Our City Online

Messageboard - Development

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

Why Urbanism Is Considered to be ‘Liberal’

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Development Why Urbanism Is Considered to be ‘Liberal’

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 67 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1102487
    Josh Lapp
    Josh Lapp
    Participant

    I grew up in “the country” and recognize the smell of bull shit when I stumble upon it. Your comments reek.

    Of course you did, almost all urbanites in columbus did. If you grew up in columbus and wanted an ” urban experience” you leave and go to nyc. Only those from the country consider columbus a great urban experience. Those from the city looking for that leave for larger cities as columbus is boring to them.

    This is also the reason you think what I say is a lie. You also probably think there aren’t whiteboys with ak47 in the bottoms selling crack calling each the “n” word. I mean whiteboys don’t shoot each other and sell drugs that never happens on the south side either. These whiteboys are Also super educated so you know they are progressive liberals, lol.

    Are those the people called out in the study that this forum was addressing. Because the question was not whether or not its true, it was why.

    I think Mike is right on the money and (the one nugget of good info from the above poster) is that there is obviously quite a bit of self-select. It seems that if you’re somewhat pre-disposed to liberalism, that probably drives you to the city, which in tern ends up making you more liberal as you are exposed to new people and ideas.

    #1102494

    drew
    Participant

    In a sense, I think ImNotaStar has a point. Cities are both incubators for great leaps of innovation in arts, sciences, and finance, and they’re also breeding grounds for some fairly shocking concentrations of human deprivation and dysfunction. Poor rural folks that have no love for the city may be ignorant in many ways, but they do understand something fundamental – to be poor in the city would almost certainly be a worse life for them.

    My beef with the general tone of the rah-rah urban renewal crowd is that they’re only focused in any significant way on the first part – the showy, the new, they stuff that’s in the areas that the city guides suggest. No matter how much it’s framed as an altruistic win-win scenario for everyone, the simple fact of the matter is that the poorest in the city see little benefit and often see additional hardship as a result of urban renewal projects (yes- so and so poor area has a development, no – it doesn’t account for more than 1/1000th of the whole). The prevailing attitude – which amounts to ‘increase the advantages and appeal of the wealthiest parts of town and everyone will benefit’ – is little more than an urban-renewal adaptation of trickle down economics.

    Which, of course, is not to say that I don’t love seeing and having new amenities, greater density, spiffy architecture, and the like, but I do think that the fetishistic focus on it is a bit short sighted. There are many things we could be doing to lessen economic/racial segregation and level the economic playing field locally – things that would ultimately be advantageous to everyone. If we care about bringing this city into the future as a unified entity, those are the hard problems that we might want to prioritize over shiny new things for shiny young people that the disadvantaged rightfully feel alienated by.

    #1102497

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Discouraged Democrat wrote:</div>
    In the US, we generally think of wealthier, more conservative people living in outlying, low density areas. But in most of the world, the opposite is true; only the rich can afford urban living.

    Are the rich in other countries the political equivalent of those in the US?

    Not sure there’s a general rule, but I always think of conservatives (those wishing to conserve the status quo) as more likely to have a privileged status, which generally means wealth and other resources. I don’t think that varies by location. Maybe someone else knows more.

    #1102501
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    My beef with the general tone of the rah-rah urban renewal crowd is that they’re only focused in any significant way on the first part – the showy, the new, they stuff that’s in the areas that the city guides suggest.

    Show me the announcement of a local large scale middle-class or low-income development in an impoverished area (or even in a well-off area), and I’ll show you a rah-rah urban renewal crowd that will cheer for it.

    It’s tough to cheer for something if it’s not happening very often. Which is unfortunate.

    #1102506

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Discouraged Democrat wrote:</div>
    In the US, we generally think of wealthier, more conservative people living in outlying, low density areas. But in most of the world, the opposite is true; only the rich can afford urban living.

    If you actually look at where many of really rich people live, it is still in urban-ish, “liberal” areas. They’re just a small % of the population. David Koch lives in New York City, for example, and we all remember Mitt Romney was building a house in LaJolla California, Zuckerberg lives in San Francisco, And everyone knows Long Island is is full of zillionaires.

    True. The superrich can live anywhere or in many places. But, as you say, they are few in number. I generally think of Long Island as suburban, not urban. There are many rich people on Manhattan’s Upper East and Upper West sides, but my guess is that they’re far outnumbered by the rich in suburban areas of NY, NJ, and Connecticut. The poor, however, are highly concentrated in the urban areas.

    #1102514

    Cbussmallbiz
    Participant

    Conservatives’ views are explained by vigilance against outside threats, identification with existing social norms and a concern with “purity.”

    The original blog post is a joke. Let’s be honest. You folks want to set around being morally superior and smug about people in the suburbs….anybody that wants a yard or rural setting is a racist is the implication.
    So I guess all my gay relatives that live in the sticks and the gay couples I know living in grove city and Dublin must be self haters for choosing to live there.

    So what came first third world infant mortality rates or liberal control of urban center

    #1102516

    In a sense, I think ImNotaStar has a point. Cities are both incubators for great leaps of innovation in arts, sciences, and finance, and they’re also breeding grounds for some fairly shocking concentrations of human deprivation and dysfunction. Poor rural folks that have no love for the city may be ignorant in many ways, but they do understand something fundamental – to be poor in the city would almost certainly be a worse life for them.

    My beef with the general tone of the rah-rah urban renewal crowd is that they’re only focused in any significant way on the first part – the showy, the new, they stuff that’s in the areas that the city guides suggest. No matter how much it’s framed as an altruistic win-win scenario for everyone, the simple fact of the matter is that the poorest in the city see little benefit and often see additional hardship as a result of urban renewal projects (yes- so and so poor area has a development, no – it doesn’t account for more than 1/1000th of the whole). The prevailing attitude – which amounts to ‘increase the advantages and appeal of the wealthiest parts of town and everyone will benefit’ – is little more than an urban-renewal adaptation of trickle down economics.

