Responding to Urbanists, Part 4: Comments Playing Devil's Advocate
Responding to Urbanists, Chapter 2: The best Urbanism Videos
Responding to Urbanists, Chapter 3: Bad Arguments Urbanists Use
Responding to Urbanists, Part 4: Comments Playing Devil's Advocate
I’m posting this not because I’m pro-suburb, but to play devil’s advocate.
Rise of the Pod People - The Psychology of Homeownership
-
"Whoever possesses the house you dwell in, the vehicle you ride or the income you live on, takes hold of your freedom, or part of your freedom, and freedom is indivisible. For man to be happy, he must be free, and to be free, man must possess his own needs.
Whoever possesses your needs controls or exploits you. He may enslave you despite any legislation outlawing that.
The material needs of man that are basic, necessary and personal, start with food, housing, clothing and transport... These must be within his private and sacred ownership. They are not to be hired from any quarter. To obtain them through rent or hire allows the real owners, even society in general, to interfere in his private life, to have control over his basic needs, and then to dominate his freedom and to deprive him of his happiness."
- Page 62, The Green Book, by Muammar Gaddafi.
-
“Fuck I'm tired of governments doing this same shit in everything, someone has a genuinely good idea and then the government tries to implement it or does do it but in the absolute worst way possible then everyone that's never heard of the idea now only see it as the absolute shit that the government made it and we continue to stagnate.
Have everything you need within walking distance is fantastic, I've lived in walkable and car dependent cities and the walkable was far preferred but now everyone will assume it's some bs because that's all they've been shown”
-
-
“I'm all for a good environment for walking and cycling and having easy access to shit relatively nearby. Dutch cities one of which I live in are already 15-minute cities anyway as neighbourhoods have their own little shopping centres seperate from the city centre and there's safe cycling and walking everywhere. I don't need to drive anywhere and I don't own a car, and that is my free choice that is influenced by the city environment that doesn't require and often disincentivizes car use. If I need to go elsewhere there's good public transportation and bike rental in many places. And I'm all for that as the city centre is lovely without all the cars: no noise and a lot more space for people as opposed to noise from cars and parked cars everywhere. And yes, I do believe US cities, but many other cities as well can find an example in Dutch cities in how promoting cycling and walking can drastically improve a city and people's health. On the topic of freedom, in many United States cities and especially the sprawling suburbs you NEED a car. You need a car to get around because it's unsafe to cycle, neighbourhoods are often broken up by big roads and public transport sucks most of the time. That's not freedom, a car gives freedom in those kinds of environments because you don't have freedom of movement otherwise. That's also why teenagers getting their first car is such a big deal because they finally have freedom of movement independent from their parents. I had that on my bicycle when I was 8, going to school and sports alone and the town was our playground because it was pretty safe. THAT'S freedom when growing up, not being stuck in a McMansion in a suburb because it's not safe to go outside and your parents don't have time to drive you somewhere. And it's also freedom that people can choose to cycle or walk because it's safe. All that being said, the 100 day rule is what gets me. That authoritarian bullshit has no place in a free society, when people don't feel the need to use a car because of how easy it is to get around without one you will have succeeded IMO. Not when you limit people's freedom to do as they please. And yes, they're going to get a lot of bad press just because of this rule they want to implement in what could be a great initiative. I don't need a car, I don't want a car, but I don't want to limit anyone else to own and use a car as they please. That's freedom”
-
"I grew up splitting my time between my divorced parents: One of whom lived in an apartment and the other lived in a house in an American style suburb. I currently live in an apartment with my girlfriend and before that, I lived with my dad in his house. I spent a year in France in college, so I have a general idea of how living in an apartment in a European city center works as well.
The downsides of living in my current apartment:
1. It is on a busy street, so if I have my windows open (which is often as I do not have air conditioning and I live in California) I hear a million trucks (cars aren't that bad) every day that are often so load I have to pause whatever video I am watching or conversation I am having. In addition, there are always people walking on the street, and if they are walking dogs, this triggers every dog in my apartment building to start barking.
