tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4840511756286055487.post3390878089926850743..comments2024-03-29T04:22:07.879-06:00Comments on Illinois Transportation Issues: Opportunity UrbanismTom Bamontehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08257129333713108323noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4840511756286055487.post-42249600616001680712007-06-19T15:38:00.000-06:002007-06-19T15:38:00.000-06:00Oh Jesus, rather than funding public transit, the ...Oh Jesus, rather than funding public transit, the government should buy everyone a car? WTF.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4840511756286055487.post-77176952214178296602007-06-19T11:40:00.000-06:002007-06-19T11:40:00.000-06:00I think that there are a couple problems with Kotk...I think that there are a couple problems with Kotkin's great new paradigm. In regards to taxes and regulatory burdens, it is clear that many of the new sunbelt cities have lower taxes. But this is really because their infrastructure and job bases are heavily subsidized. The "superstar" cities are all net payers of taxes; cities like Phoenix are net receivers. <BR/> Secondly, there is no mention whether the model for these cities is sustainable. They were all built in and era of cheap energy with no concern for the enviornmental problems they may create. They rely completely on oil, since the only way to get around is by car. If oil gets real expensive, these cities will become wastelands. At least in the "superstar" cities there are alternatives -- they were built before the auto age and will survive after it. <BR/> If the old superstar cities cater only to the rich, and the new sunbelt cities are built for the masses, how come their growth has coincided with a general increase in income inequality? The business enviornment of those sunbelt cities is dominated by corporate chains. Larger, more dense cities such as New York or Chicago have far more opportunities for small retail businesses; because of that, money tends to stay in the community. In the suburbs, all that money spent on TGIF, or Ruby Tuesday -- it all goes to the stockholders of those corporations. And who owns stock in our country?<BR/> In the end, this sort of argument is an argument against standards. Is it wrong for a city to want strong cultural institutions? Is it elitist to say that sprawl development is ugly and depressing? I don't think so. The design of of our cities should be held to the highest standard, and we should have reason to care about the places we live in. Suburban style development is ultimately unsustainable because it is a style that no one really cares about. These places were built by no one and no one has any attachment to them. And in the end, no one will bother to save them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com