    Which, of course, is not to say that I don’t love seeing and having new amenities, greater density, spiffy architecture, and the like, but I do think that the fetishistic focus on it is a bit short sighted. There are many things we could be doing to lessen economic/racial segregation and level the economic playing field locally – things that would ultimately be advantageous to everyone. If we care about bringing this city into the future as a unified entity, those are the hard problems that we might want to prioritize over shiny new things for shiny young people that the disadvantaged rightfully feel alienated by.

    I know what you’re saying. The downtown riverfront is beautiful, but, to me, reducing the number of vacant properties, improving job opportunities for the poor and addressing the appalling infant mortality rate are higher priorities. People won’t visit the spiffy downtown if the neighborhoods they have to traverse to get there are falling apart and are perceived as dangerous. Poverty rates in those areas of the city have increased dramatically in the past 15 to 20 years and the trend shows no sign of slowing. If we want a mix of people living downtown, this has to be addressed, and soon.

    #1102517
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster
    #1102520

    Conservatives’ views are explained by vigilance against outside threats, identification with existing social norms and a concern with “purity.”

    The original blog post is a joke. Let’s be honest. You folks want to set around being morally superior and smug about people in the suburbs….anybody that wants a yard or rural setting is a racist is the implication.<br>
    So I guess all my gay relatives that live in the sticks and the gay couples I know living in grove city and Dublin must be self haters for choosing to live there.

    So what came first third world infant mortality rates or liberal control of urban center

    There are and should be a variety of living environments because there’s a variety of needs and desires in the varied population. One size does not fit all. Some people value open spaces more than access to mass transit. Some value low-maintenance living in an apartment more than absolute peace and quiet. But, in general, I think urbanites are more likely to be liberal than suburbanites. No value judgment, just observation.

    #1102521
    #1102523

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Discouraged Democrat wrote:</div>
    The poor, however, are highly concentrated in the urban areas.

    https://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/suburban-poverty

    http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/01/suburbs-and-the-new-american-poverty/384259/

    http://time.com/3060122/poverty-america-suburbs-brookings/

    http://www.brookings.edu/research/topics/suburban-poverty

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/09/poverty_in_the_suburbs_places_that_thrived_in_the_era_of_two_parent_families.html

    From one of the above:

    “The suburbs aren’t the middle-class haven many imagine them to be as new numbers show 16.5 million suburban Americans are living beneath the poverty .”

    There are probably that many poor in NYC alone, not to mention Philadelphia, Detroit, Miami, Los Angeles, Memphis, New Orleans, Houston, etc., etc.

    #1102524
    Josh Lapp
    Josh Lapp
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Eugene_C wrote:</div>
    I think because mostly liberals like to live in urban areas, now. Conservatives prefer to live out in lower-tax areas, like townships.

    Yes, population density strongly and reliably correlates with political leanings:

    http://www.citylab.com/politics/2013/09/if-you-live-near-other-people-youre-probably-democrat-if-your-neighbors-are-distant-republican/7047/

    Urban density is driven by principles to be conservative and efficient with space, resources, public infrastructure and tax dollars.

    You would think there would be a relationship between conservative, and conservationist, but in practice –not so much.

    Its not a RahRah type of thing… As the image above shows (and the study associated with that image) density was one of the few factors that can truly predict voting preferences. This isn’t dependent on red state/blue state, its on density of where you live. The question is, how can this be explained.

    Here was the original: http://davetroy.com/posts/the-real-republican-adversary-population-density

    #1102529

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Walker Evans wrote:</div>

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Discouraged Democrat wrote:</div><br>
    The poor, however, are highly concentrated in the urban areas.

    https://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/suburban-poverty

    http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/01/suburbs-and-the-new-american-poverty/384259/

    http://time.com/3060122/poverty-america-suburbs-brookings/

    http://www.brookings.edu/research/topics/suburban-poverty

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/09/poverty_in_the_suburbs_places_that_thrived_in_the_era_of_two_parent_families.html

    From one of the above:

    “The suburbs aren’t the middle-class haven many imagine them to be as new numbers show 16.5 million suburban Americans are living beneath the poverty .”

    There are probably that many poor in NYC alone, not to mention Philadelphia, Detroit, Miami, Los Angeles, Memphis, New Orleans, Houston, etc., etc.

    Census Bureau estimates that in 2014 there were 48,208,387 persons below the poverty level in the US. So about 34% live in suburban areas. More than I thought. I stand corrected.

    #1102530

    drew
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>drew wrote:</div>
    My beef with the general tone of the rah-rah urban renewal crowd is that they’re only focused in any significant way on the first part – the showy, the new, they stuff that’s in the areas that the city guides suggest.

    Show me the announcement of a local large scale middle-class or low-income development in an impoverished area (or even in a well-off area), and I’ll show you a rah-rah urban renewal crowd that will cheer for it.

    It’s tough to cheer for something if it’s not happening very often. Which is unfortunate.

    I’m thinking less of discussions relating to what’s been announced for development, and more about discussions surrounding what we don’t have that we want. I’d have to think that discussions of what we want have some sway ultimately in terms of what we get.

    Nobody’s focused on the inequality of it all, including city government in any meaningful sense.

    #1102531

    OneBagTravel
    Participant

    [LIBERALISM INTENSIFIES]

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 67 total)

The forum ‘Development’ is closed to new topics and replies.

Subscribe below: