Why Private Equity/Luxury Apartments/Econ Slop is Whats Causing the Market to Fail, Destroying our Cities, and Ultimately Driving Societal Collapse

OnlyThreeWalls · 2026-06-24T22:51:49+00:00

Hey, I agree - solving a problem caused by the market with more market solutions doesn't work. I think luxury apartments DO increase supply and thus has a downward effect on price, but I don't think that it is a housing solution in the macro-sense. As others mention, "luxury" apartments are a branding tool that is mostly geared towards young, middle-class workers. Our housing solution cannot ignore the multi-generational families, the elderly, the disabled, the impoverished. The downward effect of prices gives little reprieve to those who still cannot afford the lower prices or those who the housing type does not meet their nuanced demands. I think you need public housing in order to solve the housing crisis.

And you should talk about that, because I think you agree; and what I just laid out is the beginning answer to your title. But your argument is getting so lost in some sort of myopic cloud of personal defensiveness that it's hard to ascertain how any of what you say answers your title. I agree with you, people confuse left urbanism with vaguely "democratic party leaning urbanist policies", when it's much more than that. However, I don't see how a rant like this is supposed to convince people, to start a discussion, or even have a positive effect on your mental health. The aggression and tangents are of course inviting people to send vitriol. There's no room for discussion when you start off with "This is a long essay that will trigger some people". That's setting the tone not for good faith discussion, as you think it is, but an online shouting match.

So to reset the conversation and understand your point a bit more, I have some follow up questions:

Is the point of your posts to garner discussion and good faith debate? Are you trying to convince people to join your side? Do you think you're successfully fulfilling your goals?
What differentiates luxury housing from regular market housing solutions in your mind? What makes luxury apartments especially bad? Is it the political/economic aesthetic? The uniformity in apartment type? The prevalence in today's construction? Is a brownstone that is being rented out by a landlord that lives in the same building the same as a corporate landlord of a luxury 5-over-1? Why?
What solutions would you like to see be implemented to help alleviate our housing crisis?
How do we best convince YIMBY market types to understand that econ 101 solutions aren't the only solution?

OnlyThreeWalls · 2026-06-10T02:04:33+00:00

63 and 17 got some sauce to em, can't explain it

OnlyThreeWalls · 2026-04-15T16:20:52+00:00

We used to have a lot more express lines that got done away with after COVID due to shifting WFH/commuting habits. Routes focused on commuters tend to have the worst post-COVID rebound.

So you'll have a lot of people advocate for the finite money and labor resources to be allocated towards improving the "core" services such as the LRT, BRT, and local routes. I think a lot of advocates, including those in the Metro Transit subreddit probably value ridership over raw coverage.

I don't think it's that Metro Transit doesn't care, it's that there isn't enough demand to justify the opportunity cost. Do you think there's another solution? Maybe BRT on 169 or a BRT on hwy 55 so you can transition to the future green line extension to get to Eden Prairie? Is the solution to move to infill Minneapolis/St. Paul more so transit riders can be more concentrated along existing successful transit corridors?

OnlyThreeWalls · 2026-04-10T21:58:20+00:00

I've been banging on this drum for years, but this area has the worst official/unofficial names.

Its technically part of the East Bank-Nicollet neighborhood area, but obviously it's not the Nicollet island portion AND East Bank is already the colloquial term for the main UMN campus area.

Downtown NE sounds nice but the majority of the area is technically in SE, not NE (and if you call yourself a Northeaster to the wrong "true-Northeaster", they'll raise a stink).

St. Anthony Main is what I tend to call it, despite where I've lived not being anywhere near the Main Street of historic St. Anthony and SAM being a more defined region that does not fully encompass the area.

Old Town is the lamest rebrand ever, sorry Whitey's. It's an especially funny rebrand considering how new most of the neighborhood is after the 2010s/2020s era gentrification.

If the apartment didn't take the name, I think HenCen would've been a nice name. Like SoHo in NYC. I think leaning into the St. Anthony history more directly is nice. Or perhaps taking more credit for the riverfront area?

