TreeHugger has Quote of the Day too! - Granite Grok

TreeHugger has Quote of the Day too!

Rule #1, Rule #2, Rule #7, Rule #12, Rule #15.  Except I’m still banned – I tried to leave a comment, saw it was waiting for moderation, and just saw that it was delete.  Oh well, this is why I have the ‘Grok!  Emphasis mine with some reformatting:

Quote of the day: Jack Diamond on the true cost of sprawl

Toronto architect Jack Diamond writes in the Globe and Mail about the real costs of sprawl, noting the economic burden for the homeowner, the community and the whole country. He notes that it just costs too much to support low density sprawl, but that doesn’t mean we all have to live in high-rises.

Economic burden for the homeowner?  Really?  I keep seeing this “argument” over and over – “those poor saps in the ‘burbs!  We have to save them from spending their own money from living in places we don’t think they should be.  This is one reason we created the Sustainable Communities Initiative – WE know where you should be – and we’ll save you money, too!”

Clearly low-density suburbs are unaffordable. Alternative housing types that meet child-rearing requirements and private ownership, but at densities that make supporting infrastructure affordable and public transit viable, are entirely possible and practical – and critically necessary.

Translation: not matter how you got there, you can’t afford it!  Don’t you realize that?  “critically necessary” translates to “ok, no high-rise, but you will be living closer.  We must change the zoning to get higher density – even if you don’t like it.  And as you will see, duplexes are the least evil in their eyes – watch this Smart Person continue his densification argument.

Allowing single-family housing to become duplexes would double suburban density. The redevelopment of underutilized sites at densities somewhat higher than that of townhouses would go further. The redevelopment of shopping malls, with their acres of parking, into mixed-use developments served by public transit would transform them into vital new urban centres. None of these measures would detract from those who wish to remain in single-family housing.

Look at what Sustainable Communities Initiative wants – search it out as we’ve posted a lot about it.  Or, just reread that bolded part above again – that is EXACTLY what their idea for the living conditions for rest of us.  Trust me, soothing words from this expert but as we have already seen, slippery slopes exist and this is one of them.

Addressing the true costs of sprawl will reduce economic distortions and boost economic efficiency. Medium urban density will spread the fixed cost of infrastructure over more individuals and businesses – while bringing social, environmental and quality-of-life benefits. It will also improve access of businesses for workers and vice versa.

Tell me – did you read what I did?  The whole thing was supposed to address “the true cost of sprawl” and all I saw was the phrase that intimated that there is a cost – but didn’t prove it, didn’t show concrete examples, and certainly didn’t quantify it at all.  But still asserted such, and that we should just believe his words.

Nope, not happening. It’s always seemingly about the “efficiency” of society as a whole – that’s what we have to concentrate on.  Did you see much in the way of what individuals might want?  After all, enforcing a higher density means a better ROI – not for the Individual  but for the Government (what ever level).  For folks like this (just like with Marc Tucker in NH State Rep Jane Cormier’s post) it is always “Government first, the higher the better”.  After all, local yokels like us are just rubes – they must decide for us.  After all, they keep saying it over and over and over again.  All blessing flow from Government (hmm, I’m such a redneck that when I sing that in church, I always thought the blessings flowed from God, right?).

Anyways, my comment that I left for them was much more pithy and addressed that which they don’t want to:

Never learn, huh, that there is a significant portion of the population DOESN’T WANT to live in a city or a utopian forced “city live-a-like”.  We don’t WANT to be forced to to live in higher density areas – we just want to be left alone and in an environment where we can’t hear our neighbors.

Trust me – it ISN’T a “cost” factor to be in the ‘burbs or rural areas – it’s a choice.  That’s already been cooked into our calculus of “what makes us happy” vs “what makes you gleeful in telling us where to live”.

>