Morning News Roundup: Noon-time Update

“Suburbs still full of NIMBYs, greedy developers (C-J)”

your characterization of this dispute is a little harsh. i don’t know enough to know which side i would favor, but it’s clear that there is merit on both sides of the discussion.

names like ‘nimbys’ and ‘greedy’ shut down good faith discussion and the potential for negotiation pretty quickly. i wish that, if you’re going to resort to this, you’d at least supplement it with some solid commentary of your own, not just a link to the article. and identify the author of the commentary…

You’re right, we were a little harsh with that headline synopsis. In a sense, we were trying to provoke a discussion of, thought about suburban development, but this probably wasn’t the right forum for that. Hopefully there will be a more appropriate discussion in the future.

look forward to it. you’re providing a great service. keep it positive/productive and i think you’ll gain some influence and recognition as a place to discuss these things. thanks.

Suburban development is the geographic representation of economic segregation that was originally the main conduit for racial segregation (see white-flight). This fear of integration that has spurred such development is the main cause of the urban decay we see in every city across the nation. The fracture and fragmenting of the smallest unit of our society (the concept of the neighborhood), the rise of mass-produced and uninspired architecture (think cookie cutter houses), and the pedestrian-unfriendly roads that are only navigable by automobile have all given rise to not only a collective detachment from each other, but have helped to usher in an era of excessive and unneeded automobile use whose emissions are (combined with other sources, namely the systems of industry that have been created to feed our mass-consumerism and the materialism that has arisen from such) slowly killing the planet in which we live. Essentially, our detachment from each other is not only collectively killing the fabric of our nation and culture (which would lie in our cities, not our suburbs), but also the world in which we live, leaving little, if nothing, for our future generations. See where the greed factor comes in? On that note, have a great day!

all may be (at least partly) true, amused. whatever its roots, suburban development IS…

the conditions you cite have limited bearing on what is the right answer in this particular development question. whether a previous agreement is honored or there is a good argument for it being overturned, this project will not likely have impact on our national or cultural fabric, our automobile use, or the fragmentation of our communities.

the DISCUSSION, however, shows that public/civic conversation (even if, in some cases, the motive is self-interest) is alive and well, and for that we should be thankful.

Just an overall synopsis in regards to the greater discussion, as opposed to a minor change in some contract that will not affect anybody other than the latte-sipping soccer moms who have to look at a three story building (as opposed to a one story building) by their suburban shopping oasis. I find it very interesting that for a section of the city that has no logical development plan, that is the epitome of “Generica”, and whose infrastructure resembles a plate of concrete spaghetti, people are whining about the amount of stories a building has.

I’m really curious about your thoughts on The Pink Door being for sale and what kind of business would be good to go into the space. Keep The Pink Door essentially as it is? New retail space? Different restaurant? We’re having the beginning of an interesting conversation on this over at Consuming Louisville