Need to comment anonymously based on job, career, etc. Employers constantly google their employees and arguing with people in an internet comments section isn't something I want popping up. If you're concerned with my identity you can post your email here and I'll email you my name.
Your comment about suburbs having higher crime rates per capita than downtown is utterly and completely untrue. Check Edmonton Police crime map
http://crimemapping.edmontonpolice.ca/
Check peer reviewed papers on the subject, etc. Seriously, many of your arguments are well thought out but that statement is completely outlandish. Per capita the crime rate in my neighbourhood is something pretty close to zero - there have been a few garage break and enters in the last two months, and nothing else. A cursory look at the neighbourhoods around downtown leaves one wondering how you could possibly make that claim.
Maybe kids 5-12 like to be outside and then less so when they get older, but what about adults? What about gardening, having a bbq, sitting on the deck, and generally using the yard?
Careful with the 'everything in my email was true', because first of all, it's not, and secondly, much of the stuff you wrote is completely subjective and not in any way 'provable'. For example the statement that suburbs are not socially sustainable... could you define what "socially sustainable" means? And what if I disagree with you? Theoretical academic nonsense notwithstanding, we're never going to agree and could argue forever. Let's see some data.
Your paper isn't empirical. Empirical means relying on or depending on verification or experiment i.e.; with data, statistical analysis, etc. Your paper was theoretical and many, many of the statements in it were completely subjective. It was also preachy and bossy.
That said, honestly, I admire your passion on this subject and I think you're a good writer with a promising career. We just disagree. That's what comment arguing is for.
Mack Nugent - 13 years ago
Firstly, I have lived my whole life in the suburbs (Millwoods and Riverbend) almost my entire life. The backyards and open parks in these neighbourhoods were nice between the ages of 5-12, beyond these ages, does a kid often play outside in the backyard?
My email wasn't bossy and everything in it is true. It's not a judgement comment that contemporary suburbs make people more conservative, just a reality that has been repeatedly documented. By the way, none of my sources are from "partisan think tanks". Find me one example. The paper is completely empirical. And the point of a paper/essay is to make an argument and support it with evidence, which is what I've done.
Downtown Edmonton doesn't have many murders in reality. Perhaps there is a higher crime rate in adjacent neighbourhoods to the north and west. But it seems only when those murders experience a murder, are they part of downtown. And, if you look at crime maps you'll see that many suburban neighbourhoods have higher per capita (by population) crime rates. Such is the growing trend in Canadian cities.
Finally, if you're going to attempt to criticize one's you lose all credibility doing so anonymously.
Anon - 13 years ago
The gist of your argument hasn't been slighted because your initial email on the blog was aggressive and generalizing. That is what fosters polarizing discussion and puts people on the defensive. Your little comment about "and conservative" - what is that supposed to mean? Is everyone supposed to be a "progressive"? Is being a "conservative" bad? Do you know why people with higher incomes live in the suburbs? Because it's better here, and this is what many people aspire to. It doesn't make them bad or fearful of their neighbours.
When people get older, have kids, etc they tend not to want to live in apartments or downtown or in the core. I don't know a single family (with kids) who choose to live in a downtown apartment or condo. Lots of my single friends do, though. Different strokes.
Spend some time in the suburbs before you write bossy, non-emperical and judgemental undergrad papers. Lots of unsubstantiated statements in there and citations of partisan think-tanks. And your paper does argue quite vigorously for Edmonton to limit suburb development and makes all sorts of interesting claims about what wonderful benefits the city would achieve if they only listened to you.
Here's an opposing anecdotal argument: People who live downtown are murderers because that's where most murders happen. Happy?
People in the suburbs definitely need to pay their share of what they consume. This includes full cost of building and hooking up their lots, and continued service of their increased use of sewer, road space, etc. Maybe residential taxes should be based on some sort of formula calculated using variables such as how far you are from service provision, size of lot, how much 'road' your house uses relative to the number of homes on your block etc. However, I'd note that if it was based on size of lot, this would push up taxes on single family houses in the core. People in mature neighbourhoods, in single family homes, use a lot more square footage or land area than houses in the suburbs.
