it is rather unfortunate that we have people calling for the abolition of X in favor of Y, cannot see their own biases in the whole thought process.
Point to be made :
".....The expectation going forward is that something like 80 percent of new households that will form over the next 15 years will be these one to two person households. A lot of them would prefer an apartment or a condo—smaller units...."
This to me is at the core the problem. This statement is borderline revolting, with a holier-than-thou attitude. Why do we have an academic from an urban core opine on what everyone else wants ? Who said this person is an authority on how people that he does not know, want to live ?
The proof is in the details. People left cities to move to the suburbs because they hated what they had in cities. That was their solution. If people no longer want to live in the suburbs, they can do the reverse, or strive to change the suburb themselves.
Instead of advocating for "solutions" to impose on others, how about instead let people decide on their own ? Simply put, for people that want to change their lifestyle, they should be able to do so on their own.
Yet I never hear 1 expert - "let's open every metro city zone regulation to unlimited mixed use, and let's see what gets built".
These experts are probably afraid they may be dead wrong about what people actually want.
I hear the latter from plenty of YIMBY organizations. Even in so-called urban cores, there are often strict restrictions on what you can build, and demand exists for bland modern apartment tower blocks but they just can't be built. There are often rules on maximum height, mandatory parking (pointed out in the article), design / "character" requirements, etc. Getting rid of zoning and review processes and letting the market take care of things is exactly what folks are calling for.
But more generally I don't understand your complaint. You're saying that people should not advocate for changing how the suburbs work, because if people wanted to change how the suburbs work, they would advocate for it?
Like, I'm sorry you feel that a claim of fact comes with an attitude, but it's a testable, refutable claim. Do you think the claim is wrong? Or do you just not like it?
Correct > I'd like to hear about people with skin in the game, meaning residents or people tied to that land, about what they are looking to do, boots on the ground style, to change the situation they are in.
Not some outsider having an opinion on it with no stake in the outcome.
For example, if the academic was calling certain things he has an opinion on, about how to make things better, and to be done in the city of New York (presumably where he lives) then he would be a lot more credible.
I live in New York because it's where I can get a one-person home in a walkable neighborhood with good transit. If I could get that in a suburb, I'd be happy to live somewhere cheaper! What is so offensive about saying that people like me exist in large numbers?
Also... the point of academics is to study and report on things they're not personally involved with?
The article specifically talks about how these changes are already happening, driven by actual residents of the suburbs, and the academics found that there was little awareness of them and wanted to make more people aware of it.
With respect to moving, shouldn't the burden of changing something to presumably make something better, fall on people willing to take a risk, though ?
There is nothing offensive with you moving, yet the point of what is offensive was better explained by user theNJR
>>> the point of academics is to study and report on things they're not personally involved with?
This is right if we make distinctions on scientists vs academics.
Academics opine on things with no risk to themselves and usually what they report is a test that cannot be reproduced scientifically.
Scientists present facts on which they personally have a stake on (for example, a microbiologist studying a dangerous bacteria; a chemist trying not to accidentally blow up, etc)
.
To your point, you are correct RE: academic reporting. My argument is that maybe we should listen with a high degree of skepticism when such people talk. It doesn't completely invalidate any report (although in this example, there's no data to back assertions) , but as with most things from academics go, they are usually not testable, so.
(What people say and people do are different things)
I assumed they were just continuing a trend. But I looked at the US 1980 census and was surprised to find that the number of persons per household almost didn't change. 2.67 then vs 2.62 now.
Meanwhile in France, it dropped from 2.75 to 2.2, so I thought it was the same in the USA, hence my hypothesis. But it appears it isn't.
agree with the conclusion of promoting widespread mixed-use in urban areas, but not the takeoff point. the author asserted an opinion (their 'expectation'), not a prescription. many experts agree on more mixed-use, it's just that many others, especially those who grew up and were educated during the rise of single-use zoning and are now in positions of power and influence over zoning, oppose it.
Point to be made :
".....The expectation going forward is that something like 80 percent of new households that will form over the next 15 years will be these one to two person households. A lot of them would prefer an apartment or a condo—smaller units...."
This to me is at the core the problem. This statement is borderline revolting, with a holier-than-thou attitude. Why do we have an academic from an urban core opine on what everyone else wants ? Who said this person is an authority on how people that he does not know, want to live ?
The proof is in the details. People left cities to move to the suburbs because they hated what they had in cities. That was their solution. If people no longer want to live in the suburbs, they can do the reverse, or strive to change the suburb themselves.
Instead of advocating for "solutions" to impose on others, how about instead let people decide on their own ? Simply put, for people that want to change their lifestyle, they should be able to do so on their own.
Yet I never hear 1 expert - "let's open every metro city zone regulation to unlimited mixed use, and let's see what gets built". These experts are probably afraid they may be dead wrong about what people actually want.