> "Not at all. They're merely refusing to pay for the lifestyle that you'd prefer."
That hammer swings both ways - infrastructure costs substantially less in denser, more urban areas. Hell, here in Seattle the per-mile operating cost for buses is three times higher in suburbs than it is in urban areas. Us urban folk are paying for your excesses too - garbage generation, water usage, the sheer amount of pollutants those 2 cars in your garage are pumping into the air... practically all resource usage on a per-capita basis is much higher in suburbs. This is well before we get to the gigantic amounts of money we have to pay to support the roads you insist on clogging up.
It's hard to say where the balance lies - whether, after all is said and done, the suburbanites are subsidizing the urban lifestyle, or vice versa. Whichever it is, the truth is far less clear-cut than you're trying to project.
> "It's not my coupling - it's the new urbanists' coupling."
I've met many urban planning proponents, and none are against lawns. I think this is projection on your part, more alarmist "they hate our way of life" shit.
> "I don't know what a "hate cars, like lawns" vision would be"
Then you haven't learned enough about this. Urbanism is not solely the idea of high-rises and towers of glass and steel, it is also a large part about walkable neighborhoods with a central focus on mass transit. None of this precludes, for example, townhouses where you can maintain your yard and private spaces. There are many ways to be sustainably urban and maintain many of the main perks of the suburban lifestyle (backyard BBQ? check). To suggest that you can't IMHO is fearmongering amongst suburbanites who think that removal of the automobile from their life would mean wholesale destruction of their lifestyle.
> That hammer swings both ways - infrastructure costs substantially less in denser, more urban areas.
And you see the savings. Since suburbs pay for their infrastructure....
> Hell, here in Seattle the per-mile operating cost for buses is three times higher in suburbs than it is in urban areas.
You're confusing your numbers. The operating costs-per mile (consumables, employee salaries, capital costs, maintenance) should be roughly the same to lower in suburbia (slightly higher mpg and lower maintenance because not as much stop and go). The ridership is probably lower, but that's not operating costs.
Then again, it's mostly dumb to run buses in suburbia. We do it because urbanites think that doing so benefits them and/or because they insist on "regional funding" and suburbia says "if we're paying, you're serving us too".
If the cost of buses in suburbia bothers you, don't do it, and don't ask them to pay for urban transit either. (Take all you want at the fare box.)
> the sheer amount of pollutants those 2 cars in your garage are pumping into the air
Cars in the garage don't pump anything into the air.
The pollution costs are in the noise. And suburbia pays for gas.
> This is well before we get to the gigantic amounts of money we have to pay to support the roads you insist on clogging up.
If we're talking about suburbia's roads, those roads are paid for by gas taxes and developer fees and "donations" in the suburbs. (I've been involved in some development. The land for roads is typically "donated" by the developer, which means that the home owners actually pay for it. The roads themselves are built by developers.)
If you're talking about urban roads, shut them down and do transit your way. Since you're paying, do as you will.
And no, you can't have gas tax money if you're not serving cars.
> Urbanism is not solely the idea of high-rises and towers of glass and steel, it is also a large part about walkable neighborhoods with a central focus on mass transit.
It's interesting that "new urbanists" seem to think that live-work and the like is new. It isn't; it's actually quite old. More to the point, one can find it in most major cities.
New urbanists come in saying "let me run things and we'll all have free ponys". They don't bother explaining why this time will be different.
I've seen the pitches. They're heavy on the asserted benefits and light on explaining why they'll actually happen, especially given the actual experience.
That hammer swings both ways - infrastructure costs substantially less in denser, more urban areas. Hell, here in Seattle the per-mile operating cost for buses is three times higher in suburbs than it is in urban areas. Us urban folk are paying for your excesses too - garbage generation, water usage, the sheer amount of pollutants those 2 cars in your garage are pumping into the air... practically all resource usage on a per-capita basis is much higher in suburbs. This is well before we get to the gigantic amounts of money we have to pay to support the roads you insist on clogging up.
It's hard to say where the balance lies - whether, after all is said and done, the suburbanites are subsidizing the urban lifestyle, or vice versa. Whichever it is, the truth is far less clear-cut than you're trying to project.
> "It's not my coupling - it's the new urbanists' coupling."
I've met many urban planning proponents, and none are against lawns. I think this is projection on your part, more alarmist "they hate our way of life" shit.
> "I don't know what a "hate cars, like lawns" vision would be"
Then you haven't learned enough about this. Urbanism is not solely the idea of high-rises and towers of glass and steel, it is also a large part about walkable neighborhoods with a central focus on mass transit. None of this precludes, for example, townhouses where you can maintain your yard and private spaces. There are many ways to be sustainably urban and maintain many of the main perks of the suburban lifestyle (backyard BBQ? check). To suggest that you can't IMHO is fearmongering amongst suburbanites who think that removal of the automobile from their life would mean wholesale destruction of their lifestyle.