I recently read a blog post explaining that smart growth and urban infill are not so smart because it forces poor people into suburbia. The logic behind this claim is, as far as I can tell, as follows: 1) infill means rising real estate values in cities, (2) rising real estate values means people can't afford to live there, and (3) therefore smart growth shunts the poor into suburbs.
This post is part of a new series on the CNU Salons, CITY SPOTLIGHT. City Spotlight shines a light on the latest news, developments and initiatives occurring in cities and towns where CNU members live and work.
In new urbanist circles, "cheap" is often a dirty word; for example, I recently noticed a reference to "cheap" suburbs in a blog. I find this objectionable for two reasons. First, in a nation where many regions suffer from insanely expensive housing projects, we should be striving for cheaper housing. To be fair, sometimes planners and architects use "cheap" as a synonym for "badly designed"- but this is imprecise. If we want to say something is badly designed, we should say exactly that.
Recently, a new method and system of doing agriculture has arisen known as "aquaponics." The term "aquaponics," was derived essentially because this method and system of doing agriculture utilizes a mixture of both "aquaculture" (the raising of fish and/or seafood in a controlled, man-made environment), and "hydroponics" (the raising of plants/fruits/vegetables in a controlled, man-made environment).