# Is the "living near one's workplace is good" ideal inconsistent with gender equality?



## foadi (Feb 15, 2006)

mhays said:


> "Sounder" used to do the same, arguing that density wasn't environmentally sustainable and using bizarre arguments to do so.


sorry to go off topic, but do you have links to this? i find it very amusing


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

No links. 

He argued stuff like: 
--sprawl was fine because his own yard had a lot of native plants. (Where to even begin with this one?) 
--growth boundaries caused sprawl because the growth would simply leapfrog to more distant places. (This does happen a bit, but there's still much less sprawl overall, and maybe the "distant places" should tighten their boundaries too.)


----------



## tigerboy (Jun 7, 2006)

Gender equality - if by which we mean equlaity of outcome in carers etc - can only be imposed by massive social engineering in heavily socialised states such as those in Western Europe and North America all of which are de facto socialist so any attempt to have it as a factor in planning family policy is inherently predicated on the willingnes to socially engineer.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

The typical US suburban zoning of the past half-century is massive social engineering -- mandated separation of uses, mandated parking quantities, mandated lot sizes. Same with transportation funding that was massively tilted toward cars, and even 100% about cars in the many areas, with nothing but a muddy fringe for bikes and pedestrians, and no transit. Anyone in favor of that who claims to be "against social engineering" is either ignorant or a hypocrite.


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

tigerboy said:


> Gender equality - if by which we mean equlaity of outcome in carers etc - can only be imposed by massive social engineering in heavily socialised states such as those in Western Europe and North America all of which are de facto socialist so any attempt to have it as a factor in planning family policy is inherently predicated on the willingnes to socially engineer.


Speaking of "social engineering" implies that there exist on the other side some "social essence" which would be "natural". This is of course pure fiction. 

It generally refers to the "Market" or the "invisible hand" as being the 'natural' part of society, which is bullshit, the "market" is also a historical construction and there is nothing natural about it.


----------



## edubejar (Mar 16, 2003)

mhays said:


> The typical US suburban zoning of the past half-century is massive social engineering -- mandated separation of uses, mandated parking quantities, mandated lot sizes. Same with transportation funding that was massively tilted toward cars, and even 100% about cars in the many areas, with nothing but a muddy fringe for bikes and pedestrians, and no transit. Anyone in favor of that who claims to be "against social engineering" is either ignorant or a hypocrite.


:cheers: Cheers to that!


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

mhays said:


> The typical US suburban zoning of the past half-century is massive social engineering -- mandated separation of uses, mandated parking quantities, mandated lot sizes. Same with transportation funding that was massively tilted toward cars, and even 100% about cars in the many areas, with nothing but a muddy fringe for bikes and pedestrians, and no transit. Anyone in favor of that who claims to be "against social engineering" is either ignorant or a hypocrite.


Virtually 100% of public funds employed in public lighting and power distribution is employed in electricity, not - say - a network of wood to be used in fireplaces or gas lamps or whale-oil fueled lamps. The individual self-moving independent vehicle concept (which happens to be the car) is the ultimate enabler of freedom of movement in a society that values individual choices and differentiation (you can have far more brands and types of cars than one will ever get about different trainsets or bus seats options). Therefore, because the individual self-moving independent vehicle is so important to moder life as it is electricity, public funds show be heavily tilted toward it.

Our modern world and moder economy dependent on consumption, land development and multiple choices is inextricably linked to the personal car or whatever vehicle with the same characteristics succeeds it. 



eklips said:


> Speaking of "social engineering" implies that there exist on the other side some "social essence" which would be "natural". This is of course pure fiction.
> 
> It generally refers to the "Market" or the "invisible hand" as being the 'natural' part of society, which is bullshit, the "market" is also a historical construction and there is nothing natural about it.


The concept of market existed well before even the concept of real money (metal coins) were invented. Since humans specialized themselves in the early stages of non-nomad living, they have been exchanging properties, goods and services. The free real estate market is just a way to provide people with choices they want.

I do favor less stringent planning laws as long as, for instance, lesser parking requirements are not coped with public spending on light-rail only to impose a law "directing" development around stations some bureaucrat decided to built in a given place.

If people want to live in any area, provided it is safe (e.g., not on an avalanche basin or in the red zone of a volcano), they should be allowed to buy houses there. The government should just provide the regulatory framework so people can move around in their cars or so private companies can put transit systems in place.

As a concession to people who can't drive a car, I admit government setting up transit services as long as it doesn't hamper the development of freeways by taking money directed to them. I can accept the idea that capital costs of light rails or subways will not paid themselves as highway costs might not, but I do not agree with transit systems that cannot recoup even their operation (debt service excluded) costs through fare collection - and I do support road taxes that recoup enough money to maintain and operate roads and highways too.

But, please, don't come with the climate-change/peak-oil screaming to justify charging drivers like they were cigarette smokers that have to finance alternatives. We are fine on our own, at least in the developed world.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

Do you admit that typical suburban zoning is social engineering, or were you avoiding that on purpose?


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

mhays said:


> Do you admit that typical suburban zoning is social engineering, or were you avoiding that on purpose?


To a certain degree, it is. I don't have problems with Homeowner Associations, as long as any city doesn't restrict what kind of subdivision can be built inside any given city.

So, I'm totally against things like laws limiting the overall number of buildings/rooms/units inside its limits as much as I'm against any "growth boundary" scheme. They are both excessive intervention of the state over private real estate enterprise.

Individual neighborhoods can be regulated to a certain extent, as long as the overall city is not locked into any integrated plan directing development to any given preferred arrangement. If there is demand, let private entrepreneurs build either suburban McMansions and Manhattan-like skyscrapers, and let them do it without interference of local governments except in terms of, for instance, dimensioning future right-of-ways for transport that developers would like to build etc.

As for safety regulations, like fireproof construction or streets with enough width to accommodate fire trucks, I'm all in favor. Same for accessibility (for the handicapped) at the building level.

So, essentially, I'd love to see most of urban planning commissions being scrapped in favor of right of landowners to develop land parcels at will, with local authorities only being responsible to provide infrastructure to the chosen arrangement (by the developers), charging appropriate development fees to cover the expenses.

Finally, most of alleged characteristics of suburbs are, at most, unintended consequences of their features. Nobody build suburbs to "exclude" illegal immigrants, for instance - they only cannot get driver's licenses because of their status, thus making it harder for them to move there. Same for the poorest citizens who cannot afford cars. On the contrary, many planning paradigms are set with aiming of "mixing people of different incomes so they will learn to better respect people of different background". That's the difference: suburbs aren't anything like "exclusionary" zoning schemes, whilst many new urbanism philosophies specifically aims to put people close to one another so they can "interact" and "develop a sense of community".


----------

