New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | November 8, 2005

Urban planning lessons from the fiery streets of France, a tourist oasis in Iraq's arid expanse, and a Watergate player seeks a motive for Scooter's stance—in the new Reason Express.

Comments

|11.8.05 @ 11:50AM|#

"Or to put it bluntly, would some front-load garages come in handy when the New Urbanist, pedestrian-friendly on-street parking is just a bull's-eye for a firebomb?"

Or to put it yet another way, why should Pennsylvania Avenue and E Street be open to traffic, when doing so makes it easier for terrorists to bomb the White House?

Because free people in free socieites shouldn't live in walled bunkers surrounded by No Man's Land, that's why.

VM|11.8.05 @ 11:51AM|#

I'm sure we're all glad to know all of this :)

p.s., what are you wearing?

|11.8.05 @ 11:52AM|#

It is refreshing to see an anti-urbanist so openly admit that his design preferences stem from the desire to protect himself from rampaging hordes of poor people, though.

|11.8.05 @ 11:56AM|#

The problem with city planning is that most of it is shitty planning!

Ha, I made a zinger!

|11.8.05 @ 11:59AM|#

Far be it from me to take the side of the urban planners, especially New Urbanists, but I do think linking riots to such planning is a bit of a stretch. It's the content of the vessel, not its shape, which really matters.

|11.8.05 @ 12:03PM|#

Because free people in free socieites shouldn't live in walled bunkers surrounded by No Man's Land, that's why.

This sentence is self-negating. Free people in free societies should live in what what each person or family chooses for him-, her- or itself. Otherwise, you're criticizing the writer for wanting to impose his preferences while wanting to impose yours.

Besides, urban landscapes can certainly accommodate suburban-style townhomes with ground-level garages and entryways, and living areas above, right? If that's what the homeowner wants?

|11.8.05 @ 12:09PM|#

By the way, can someone explain what the French countryside has to do with urban planning? I'm a bit thick today.

|11.8.05 @ 12:11PM|#

I like how "a house with a garage" morphed into "walled bunkers surrounded by no man's land." You really hate the suburbs, don't you?

|11.8.05 @ 12:12PM|#

If I lived in No MAN's Land, I don't know what I would do (see the postscript to the first post). Oh wait, I would jerk off.

|11.8.05 @ 12:13PM|#

No, Phil, even in a free society, not every choice is as good as every other choice.

People who choose to live in segregated communities because they're racists are making an inferior choice. People who choose to live in isolationist suburbs because "those people" are just bound to riot are making a similiar, inferior choice.

|11.8.05 @ 12:13PM|#

The link to the article about Grokster seems to have, well, not much to do with Grokster.

MP|11.8.05 @ 12:13PM|#

Because free people in free socieites shouldn't live in walled bunkers surrounded by No Man's Land, that's why.

I wouldn't call a garage a walled bunker. On two separate occassions over the years I've had my car broken into when leaving it parked in front of the suburban residence I was residing in at the time. So I sure as heck prefer a garage to open street parking.

|11.8.05 @ 12:23PM|#

No, Phil, even in a free society, not every choice is as good as every other choice.

Luckily, I didn't claim that. I said that imposing one preference over another is not inherently more "free."

People who choose to live in isolationist suburbs because "those people" are just bound to riot are making a similiar, inferior choice.

Two questions, here:

1) Are all suburbs "isolationist," and if not, what distinguishes one from another?
2) What about people who choose to live in suburbs for other reasons? Is it the choice to live in a suburb itself inherently inferior, and if not, why not?

OK, that's four questions. And the fifth question: What does any of this have to do with garages vs. street parking? I can want to be part of a dynamic, diverse, integrated community without wanting to leave my car on the street, after all.

|11.8.05 @ 12:23PM|#

Garages are quite prevalent in the urban centers of my city - but they are normally located behind the homes and accessed via alley. I'm not quite sure why a garage in the front is superior to a garage in the back. Likewise, I doubt anyone would consider my city to be a model of european/french style living - despite its heritage and lack of front loading garages.

very interesting site on the architectural legacy of the city.

|11.8.05 @ 12:31PM|#

Joes writes:

It is refreshing to see an anti-urbanist so openly admit that his design preferences stem from the desire to protect himself from rampaging hordes of poor people, though.

