Comments on: Do We Need “New Urbanism” To Fix “Unwalkable Sprawl”? http://marketurbanism.com/2009/05/13/do-we-need-new-urbanism-to-fix-unwalkable-sprawl/ Urbanism for Capitalists / Capitalism for Urbanists Sun, 20 May 2012 15:18:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Bill Nelson http://marketurbanism.com/2009/05/13/do-we-need-new-urbanism-to-fix-unwalkable-sprawl/#comment-6040 Bill Nelson Fri, 22 May 2009 14:26:30 +0000 http://marketurbanism.com/2009/05/13/do-we-need-new-urbanism-to-fix-unwalkable-sprawl/#comment-6040 Adam - I think the reason for libertarian preferences for automobiles, highways, etc., is that (costs aside) there is a visceral appeal for the independence of going when and where you please -- and with a vastly greater area at your disposal. (Obviously, there are limitations to driving freedom during peak periods, but that's because pricing mechanisms are absent.) Rejecting an automobile means reducing your choices -- and that's not compatible with libertarian personalities. Restricted oneself to a handful of stores within walking distance feels more "conrolling" than having anything within a 25-mile radius at your disposal -- and with a huge cargo carrier to transport everything in. And the consequent increased competition among retailers has instinctual appeal to libertarians' sense of expanded operations of free markets. Even with private transit, I would think that highways have more libertarian appeal -- just as a libertarian personality is probably more comfortable with the "open road" than with the rules and restrictions of air travel. Adam -

I think the reason for libertarian preferences for automobiles, highways, etc., is that (costs aside) there is a visceral appeal for the independence of going when and where you please — and with a vastly greater area at your disposal. (Obviously, there are limitations to driving freedom during peak periods, but that’s because pricing mechanisms are absent.)

Rejecting an automobile means reducing your choices — and that’s not compatible with libertarian personalities. Restricted oneself to a handful of stores within walking distance feels more “conrolling” than having anything within a 25-mile radius at your disposal — and with a huge cargo carrier to transport everything in. And the consequent increased competition among retailers has instinctual appeal to libertarians’ sense of expanded operations of free markets.

Even with private transit, I would think that highways have more libertarian appeal — just as a libertarian personality is probably more comfortable with the “open road” than with the rules and restrictions of air travel.

]]> By: Bill Nelson http://marketurbanism.com/2009/05/13/do-we-need-new-urbanism-to-fix-unwalkable-sprawl/#comment-8886 Bill Nelson Fri, 22 May 2009 14:26:00 +0000 http://marketurbanism.com/2009/05/13/do-we-need-new-urbanism-to-fix-unwalkable-sprawl/#comment-8886 Adam - I think the reason for libertarian preferences for automobiles, highways, etc., is that (costs aside) there is a visceral appeal for the independence of going when and where you please -- and with a vastly greater area at your disposal. (Obviously, there are limitations to driving freedom during peak periods, but that's because pricing mechanisms are absent.) Rejecting an automobile means reducing your choices -- and that's not compatible with libertarian personalities. Restricted oneself to a handful of stores within walking distance feels more "conrolling" than having anything within a 25-mile radius at your disposal -- and with a huge cargo carrier to transport everything in. And the consequent increased competition among retailers has instinctual appeal to libertarians' sense of expanded operations of free markets. Even with private transit, I would think that highways have more libertarian appeal -- just as a libertarian personality is probably more comfortable with the "open road" than with the rules and restrictions of air travel. Adam -

I think the reason for libertarian preferences for automobiles, highways, etc., is that (costs aside) there is a visceral appeal for the independence of going when and where you please — and with a vastly greater area at your disposal. (Obviously, there are limitations to driving freedom during peak periods, but that’s because pricing mechanisms are absent.)

