Even among my Twitter followers, quite a few want to ban gas stoves, with a strong partisan effect.
To be fair, you phrased this as “new construction” in the Twitter poll.
I would like to see them throttled (perhaps not banned but discouraged) in new residential construction, not in existing residential dwellings. Then it sort of works like alcohol licenses in Colorado. They can be inherited but it’s hard to get new ones (approvals in this case, not the actual stoves).
That goes against some other libertarian leanings I have, but I’m intrigued by the scarcity it would create/maintain. I think it would improve/keep urban character. Gas stoves have character and if you just let anyone have them, they’ll lose their je ne sais quoi. I like that they pair well with old neighborhoods and wood floors. I don’t want the suburbs to mimic that and cheapen it—to their own detriment. Being a suburb that’s poorly attempting to mimic urbanity is just ugly and is a bad substitute for coming up with novel ideas.
I know this sounds strange, but Denver suburbs have this trend where they have these little pockets that try to create an artificial sense of urbanity—including urban restaurants opening franchises—in these fugazi pockets of inorganic city, but with massive parking lots and no sense of walkability. It’s just gross. It’s tacky and it’s poor taste.
Commercially, I’m okay with new and existing restaurants using them.
This is blatantly wrong. Restricting the lives of other people just to gain a little more cachet for you and your fellow urbanites. Clear defection, clear evil.
“I want gas stoves to be restricted so that gross people who live in suburbs can’t have them.”
This might be the single worst take I’ve ever seen on LW. I’m sorry I can’t be more constructive here, but this is the kind of garbage comment I expect from the dregs of Twitter, not this site.
To be fair, you phrased this as “new construction” in the Twitter poll.
I would like to see them throttled (perhaps not banned but discouraged) in new residential construction, not in existing residential dwellings. Then it sort of works like alcohol licenses in Colorado. They can be inherited but it’s hard to get new ones (approvals in this case, not the actual stoves).
That goes against some other libertarian leanings I have, but I’m intrigued by the scarcity it would create/maintain. I think it would improve/keep urban character. Gas stoves have character and if you just let anyone have them, they’ll lose their je ne sais quoi. I like that they pair well with old neighborhoods and wood floors. I don’t want the suburbs to mimic that and cheapen it—to their own detriment. Being a suburb that’s poorly attempting to mimic urbanity is just ugly and is a bad substitute for coming up with novel ideas.
I know this sounds strange, but Denver suburbs have this trend where they have these little pockets that try to create an artificial sense of urbanity—including urban restaurants opening franchises—in these fugazi pockets of inorganic city, but with massive parking lots and no sense of walkability. It’s just gross. It’s tacky and it’s poor taste.
Commercially, I’m okay with new and existing restaurants using them.
This is blatantly wrong. Restricting the lives of other people just to gain a little more cachet for you and your fellow urbanites. Clear defection, clear evil.
“I want gas stoves to be restricted so that gross people who live in suburbs can’t have them.”
This might be the single worst take I’ve ever seen on LW. I’m sorry I can’t be more constructive here, but this is the kind of garbage comment I expect from the dregs of Twitter, not this site.
It was intended to be tonge-in-cheek, but okay, point taken.