11–20 of 79 posts
City Journal is pretty weird. It used to be a mainstream magazine of urban planning, but now it seems to have been infected with the far-right brain virus. Edit: I also can't believe that an article on San Francisco homelessness never once mentions zoning laws.
City Journal is pretty weird. It used to be a mainstream magazine of urban planning, but now it seems to have been infected with the far-right brain virus. Edit: I also can't believe that an article on San Francisco homelessness never once mentions zoning laws.
I'm quite curious, what did you find far-right about this article? I thought it was quite centrist, moderate, gentle.
Why do we expect that people should live in house or have a home? Maybe we need to design our cities and public places in a way that they would be approachable for people living outside? Why we wouldn't have camping spots in cities with infrastructure that supports living outside?
Why do we expect that people should live in house or have a home? Maybe we need to design our cities and public places in a way that they would be approachable for people living outside? Why we wouldn't have camping spots in cities with infrastructure that supports living outside?
Because we aren't cavemen anymore.
And a tent is a home, just a shabby, crappy, small one.
>Why we wouldn't have camping spots in cities with infrastructure that supports living outside?
Because people also need to eat and poop and shower somewhere, and be protected from the elements, and once you incorporate all that, you get a hostel/shelter.
I'll take your comment as an opportunity to say this:
Yes, we absolutely should have more infrastructure for the homeless.
Let's have public baths, public toilets, storage facilities, communal kitchens perhaps. Internet access (libraries do that, but that shouldn't be the only place).
Travelers would appreciate many of these as well.
It is strange that this subject gets so much attention but so little actual investigation. It is asserted that San Francisco simply backed off from enforcement and then this happened, but the reality is far more complex. Heavy ongoing use of incarceration caused both a backlash and extreme expense. Troubled people from all over the globe come to San Francisco. Most homeless only stay in the City for a couple of weeks…
Why do we expect that people should live in house or have a home? Maybe we need to design our cities and public places in a way that they would be approachable for people living outside? Why we wouldn't have camping spots in cities with infrastructure that supports living outside?
>Why do we expect that people should live in house or have a home? Because we aren't cavemen anymore. And a tent is a home, just a shabby, crappy, small one. >Why we wouldn't have camping spots in cities with infrastructure that supports living outside? Because people also need to eat and poop and shower somewhere, and be protected from the elements, and once you incorporate all that, you get a hostel/shelter. I'll t…
If we could accept the fact that some people want to live on the streets, we would be able to make their life much easier and better without imposing a certain philosophy on how they should be living.
City Journal is pretty weird. It used to be a mainstream magazine of urban planning, but now it seems to have been infected with the far-right brain virus. Edit: I also can't believe that an article on San Francisco homelessness never once mentions zoning laws.
How is talking about an obvious problem a far-right brain virus?
Why do we expect that people should live in house or have a home? Maybe we need to design our cities and public places in a way that they would be approachable for people living outside? Why we wouldn't have camping spots in cities with infrastructure that supports living outside?
Insisting on, which the author clearly does according to a quick googling, firmly supporting and perpetuating an economic system that creates these dystopian features and then calling for their forceful removal, through weasel language, is cynical at best, and evil in practice.