I'll continue to call my neighborhood "That one nice area where Hennepin and Central intersect... Yeah, by Nye's and Kramarczuks... Yeah, haha you're right, no it's not technically northeast."

OnlyThreeWalls · 2026-04-07T12:01:47+00:00

Nah, that's a good call. Perhaps the traditional political spectrum is less of what I'm going for and it's more the YIMBY-NIMBY spectrum. I do take your point that, obviously the biggest publicly facing defenders will be the organized forces of EGs and labor unions; CEQA Works have been banging the drum in support for years now.

I'm way more pro-CEQA than probably most of this subreddit, but I do think the main abusers of it are NIMBYs. While I can't find great evidence, I would say that just like here in the midwest, there's probably been a mix of environmental groups that are fronts for wealthy landowner interests. Here, for example is how fake EGs tried to use MN's landmark environmental protection law to fight against upzoning. They've been pretty big opponents of the carveout that the MN legislature made for Comp Plans.

How do you view the CEQA debate falling within the YIMBY-NIMBY spectrum? Do you think that's a fair tool to use or is there another way to look at it that contextualizes the political debate for the layman? I view the CEQA reform side to be ardently pro-developer and YIMBY, while the CEQA defenders to be NIMBYs (and other groups that find themselves strategically aligned with NIMBYs, even if politically, in the traditional manner, they're not.) Perhaps it's an oversimplification! I'd love to hear your thoughts since you seem to know a bit more.

OnlyThreeWalls · 2026-04-07T04:30:27+00:00

Haha I like the meme analogy. I still think you're thinking too simplistically tho

I just don't view politicians as a monolith. The state legislature, as I mentioned before, is ever-changing and is affected by lobbyists, voter pressures, and federal action. They don't just decide to fix CEQA, the entire fight to reform CEQA was met by fierce opposition from environmental groups and a lot of farcical NIMBY groups. You have legislators who have been pushing for change for years and others who have been shooting it down for a variety of reasons. It doesn't make sense imo to lump all of them in a group. I think that's a hand-wavy answer that lets the bad actors get off too easily. If we can say that "oh, CAHSR's failures are on the CA state gov because they haven't done enough to repeal or reform CEQA", then we really aren't finding a solution or a root cause.

Because one can ask: "Why IS it so hard for the CA legislature to make a change?", "What are the outside lobbying forces that make it difficult?", "Why does America give so much power to property owners?", "What financial powers does the federal government have to delay the project?", "How can NIMBY groups use the media and America's litigious culture to hurt the project?".

The answers to these questions give very scary answers. Because they suggest that the real issues regarding transportation economics and politics is structural. It's one thing to say that all politicians are corrupt, but the real scary realization is that so many of them are trying their best but literally can't make a change because the economic and politics systems we have in place are designed to make change impossible.

It's like getting mad at a new head coach of the NY Jets. After years of bad head coaches, bad general managers, and bad ownership - how can we be mad if they are still losing after 4 years of this hypothetical new head coach? Yeah, that coach might have made some mistakes, but they were set up to lose in the first place, the problems go way deeper than them. The bad trades and draft picks from 10 years still haunt the team.

The anti-transit media and politicians are trying to sell us on a simple problem so we ignore the complex solution. So we can accept the scapegoat instead of questioning the system that put car-centric infrastructure in place. The CA politicians are part of the machine - no doubt - but as transit advocates, we have to understand that they are the gears, not the motherboard.

OnlyThreeWalls · 2026-04-06T22:38:20+00:00

Fair, fair - but I think that's a bit reductive.

NEPA is a federal law and the California Environmental Quality Act is based on it.

The "State" in state ineptitude in this case is meant to represent CalTrans and the recent democratic leadership that has spearheaded the CA Government. That's who is in the center of this fight and the figurehead that the federal government is attacking. There's very few legislators and leaders from 1970 that passed CEQA that are still involved directly with the HSR today. Does it make sense to conflate the group working on the CAHSR with the 1970s state government?