I understand conceptually that suburbs use more resources in the sense that it takes more road to drive out here and sewers and power need to be extended, but that must be somewhat offset by the 8000 square foot lots and 15-20 houses per block in a neighbourhood like Glenora.
Suburb dwellers should also be responsible to some degree for road congestion and other types of 'pollution' they cause. Negative externalities and all. I do agree with this.
It might be wise to examine the walkability angle of your argument too. Most new suburbs have an incredible amount of trails, bike paths, small lakes, tree'd areas, etc. Much more than just the sidewalks in core neighbourhoods. Ms Stolte has blogged about these in previous posts. Indeed you can't walk to a cafe or corner store. But maybe not everyone wants to...
Maybe downtown dwellers should pay more taxes due to the amount of time and resources police spend there. I haven't seen a cop in my neighbourhood, ever. Something to think about.
Arguments both ways, I guess.
Mack Nugent - 13 years ago
If you actually read what I've written, you'll know that I don't advocate from the limitation of personal choice, or the end of suburbs. I do express concern that the current, popular form of suburban development is economically, socially and environmentally unsustainable. With a restructuring of taxes so that "suburb dwellers pay what it costs to build and service their lots", and initiatives to promote walkability, many of the problems with suburbs could be reduced. Also, this would eliminate the current problem of residents in mature neighbourhoods unfairly subsidizing the infrastructure needs of extremely low-density neighbourhoods.
I feel the gist of my argument has been slighted for a more controversial, polarizing discussion.
Now, anyone know where I can get some cheap noodles?
Anon36 - 13 years ago
After reading Mack's response, it would not be too surprising to see reactive assumptions being made on both sides of the argument. Please be reminded that while the there is a large population of students who cannot afford to be property owners, under no specific context does Mack reveal his financial status.
It disappoints me that suburbian living seems to be stigmatized more and more by the younger generation. I'm not that old myself, mind you - having graduated from university only a few years ago. As a graduation gift to my boyfriend (now husband) and myself, we purchased a house in a quiet suburbian neighbourhood because it would be convenient compromise for both my husband and I to get to work.
Our decision left us chastised by friends who questioned us on why we did not want to live near our or in "vibrant" downtown core. More importantly, they reminded us of the dangers of living in surburbia, as there is literature that proves that surburbia is the prime breeding grounds for individuals who are cynical, conservative and fearful of their neighbours. Both he and I are not people you would typically classify as being cynical or conservative, and we definitely do not hestitate to take opportunities to give back to the neighbourhood we when can. It was disappointing to know that people were quick to make derogatory generalizations about our lifestyle only because we decided to move into far south Edmonton.
In the examination of factors of sustainability, the livability factor should also be taken into consideration as well. Would a city be livable if it did not provide options for people to live anywhere other than an "urban" neighbourhood? How would a city be able to ensure that traffic flows smoothly and service demands are met in an area where there are concentrated amounts of people? How does one balance economic, social and environmental sustainability with the demands of citizens who want their freedom, mobility and solidarity?
Your world is what you make of it. Not everyone with credentials works downtown or in places that are easily accessible via transit. Not everyone has the financial means necessary to purchase property in Edmonton central. And most importantly, not everyone enjoys apartment style living because sometimes having your own space and not having to worry about the noise the downstairs neighbour is going to hear when you're jumping around and doing cardio workouts in front of the TV is one of life's most unappreciated things.
Anon - 13 years ago
Total bodybody trying to control how others live.
Not everyone wants to live in a 30-story highrise, crammed in like a sardine. Or in high density housing.
Current model may be a bit broken i.e. suburb dwellers should pay what it costs to build and service their lots, but who are you to declare where others should live and how they should spend their money.
Rick - 13 years ago
Mack just sounds like a bitter renter/student that can't afford anything but cup of noodles for dinner and he calls other people cynics? Wow. I've seen alot of over generalized letters/opinions before but he takes the cake.