I'd be refreshed to have it explained to me by an urbanist how much-maligned "gated communities" differ from any doormanned building in any city. Either way, the "rampaging hordes" are kept at bay, as well as things I associate with the non-gated, non-doormanned world I live in, where I occasionally get Mormons or City Council candidates knocking on the door.

|11.8.05 @ 12:33PM|#

Look at the bright side - French car sales are up.

|11.8.05 @ 12:33PM|#

I would add that any apartment building, with a doorman or not that requires a key to get in the front door, now that I think about it, is pretty much the same concept as a "gated community."

|11.8.05 @ 12:33PM|#

And thus the real joe is laid naked for all the world to see: you are free to choose whatever he wants you to choose.

|11.8.05 @ 12:47PM|#

So, speaking of city councilmen and urban planners; today my district votes for city council. One candidate, an architect and city planner, has openly endorsed applying historic district type regulation to my neighborhood. His vision would 'preserve' the character of the neighborhood by placing restrictions on the layouts of new homes. Funny, if the specific restriction he endorses were in place when the neighborhood went up most of the homes, including mine, would not have been built as they were. My home doesn't sit on the lot correctly and my garage faces the wrong way.

|11.8.05 @ 12:50PM|#

In partial defense of joe's point, there was a lengthy front-page article in the Washington Post recently about voting demographics in Northern Virginia, and how it relates to large numbers of white Republicans who are fleeing Arlington and Fairfax Counties, and counties in Maryland, to live in gated communities. Many, many people in the article were pretty explicit about their reasons -- they didn't want to live around poor people, Hispanics, blacks or Koreans.

I think they should be free to self-select like this, of course; if nothing else, it tells me where I don't want to live. I, in return, should be free to loudly denounce them as bigoted assholes.

|11.8.05 @ 12:54PM|#

That's a French car, on fire.

MP|11.8.05 @ 12:58PM|#

I, in return, should be free to loudly denounce them as bigoted assholes.

Maybe their decision was crime/safety related, not simply racist. In general, I prefer not to live in a poor neighborhood, regardless of race/creed/color.

fyodor|11.8.05 @ 1:01PM|#

You don't have to be a bigot or paranoid about rampaging hordes to want your car in a secure place. You might just want to protect it from common crime.

|11.8.05 @ 1:02PM|#

I would find it refreshing if our friendly, neighborhood urban planner would openly admit that his design preferences come from the desire to use his technocratic expertise as a stalking horse for implementing his particular brand of egalitarian dogma.

joe, I'd love to live in one of your urban hobbit villages. But I live in the real world where people have to make tradeoffs. My transformation from urban, fun-loving bachelor to married, suburban-dwelling, boring, dad-to-be has occurred because of things like cost-per-sqft and quality of schools and not some desire to wall myself off from the poor darkies.

|11.8.05 @ 1:03PM|#

Maybe their decision was crime/safety related, not simply racist.

Without getting into reading people's minds, one is quite often -- more often than not -- a proxy for the other.

In general, I prefer not to live in a poor neighborhood, regardless of race/creed/color.

Poor people would generally prefer not to live there either, you know?

MP|11.8.05 @ 1:09PM|#

Poor people would generally prefer not to live there either, you know?

So what. I just think your stereotype of participants in "urban flight" as being bigoted assholes is too extreme and in general unhelpful.

|11.8.05 @ 1:10PM|#

I love how some people equate a desire to eschew coerced urban planning with anti-urbanism. Heh. Talk about your logical fallacies. Only coerced urban planning - the kind joe does - is in favor of urbanism!

People who choose to live in segregated communities because they're racists are making an inferior choice.

According to your particular goal. It may be indeed be best for racists to segregate themselves.

crimethink,

That's about right.

Phil,

Many, many people in the article were pretty explicit about their reasons -- they didn't want to live around poor people, Hispanics, blacks or Koreans.

Well, that is well known (that folks of Asian descent do the same thing is less well known) and quite beside the point.

pigwiggle,

So you are saying that feng shui is involved in the planning decisions? :)

|11.8.05 @ 1:11PM|#

"Poor people would generally prefer not to live there either, you know?"

Which is why theyy move away when they become un-poor.

|11.8.05 @ 1:11PM|#

Garage parking > street parking simply on the grounds that you're much less likely to have to play bumper-cars in order to get your car in and out of the parking space. My car has suffered more minor bumper damage in the last three months of street parking than the last five years of driveway. I don't mind, since it's a highly-functioning shitbox.. but if it were a car worth any amount of money, then I'd probably be pretty pissed off.