2. We have one parking space for two cars. My girlfriend and I both have early morning hours, so we get off of work fairly early, which is nice because it means we can usually get a spot somewhat nearby. The way we have it set up is whichever one of us gets here first grabs a spot on the street and the one that gets home later gets the spot in the garage, as the later you get home, the worse the parking options are. This puts us in constant fear of having our cars broken into, stolen, or having the Catalytic converters stolen. This would not be a problem in a standard suburban home with a two car garage.
3. We can hear our neighbors talking, watching TV, listening to music, fucking, and walking. We are lucky because a good percentage of the people that live in the building we live in are older, so they don't make much noise, but every once in a while, it can get very annoying.
4. To counter the previous point, our neighbors can hear us talking, watching TV, listening to music, fucking, and walking. So we have to be quiet.
5. We cannot work on our cars, wash our cars, or really do anything with power tools. I am a pretty handy person and I generally like to work on my car myself if I can, rather than take it into a mechanic where I have to pay a full paycheck just for them to do something fairly simple. We now go to my dad's house to wash our cars or work on them.
6. There is no good way to get deliveries. The apartment building is not huge, thus there is no reception, mail room, or door man. If you are not there, deliveries get left outside the entrance in view of the busy street where they can be easily stolen.
7. Limited space. They typically do not make houses as small as the apartment I live in. This means that if we had a house, even a small house, we would have more room.
8. We have no backyard. A nearby park is not a backyard. I have no outdoor space to call my own. We have a small balcony that looks over a crowded street, but we do not have a nice, private outdoor area to use. I would like a place to work on projects outdoors and my girlfriend is an avid gardener, so this kind of sucks for us.
9. We cannot smoke in our apartment. We do not smoke anyway, so this one does not really bother us that much, but the idea of being restricted like that does actually get on my nerves. This is actually illegal where I live, not just a rule by the landlord.
10. We cannot have a grill. Even on our balcony, we are not allowed to have any open flames larger than a candle.
The upsides of living in my current apartment. For this list, I am excluding all of the upsides of the location, as most of the neighborhood we live in is actually suburban houses, which would share the same upsides in terms of the location:
1. We can afford it. It is significantly cheaper than having a house.
2. Our apartment is probably less likely to get broken into than a house, as the thieve would not be able to get to our front door or climb up to our balcony without many people noticing, even at night.
3. We are renters, so if anything goes wrong, we can call our building manager and have him fix it without us having to pay anything.
The upsides of living in a house (I am going to use my dad's house as an example):
1. Peace and quiet. He shares no walls with other people, so hearing other people is rare.
2. He has a backyard with plenty of space to relax, garden, get stuff done, etc.
3. He has a two car garage and a driveway large enough to park more stuff if we have guests. Nobody ever needs to park on the street, and if they did, you would be able to park much closer because the street isn't as busy as the street I live on, and it is not full of apartment buildings with people who live there trying to find street parking always. We can wash the cars in the driveway and work on them in the garage. And leave them in the garage, where they would be much harder to get to to steal, break into, etc.
4. There is nobody above him or below him. We can stomp as loud as we want. There is even workout equipment, where we could (we don't, but we could if we wanted to) drop weights on the ground and not damage anything or annoy anyone below us.
5. Packages are left at the door, which is not visible from the street, so they are relatively safe sitting out there for hours or even days.
6. He has a ton of storage. A huge percentage of my stuff is even at his house because I do not have the room for it and he does.
7. We can blast music as loud as want.
The downsides to living in a house:
1. Way more expensive. We cannot afford it at this point in our lives.
2. All repairs have to be done or paid for by us, which can be expensive.
Having a house is significantly better.
I do not want to live in a car free world. I do not want to use public transportation. Public transportation where I am is full of fucking crackheads and degenerates. It does occasionally rain, it is often very hot, and sometimes it is windy and cold. I do not want to have to walk to a bus stop or train station in those conditions.
I want some space between myself and all of my neighbors. I like being able to have a backyard, to have a garage, a driveway, a place to have exercise equipment, etc. Living in suburbia sucks when you have no car. I will grant you that. But if you do have a car, it is infinitely better.
What I will say is that new suburban housing developments suck a lot more than older ones. The emphasis seems to be on getting as much interior space as possible and not giving a fuck about having a front or a backyard. Some of these new ones have it so that the side wall of your house is only like 6 feet from your neighbors. The backyards have enough space for a BBQ and maybe a couple of patio lounge chairs. Even the building materials they use are cheaper than what was used 50-60 years ago when suburbs first started popping up. I would still rather have one of those than an apartment like the one I am in now though."
