar
S33
County Board
Posts: 4441
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:15 pm

Post by S33 »

joeglow wrote: Perfect example of a piece that tries to take something going on in America and use it to push an agenda.  This is not a shock, but not for the reasons agenda driven people would have you believe.  I even posed the question here 4 or 5 years ago when we were discussing pouring money into NE Omaha - what happens when values rise and people who live there can no longer afford to do so?  This is exactly what is happening in DC - as it is becoming more expensive to live there, people are fleeing to areas that are more affordable.  Most cities show us that it is extremely expensive to live in a dense, urban environment - property values (and, by extension, property taxes and insurance) shoot up because of scarcity of land.

As cities pump money into their urban core, this is playing out all over the country.  I am not trying to turn this into an urban versus suburbs debate, but am pointing out Streets distorting what is going on to push an agenda.  People like him will say "see.  Surburbs bad.  Urban good."  Unfortunately, they ignore that it is their agenda that is highlighting/creating this problem.  However, rather than address what is going on with the affordability for lower income people, they would rather distort the problem to use it as ammunition to further their cause.
I also remember that being brought up a while back (I think it was you), and being successfully argued, then glossed over, to being ignored, and with enough time, he has completely dismissed it. The thread with the lady crossing 90th and Dodge into traffic proves that no amount of logic is necessary when countering Streets' rhetoric. It's almost like arguing against Hitler's anti-Jew leaflets he would drop pre-WW2 to the people of Berlin. Nobody really knows the basis behind the agenda, but if he says it enough times, maybe people will start to believe it.

Debating with Streets is like playing whack-a-mole; you keep banging him over the head with the retard hammer, but he keeps popping up with more bullsh*t.
StreetsOfOmaha
City Council
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm

Post by StreetsOfOmaha »

S33 wrote:Debating with Streets is like playing whack-a-mole; you keep banging him over the head with the retard hammer, but he keeps popping up with more bullsh*t.
You say that as if you've ever been a serious participant in any discourse on the forum--you just poke your head in, spew some dip-|expletive| nonsense, and call it good.

Joeglow, what agenda are you talking about? Any meaningful debate is effectively over when one side starts dismissing logic and reason backed by examples and proof as "an agenda".

This is the current state of affairs on the forum. Very depressing it is (to make reference to the recent Yoda reference in another thread)
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
joeglow
Planning Board
Posts: 2655
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:04 pm

Post by joeglow »

StreetsOfOmaha wrote: Joeglow, what agenda are you talking about? Any meaningful debate is effectively over when one side starts dismissing logic and reason backed by examples and proof as "an agenda".
The fact that it is a very real issue that has NOTHING to do with suburban or urban living.  It has to do with investments in ANY part of town and how it prices out lower income people, forcing them to move to somewhere they can better afford.  Yet, you try to use it as evidence for the superiority of urban living, when it has NOTHING to do with that.
User avatar
S33
County Board
Posts: 4441
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:15 pm

Post by S33 »

If you would produce a study with some unbiased content, one which doesn't distort random statistics and use them to create absurd hypotheses, I would gladly contribute to civil discourse, and even take your position into account. Unfortunately, it's all the same "utterly predicable hyperbole."
StreetsOfOmaha
City Council
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm

Post by StreetsOfOmaha »

Yes, but who's the judge of unbiased content? You? See, that presents a problem.

Joeglow, the subject of the thread is "urban vs. suburban", and as such, the last two articles I have posted are completely relevant. They're not trying to "prove" the superiority of urban living (that conclusion is left for the reader to arrive at), but merely showing and discussing what is occurring right now in the US in terms of land-use, crime, consumer preferences, etc.
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
User avatar
S33
County Board
Posts: 4441
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:15 pm

Post by S33 »

StreetsOfOmaha wrote:Yes, but who's the judge of unbiased content?
Randy Jackson and Paula Abdul.
Zilla
Library Board
Posts: 299
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 10:04 am
Location: Omaha Metro Area

Post by Zilla »

joeglow wrote:Really?  REALLY?????
LOL!!  Brilliant!
StreetsOfOmaha wrote:Yes, but who's the judge of unbiased content? You? See, that presents a problem.

Joeglow, the subject of the thread is "urban vs. suburban", and as such, the last two articles I have posted are completely relevant. They're not trying to "prove" the superiority of urban living (that conclusion is left for the reader to arrive at), but merely showing and discussing what is occurring right now in the US in terms of land-use, crime, consumer preferences, etc.
How about something that doesn't use the obviously biased term of McMansion.
Equal Opportunity Hater.

Proudly oppressing the rest of Omaha with my suburbia lifestyle since 1999.
StreetsOfOmaha
City Council
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm

Post by StreetsOfOmaha »

Obviously biased? People who live in the suburbs and love it still use the therm 'mcmansion".
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
TechnicalDisaster
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1651
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:47 pm
Location: In Suburbia Paradise

Post by TechnicalDisaster »

StreetsOfOmaha wrote:Obviously biased? People who live in the suburbs and love it still use the therm 'mcmansion".
I use the term McMansion all the time, I'm not offended by it (I live in one) - but the term is slang and should not be used in professional writing.
"This is America.  It is my God given right to be loudly opinionated on issues I am completely ignorant of."
almighty_tuna
City Council
Posts: 105417
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 1:34 pm
Location: Somewhere between downtown and Colorado
Contact:

Post by almighty_tuna »

can we word filter this offensive "mcmansion" to 'mass produced tinderbox with faux brick exterior', or something more politically correct like that??
Post Reply