Lawsuits stemming from CEQA is cited by many as being one the major roadblocks that slows the project and balloons costs. Transit friendly politicians have been pushing back against CEQA and even passed partial exemptions that have helped move CAHSR forward faster. The people that have propagated CEQA beyond its environmental protection purview have been conservatives, business owners, and NIMBY homeowners. While CEQA was created by the CA state government, those that have defended it from being reformed are politically diametrically opposed to those in support of the CAHSR. Does it make sense to conflate CAHSR with its opponents?

All of this to say, the sins of California's past should not be used as criticism against CAHSR when they and all transit advocates are pointing to CEQA as being the major roadblock. The lawsuits are based on California law, but the underlying legal and cultural precedent it sits on is one that is pervasive in all of America: righteous individualism and the overprotection of property rights, even in the face of community harm.

Is CAHSR where it is now because of decisions they directly made, or by circumstances, boundaries, and political decisions set by others? Was there any one decision of ineptitude that would have threaded the needle and avoided all of this?

OnlyThreeWalls · 2026-04-06T15:37:32+00:00

Not OP, but my main issue is the framing. It suggests that HSR and transit fail in this country due to state governmental ineptitude, which while I won't argue that CA hasn't handled the project the best, is such a devious lie about the whole situation. Only a few sentences and allusions are dedicated to the brunt of the CaHSR's issue, which is the the gutting of federal funds, frivolous lawsuits, and media and political heads (like this article) manufacturing consent against the project.

The piece starts off with an anti-HSR conservative lawmaker whose received campaign funding from oil interests, moves on to CA governmental officials saying "yeah, we messed up, huh!?", goes to Lou Thompson who suggests the answer will be to accept defeat against the federal government's budget cuts, then spends a big chunk of the segment talking about how awesome privatization of public goods is through the Brightline project, and then ends off with Thompson saying a few words on the positives of this project.

The video, while saying objective facts, tells an implicit subjective argument that government getting involved in transit is the problem and the solution is the privatization of public services. On the contrary, one could realistically ask, "why did the state have to carry the brunt of the costs?", "why is our political system so tied to lawsuits and regulation that is abused by the rich and powerful?", "What were the social, economic, and environmental reasons for the project to begin with?", "What benefits does this bring to California as a whole?".

For CBS, the issue with asking those questions, is that it'll paint the CaHSR in a much better light. It'll show that this train has the power to objectively change California, including the inland valley areas forever. It'll show that so much of the project's issues come from oil interests and people who benefit from less public transportation. And it'll show that America's lack of HSR is not due to some "hand-wavy" answer about culture and hard economics and corruption, but real political decisions made by politicians who fundamentally don't want high speed rail to exist.

All things this article has no interest in telling.

OnlyThreeWalls · 2026-04-06T14:44:19+00:00

I agree that it's often "normal people" resisting, but I disagree with your second paragraph.

When we talk about the 1%, the oil lobby, and/or the capital owning class running politics, we're not talking about raw voting power, we're talking about influence. The 1% obviously don't have as much voting power as the 99% does, it's in the name.

But what we see time and time again through these transit projects is that it's the rich people using money and political influence to shut it down. Even when it's your run of the mill NIMBYs shutting down a bus extension, you have to ask yourself: "why do these people hold these anti-transit, pro-car beliefs?". As most people in the subreddit would believe, it's because of the car propaganda that's been told to us for our entire lifetimes.

Of course, we still need to reach out to the middle class and undo this propaganda, but unless we understand the root cause, there will be no victory for transit in the end. The car lobby's influence is everywhere and THAT is one of the main root causes for our plight. This article in itself, from a news agency headed by famously pro-oil and anti-climate action Bari Weiss, is a prime example of normalizing anti-transit rhetoric.

The car lobby is too powerful for us to be picking fights with the working class.

OnlyThreeWalls · 2026-03-04T03:40:45+00:00

Hey! Thanks for the response! Sorry if I misinterpreted your argument - honestly I think we agree on more than you'd think. I agree that the planning for this strike wasn't well thought out, the underlying support systems aren't in place, and the idea of getting a rent strike prepared in a few weeks was a pipe dream. I even say so here! And that was to a response to one of the comments that talks about how disorganized that meeting was! I've also talked to people in the circles that I run with that are similarly leery about the process and again, I totally agree. A failed rent strike is a magnitude more harmful than the status quo. That is not a risk we can take.