-
“As someone who has lived in both Amsterdam as an adult and Suburban Florida as a child, I couldn't disagree more. The average suburb in Florida is absolutely full of fun activities and amenities such as basketball courts, tennis courts, numerous pools, parks - every individual neighborhood will have these and free of any charge of course. The Netherlands lacks this and has terribly depressing weather. If you want to play tennis in the NL you have have live in a rich area. Think of any sport or activity and chances are your suburb will have this in FL. You will have to drive your kids sure, so what? My kids ride their Electric Skateboard (illegal in the NL and one of the reasons why we moved back 😂) all the time to the pool or basketball courts. They do not have to pass by an interstate road/highway like the one you are showing. Not sure how you folks do suburbs in Canada but in the US any master planned community will not have a busy interstate road running through it like the one in your video. Quite the opposite, even the main are all peaceful streets with few vehicles. Very easy to walk and cycle. What I am describing also does not cost an arm and a leg like it would if you wanted this lifestyle in Europe.
Also, it seems you are comparing the north america's suburbs with city life in the Netherlands where yes, schools and shops are far more accessible for kids and its easier to move around but move to a dutch suburb and this will change drastically. My kids have a massive backyard in a detached house they can run around and scream all day as well as they streets in our neighborhood as you do not have to worry about cars or bikes. Sure, in the NL they can hop on the bike and ride to the shop or cinema themselves, so what? Because they can do this on a bike vs. me driving them they are happier kids?
In my experience, US suburbs offer an abundance of fun, accesible outdoor activities for kids and with fantastic sunny weather all year round in Floridas case. There is really no comparison for me. Just my opinion, cheers!!“
-
“Yeah this video confused me as a suburban parent myself in north Texas. Truth be told, our house is a street away from the highway, but in the opposite direction is miles of basically a kid’s wonderland. There’s a library, train museum, skate park, wakeboarding park, playgrounds, sports fields, schools, shops, restaurants, etc. etc. And we don’t live in a newly developed rich neighborhood either. This is a very old part of town full of mostly lower-middle class. Kids are everywhere, walking, skateboarding, biking in the streets, and honestly, most of the places I’ve lived have been this way (lived all over Texas. Only places that weren’t this way were parts of the cities where young people live and out in the country where it’s literally a 20-30 minute drive to the grocery store) I was beginning to think maybe it’s just a Texas thing, but after reading the comments I’m starting to think this guy just had an unfortunate childhood.“
"I would like to preface my comment with the fact that I personally love a lot of the information that you give on urban planning and the videos are great. However, with some of the comments that you make (insinuating racist connotations to housing, calling people idiots), the effectiveness your videos could have probably go down tenfold. I used to be in the pro car, climate change denying, pro suburb side of the aisle (among other things) and some of your comment to this day still provoke anger in me even though I don't align with them. When you make those comments the video effectively becomes both preaching to the choir and a hit piece meant to get a rise out of someone . I liken it to telling a random overweight person in public "Your fat, stop eating so much." Would your solution work technically speaking? Probably. It did for me. But I feel that most people would find this both insulting and counterproductive as you could turn the person away from something that would otherwise help them."
“These technocrats and planners need to freaking give up on the Utopia delusions. Life is not a march towards some Utopia. It's an series of trade-offs between problems. You progress by exchanging a problem you couldn't handle with one you can. The Utopians on the other hand end up exchanging problems that we can handle with new problems that we can't.”
“But the silent majority aren't ultra green car haters they are moderate green to moderate conservative people who are open to both public transit and cars. What they want aren't superblocks but affordable, reliable and safe public transit that allows them to live without car or maybe just save some fuel by don't using it so much. And thoses people aren't desperate to use transit they don't want to wait on unrealiable busses driving zick zack routes, they don't want to deal with fare jungles. Besides this rail bonus works best for those people Busses aren't as good unless it's something like a BRT Trolleybus System which can provide a similar feeling.
What ultra green car haters didn't understand are the consequences of angering the moderate conservative with pushing for quick realization of extreme solution before the moderate solutions are built. Putting flowerpots on lanes and parkings spaces pushes them towards nimbyism by giving them the fear of having their car banned from their home and when moderate green realists try to propose a tram Nimbys make us of the incitable state of the moderate conservative and ruin the project in referendum.