On the other hand, I've learned how to parallel park in a space only about four inches longer than my car is. You only have to saw back and forth about twenty times, bumping the cars in front and in back of you at least half of those... but it beats driving sometimes over half a mile away from your apartment to find a spot. Just don't expect to be able to get anything out of your trunk until the person behind you leaves.

|11.8.05 @ 1:12PM|#

Poor people would generally prefer not to live there either, you know?

True. So if nobody wants to live there, then it's not true to say that the ones who are able to avoid doing so must somehow be bigoted.

|11.8.05 @ 1:16PM|#

Jennifer, when they explicitly say, "We don't like blacks or Hispanics moving into our neighborhoods," I don't require much further illumination to make the bigot call. There's a difference between "not wanting to live there because the schools and roads suck and there's no shopping and there's a crackhead in the gutter" and "not wanting to live there because it's full of darkies."

MP, you're free to find the article in the WaPo archives and read it.

|11.8.05 @ 1:17PM|#

crimethink,

See, if people were forced to live in multi-ethnic neighborhoods, they'd be "progressive" people like joe and be remolded into happy little "new people." And we could build giant, romantic statues portraying these "new people."

|11.8.05 @ 1:18PM|#

"Walled bunker surrounded by no man's land," is just what the liberal MSM like to call what the rest of us call "a castle."

|11.8.05 @ 1:19PM|#

Interesting article on the topic

http://csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/durableRedirect.pl?/durable/2001/07/05/fp1s1-csm.shtml

Money quote:

"While Miami lost 18 percent of its blacks, the county saw a 74 percent increase in its black population. Such moves are lessening racial barriers, experts say, since the suburbs tend to be less segregated than urban centers."

|11.8.05 @ 1:22PM|#

Phil--
Yes, someone who comes right out and says "I don't want [ethnic group] living near me" is a slimeball. I'm just saying I don't think it's true that this describes the majority of people who don't want to live in such neighborhoods.

|11.8.05 @ 1:23PM|#

Hakluyt, multi-ethnic isn't enough. It also has to be mixed-income.

|11.8.05 @ 1:25PM|#

JDM,

I thought this was the money quote:

Here in San Diego and in several large cities across the United States, African-Americans are pulling out. Their out-migration is swelling suburbs, breaking down barriers, and building new ones. Although some observers call the movement "black flight," the trend suggests that African-Americans are finally treading the well-worn path of many American immigrants.

The article appears to describe the sort of in-migration and out-migration from core areas of cities we've been seeing here since colonial times.

|11.8.05 @ 1:26PM|#

Cholo Pete,

Or better yet, equal income! :)

|11.8.05 @ 1:28PM|#

Am I the only one to notice that the biggest pain in the ass about street parking is not the chance of a race riot, but the fact that by parking in the street, you often wind up bumping other people's cars/being bumped out of necessity, sometimes having to park an unreasonable distance(which I'll define as greater than two blocks) from your house/apartment, or both?

|11.8.05 @ 1:32PM|#

Am I the only one to notice that the biggest pain in the ass about street parking is not the chance of a race riot, but the fact that by parking in the street, you often wind up bumping other people's cars/being bumped out of necessity, sometimes having to park an unreasonable distance(which I'll define as greater than two blocks) from your house/apartment, or both?

Well, you ARE the only one to manage to bring parallel parking into the thread. Maybe improved parking opportunities would have quelled the French riots. . . Heh heh heh.

|11.8.05 @ 1:33PM|#

I'm just jealous because I can't parallel park.

|11.8.05 @ 1:35PM|#

That is because you are a woman

|11.8.05 @ 1:40PM|#

Herrick and his balls,

They are lead by a woman. What does a woman know?

|11.8.05 @ 1:43PM|#

"The article appears to describe the sort of in-migration and out-migration from core areas of cities we've been seeing here since colonial times."

I don't want to be a racist, so I'll try not to think about the fact that this long overdue economic upswing for blacks coincides exactly with the end (ok, lessening) of the old Welfare State.

|11.8.05 @ 1:43PM|#

Lemme blow a Bronx cheer right at ya, guys. Life's too short for me to be parking my own damned cars and opening my own damned jars--that's what men are for.