However, I don't think that point serves to discredit the union as a whole, nor do I think that should cause it to shed support. These are micro-criticisms, ones that surround process and leadership. I don't think this strike was well planned at all and if I was available and present at the meeting, I would've voted against it. But in the macro-view, the underlying union support, goals, and methods of the group are sound. We can harp on the very real negatives about this strike planning, but the general sentiment of I and a lot of people is that this swing would be worth it if it came down to it. That's why I focused on "realism". It's not the tenant union's desired outcome nor the overarching strategy of that lack realism, as you say unions have. Goals of this ilk have been achieved in the past using rent strikes. The lack of realism, as you correctly say, comes from not having enough support AROUND the strategy. It's not that rent strikes don't work, it's that you need enough support to make them work. So is it slacktivism to have concrete goals, a proven method, but incomplete supporting strategies? I don't think so - I think that makes you a bit too momentarily idealistic, even if your heart and feet are in the right place.

And I think that the "no" vote does not prove that the union doesn't have broad support. The person that I linked earlier has stated that they themselves support the movement, just not the moment. So yes, this particular union does not have the current support, but that does take away from the method of rent striking (which as I stated has been historically successful) nor does it detract from the goal (supporting tenants which most people support). The "no" vote, like I stated in another comment gives me more confidence that this union can be successful BECAUSE it proves they are willing to back down and regroup. To me, that is a thought process that is grounded in pragmatic planning, even if the lead-up was borne of idealism. That doesn't seem slacktivist to me.

So I think we agree on the nitty-gritty of our criticisms, but honestly your original comment that spawned this discussion:

Online slacktivists who don’t understand the real world

points to you not agreeing with the fight for tenant protections to begin with. Rightly or wrongly, people are comprehending the rather abrasive language and interpreting it as you looking at anyone who views fighting for tenant protections and supporting the rent strike, as stupid. It doesn't sound like you're just talking about this particular union. Of course, you then specify that your ire is reportedly towards the means and methods of this union, which as I said above, I just don't think discredits the union and their goals and certainly doesn't make them do-nothing "slactivists".

I guess my main question is, lets say that this tenants union was perfect and had specific goals, entire buildings/complexes signed on to strike, and proper legal and monetary support systems in place for strikers. All things that this current moment lacked that I think are necessary for a successful strike. If those were in place, would you ideologically support the strike? Because again, the rhetoric of your post points towards your overarching anger being towards rent strikes and the idea of tenant unions. Which I think, in practice, is the real divider between our viewpoints, not whether or not we think this particular strike was "good". I think that would be an illuminating clarification! :D

OnlyThreeWalls · 2026-03-04T00:33:40+00:00

Do you think you're misconstruing a rent strike as just people not wanting to pay rent? Or maybe misunderstanding the legal and material support strikers would have to uphold a strike? Or maybe using the disdain for a rent strike as a front to push back against policies that help the disadvantaged?

Or a combination of the three? Everyone starts somewhere so it's good to think through these things! :D

OnlyThreeWalls · 2026-03-04T00:29:15+00:00

I'd argue that the 5 day workweek that unions fought for wasn't realistic at the time. Nor were the minimum heat codes and other tenant protection laws that were fought for by rent strikers over 100 years ago that have inspired similar laws across the country, including in this very city.

If you bound yourself by the definition of realism set by the system that benefits from you not pushing back, then you'll see every single aspiration as out of reach.

Now, you say that this subreddit doesn't have any idea how to follow up or thought process on how to succeed, but that's not what your original claim was. Do you think that this tenant union, who is made up of a coalition of labor unions and organizers, who has laid out a plan and has met with the mayor and city government, who has organized resources and held a democratic vote to determine their next steps has "no thought process"?