Need to comment anonymously based on job, career, etc. Employers constantly google their employees and arguing with people in an internet comments section isn't something I want popping up. If you're concerned with my identity you can post your email here and I'll email you my name.
Your comment about suburbs having higher crime rates per capita than downtown is utterly and completely untrue. Check Edmonton Police crime map
http://crimemapping.edmontonpolice.ca/
Check peer reviewed papers on the subject, etc. Seriously, many of your arguments are well thought out but that statement is completely outlandish. Per capita the crime rate in my neighbourhood is something pretty close to zero - there have been a few garage break and enters in the last two months, and nothing else. A cursory look at the neighbourhoods around downtown leaves one wondering how you could possibly make that claim.
Maybe kids 5-12 like to be outside and then less so when they get older, but what about adults? What about gardening, having a bbq, sitting on the deck, and generally using the yard?
Careful with the 'everything in my email was true', because first of all, it's not, and secondly, much of the stuff you wrote is completely subjective and not in any way 'provable'. For example the statement that suburbs are not socially sustainable... could you define what "socially sustainable" means? And what if I disagree with you? Theoretical academic nonsense notwithstanding, we're never going to agree and could argue forever. Let's see some data.
Your paper isn't empirical. Empirical means relying on or depending on verification or experiment i.e.; with data, statistical analysis, etc. Your paper was theoretical and many, many of the statements in it were completely subjective. It was also preachy and bossy.
That said, honestly, I admire your passion on this subject and I think you're a good writer with a promising career. We just disagree. That's what comment arguing is for.
Firstly, I have lived my whole life in the suburbs (Millwoods and Riverbend) almost my entire life. The backyards and open parks in these neighbourhoods were nice between the ages of 5-12, beyond these ages, does a kid often play outside in the backyard?
My email wasn't bossy and everything in it is true. It's not a judgement comment that contemporary suburbs make people more conservative, just a reality that has been repeatedly documented. By the way, none of my sources are from "partisan think tanks". Find me one example. The paper is completely empirical. And the point of a paper/essay is to make an argument and support it with evidence, which is what I've done.
Downtown Edmonton doesn't have many murders in reality. Perhaps there is a higher crime rate in adjacent neighbourhoods to the north and west. But it seems only when those murders experience a murder, are they part of downtown. And, if you look at crime maps you'll see that many suburban neighbourhoods have higher per capita (by population) crime rates. Such is the growing trend in Canadian cities.
Finally, if you're going to attempt to criticize one's you lose all credibility doing so anonymously.
The gist of your argument hasn't been slighted because your initial email on the blog was aggressive and generalizing. That is what fosters polarizing discussion and puts people on the defensive. Your little comment about "and conservative" - what is that supposed to mean? Is everyone supposed to be a "progressive"? Is being a "conservative" bad? Do you know why people with higher incomes live in the suburbs? Because it's better here, and this is what many people aspire to. It doesn't make them bad or fearful of their neighbours.
When people get older, have kids, etc they tend not to want to live in apartments or downtown or in the core. I don't know a single family (with kids) who choose to live in a downtown apartment or condo. Lots of my single friends do, though. Different strokes.
Spend some time in the suburbs before you write bossy, non-emperical and judgemental undergrad papers. Lots of unsubstantiated statements in there and citations of partisan think-tanks. And your paper does argue quite vigorously for Edmonton to limit suburb development and makes all sorts of interesting claims about what wonderful benefits the city would achieve if they only listened to you.
Here's an opposing anecdotal argument: People who live downtown are murderers because that's where most murders happen. Happy?
People in the suburbs definitely need to pay their share of what they consume. This includes full cost of building and hooking up their lots, and continued service of their increased use of sewer, road space, etc. Maybe residential taxes should be based on some sort of formula calculated using variables such as how far you are from service provision, size of lot, how much 'road' your house uses relative to the number of homes on your block etc. However, I'd note that if it was based on size of lot, this would push up taxes on single family houses in the core. People in mature neighbourhoods, in single family homes, use a lot more square footage or land area than houses in the suburbs.
