Originally Posted by
Peter McGurk
I think this is a bit different from being forced to live in a house foisted on you by a 'selfish architect' (see below).
Compact cities are a good idea for the planet and I would live in the centre of a city (in a 'vibrant, diverse and walkable' environment) every time
div>
It is about choice (moral and financial). Some people have more choice than others but a city that offers as much variety (ie., choice, to suit different moral stand-points and financial circumstances) as possible will be a winner...
.
Yes... but my point is that the 'planners" did not live in the same environment they were planning for everyone else.
After moving to Arizona and living on 7 acres surrounded by desert and wildlife I now get somewhat clustraphobic in cities...
I'm not sure if I agree with the morals you are talking about (being green and paying carbon taxes, I presume), and financially the house and lot was less than we sold our little 1940 Los Angeles shack for.
But I do agree with having choices - which the demographic (and political) trends are somewhat removing in the rural vs. urban debate, and is actually similar in the US and the UK. Just look at a political party representation map in either country and the urban/rural divide is clearly shown.
Bookmarks