Now shut up and break these here rocks for me.

|11.8.05 @ 1:44PM|#

The intensity of rioting does appear to be finally on the wane. Let us hope so at least.

|11.8.05 @ 1:46PM|#

MP,

"I wouldn't call a garage a walled bunker." Nor would I, though the author of the piece is endorsing them specifically for their ability to serve as a barrier against the criminal tendencies of the "underclass." It isn't the garage, or even the front-loaded garage, that I was objecting to, but the use to which it was put, and the implication that urban design should incorporate the inevitable rioting of the lower orders as a parameter to design around.

|11.8.05 @ 1:48PM|#

Frailty, thy name is woman!

|11.8.05 @ 1:49PM|#

Shut up and kill this spider, Hamlet.

|11.8.05 @ 1:50PM|#

joe, is it so wrong to consider criminal activity as a factor in where you park your car? I don't drive too often, so I prefer to park my car where I'm at least able to see it every day to make sure nobody's attempted to get in it (not that there's anything to be had).

|11.8.05 @ 1:52PM|#

Some people like garages because they don't have to shovel a foot of snow off the car to go to work.

At least, that's been my experience living in northern climates. It's not always about crime.

|11.8.05 @ 1:52PM|#

Phil,

'Luckily, I didn't claim that. I said that imposing one preference over another is not inherently more "free."'

And luckily, I didn't say anything about imposing any choices at all. I made a comment about one design being better than another, and you called foul.

"1) Are all suburbs "isolationist," and if not, what distinguishes one from another?"

No, there are many different types of surbubs. The "streetcar suburbs" of the late 1900s and first half of the 20th century, for example, are quite open and accessible. And there are urban developments that are quite isolationist. The difference is in design - of the houses, of the lots, of the neighborhoods, of the streets, of the transportation systems

"2) What about people who choose to live in suburbs for other reasons? Is it the choice to live in a suburb itself inherently inferior, and if not, why not?" No, it's not. The choice to incorporate isolation from the lower orders into one's housing decisions is inherently inferior. People who buy in the suburbs because they want big gardens, or work nearby, or have family there, or found their dream house there, or picked a school system they like - these are all legitimate, unimpeachable criteria for their choices. As are many others.

|11.8.05 @ 1:53PM|#

So now crime prevention measures are racist, Joe? I assume you don't use the locks on your car as a gesture of bridge-building between the races.

|11.8.05 @ 1:54PM|#

Oh, and yes, there are many designs that incorporate garages that are perfectly consistent with quality urban design. It's the front loading that the author emphasizes - the use of the garage to wall off the house from the public, and the installation of many driveways that take away the option of on-street parking - that is imicible with good urban design.

Rear garages off of lanes, for example.

|11.8.05 @ 1:59PM|#

Cedarburg, "I'd be refreshed to have it explained to me by an urbanist how much-maligned "gated communities" differ from any doormanned building in any city."

Because when you walk outside of your doormanned building, you are in the city. No one objects to having private space within a dwelling. The objection is to insisting that there be no public space at all.

"I occasionally get Mormons or City Council candidates knocking on the door." The dynamism of a city, the reason that cities continue to the centers of culture and commerce, comes from the spontaneous encounters of people going about their business. Sure, a particularly motivated person, like a politician or evangelist, can impose himself on other people in an isolationist neighborhood. But the open dynamism that drives culture relies on the contacts, conflicts, and collaborations that occur as natural, unforced parts of people's everyday lives.

|11.8.05 @ 2:00PM|#

I shall blast a trumpet against this monstrous regiment of women!

|11.8.05 @ 2:00PM|#

Lord Mitch - exactly. I'd love to have a nice walled bunker with a no man's land about it. A moat would be fuckin' sweet, too. And it's not because I don't like darkies...all my darky and non-darky friends would be invited to come visit. It would be to keep out everone else.

But that would just be a summer home. I'd still want a nice place in the city.

First I've got to start making a helluva lot more money!

fyodor|11.8.05 @ 2:01PM|#

joe,

You put "underclass" in quotes as if "the author" used that word. But I cannot find that word in the Reason Express article.

