prAna: You are right, Suburbia v. New Urbanism is not the issue in this thread. I should have clarified my statements on that matter; however, please keep in mind that I am reacting to BK Miller's assertion that we all are hypocrites, which implies, by the content provided by BK and other posters in this thread, that we as planners should feel guilty for choosing to live in suburbia. I cannot disagree more whole-heartedly.
Planners are not inherently hypocrites for choosing to live in suburbia: we are trained to be objective and, as such, from a professional perspective, have no reason at all to feel good or bad about suburbia (suburbia just IS; we can discuss the drawbacks and advantages of a site plan and it's design, but ultimately, council and existing policies call the shots). From a personal perspective, planners can feel any darn way they want about suburbia. BK asserted we were all hypoctites; I just attempted to show how wrong that assertion is.
The point, that "we are all hypocrites," is a dubious one, and with a quick analysis of the subtext and content provided in the posts of Dan and BK (especially BK), a clear bias emerges: that we planners favor walkable communities, density, etc, etc, etc. I didn't think that was necessarily true. I would imagine that some planners out there favor wide streets, no sidewalks, an abundance of collector streets, arterial streets, no alleyways, 50' setbacks, etc, etc, etc. Therefore, we are all NOT hypocrites.
Perhaps the bias expressed by BK wasn't intended. I have nothing against bias (I love opinions and controversy!), however, when that bias is translated into a broad-based assertion ("we are all hypocrites"), and I sense that the assertion isn't necessarily true, I decided to comment.
Based on the posts above, I assumed the opinions about the guilt emerging from choosing to live in suburbia had a professional spin on them. I apologize if I gave the wrong impression from my comments in the above posts. The trouble, I guess, is that no one explicitly stated thay had seperated their professional opinions from their personal ones. I assumed they were professional opinions.
For the record, I try to promote walkable communities, density, etc, etc, etc, whenever I can, but the reality is that council and existing policies will always override my opinions. Professionally speaking, I don't get too hung up on what gets approved or not; there isn't much I can outside my role as staff who can provide recommendations. The values of the elected and appointed officials and the general public often run counter to my own values; I try to look for open doors and to use politics whenever I can to promote my agenda, which is to say, not too often and hadly ever.
Personally, I want to live in a place that is convenient and relatively quiet with decent neighbors. If convenience means I have to drive to places that I like, then so be it. If seeking quiet means living in a single-family, detached home, then so be it. If having decent neighbors means living "on the right side of the tracks," then so be it. On each of these points, I have attained what I desire, however, I do walk to places I like, I do not live in a detached, single-family home, and have great neighbors. The point is this: I am willing to give up a little of something that I want in order to gain a little bit more of another that I want. You can't always get everything you want, so you better prioritize and decide where you can make sacrifices. That's everyday life. And as planners, we can't escape that reality
