04-02-2024, 10:04 PM
Acer wrote:
[quote=DeusxMac]
(td)
Sorry, this guy’s ideological deck is so obviously stacked for his agenda.
Concepts and realities ignored. Euphemistically flattering, spun, phrasing.
What agendas, concepts and realities would those be?
1. Assumes issues, options and dynamics of smaller 1800s city growth are the same those of much larger 21st cities. Some are, but many are most definitely not.
2. Part of Chicago's population increase over the years was the result of inclusion of already populated surrounding areas: "The city grew significantly in size and population by incorporating many neighboring townships between 1851 and 1920, with the largest annexation happening in 1889, with five townships joining the city...which now comprises most of the South Side...the far southeast...and...most of Chicago's Northwest Side."
3. He claims that Chicago "despite its issues, worked at its most basic level". What does that even mean?
4. He claims despite rapid population increase, Chicago was "somehow able to meet its housing needs". Was it? Were there none without adequate housing in 1910; no homeless in 1920?
Note; later he uses the term "overcrowded tenements", which apparently he considers acceptable for meeting those "housing needs".
5. He claims "none of these (housing) options were meant to be permanent", immediately after an expert has described the building of bungalows; many of which are still in use 100 years later.
6. His rainforest cornfield analogy is specious; simplistic.
7. He claims cities stopped his preferred "evolving" because of "money and restrictions", then characterizes those with the back-handed compliment of being "well meaning".
8. He implies that the citizens of the city did not themselves want the enacted zoning restrictions; that they were unilaterally enacted despite public disapproval.
9. He cherry picks certain subjective valuation words in the zoning ordinances, ignoring those that would be widely, if not universally supported by the citizens.
Example: From "To promote and protect the public health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience, and general welfare of the people", he flags the subjective "moral", but he also casts "comfort" and "convenience" as being unworthy of inclusion.
10. He critcizes zoning regulation of density and height, assuming no citizens would would desire such.
11. He uses the phrase "many forms of gentle density"; an excellent example of his euphemistically flattering, spin.
12. This is the major point - He either ignores, or doesn't comprehend the reality that people will aspire to, and work towards living in the setting that appeals to them.
If that setting is "changed", especially by outside forces, then it ceases to be where they want to live.
Some people WANT to live in the country. Some people WANT to live in the suburbs. Some people WANT to live in the city.
Some people WANT to live in free-standing houses. Some people WANT to live in row houses. Some people WANT to live in high-rises.
Acer wrote: One reality is NIMBY. It's already popped up in this thread.
See #12 above.
p.s. Chicago's population peaked in the 1950s, and has declined fairly steadily since then (3,620,962 in 1950, 2,696,555 in 2021 - down 26%)