Furthermore, while riots are pretty rare, common crime is not. Nobody, including poor people, prefers their property to be more rather than less vulnerable. Maybe using these riots to point this out is slightly wacky, but it's hardly evidence of bigotry. It's just one more example of the downside of parking in the street.

|11.8.05 @ 2:04PM|#

"I would find it refreshing if our friendly, neighborhood urban planner would openly admit that his design preferences come from the desire to use his technocratic expertise as a stalking horse for implementing his particular brand of egalitarian dogma."

Actually, Krybo, most of what I would like to see involves the elimination of regulation - the regulation that made the places you prefer possible. They would not exist if the builders weren't forced to build that way.

How about you go to Lillywhiteville Town Hall, look at a zoning map, and figure out how much of your town allows only single family homes on large lots, and how much allows multifamily homes, mixed use buildings, or houses on less than a quarter acre. Then tell me whose vision requires imposition.

|11.8.05 @ 2:04PM|#

The more I read about urban planning, the more it looks like high priced feng shui.

|11.8.05 @ 2:05PM|#

joe sez: "But the open dynamism that drives culture relies on the contacts, conflicts, and collaborations that occur as natural, unforced parts of people's everyday lives."

Unless you don't build your neighbourhood right? How can you be for "...spontaneous encounters of people going about their business..." but not be for the spontaneous building of their dwellings and businesses? Like forcing people to live a certain way is going to somehow "create" this spontenaity that you seem to (rightly) enjoy.

Interesting.

MP|11.8.05 @ 2:06PM|#

But the open dynamism that drives culture relies on the contacts, conflicts, and collaborations that occur as natural, unforced parts of people's everyday lives.

Your comments are not reflective of one with vast practical experience in gated communities. Not that I am either, but the social lives of my parents in their gated community in FL is better than it's ever been.

|11.8.05 @ 2:08PM|#

Lowdog,

That's where the heroic statuery comes into play. :)

|11.8.05 @ 2:09PM|#

Hey Joe,

Is it racist if I want to live away from everyone? Because I just hate people and want to be left alone?

It seems pretty clear that unless we all just live in cramped cities, smilling at eachother happily, we're bigots! I guess I am, too. I like quiet, space, and a lack of assholes telling me when to mow my lawn, what color to paint my house, blocking my driveway, driving by with subwoofers...you name it. But that's "inferior".

I think Joe's utopia involves all of us turning into a bunch of dancing elves.

|11.8.05 @ 2:11PM|#

I am proud to say that I am not a bigot, but a misanthrope. Race, religion, color, creed, ethnicity--who cares? Go away.

I'm only kidding a little.

|11.8.05 @ 2:11PM|#

Steven,

"joe, is it so wrong to consider criminal activity as a factor in where you park your car?"

Of course not. What is wrong is to look at the widespread rioting going on in France, rioting brought on by the physical, social, and economic segregation of poor immigrants communities, and take it as an opportunity to recommend greater segregation as the solution, while insulting those who support less segregation.

|11.8.05 @ 2:12PM|#

Grumpy Old Fart,

That makes you a misanthrope (a wonderful play BTW).

|11.8.05 @ 2:12PM|#

"Some people like garages because they don't have to shovel a foot of snow off the car to go to work."

Yes, Happy Jack. And some people like them because they can store snowmobiles, yard rakes, and boxes of clothing in them.

Other people like them as a design tool to respond to the inevitability of rioting by poor people.

R C Dean|11.8.05 @ 2:14PM|#

Every time I am about to make a comment about joe's peculiar brand of freedom via state control, someone else beats me to it.

I especially like the line about creating natural, unforced contacts and collaborations by dictating what kind of neighborhood you can live in.

|11.8.05 @ 2:15PM|#

Well, if it is inevitable that poor people will riot, it seems a smart choice to design for such and not pretend you can create a utopia based how one tweeks where garages are.

|11.8.05 @ 2:15PM|#

MP, it's quite nice that your parents have lots of social encounters with people of similar economic, social, and age backgrounds. But that's not the dynamism that propels culture.

Nice false choice you've got there, Grumpy Old Fart. If only there were options other than large lot McMansions and Tokyo highrises!

|11.8.05 @ 2:16PM|#

joe so poor he cant afford no shift key

|11.8.05 @ 2:17PM|#

"Actually, Krybo, most of what I would like to see involves the elimination of regulation - the regulation that made the places you prefer possible."

