- Messages
- 20,842
- Points
- 72
First off, a disclaimer. I consider myself an urbanist. That being said, I went to school and entered the planning field shortly after Seaside was planned and built. It was during an era when conventional zoning still reigned, "mixed use" meant podded PUDs, and best practice meant strict controls on signs, landscaping, architecture, site planning, and access management. The ideas that shaped what I think "good planning" is came from both the past, where attractive yet functional suburbia was seen as an ideal, and the growing new urbanism movement. I look at my toolbox, and see a lot I can work with.
I've noticed in the past few years, there seems to be a strain of ideological purity among an up-and-coming generation of young planners and planning students. They're willing to learn from the past, but not between 1930 and 2000, thank you very much. Based on blog postings, essays, personal conversations, and the like, many seem to follow an ultra-urbanist agenda. If you believe anything to the contrary, you're just an enabler of sprawl and white flight, and probably a lackey of GM and Ford, too.
* Cities are good, and suburbs are bad. Dense first-ring suburbs that were largely developed before WWII? It depends. If it's a gritty industrial satellite city (Troy NY, Lorain OH, etc), or it has a large LGBT population (Lakewood OH, Fernwood MI), it's fine. If it's outside of a Rust Belt city, with much different demographics than what's across the city line (University City, MO; Oak Park, IL, Grosse Pointe Park, MI, etc), it's sprawl.
* Municipal boundaries aren't imaginary or political lines, but should be seen as the equivalent of physical walls. All development in a region should take place inside the boundaries of the central city in a region. Any development outside it, regardless of its form or location, is sprawl. Move the boundary, though, and it's no longer sprawl, because cities are good, and suburbs are bad.
* The urban-to-rural transect includes T-1, T-2, T-5, and T-6. T-4 and T-5? Sprawl. Single family houses? Unless it's part of a farmstead, or a "tiny house", it's sprawl.
* With the exception of a Nissan Versa or Smart Coupe from a local carsharing service, all cars are evil, end of story. Otherwise, all personal transport should take place on foot, bike, public transit (preferably rail), or intercity rail.
* Aesthetics don't matter, Ugliness contributes to authenticity, and authenticity is always a positive trait. Besides, ugliness is subjective, but the impact of sprawl is well-known.
* If Europe does it, it has to be good, regardless of its outcome. Swedish brutalist new towns > American TNDs, because Europe. Parking in paved front yards in the UK > lawns and alley-loaded garages in the US, because Europe. Hypermarkets off the autoroute in France > American lifestyle centers, because Europe.
* Even though planning practice and the built environment is very similar in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, and South Africa (outside the townships, minus the fortification) to the United States, they get a pass. Sure, Toronto, Aukland, and Sydney have suburban development that very closely resembles sprawl in the US, but that's different, since sprawl is an American phenommenon.
* Before zoning, American cities were mixed-use utopias, just like Greenwich Village in The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Rich and poor lived side by side, and shops and offices peacefully co-existed with residences. The way to get that kind of environment back, everywhere? Get rid of zoning, because zoning causes sprawl. Never mind Houston and unincorporated areas in Texas, of course.
* Before WWII, nobody owned a car, except the very rich. Everybody got around by walking and streetcars. After VJ Day, everybody ran out to buy a car.
* Population decline in a city is always the result of white flight and rampant consumerism, not shrinking household sizes, urban renewal, obsolete housing, or a struggling local economy.
* Expressways? Always bad. They sliced through cities (only through black neighborhoods, too), fueled white flight, divided neighborhoods, and left them as shells of their former selves. Railroads slicing through cities and dividing neighborhoods 50 to 100 years earlier? They get a pass, because railroads are cool.
Your thoughts?
I've noticed in the past few years, there seems to be a strain of ideological purity among an up-and-coming generation of young planners and planning students. They're willing to learn from the past, but not between 1930 and 2000, thank you very much. Based on blog postings, essays, personal conversations, and the like, many seem to follow an ultra-urbanist agenda. If you believe anything to the contrary, you're just an enabler of sprawl and white flight, and probably a lackey of GM and Ford, too.
* Cities are good, and suburbs are bad. Dense first-ring suburbs that were largely developed before WWII? It depends. If it's a gritty industrial satellite city (Troy NY, Lorain OH, etc), or it has a large LGBT population (Lakewood OH, Fernwood MI), it's fine. If it's outside of a Rust Belt city, with much different demographics than what's across the city line (University City, MO; Oak Park, IL, Grosse Pointe Park, MI, etc), it's sprawl.
* Municipal boundaries aren't imaginary or political lines, but should be seen as the equivalent of physical walls. All development in a region should take place inside the boundaries of the central city in a region. Any development outside it, regardless of its form or location, is sprawl. Move the boundary, though, and it's no longer sprawl, because cities are good, and suburbs are bad.
* The urban-to-rural transect includes T-1, T-2, T-5, and T-6. T-4 and T-5? Sprawl. Single family houses? Unless it's part of a farmstead, or a "tiny house", it's sprawl.
* With the exception of a Nissan Versa or Smart Coupe from a local carsharing service, all cars are evil, end of story. Otherwise, all personal transport should take place on foot, bike, public transit (preferably rail), or intercity rail.
* Aesthetics don't matter, Ugliness contributes to authenticity, and authenticity is always a positive trait. Besides, ugliness is subjective, but the impact of sprawl is well-known.
* If Europe does it, it has to be good, regardless of its outcome. Swedish brutalist new towns > American TNDs, because Europe. Parking in paved front yards in the UK > lawns and alley-loaded garages in the US, because Europe. Hypermarkets off the autoroute in France > American lifestyle centers, because Europe.
* Even though planning practice and the built environment is very similar in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, and South Africa (outside the townships, minus the fortification) to the United States, they get a pass. Sure, Toronto, Aukland, and Sydney have suburban development that very closely resembles sprawl in the US, but that's different, since sprawl is an American phenommenon.
* Before zoning, American cities were mixed-use utopias, just like Greenwich Village in The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Rich and poor lived side by side, and shops and offices peacefully co-existed with residences. The way to get that kind of environment back, everywhere? Get rid of zoning, because zoning causes sprawl. Never mind Houston and unincorporated areas in Texas, of course.
* Before WWII, nobody owned a car, except the very rich. Everybody got around by walking and streetcars. After VJ Day, everybody ran out to buy a car.
* Population decline in a city is always the result of white flight and rampant consumerism, not shrinking household sizes, urban renewal, obsolete housing, or a struggling local economy.
* Expressways? Always bad. They sliced through cities (only through black neighborhoods, too), fueled white flight, divided neighborhoods, and left them as shells of their former selves. Railroads slicing through cities and dividing neighborhoods 50 to 100 years earlier? They get a pass, because railroads are cool.
Your thoughts?
?
