Strong Towns

[twincitizen]

http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2012 ... tap-2.html

"A conversation about the future of cities and towns over a pint (or two).

Join Strong Towns on October 23rd at Gluek’s in Minneapolis for Strong Towns on Tap 2. The event starts at 6pm. Cash bar, free food and good times!

Strong Towns co-fouder and St. Paul Met Council representative Jon Commers will be the honorary speaker."

[mattaudio]

Since there's not a generic events thread and I don't want to make one...

Looks like there's another BURP tomorrow at Jager...
http://tcsidewalks.blogspot.com/2012/10 ... esday.html

[woofner]

Yes! Come drink with us at BURP! Enjoy viewing the big piles of dirt that will soon by Third North and Brunsfield Place! Check out Kraus Andersen's cyberknight crane! Also 241s till 10 apparently...

[mattaudio]

Everyone is invited to the next Strong Towns On Tap event, happening Tuesday, April 9 at HUGE Theater (Lyn-Lake).
https://www.facebook.com/events/426979957395863/

We're going to be highlighting a new format that invites people (such as bloggers, UrbanMSP folks, etc) a place where they can talk about our built environment in any manner they see fit. I'd really hope that some of you consider speaking at the event. It can be as simple as what you like about a particular building or neighborhood, or a simple change you'd like to see that would change things for the better.

Contact Nate Hood if you're interested in speaking. For more details, click here:
http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2013 ... kucha.html

Hope to see you (and maybe learn from you) next Tuesday!

-Matt

[Nathaniel]

Thanks for posting this Matt ...

We'd love to have a great turnout at Huge Theater on April 9th for the "on Tap" event. If at all possible, if you are attending, could you RSVP on Facebook? https://www.facebook.com/events/426979957395863/

I understand anyone's hesitation on this, but the reason is that we'll have food and it'd be great to have a more accurate number on those attending.

Thanks. -Nate

[mattaudio]

There's a flip side, though. Many of the outcomes of fiscal disparities, LGA, and the rest of the Minnesota Miracle have been far from progressive. They've been an environmentally disastrous, city-gutting, sprawl-subsidizing trainwreck of eliminated feedback loops that told people they were living unsustainable lifestyles.

[mplsjaromir]

Is there an example of an major American metropolitan that did not pursue policies that were environmentally disastrous, city-gutting, sprawl...etc? Maybe Portland, Oregon?

I guess I do not see how the specific policies of the "Minnesota Miracle" swelled or abated sprawl. The "Minnesota Miracle" did not make the decisions pertaining to how the money for infrastructure was spent, it simply provided. It certainty enabled some bad ideas, but I am not convinced that they would not have been made anyway. I've seen similar arguments that Keynesian stimulative initiatives caused urban freeways, which is a total misreading of the situation. Leaders still have the ability to choose how the money is spent.

[EOst]

There's a flip side, though. Many of the outcomes of fiscal disparities, LGA, and the rest of the Minnesota Miracle have been far from progressive. They've been an environmentally disastrous, city-gutting, sprawl-subsidizing trainwreck of eliminated feedback loops that told people they were living unsustainable lifestyles.

Thank god you posted here, because I never could have guessed what your take on this would be.

[mattaudio]

^surprised to find so many rabid conservatives on the board. But I guess our demographic appeal may be growing.

[acs]

Only most of us are gay white hipster male college students working service jobs, not all. Diversity yo.

[EOst]

^surprised to find so many rabid conservatives on the board. But I guess our demographic appeal may be growing.

You know you have a winning message when you so alienate die-hard liberal commies like me that you think they're Tea Party conservatives.

[mattaudio]

Someday the world will catch up... hopefully without requiring a catastrophic collapse as the catalyst, though. Soft landings, world.

[EOst]

Don't worry, though, because as long as you derail every single thread here into a discussion about Strong Towns, there's no way you can fail.

[FISHMANPET]

So I'm still on board with the general "strong towns" idea that infrastructure should generate enough value to at least support itself etc etc.

But Chuck has to keep saying words to remain relevant and first he was rallying against fractional reserve banking which is just weird and now he seems to be going into his "I hate everyone and everything" phase (which I guess was present all along but now it's more prevalent). Chuck seems to talk so much about what he's against that I have no idea what he's for. Now I think Chuck would see this as perfectly fine, as he's stated before that you shouldn't need to have an alternative in mind to complain about a plan. But... maybe I think that's totally bogus. No system is perfect, and I think back to the Churchill quote that "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others." If you just wanna throw rocks at people and act like you're smarter than them, sure, you do you. But at some point you have to suggest an actual alternative? Especially when you're partly on a mission to educate, I don't think it's constructive to just tell people they're wrong all the time without any alternatives, because it implies that you think public leaders are acting in bad faith rather than just being unaware, which is more likely the case.

So yeah, kinda down on Strong Towns.

[Snelbian]

He really started losing me when the rants about "density" started, accompanied by pictures of environments that I don't think any real person would actually argue are "dense".

[FISHMANPET]

Yeah that may be what pushed me over the edge. He keeps setting up this strawman about density so he can knock it down but I still don't understand what point he's trying to make.

[Nick]

Definitely had Strong Towns bookmarked for six months or so several years ago but no longer do. I mean, it's pretty hard to have a group of people agree with each other and be pretty into their thing without them getting up their own asses about it--see: here, all other places you/I like/go to, etc.

[Snelbian]

I'm not sure if it's that others (me) thought Strong Towns was about something it wasn't, or if he's narrowed his focus a lot recently (honestly, I don't remember old articles enough to tell), but it seems as though it's just that for Chuck "strong" has a very, very specific meaning related exclusively to the economics of maintaining infrastructure.

[FISHMANPET]

To me the Taco Johns post is the classic Strong Towns post, and it is primarily about the economics of maintaining infrastructure but more in general about the economics of a city in general. For example is it good "economic development" to help build a business where the property taxes are much worse than an older run down part of town? That's the message that resonates most with me. And talking about second life cycles and the like, it's the same thing, is this greenfield subdivision on the edge of town going to generate enough tax revenue to maintain the roads and water infrastructure and other things necessary to keep it going, or are we going to need impact fees from the next development to fund the upkeep of the last? With his refusal to offer solutions or even examples of where someone has gotten it right though, it's just a guy calling people stupid.

[VAStationDude]

He's bought into historically inaccurate non-sense about pre Civil War America. Slavery was extremely lucrative and slaves were extraordinarily valuable. In no way was slavery fading economically. Further, the federal government was instrumental in maintaining the institution of slavery against by over riding state law in the North. Under the fugitive slave act federal marshals returned slaves who had found freedom in the North to their Southern owners.

I think he's gone off the deep end.