Right, the elimination of regulations that hinder your favored vision, and the increase in some of those that promote it. You should not pretend that you favor allowing people the option ot pay for what they want.

"They would not exist if the builders weren't forced to build that way."

Your position is that there would be no suburbs in a lassez faire real estate market? Really? That's just obviously false. The advent of non-government covenants for new developments puts the lie to that statement immediately.

"The more I read about urban planning, the more it looks like high priced feng shui."

It is ultimately and obviously the incoherent attempts of some urban liberals to intellectualize their aesthetic preferences.

|11.8.05 @ 2:18PM|#

I would like to take issue with the contention that more well-to-do people tend to avoid poorer neighborhoods simply out of racial bigotry.

I grew up poor, but when my dry-cleaning business took off, my wife Louise and I decided to move to the east side, into a deluxe apartment in the sky. There, fish do not fry in the kitchen, nor do beans burn on the grill--a welcome change indeed. However, it took a whole lot of trying, just to get up that hill.

I did not move out of my old, decaying neighborhood in order to avoid people of other races. My new neighborhood is well integrated. In fact, one of our neighbors is a mixed-race couple, and our son Lionel is dating their daughter.

I just want a better, safer, more comfortable life for myself and my family. So now we're up in the big leagues, getting our turn at bat. It's a new life, for me and my wife, and there ain't nothin' wrong with that. We're simply moving on up.

|11.8.05 @ 2:19PM|#

R.C.,

Having just finished three books on the history of Paris I can say that its always been the unplanned areas which were the most dynamic, etc. The French state inevitably screwed things up when it tried to plan an area of the city outside of creating basic things like roads and bridges.

|11.8.05 @ 2:22PM|#

George Jefferson,

To a deluxe apartment in the sky! :)

|11.8.05 @ 2:23PM|#

Let's recap...

If I live in the central city, my car is going to get the crap knocked out of it on the street. And all of that other bad city stuff -- no yard, bad schools, etc.

New urban designs promote rioting. (But I do get all of those unforced interactions and other Gaius-speak that Joe mentioned)

Living in the suburbs causes obesity. And I'm probably a bigot if I live there, or have a strangely situated garage.

It's been my experience that there are no jobs out in the stix. And I may be a bigot if I put up a fence in my rural setting.

Where in the hell am I going to live?

|11.8.05 @ 2:24PM|#

JDM,

I've noticed that being an urban planner is a bit like being part of a religious cult. :)

|11.8.05 @ 2:27PM|#

"I've noticed that being an urban planner is a bit like being part of a religious cult."

The important difference is that I'm not *forced* to pay other religious cults to make my life more difficult.

|11.8.05 @ 2:28PM|#

Joe writes:

The dynamism of a city, the reason that cities continue to the centers of culture and commerce, comes from the spontaneous encounters of people going about their business. Sure, a particularly motivated person, like a politician or evangelist, can impose himself on other people in an isolationist neighborhood. But the open dynamism that drives culture relies on the contacts, conflicts, and collaborations that occur as natural, unforced parts of people's everyday lives.

That would be persuasive, were it true. However, city living seems to consist, to a large degree, of leaving the controlled private space and then cutting off one's self from the contacts, conflicts, and collaborations by talking on a cell phone, or studiously avoiding eye contact or meaniful communication with passersby and shop clerks, or simply pretending that various unsavory types, like panhandlers, aren't even there. When I lived in a city, and now when I visit, I don't do those types of things--and the natives seem to think I am a weirdo for it.

So I don't think that having public space saves a city life from an isolationist sort of critique. I think city life merely presents different challenges for those who want to isolate themselves, and many, many people rise to the challenge, even if the isolation is not relfect in the physical world via zoning, housing, public space, etc.

|11.8.05 @ 2:42PM|#

Cedarburg,

The RTA looks nothing like what joe describes, and it is a rich center of culture and commerce (indeed, the downtowns of both areas are bleak in comparison to the rich shopping experience you can get at South Point mall or North Gate mall).

|11.8.05 @ 2:44PM|#

Cedarburg,

As to culture, well, Branford Marsellis lives about a mile form our place. My wife knows someone who is good friends with him and we may get invited to a party to his house sometime soon.

|11.8.05 @ 2:45PM|#

I would like to chime in with Mr. Jefferson. Folks just want a better life for themselves and their kin.