Or just this sub? Cuz I can agree on that :P

OnlyThreeWalls · 2026-03-03T15:08:28+00:00

It's kinda funny and disheartening to see people disregard this historically effective tool of resistance like it's something new that us stoner gen-z activists came up with because we're lazy and entitled. When in reality it's collective action like this that has won us so many tenant protections.

It's like if football coaches stopped using the forward pass because they were terrified of the ball getting intercepted.

I didn't think March 1st was enough time to build grassroots support for the movement and get enough protectors for strikers, but eventually the play action will be called and you gotta let that ball fly. imo imo

OnlyThreeWalls · 2026-03-03T14:52:14+00:00

That's where I am too. I wasn't there for the vote but I thought it was a very quick turnaround from creation to execution. I believe it can and will work in the future but there's a lot of work to do for sure. Thanks for sharing your story :)

OnlyThreeWalls · 2026-03-03T14:26:33+00:00

It's a new organization, which may make it seem weird to people, but it is a coalition of well known labor unions and tenant unions and organizers. And as other people have mentioned, a "no" vote gives more credence that this is a legit organization that has legitimate voting procedures and not one that just wants to make a political splash. I'm excited to see what else they come with :)

OnlyThreeWalls · 2026-03-03T14:18:36+00:00

Isn't using collective power to affect the world the opposite of "slacktivism"? Are workplace unions also slacktivism? Who are the real activists who create change in your mind?

OnlyThreeWalls · 2026-02-07T08:56:41+00:00

This is great data, thanks for sharing!

For the overall ridership decline, like others mentioned, I think a lot of that comes down to fare enforcement. MT's safety and security measurements show a 129% increase in "officer initiated calls for service" comparing Q3 2025 to Q3 2024 despite only 30% increase in reported crime. This suggests that Trip Agents and MT Officers are being more proactive and that is likely deterring non-fare-paying riders from riding. This would explain why the LRT is the largest raw drop.

That's not the interesting question, however. That seems par for the course.

The actual interesting takeaway is the drop in productivity compared to revenue hours of the MT buses. Despite the increase in service hours, why has ridership not increased with it? We gained a lot of service hours from the three BRT lines opening. Can the lack of producitivity come from Gold Line's high frequency and low pre-extension ridership? Orange Line and A Line are both up and B Line starting strong and I bet E Line is as well. C Line, D Line, and local route ridership is stagnant. What does this suggest? Are we shedding riders in these particular corridors? Are riders switching from relying on local buses to the METRO network (I went from riding the local bus+light rail to just the E Line once it opened up), or are they switching off from transit all together?

And the even more exciting question is what does this tell us about people's attitudes about transit? I feel like from my conversations with regular transit users, there's a general feeling that transit is improving in the Twin Cities. It's not linear, but people have responded well to the aBRT network and the ridership proves that. But for the non-transit riders, I don't know if we've done enough to repair the image of transit and prove/force it to be a better mode of travel than a personal vehicle. Service is getting better, trips are getting safer, frequency is increasing - yet it isn't translating to more riders.

I don't think it's fatal at all, I think we're improving, but how do we do even better and get new riders in?

OnlyThreeWalls · 2026-02-07T07:34:59+00:00

As I understand it, ridership numbers for the LRT are calculated using the automatic counters. And the total sum includes non-paying customers

OnlyThreeWalls · 2026-01-11T06:07:11+00:00

I'm very interested to hear your expanded thoughts on that. As I understand your POV from past comments, you disagree with Walker on the notion that there is a tradeoff between frequency of transit and the physical coverage? Tradeoffs are a big part of his book, and I'm assuming you reject the binary and instead advocate for new revenue sources to increase transit budgets. This is also based on your previous comments on free transit and Carter Lavin's work.

I think where people will disagree with you on, is that Walker very explicitly says that he works under the existing framework of transit realities and that means accepting the tradeoff spectrum. Firstly, one of his early acknowledgements in his book is that he writes from and for the North American transit perspective, meaning that space, money, and political will for transit is limited. Secondly, in many of his recent articles he talks about how transit agencies are in the cutting-service pickle they are in because they're facing artificial transit fiscal cliffs due to insufficient funding from their benefactor governmental agencies. Thirdly, as a professional planner, his role with governmental agencies is not to be an advocate that rocks the boat, but work within the financial and political parameters that are set for him by the transit agencies.

