Spuwho, I'm not sure I'm following your stance. An "urbanite" is simply a city dweller. City dwellers tend to prefer a certain type of environment where walkability happens to be a major amenity or draw. I think you may be putting a little more into my words in this story than they are meant to be. I never said urban, suburban and ex-urban settings were a nemesis to one another. I've always been and still remain an advocate of creating environments that are fiscally sustainable. You can achieve this in a variety of settings.
One of those quirks of this site, where we defend transit as never having to pay its way because its a public service, but complain about cul-de-sac's as subsidized.
I can't defend individual sentiment mentioned by discussion board members because every one has their own opinion. However, we rarely if ever, do what's described with our researched content featured on the front page. Our arguments always revolve around fiscal sustainability. So any argument about transit not "directly" paying its way is done in the form of it paying for itself and more through indirect sources (ex. economic development, lower mobility capital and O&M costs for taxpayers, etc. Complaints about subsidizing bad development are also fiscal stimulated. When you funnel thousands of people into single arterials, that tends to directly lead to hundreds of millions having to be funneled to widen that arterial. In the grand scheme of things, you don't always end up in the black, employing such fiscal tactics.
Can't have it both ways. For every "urbanite" complaining about subsidized cul-de-sacs is an "ex-urbanite" complaining about gas taxes going to transit.
As you know, I'm a huge fan of the mobility plan and fee. One of the major reasons is the inclusion of mobility zones and the fiscal structuring of mobility projects within those zones. If allowed to work as originally designed, the ex-urbanite's funds go to improve mobility needs specifically designed for their immediate context. The same goes for the urban community. On a grand scale, that basically eliminates this particular argument.
The stories are good about city planning and how we approach them, I dig them, just drop the "us vs them" approach if possible.
For me, there is no us verse them. The goal is to simply create a sustainable citywide environment. With that in mind, we can do a better job with our urban core, suburbs and rural areas. As for this article, I'm simply highlighting the features of a suburban setting of dense housing design and how it differs from an urban one (from a point of view that favors fiscal sustainability for the taxpayer). If this one bothers you, you'll probably hate tomorrow's follow-up story.....Dallas' State Thomas Neighborhood: An Urban Bartram Park
.
