>You're lumping the people who want an urban walkable lifestyle
>in with the people who don't. This "they" you speak of is like
>an amalgamation of all the various things various white ppl do
>that you dislike, combined into one conveniently schitzo
>all-purpose strawman.
>
>But that's OK. Because I am sitting here promoting the exact
>thing you're saying they should be doing. More places to live,
>fewer fights over places to live.

Poor people obviously don't have the resources to buy or build new developments. New developments tend to lean toward what I outlined above (Suburban style housing, HOAs, lack of walkability, exclusiveness, etc.).

Why aren't these NEW developments being built in "urban" styling? And where are these new, gentrifying residents that I've "lumped in" with others coming from? Seems like many are the children of the very people that vote and act against any whiff of "urban" making its way into their cul-de-sac. Which is, ironically, probably why the children want to move to "cool" cities in the first place.

Like it or not, you can't ignore the overwhelming influence that race and income have had on how living spaces in this country have been and continue to be built.

There is plenty of space available in most major cities in the US. Aside from NYC, most aren't anywhere close to their 1960s population numbers. Yet, there's an artificial demand created because wealthy folks cluster in specific areas and drive the longtime residents out, instead of spreading out more evenly throughout the city, taking advantage of cheaper real estate and vacancies.


Edit: It's not just about white v. black here... I'm seeing blue collar whites being gentrified out of a neighborhood near me now. The new residents, overall, don't mess with the people that grew up there (even though they are all white). Rather, they treat them like outsiders.