It would be wiser to make an ideological ceasefire for some years where transit is beeing built in big scale from street construction budget while drivers may hold much of their existing car infrastructure. This way drivers can live there normal life with low restrictions maybe a lane for the tram here maybe some side street converted to a cycling main road but nothing so severe to make them oppose the building process.“
-
"I don't know of this man and you make him seem silly.
However your arguments are clearly as twisted as his, you assert something is true because you say it is true. The points you use could also be used for the opposite argument and probably any variation in between. One thing is particularly clear and painful to my Liberal brain. My fellows on the Left have gained a very smug ability to judge what is good for everyone else and they now believe government enforcement of their beliefs is a good thing. That is not the American Left I admired, it's the insidious stink of Socialist Ideology that loves government more than individuals. Planners and HR departments have gone from creative problem solvers For society to become insatiable control freaks who want to Manage all of our lives as they see fit. It's a disgusting evolution of thought.
Fact: A single family house in a multifamily neighborhood does Not change the identity of the neighborhood from multifamily.
A multifamily building in a single family neighborhood Does change the identity of the neighborhood.
Another fact that you stated and then ghosted which deserves repeating. Every Socialist based government that has existed Built dense housing for the purpose of control and documented it over and over such that it is indisputable.
From a Liberal point of view Stop trying to control everything Karen"
-
-
Mirabeaux بك:
"As a leftist that’s enjoyed watch I’ve seen of your content so far, i feel that this video, while I agree with it a lot, is very very sloppy, which left it vulnerable to the criticism you got from that one guy.
I also think your response to that guy was also really sloppy and was fairly condescending."
Momera:
"Totally agree. I'm a very left-leaning academic and I agree that academia is inherently left-leaning because of the values of higher education rather than being deliberately discriminatory. However the arguments in this video didn't feel very well-constructed. He made lots of sweeping/vague statements without providing evidence."
Anton:
""On the contrary I've watched a few of his videos now and that seems to be his approach: what I believe in currently is right, so it's right, I figured it out. No evidence, no facts, no actual research, just opinionated content
I wanted to figure out why is this channel growing, why has it been suggested, as that's exactly why: opinionated content with triggering titles and bashing other people is what youtube algorithms seems to favour, which unfortunately leads us to a hyper polarized world"
"Sounds like "we want to close all people in small spaces, in expensive cage flats, take away their cars and force them to work inside the city for the rest of life, mean time rich people and politics will have fun outside cities with their cars, jets and giant homes""
Imperial Security Bureau
Yeah, this is a globalist utopia based on the unproven theory that cars are changing the weather. Even if you agree that cars are causing pollution and unpleasant conditions for residents, it does not follow that they should be banned completely and users punished for wanting to get around in the most effective way they can. This is not giving people choices, which is what public transport and walkability should be about; it is forcing people to live the lives these zealous elites believe they should live. Yeah bikes are great but they are dangerous and slow, and you can’t carry anything larger than a bag on them, whereas people use cars for moving things around.
But yeah, they seem set on forcing people into unpleasant small spaces with exclusively shared outdoor spaces, but if anything the ideal model for human happiness, welfare and independence would be low-rise, medium density green developments with a tasteful design and layout, with private gardens as well as public spaces, and a well laid out city plan which allows biking and walking and transport but also cars and vans and trucks if needs be. And if we want to talk about emissions and congestion, scooters and motorbikes should be a focus because they are smaller, faster (thus less polluting) and lower on the emissions scale per person. Why does someone need a giant metal box with 5 seats just to commute to work on their own? They should be encouraged to take a scooter or motorbike to work. I use a scooter to get around London and it is hands down the fastest way to get pretty much ANYWHERE, I can filter through traffic and take whatever I need with me, I can use it for work and commuting, it uses less fuel (100+mpg) and it’s fun.
Fuck these green elites, they are fun police.
-
“Ok...Let me try this again since YouTube apparently didn't approve of my previous attempt to comment.