I understand conceptually that suburbs use more resources in the sense that it takes more road to drive out here and sewers and power need to be extended, but that must be somewhat offset by the 8000 square foot lots and 15-20 houses per block in a neighbourhood like Glenora.
Suburb dwellers should also be responsible to some degree for road congestion and other types of 'pollution' they cause. Negative externalities and all. I do agree with this.
It might be wise to examine the walkability angle of your argument too. Most new suburbs have an incredible amount of trails, bike paths, small lakes, tree'd areas, etc. Much more than just the sidewalks in core neighbourhoods. Ms Stolte has blogged about these in previous posts. Indeed you can't walk to a cafe or corner store. But maybe not everyone wants to...
Maybe downtown dwellers should pay more taxes due to the amount of time and resources police spend there. I haven't seen a cop in my neighbourhood, ever. Something to think about.
Arguments both ways, I guess.
If you actually read what I've written, you'll know that I don't advocate from the limitation of personal choice, or the end of suburbs. I do express concern that the current, popular form of suburban development is economically, socially and environmentally unsustainable. With a restructuring of taxes so that "suburb dwellers pay what it costs to build and service their lots", and initiatives to promote walkability, many of the problems with suburbs could be reduced. Also, this would eliminate the current problem of residents in mature neighbourhoods unfairly subsidizing the infrastructure needs of extremely low-density neighbourhoods.
I feel the gist of my argument has been slighted for a more controversial, polarizing discussion.
Now, anyone know where I can get some cheap noodles?
After reading Mack's response, it would not be too surprising to see reactive assumptions being made on both sides of the argument. Please be reminded that while the there is a large population of students who cannot afford to be property owners, under no specific context does Mack reveal his financial status.
It disappoints me that suburbian living seems to be stigmatized more and more by the younger generation. I'm not that old myself, mind you - having graduated from university only a few years ago. As a graduation gift to my boyfriend (now husband) and myself, we purchased a house in a quiet suburbian neighbourhood because it would be convenient compromise for both my husband and I to get to work.
Our decision left us chastised by friends who questioned us on why we did not want to live near our or in "vibrant" downtown core. More importantly, they reminded us of the dangers of living in surburbia, as there is literature that proves that surburbia is the prime breeding grounds for individuals who are cynical, conservative and fearful of their neighbours. Both he and I are not people you would typically classify as being cynical or conservative, and we definitely do not hestitate to take opportunities to give back to the neighbourhood we when can. It was disappointing to know that people were quick to make derogatory generalizations about our lifestyle only because we decided to move into far south Edmonton.
In the examination of factors of sustainability, the livability factor should also be taken into consideration as well. Would a city be livable if it did not provide options for people to live anywhere other than an "urban" neighbourhood? How would a city be able to ensure that traffic flows smoothly and service demands are met in an area where there are concentrated amounts of people? How does one balance economic, social and environmental sustainability with the demands of citizens who want their freedom, mobility and solidarity?
Your world is what you make of it. Not everyone with credentials works downtown or in places that are easily accessible via transit. Not everyone has the financial means necessary to purchase property in Edmonton central. And most importantly, not everyone enjoys apartment style living because sometimes having your own space and not having to worry about the noise the downstairs neighbour is going to hear when you're jumping around and doing cardio workouts in front of the TV is one of life's most unappreciated things.
Total bodybody trying to control how others live.
Not everyone wants to live in a 30-story highrise, crammed in like a sardine. Or in high density housing.
Current model may be a bit broken i.e. suburb dwellers should pay what it costs to build and service their lots, but who are you to declare where others should live and how they should spend their money.
Mack just sounds like a bitter renter/student that can't afford anything but cup of noodles for dinner and he calls other people cynics? Wow. I've seen alot of over generalized letters/opinions before but he takes the cake.