Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

["Thomas C. Meggs" <tom AT plik.net>]

Michael Winslow Czeiszperger wrote:
> The other negative I've heard about New Urbanism is elitism. I've talked 
> to some who believe that urbanism is another excuse to build exclusive 
> neighborhoods for the rich, and building local stores is an attempt to 
> not have to mingle with the poor. While it is true that some New 

Yeah, that is definitely just ignorant. The fact of the matter is 
different stores already cater to different socio-economic stratas. The 
majority of people already shop with people in their bracket.

> Urbanism neighborhoods have built without providing enough housing on 
> the low end of the price range, many if not most of the older 
> neighborhoods that are being emulated were originally built for the 
> unskilled labor that worked in the mills and factories. I know that's 
> the case in terms of the old traditional Czeiszperger neighborhood in 
> Dayton, Ohio.

Right, but this was before WWII, before the automobile had its hay day 
and we got cookie cutter housing tracts with 2.5 kids and a 2 car garage.

> In fact, most indications are that the increased density of new urbanism 
> neighborhoods and the close proximity to existing infrastructure 
> actually makes the New Urbanism model cheaper to build. In my opinion 
> its only supply and demand that is keeping the prices in Carrboro and 
> the prices in newer urbanist communities high. How else do you explain 
> the high prices demanded for housing in most pre-WWI communities such as 
> Carrboro?

Well, in order to support a community like that it has to be close to an 
economic center. Therefore rent isn't going to be cheap. You don't start 
these things out in bum-$@%%# or else no money will come in.

Regards,
Tom