Rejecting an automobile means reducing your choices — and that’s not compatible with libertarian personalities. Restricted oneself to a handful of stores within walking distance feels more “conrolling” than having anything within a 25-mile radius at your disposal — and with a huge cargo carrier to transport everything in. And the consequent increased competition among retailers has instinctual appeal to libertarians’ sense of expanded operations of free markets.

Even with private transit, I would think that highways have more libertarian appeal — just as a libertarian personality is probably more comfortable with the “open road” than with the rules and restrictions of air travel.

]]> By: Conservative vs libertarian « Local Conservatism http://marketurbanism.com/2009/05/13/do-we-need-new-urbanism-to-fix-unwalkable-sprawl/#comment-6008 Conservative vs libertarian « Local Conservatism Mon, 18 May 2009 23:06:44 +0000 http://marketurbanism.com/2009/05/13/do-we-need-new-urbanism-to-fix-unwalkable-sprawl/#comment-6008 [...] markets have created the current pattern of suburbanization we see in the U.S. today – two links from my earlier post discuss how zoning and planning laws have created “unwalkable [...] [...] markets have created the current pattern of suburbanization we see in the U.S. today – two links from my earlier post discuss how zoning and planning laws have created “unwalkable [...]

]]> By: A few links « Local Conservatism http://marketurbanism.com/2009/05/13/do-we-need-new-urbanism-to-fix-unwalkable-sprawl/#comment-6007 A few links « Local Conservatism Mon, 18 May 2009 21:41:07 +0000 http://marketurbanism.com/2009/05/13/do-we-need-new-urbanism-to-fix-unwalkable-sprawl/#comment-6007 [...] even though the weather is pretty gentle on pavement. This indicates government failure. Do we need new urbanism to fix unwalkable sprawl? A Tale of Two Exurbs The evil of rent control Stadtluft Macht Frei Unbuilt Australia. City planning [...] [...] even though the weather is pretty gentle on pavement. This indicates government failure. Do we need new urbanism to fix unwalkable sprawl? A Tale of Two Exurbs The evil of rent control Stadtluft Macht Frei Unbuilt Australia. City planning [...]

]]> By: Sid Burgess http://marketurbanism.com/2009/05/13/do-we-need-new-urbanism-to-fix-unwalkable-sprawl/#comment-6000 Sid Burgess Mon, 18 May 2009 00:07:51 +0000 http://marketurbanism.com/2009/05/13/do-we-need-new-urbanism-to-fix-unwalkable-sprawl/#comment-6000 The idea of "anti-planning" is really confusing from the start. Planning is a simple part of our day, everyone's day. Forced planning, as some propose, isn't a good idea, but a careful distinction must be made between normal community planning and lobbied, ill-intentioned planning. Cities, or communities as we used to call them, are normal aspects of life. Humans will always make agreements to better their existence and we need to recognize the proper place for those contracts and relationships. Communities are often a great place to grow those relationships. The beauty of the Republic form of government is it's democratic form of electing its representatives. It is perfectly acceptable for voters to allow their personal representative to protect their stake in our communities. I don't want to engage in a debate with the anti-planner crowd over whether or not governments or representatives should exist at all. The very fact that they exist in associations, groups, clubs, defies their ability to deny others the same privileges. Adam, you are perfectly correct. I am excited to hear your arguments and can't wait to see more and more "constitutionalists", libertarians, independents, republicans, and democrats see the value of less is more, and TRUE market solutions to our personal preferences. The idea of “anti-planning” is really confusing from the start. Planning is a simple part of our day, everyone’s day. Forced planning, as some propose, isn’t a good idea, but a careful distinction must be made between normal community planning and lobbied, ill-intentioned planning. Cities, or communities as we used to call them, are normal aspects of life. Humans will always make agreements to better their existence and we need to recognize the proper place for those contracts and relationships. Communities are often a great place to grow those relationships. The beauty of the Republic form of government is it’s democratic form of electing its representatives. It is perfectly acceptable for voters to allow their personal representative to protect their stake in our communities. I don’t want to engage in a debate with the anti-planner crowd over whether or not governments or representatives should exist at all. The very fact that they exist in associations, groups, clubs, defies their ability to deny others the same privileges.