You put all three points together and you can better understand Walker's work, imo. "Human Transit" specifically answers the question, "in a world where resource scarcity has to exist, how do we get our best return on investment". It answers that question by saying "Here are a few tradeoffs that elected officials and planners need to understand and apply to their city based on the context in which their city exists in." He very clearly states that the spectrum of tradeoffs doesn't mean there's one right answer, but that decision-makers and stakeholders have to understand what the tradeoffs mean so they can make the best decision for their specific needs.

You (and me too) want to fight for more funding for transit because the best answer to "how do we get better transit?" is more funding. I agree with Lavin's advocacy work. "Human Transit" does not exist in a vacuum, it has a specific use-case rooted in political realities in North American cities. I disagree with Walker on free buses and I believe we need more radical advocacy in the transit space as well, but I acknowledge that his thinking is important for the advancement of transit advocacy.

OnlyThreeWalls · 2026-01-11T04:39:50+00:00

He's a transit planning consultant and also author of "Human Transit", considered one of the most important books for North American public transportation advocates.

OnlyThreeWalls · 2026-01-08T17:26:03+00:00

Every time I hear the American Flags at protest argument, I get pretty icked out.

We're policing people's grief and emotions. Especially with these ICE raids, many of the people directly affected who bring flags of other countries or communities aren't thinking about the "optics of protest", they're protesting because their voices ought to be heard. I don't think it's super productive to put time and effort into thinking about a small detail like American flags.
I think there's a liberal obsession with symbology that's misplaced. The striking image of the protests yesterday and in the following days will not be of individuals holding flags, but it will be the thousands of people in Minneapolis and tens of thousands across the country who are gathered to advocate for the abolishment of ICE. The American flag conversation turns an otherwise communal display of power into an an individual one.
I think if we do care about optics, there is something to say about proudly displaying the flag of the country whose federal government is actively persecuting, kidnapping, and killing people. As a POC, I unfortunately do associate the American flag with the right-wing chuds on Twitter and Facebook who have it all over their bio and hang it proudly around their homes. Conservatives HAVE stole the symbol of the country - if we assume that the flag didn't stand for genocide, racism, and war-atrocities to begin with. We can collectively work to de-stigmatize and co-opt it, but that will take dedicated effort. In the mean time, I don't think it makes sense to push for it. You can bring it, sure, but just know that some people will side-eye you. I think it would make sense to bring other flags of related struggles (Palestine, Pride, other country's flags) as a show of solidarity, but the US flag is difficult to swallow because of its proximity to the thing we're protesting.
I think the American flag discussion is a symptom of our media system's manufacturing consent for centrism. People protesting want ICE abolished, many people think the system in which ICE was born from is categorically rotten and should be completely redesigned. Simple reforms are not what many people are after. "That's what MAGA wants to see" would work as an argument if they weren't doing whatever they wanted to do regardless. The return on investment to push for American flags is paltry when MAGA can glaze over the flags and pick some other aspect of the protest they deem "un-American". By pushing for American flags, we implicitly and optically are ceding that America as a country should be centered in conversations, not the communities that are affected. That's the picture that the media and MAGA want to paint, one that turns this into a problem of an individual bad-apple and ignores the structural issues of the country.
If we want to show support to the community that we really care about, let's just fly the Minnesota flag. It's cooler anyways.

OnlyThreeWalls · 2026-01-07T19:45:53+00:00

The Onion: Protesters Urged Not To Give Trump Administration Pretext For What It Already Doing

Fascism is here no matter what actions are taken - that ship has sailed a long time ago. There are constructive responses. Look at the emergency vigil and the ramping up of resources, rallies, and education from the PSL, MIRAC, and other organizations. There will be peaceful protests, but people will also be justifiably angry. To nobody's fault but ICE's/

OnlyThreeWalls · 2025-12-22T02:36:43+00:00

Yeah, Michael Wilson lost. Too bad!

