Gays already have their own bars, resorts, cruise ships, and in most major metro areas, neighborhoods (ironically nicknamed gay ghettos). This seems a logical extension, and why not? At the national level, gays have higher per capita household incomes that straights, and have more disposable income. Why on earth would they want to mingle with the plebians in their golden years when they havent done so all their lives?mendelman said:As a society, do we really want to further differentiate and ghettoize ourselves like this.
[/i]Mike D. said:Now how do you deed restrict these houses?
Just check their membership cards: GAARPOriginally posted by Mike D. At least with the 55+ thing its pretty easy to do, and relatively easier to verify, but how do you verify if someone is FABULOUS enough to live in a certain development...
I'll have to agree with this in it's entirety.mendelman said:As a society, do we really want to further differentiate and ghettoize ourselves like this. Here in metro chicago many age restricted communities are being built only for the 55+ crowd.
I think that creating more areas of "otherness" , such as "that's where the old people live", "that's where the wealthy live", that's where the Jews have been put (circa WWII Europe)", or simply that's where 'they' live. We have heard these types of phrases all our lives.
Now I understand that people have the right to choose to live where they want, but is this the path we, as a civilization, want to continue on? Discuss.
Good luck. Birds of a feather flock together. Look at the history of Boston's North End and you will see why it is an enclave of Italians. Look at Mexicantown in Detroit and its historical development and you will understand why it's an enclave of Mexicans and other Latino ethnic groups.mendelman said:Yes, you hit it! (More succinctly than I may have). I am still looking for the street/neighborhood where there are all ranges of color, race, age, sexual preference, and predilection for planning websites. That is the kind of street I want to live on.
This whole thing is a function of the term "lifestyle" which is a marketing term that needs to be axed from the lexicon.
True, true. I agree. But still, birds of a feather do flock together. How do planners stop the self-segregation? Outlaw gated communities and related developments? Could happen in some municipalities, but not all.mendelman said:One can still prefer certain things without having to self segregate.
No, no. I'm not saying that planners should stop self-segragation. That line you quoted was in response to mendelman saying something about how undesirable it is to have these specialized communities. You've quoted me out of context. It wasn't a declariative statement - it was a hypothetical, a rhetorical question. The clue should have been when I said "birds of a feather flock together."Chet said:Woah. Why the f*ck SHOULD planners stop self-segregation?! What the hell?
When the flow of immigration to those places stops or slows to a trickle those communities disappear or are mostly diluted within a generation or two. Italians in South Philly moved en masse across the Walt Whitman Bridge and scattered themselves across suburban New Jersey. The void they left was filled by the new comers - Vietnamese and Cambodians - and now Mexicans. That's not to say there's not a strong Italian community left in South Philly but it's nowhere near what it was 50 or 100 years ago.Alan said:Good luck. Birds of a feather flock together. Look at the history of Boston's North End and you will see why it is an enclave of Italians. Look at Mexicantown in Detroit and its historical development and you will understand why it's an enclave of Mexicans and other Latino ethnic groups.
There's no mention of sexual orientation in US Federal fair housing laws, I believe. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) Theoretically, I think you could put in a deed restriction in a development that says "GBLT only."Mike D. said:Now how do you deed restrict these houses?