> Meanwhile people voted for suburban zoning because they wanted it. It wasn’t an unintended consequence, it was the intended consequence.
Ah I understand your point better now. But I would position that people at the time probably didn’t completely understand what they were giving up when they instituted those laws. I’m not trying to claim they were stupid or ignorant, suburban style land development simply wasn’t possible before then, and I can why that lifestyle would be seductive if the consequences of such development simply weren’t known.
> People had moved out of urban areas by the tens of millions, and very few wanted to move back. Today there is much more interest, as generational changes kick in.
I think to claim it’s just generational change (which suggest the change is a bit of a fad) is overly reductive. Instead I would argue the consequences, and costs, of suburban sprawl are now much better understood, and its long term unsustainability is becoming apparent. Ultimately a mono-culture, whether in biology or in land development tends to result in bad outcomes, and current U.S. planning doctrine enforces an unhealthy monoculture.
> His children (my Aunts and Uncles), had a lot more interest in travel and adventure than he did (having gotten his fill during the war), but they all lived in quiet suburban areas, not urban ones. Among the many many grandchildren there are some who live in bustling cities with nightlife, but not all of them.
Again there are more flavour of land development and residential design than suburbia, or city. They represent two extreme ends of scale, if you only give people a choice of two extremes, you shouldn’t be surprised when you end up with two large clusters of behaviour.
> Seriously? Are you deliberately misreading what I wrote?
Hey! You’re the one that wrote
> and the parking lots to be “soulless”. That is just your opinion; not everyone shares it
The opposite of soulless is soulful. You claim that not everyone shares my view, which by necessity means you make the argument that some people find parking lots soulful.
> it. A parking lot is neither a positive nor a negative aspect of life; it's just a place you spend a few minutes at before and after you do your weekly grocery shopping. The rest of the time it never enters people’s thoughts.
That’s kind of the point. Parking lots take huge slabs of potential useful land, and make it almost useless be design. Sure nobody thinks about a parking lot, to say that means their existence is inconsequential is foolish and completely the huge opportunity cost. That thoughtless nothingness could have been a field, an open park or some other productive public amenity. Hell just leave it as unmaintained grass, it massively improves water and runoff management. Instead it’s a slab of asphalt, with its huge negative externalities in the form of contributing to urban heat islanding, increased rain runoff in drains, and reduced water holding capacity on the ground below. Parking lots aren’t free and without consequence, they contribute plenty in turning a potential lush green area into a lifeless desert.
Ah I understand your point better now. But I would position that people at the time probably didn’t completely understand what they were giving up when they instituted those laws. I’m not trying to claim they were stupid or ignorant, suburban style land development simply wasn’t possible before then, and I can why that lifestyle would be seductive if the consequences of such development simply weren’t known.
> People had moved out of urban areas by the tens of millions, and very few wanted to move back. Today there is much more interest, as generational changes kick in.
I think to claim it’s just generational change (which suggest the change is a bit of a fad) is overly reductive. Instead I would argue the consequences, and costs, of suburban sprawl are now much better understood, and its long term unsustainability is becoming apparent. Ultimately a mono-culture, whether in biology or in land development tends to result in bad outcomes, and current U.S. planning doctrine enforces an unhealthy monoculture.
> His children (my Aunts and Uncles), had a lot more interest in travel and adventure than he did (having gotten his fill during the war), but they all lived in quiet suburban areas, not urban ones. Among the many many grandchildren there are some who live in bustling cities with nightlife, but not all of them.
Again there are more flavour of land development and residential design than suburbia, or city. They represent two extreme ends of scale, if you only give people a choice of two extremes, you shouldn’t be surprised when you end up with two large clusters of behaviour.
> Seriously? Are you deliberately misreading what I wrote?
Hey! You’re the one that wrote
> and the parking lots to be “soulless”. That is just your opinion; not everyone shares it
The opposite of soulless is soulful. You claim that not everyone shares my view, which by necessity means you make the argument that some people find parking lots soulful.
> it. A parking lot is neither a positive nor a negative aspect of life; it's just a place you spend a few minutes at before and after you do your weekly grocery shopping. The rest of the time it never enters people’s thoughts.
That’s kind of the point. Parking lots take huge slabs of potential useful land, and make it almost useless be design. Sure nobody thinks about a parking lot, to say that means their existence is inconsequential is foolish and completely the huge opportunity cost. That thoughtless nothingness could have been a field, an open park or some other productive public amenity. Hell just leave it as unmaintained grass, it massively improves water and runoff management. Instead it’s a slab of asphalt, with its huge negative externalities in the form of contributing to urban heat islanding, increased rain runoff in drains, and reduced water holding capacity on the ground below. Parking lots aren’t free and without consequence, they contribute plenty in turning a potential lush green area into a lifeless desert.