Adam, you are perfectly correct. I am excited to hear your arguments and can’t wait to see more and more “constitutionalists”, libertarians, independents, republicans, and democrats see the value of less is more, and TRUE market solutions to our personal preferences.

]]> By: Sid Burgess http://marketurbanism.com/2009/05/13/do-we-need-new-urbanism-to-fix-unwalkable-sprawl/#comment-8885 Sid Burgess Mon, 18 May 2009 00:07:00 +0000 http://marketurbanism.com/2009/05/13/do-we-need-new-urbanism-to-fix-unwalkable-sprawl/#comment-8885 The idea of "anti-planning" is really confusing from the start. Planning is a simple part of our day, everyone's day. Forced planning, as some propose, isn't a good idea, but a careful distinction must be made between normal community planning and lobbied, ill-intentioned planning. Cities, or communities as we used to call them, are normal aspects of life. Humans will always make agreements to better their existence and we need to recognize the proper place for those contracts and relationships. Communities are often a great place to grow those relationships. The beauty of the Republic form of government is it's democratic form of electing its representatives. It is perfectly acceptable for voters to allow their personal representative to protect their stake in our communities. I don't want to engage in a debate with the anti-planner crowd over whether or not governments or representatives should exist at all. The very fact that they exist in associations, groups, clubs, defies their ability to deny others the same privileges. Adam, you are perfectly correct. I am excited to hear your arguments and can't wait to see more and more "constitutionalists", libertarians, independents, republicans, and democrats see the value of less is more, and TRUE market solutions to our personal preferences. The idea of “anti-planning” is really confusing from the start. Planning is a simple part of our day, everyone’s day. Forced planning, as some propose, isn’t a good idea, but a careful distinction must be made between normal community planning and lobbied, ill-intentioned planning. Cities, or communities as we used to call them, are normal aspects of life. Humans will always make agreements to better their existence and we need to recognize the proper place for those contracts and relationships. Communities are often a great place to grow those relationships. The beauty of the Republic form of government is it’s democratic form of electing its representatives. It is perfectly acceptable for voters to allow their personal representative to protect their stake in our communities. I don’t want to engage in a debate with the anti-planner crowd over whether or not governments or representatives should exist at all. The very fact that they exist in associations, groups, clubs, defies their ability to deny others the same privileges.

Adam, you are perfectly correct. I am excited to hear your arguments and can’t wait to see more and more “constitutionalists”, libertarians, independents, republicans, and democrats see the value of less is more, and TRUE market solutions to our personal preferences.

]]> By: Market Urbanism http://marketurbanism.com/2009/05/13/do-we-need-new-urbanism-to-fix-unwalkable-sprawl/#comment-5969 Market Urbanism Thu, 14 May 2009 18:59:00 +0000 http://marketurbanism.com/2009/05/13/do-we-need-new-urbanism-to-fix-unwalkable-sprawl/#comment-5969 Thanks for pointing that out. I just read that "anti"planner post, and am dumbfounded by the hypocrisy. Thanks for pointing that out. I just read that “anti”planner post, and am dumbfounded by the hypocrisy.

]]> By: MarketUrbanism http://marketurbanism.com/2009/05/13/do-we-need-new-urbanism-to-fix-unwalkable-sprawl/#comment-8884 MarketUrbanism Thu, 14 May 2009 18:59:00 +0000 http://marketurbanism.com/2009/05/13/do-we-need-new-urbanism-to-fix-unwalkable-sprawl/#comment-8884 Thanks for pointing that out. I just read that "anti"planner post, and am dumbfounded by the hypocrisy. Thanks for pointing that out. I just read that “anti”planner post, and am dumbfounded by the hypocrisy.

]]>