I don’t normally link to the Globe

But this is just really annoying. It starts out as a discussion of Jane Jacobs’ ideas of urban planning but rapidly devolves into a stock fear-of-gentrification rant about how childless yuppies and queers are ruining our city. Well, no. The poor quality of schools and the scarcity of decent family housing has driven families away, and the childless yuppies (gay and straight, not sure why they keep harping on the gays being childless, urban, and yuppies, since that’s such an obviously wrong stereotype) are the only ones holding the damn city together. If you want to bring more kinds of people back to the city, then build more housing and make the schools not suck.

I don’t know why I read the Sunday paper. It makes me mad every damn time. Don’t even get me started on the NYT style section. Ugh.

2 thoughts on “I don’t normally link to the Globe”

  1. “To Kotkin, San Francisco is the quintessential ephemeral city, functioning more as a cultural center and magnet for those drawn to the perks of city living-affluent empty-nesters, younger college graduates, gays-than an engine of economic growth and opportunity.”

    Um, what’s wrong with being…gasp! childless!…and with wanting the perks of urban living? And don’t these people spend money in the city, which in turn creates (or at least certainly doesn’t hinder) economic growth? I guess I don’t understand how this fits in with the argument for more middle class families in Boston and other cities (which I agree with, and seriously, if I see one more fucking luxury high rise going up around here, I’m going to scream). Gays make the rents go up? Uh…specious, at best.

    I only buy the Globe for the crossword puzzle, and even then not very often.


  2. Sounds like more of the same old “oh no! white people aren’t having children! the darkies are going to take over!” bullshit to me. With some homophobia thrown in to make it current.


Comments are closed.