View Single Post
Old 05-04-17, 12:41 PM
  #92  
cooker
Prefers Cicero
 
cooker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 12,870

Bikes: 1984 Trek 520; 2007 Bike Friday NWT; misc others

Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3942 Post(s)
Liked 114 Times in 89 Posts
Originally Posted by kickstart
You're fond of saying what is and isn't being said, and frankly I find it a bit arrogant. You may not agree with my opinion, but it's my opinion none the less that some of what's been said in LCF does suggest a contemporary version of the company town.
I didn't mean to imply there's currently an "exodus from urban areas", I was referring to what happened many decades ago in the desire to escape those communities.
Sorry, I didn't get that you were talking about the past exit from urban areas, but I still don't get the reference to "company towns". People who moved in the 1950s or 1960s to suburban Detroit or Long Island or Burbank or whatever, weren't trying to escape from under the thumb of a mill or mine conglomerate that dominated their lives, which is how I understand company towns, and I don't see how moving back to a downtown location would make them anymore vulnerable to that than people in a rural or suburban area.

Originally Posted by kickstart
I think some of the ideas proposed here of compact urban communities where one lives, works, and shops in their own local community, combined with current retail, rental properties, and manufacturing consolidation trends could bring about a latter day version of those "company towns".
I'm all for making such compact communities possible, viable, and sustainable for those who want them, but I also believe in making the suburban and rural options equally possible, viable, and sustainable for everyone of every income level who wants them.
I don't think "everybody of every income level" should have whatever they want, or that suburban and rural (or urban) options should be "equally possible", because that would have to involve some kind of equalization payment. People should have what they can afford, and if it costs more to live in the city due to real estate costs, they should personally bear it, and if it costs more to live in the country due to road and infrastucture costs they should personally bear that.

Originally Posted by kickstart
By reactive rather than proactive, I mean working to make what people want, and have viable, and sustainable, rather than trying to change what people want and have to fit a viable and sustainable ideal.
Those aren't that different. To make stuff sustainable you have to change it and the people are going to have to accept the change.
cooker is offline