> The point is why there’s resistance to dense urban living.
Right—and OP theorized it was driven by associating “urban” living with “brown people.” My point is that this isn’t the reason, because “brown people” resist dense urban living as well and avoid it when they can afford suburban living.
(Mostly white) hipsters finding renewed value in density is fine. My objection is them working the “brown people” angle to make their cause more politically sympathetic.
To follow-up in that: as affluent urban professionals have become more progressive, “brown washing” of political issues has become a real problem. I think they realize that mostly white upper middle class professionals aren’t politically sympathetic blocs. So they project issues they disproportionately care about (urbanism, student loan debt relief, climate change) onto “brown people.”
Elizabeth Warren’s campaign did this extensively. Her voters on Super Tuesday were almost 80% white, out of an electorate (mostly southern and southwestern) that’s majority minority. But Warren tried to insert a racial angle into every issue.
Of course it’s the reason. It doesn’t matter if brown people do or don’t want to be in urban areas, the fact is they are there in greater numbers, and that keeps white folks away.
So I get it now, your angle here is the unfair presumption that POC are politically liberal. Which is fine, but the issue is tangential to the conversation about suburban density and urban renewal.
Right—and OP theorized it was driven by associating “urban” living with “brown people.” My point is that this isn’t the reason, because “brown people” resist dense urban living as well and avoid it when they can afford suburban living.
(Mostly white) hipsters finding renewed value in density is fine. My objection is them working the “brown people” angle to make their cause more politically sympathetic.