I think a lot of the resistance to the idea of "15 minute cities" is due to a few cities that are implementing things that are NOT part of the idea of 15 minute cities, but are calling it that. The idea is that you should have all your basic needs within 15 minutes walk of your where you live. I don't really understand how ANYONE would have a problem with that. Having your basic needs close to you is a good thing, who could possibly object to that?
There are a few cities (especially in the UK) that are doing something different, limiting the mobility of their citizens to within 15 minutes of their houses imposing large fines on them for driving a personal vehicle in or out of their "zone". That's not with a 15 minute city is supposed to be, but that's what the cities are calling it.
The concept of the 15 minute city is supposed to offer choice, to make it easier for those than are unable to drive (or just unwilling to drive) to be able to access basic services. The concept was never to lock people into a geographic area, yet that's what some cities are doing. This corruption of the idea of the 15 minute city is what is causing the much of the backlash to the concept.
The cities should call it what it is, congestion pricing.”
-
-
The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy;
Thomas Sowell - Human Livestock
"Overcoming adversity is one of our great desires and one of our great sources of pride. But it is something that our anointed deep thinkers strive to eliminate from our lives, through everything from grade inflation to the welfare state.
The anointed want to eliminate stress, challenge, striving, and competition. They want the necessities of life to be supplied as "rights" -- which is to say, at the taxpayers expense, without anyone's being forced to work for those necessities, except of course the taxpayers.
Nothing is to be earned. "Self-esteem" is to be dispensed to the children as largess from the teacher. Adults are to have their medical care and other necessities dispensed as largess from the government. People are to be mixed and matched by race and sex and whatever else the anointed want to take into account, in order to present whatever kind of picture the anointed think should be presented.
This is a vision of human beings as livestock to be fed by the government and herded and tended by the anointed. All the things that make us human beings are to be removed from our lives and we are to live as denatured creatures controlled and directed by our betters.
Those things that help human beings be independent and self-reliant -- whether automobiles, guns, the free market, or vouchers -- provoke instant hostility from the anointed.
Automobiles enable you to come and go as you wish, without so much as a "by your leave" to your betters. The very idea that other people will go where they want, live where they want, how they want, and send their children to whatever schools they choose, is galling to the anointed, for it denies the very specialness that is at the heart of their picture of themselves.
Guns are completely inappropriate for the kind of sheep-like people the anointed envision or the orderly, prepackaged world in which they are to live. When you are in mortal danger, you are supposed to dial 911, so that the police can arrive on the scene some time later, identify your body, and file reports in triplicate.
The free market is a daily assault on the vision of the anointed. Just think of all those millions of people out there buying whatever they want, whenever they want, whether or not the anointed think it is good for them.
Think of those people earning whatever incomes they happen to get from producing goods or services for other people, at prices resulting from supply and demand, with the anointed cut out of the loop entirely and standing on the sidelines in helpless rage, unable to impose their particular vision of "social justice."
The welfare state is not really about the welfare of the masses. It is about the egos of the elites.
One of the most dangerous things about the welfare state is that it breaks the connection between what people have produced and what they consume, at least in many people's minds. For the society as a whole, that connection remains as fixed as ever, but the welfare state makes it possible for individuals to think of money or goods as just arbitrary dispensations.
Thus those who have less can feel a grievance against "society" and are less inhibited about stealing or vandalizing. And the very concept of gratitude or obligation disappears -- even the obligation of common decency out of respect for other people."
-
Bonus: responding to House Sizes Are Getting Absurd by Stewart Hicks.
Hicks said that houses 5,000 square feet or larger are mansions, and talks about the problems they cause in neighborhoods. So just for fun, I’ll show show under-5,000 square foot houses.
Under 5,000 square foot house:
-
With garage:
Plan 23798JD. 3 stories, 4,999 square feet, 5-6 bedrooms, 3 car garage.
Plan 930-512. 4,943 square feet, 4 bedrooms, 4.5 bathrooms, 6-car garage.
-
Without garage:
Plan 16846WG. 4,980 square feet, 3 bathrooms, 3 car garage, 2 bedrooms (2 master suites).
Plan 16844WG. 4,945 square feet, 4 bedrooms. 3.5 bathrooms, includes basement.
-
Large duplex:
https://www.houseplans.com/plan/4374-square-feet-8-bedroom-7-bathroom-2-garage-contemporary-modern-sp269659