[frinkprof]

So I figured I had two options here. Respond or don't respond.

First off, Shazam, your mostly fallacious and callous posts do not deserve to be dignified with a response. This was my initial thought.

However, given the nature of online forums, if falsehoods are stated and not debunked or corrected, especially about one's character, they can be perceived as having factual basis because silence from the other party may be interpreted as conceding implicitly.

You're still undeserving of a response. My character isn't.

Originally Posted by Shazam

You define urban Calgary as you see fit for whatever argument you wish to win.

I'm not trying to win an argument. I responded because I'm interested in the discussion, even if I find the nature of the overarching debate fairly ridiculous. Even though I responded directly to your post (in a rather non-confrontational tone that I'm shocked you responded to so aggressively, by the way), I was also critical of SebC's post.

I can only presume that you were attempting to make some sort of argument, or at least state your reasoning for disagreeing with SebC's. The meaning of using the example you did depends heavily on how you define "urban Calgary." I don't care whether you clarify this or not because I'm not trying to make a point. You might be though, so I thought I'd illuminate this.

Originally Posted by Shazam

As far am I concerned, your viewpoint is shallow. You're an LRT supporter - it's only partially paid by its users, the rest taxpayer funded.

Sure. If my aunt had a penis, she'd be my uncle. What does that have to do with anything? Transit is a public good. Auto-dependent layouts, inefficient designs, land use patterns that rather arbitrarily serve certain lifestyle choices over others, among other things, are not.

Besides, and full disclosure that this argument is a bit shaky, but the LRT, in and of itself, is revenue positive.

Originally Posted by Shazam

You believe in urban living - you also don't hesitate to go on transcontinental flights.

What an odd thing to say. I "believe" in urban living? What the hell does that even mean? Also, what's this transcontinental flights bit got to do with anything? If you're somehow trying to suggest that whatever hesitance (or lack of) I may have to go on transcontinental flights has anything to do with the position I take on sprawl-type development, you'd be completely wrong.

Not that it's any of your business, let alone of anything beyond a tangential relevance to the issue, but I've been on roughly 14-16 transcontinental flights in my life (if you count the return trip as two flights). The lion's share of that was going back and forth a couple of times a year (Christmas, Summer) to the east coast where I attended post-secondary school.

Originally Posted by Shazam

You rail against "sprawl" - but you seem to have a job that requires you to drive all over the place.

Firstly, you don't have the first god damn idea what my career entails, nor what goes into it and why I choose to have it. Furthermore, even if you did and what you say were completely correct, if you think that affects in any way the position myself and a lot of other people take on what sprawl-type development is, then you haven't been paying attention.

Sprawl entails an auto-dependent design and layout of infrastructure, land uses, and man-made space. This means that the way these things are designed and built all but mandates one particular mode of transportation for the living of day-to-day life and makes most other modes a non-option for practically living one's life. This includes getting to and from work or school, shopping for groceries and other daily needs and socializing.

Criticizing this type of development doesn't mean saying people shouldn't own and operate private vehicles. It doesn't mean ignoring that certain tasks and occupations all but require the use of a vehicle. Firefighters require trucks. Plumbers and electricians typically require vehicles for their job. Overhead utility installers need various vehicles to perform their work. I and most people aren't asking for automobiles to be banned or for certain occupations to strap all their tools to their back and ride a horse to their job or to perform their work in an unreasonably safe manner. That's ridiculous.

I've said basically the same thing at least once on this forum. I'm only interested in speaking for my own positions, but others have as well. Not to call him out in any way, but I think MarchHare is the only one I recall coming close to denouncing private automobile ownership - and mostly, I gather, in the sense that that's his choice. If this hasn't been impressed on you, you haven't been paying attention.

For the record, I take transit - train and bus - to the office. Currently though, I'm reporting to a different location as part of an ongoing project I'm working on, which I commute to by walking and LRT. Normally though, when reporting to the office, I work out of a service-type truck for the balance of the day. The truck is required due to the nature of the services we provide and the amount and bulk of equipment we need to use. This has pretty much has zero affect on any of my positions on sprawl-type development and what to do about it. I don't own a personal automobile, although owning one doesn't go against any of my positions either.

Originally Posted by Shazam

When you live the lifestyle you so covet, then you will have some credibility.

It's quite apparent that you have a very perverted view of what type of lifestyle I, and a lot of other people covet, and how they go about pursuing it. It appears to me that you have some sort of idealistic caricature in your mind that you think anyone critical of sprawl wants to attain. While I'm sure there are some delusional people out there (and do I really need to bring up the white-picket fences; peace, quiet and safety; and lush green grass idyl that even the most ardent promoters and profiteers of sprawl-type development make light-hearted jokes about?), a lot have much more realistic expectations and are reasonable of the existence of constraints.

When you start paying attention to what I and a lot of other people post and not through whatever lens is making you post such baseless venom and the outright baffling connections you've drawn, then you will have some credibility. Maybe with someone else though.

Originally Posted by Shazam

Well, you do like to brag a lot.

This is the part that probably swayed me to respond the most.

I brag a lot? I really don't even know what to think of this claim because I think it's one of the most confounding things that someone has charged me with, at least online. I can honestly say that I try to approach most things, especially on internet forums, in a calm and humble manner, and when discussing things I try to give as much credit and respect to opposing views as I can with some exceptions, to be fair. I have a self-deprecating humour. I would say I most certainly do not post in a self-aggrandizing manner and in fact I would say I consciously try to err to the opposite. I think most people on here would agree to some facsimile of this.

Ironically, this post may be the thing that comes closest to me "bragging," and that is because your negative characterization of me has called for something resembling it.

Originally Posted by Shazam

You know what? I'd agree with everything you and the other new-urbanist posers on here write about if you guys actually bothered to live the way you claim modern first world living should be.

But man, you have guys like Flames in 07 on your side, who whines constantly about the suburbs, and yet owns a house in Shawnessy that he rents out.

I don't have a side in the battle of the extremes it seems you and, to be fair, a lot of other people are clinging to. That's probably the most glaring thing that you seem to have missed, forgotten, or outright chosen to ignore. I've posted numerous times that the "suburbs vs. inner city" debate that rages on is a false dichotomy and an overly simplistic way of looking at things. Furthermore "sprawl" is a complex issue that demands complex and careful solutions. It is also only one aspect of the overall puzzle of issues facing Calgary and North American cities. Putting ourselves in one of two diametrically opposed groups is not something I'm interested in.

One of the most confusing parts about your talk of "sides" and you trying to group myself in with a bunch of people on to one of them is that, among many of my posts to similar effect, is this one:

Originally Posted by frinkprof

[On the topic of where "sprawl" begins.] This is open to interpretation. Here's my (sort of) interpretation (along with other areas of the city) that I posted in another thread.

[Images that no longer link properly]

Google Maps Link

Other interpretations I've heard are to basically draw a line where the gridded road pattern ends and everything inside is more or less "inner city" or at least is different in a way from everything outside the line.

Really though, I'm not a fan of the "inner city vs. suburbs" arguments. It's a false dichotomy and doesn't have much practical use. I should note that I made the map above for another purpose, not to argue inner city vs. suburbs.

Which you agreed with:

Originally Posted by Shazam

Well, I'm glad someone else besides me understands that.

Originally Posted by Shazam

So yeah, forgive me for being just a bit skeptical.

Absolutely. In fact, I would encourage your skepticism. What I will not forgive is you making attacks on my character that are not only in large part false, but are only relevant to your distorted view of the issues being discussed and my positions on them.