Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician
It's sad that what you suggested here is appended with the word 'liberal'.
The idea that livable cities is anything but a broadly recognized priority is such a shame.
|
I guess this depends on your definition of the word "liberal".
If you're referring to socially liberal, I think a livable city is a socially liberal priority.
If you're referring to fiscal positioning, I agree that this is ideal is shared by both liberal and conservative ideologies. Livable cities make social and fiscal sense as it reduces waste (time and resources). Also, money spent by either the government or the private sector on improvements tends to have a strong multiplier effect (ex: Millennium Park)
From a socially conservative perspective, I don't think that ideology works well in a modern urban environment. I've had a number of friends with strong socially conservative ideals who moved to a city, put in a year, couldn't deal with it and left for somewhere less populous. There are too many daily challenges to a somewhat narrow ideology for them to be really comfortable. That's not a criticism, just an acknowledgement that some people want their house, yard, fence, car and HOA. It takes more social trust to live in an urban environment than it does to cordon off a plot of land that is only yours.