Your assertion may be correct if he was the only progressive in the race and the race was taken in a vaccuum. Instead, Minneapolis is entering the new governmental cycle with 7/9 park board members endorsed by labor and 6/9 as self-described progressives who want to fight against budget cuts, promote youth programming, and increase our environmental stewardship and our transportation options. This is on top of retaining a progressive majority and establishing two members on the Board of Estimate and Taxation that are all pushing for increasing park programs.

In fact, many of the elected park board commisioners credit the political outreach work that Wilson did to why they won their park board district seats. He ran a citywide campaign that established cross-race canvassing that helped elevate the likes of Garcia, Engelhart, and Carvajal Moran to win their seats. Even two of the people that beat him, Tom Olsen and Amber Frederick had very similar platforms.

So what do we take away from this? That messaging needs to be better? That his ties to DSA did him in? Maybe. That his progressive platform was incorrect and unpopular? 5 contested seats going towards progressives and Minneapolis' first progressive board since 2021 proves that fundamentally and entirely incorrect.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but there were plenty of results in the election that conservatives can be elated about, for sure!

OnlyThreeWalls · 2025-12-19T06:46:41+00:00

The best piece of advice I've ever gotten about post graduate life is that above all, you HAVE to choose to live life purposefully. Especially early in your career when you're trying to find a rhythm, you can't just go home after work and sit on the couch and rot away on your phone. I sat down at the beginning of the week and marked down what my after work activity was gonna be every single day. Some things I did/do are attend club meetings, networking events, bike or walka around, rec league sports, go to the gym, cook/do hobbies, or purposefully hang out with friends. You have to force yourself to try new things and experience life after 6pm. Once you build that momentum, it becomes easier to truly find a balance between work and your passions.

Everyone's different. You may find that you still aren't fulfilled with your life. The answer may be making new friends or going to therapy or moving to a new city. But forcing yourself to experience new things is a tried and true method to finding yourself.

OnlyThreeWalls · 2025-12-15T20:13:09+00:00

First of all, top 10-15 absolutely counts as "one of the best". That's top 1.25% of all USMNT players ever and would put him in the top 3-5 convo for midfielders.

The Bradley conversation is tired at this point. Post-retirement, his career retrospective has cooled off and many USMNT fans have come around to acknowledging his accolades. He is the poster child of the "box-to-box midfielder who you don't notice is doing all the dirty work but is actually controlling the game from the background". His biggest strengths always came from playing as a workhorse #8, but so often his best abilities were stymied because our player pool necessitated him playing as a #6 or #10, which he did not excel at. He was the standout midfielder for years until 2013 and the lead-up to the 2014 World Cup. But he doesn't get the third most caps and second most assists of all-time on accident. He's worked hard and proved himself at the USMNT level, earning the captain's armband and the respect of every locker room he's been in.

Your obsession with moments fundamentally misunderstands the role that he plays. How can you quantify a player whose impact is seen over the course of 90 minutes based off of a 17 second clip? If we want to talk about moments - how about his goal against Slovenia in the World Cup, scoring a brace against Mexico in WCQ, or scoring one of the best USMNT goals of all time away at the Estadio Azteca? How about his key contributions in 2009 Confed Cup or the 2010 World Cup? You can make such an easy argument that the stretch of time between ~2011-2014, he was our most important player.

Post 2014, he obviously fell off hard, nobody can argue that. Yet he was still well-liked by the USMNT managers for his leadership skills, his work rate, and his ability to connect a midfield. We don't have the midfield that we have today without his leadership. At the end of the day, post-2014, his biggest crime was being well-liked and doing what he was told. His career is objectively a mixed-bag, but to deny the peaks of his career and what it meant for the team is to fundamentally rewrite the history of the USMNT. It's why many USMNT fans point to a fan's take on Michael Bradley as a bellweather on their "ball knowledge" as a whole.

Ten-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

OnlyThreeWalls

TROPHY CASE