MP|11.8.05 @ 2:46PM|#

My wife knows someone who is good friends with him and we may get invited to a party to his house sometime soon.

Way cool.

|11.8.05 @ 2:48PM|#

Interesting article in Slate about this topic. May put this book on my reading list.

|11.8.05 @ 2:48PM|#

Come to think of it, it was my neighbors and extended kinfolk back in the old neighborhood who urged me to move away when I became more prosperous. "Jed, move away from there!" they said. "California is the place you ought to be."

So we loaded up the truck and we moved to Beverly. (Hills, that is.)

|11.8.05 @ 2:51PM|#

MP,

Yeah, I thought that was very cool too. My wife is the saxophonist though. I just play the violin. I don't know shit about jazz as an actual performer, though I appreciate it with my ear and have a basic understanding of its history and artists.

Dave W.|11.8.05 @ 2:53PM|#

I ahve moved to the city (a year ago). I gave up my car (6 months ago). Now I just wish I knew how to get rid of the salesman in the basement. He conducts his business late at night and early in the morning. I don't know what he sells because he has no sign. Sometimes, when he is not home, his clients come up to my unit to see if they vcan get any word. the clients seem quite determined. My neighbor sure must sell a good product or service. Many times he will be on the cell phone, under my window, apologizing to disappointed clients. I can never quite make out what the issue is -- while hearable, the conversations are quite cryptic.

The landlord has said that he will get the guy out (I don't think our building is zoned for mixed use), but I am convinced he never will.

I wonder what the urban planner solution to a situation like mine is. I think my neighbor might get an inkling that I am complaining to the landlord and he might want to have words with me or my wife. Angry words.

Frankly, I am getting to the point where I want to flee at least this particular poor black person. Should I have predicted he would show up before I moved in? How can I make sure this doesn't happen again?

|11.8.05 @ 2:55PM|#

MP,

He's apparently the artist in residence at NCCU and teaches a few classes there. I bet its a dream for them to study under him.

|11.8.05 @ 2:59PM|#

Dave W., you can always kill him and take over his business.

Dave W.|11.8.05 @ 3:03PM|#

I suck at business. That's why God made me a lawyer.

|11.8.05 @ 3:07PM|#

One lawyer with a briefcase can rob more banks than a hundred men with guns.

|11.8.05 @ 3:17PM|#

What this iconoclastic little book demonstrates is that sprawl is not the anomalous result of American zoning laws, or mortgage interest tax deduction, or cheap gas, or subsidized highway construction, or cultural antipathy toward cities. Nor is it an aberration. Bruegmann shows that asking whether sprawl is "good" or "bad" is the wrong question. Sprawl is and always has been inherent to urbanization. It is driven less by the regulations of legislators, the actions of developers, and the theories of city planners, than by the decisions of millions of individuals�Adam Smith's "invisible hand." This makes altering it very complicated, indeed.

|11.8.05 @ 3:19PM|#

That quote is from the Slate article linked above, by the way.

Also, joe, stop stealing my money to tell me how to live. Asshole.

|11.8.05 @ 3:25PM|#

Dave W: Have you tried playing loud country music?

|11.8.05 @ 3:27PM|#

And luckily, I didn't say anything about imposing any choices at all. I made a comment about one design being better than another, and you called foul

Well, you went a little deeper than that -- you said that people shouldn't live in manner X, which is a little different than saying it's better if people do Y. Anyway, the signal-to-noise has gotten a little thick, so sayonara.

|11.8.05 @ 3:28PM|#

Suburban living is for wimps, but citified living is even worse. Farm living is the life for me! Land spreading out so far and wide -- keep Manhattan, just give me that countryside. The chores and fresh air will keep you healthy.

Healthy and simple. That's why my wife Lisa and I moved to a poor rural community. Although, I confess, sometimes it's not quite as stress-free as I imagined it to be.

|11.8.05 @ 3:28PM|#

joe-

quit assuming you know everything. I live on an acre in old shitty house in a suburb of Seattle. An old blue collar one, near where Jimmy Hendrix and his parents are buried.

There are McMansions here owned by East Indians, smaller newer manufactured homes owned by North African taxi drivers and at least six chinese families in a few blocks. We have a few Irish travelers and a white mullet here and there for show.

I was making a point with what I said, and you really rose to the occasion and demonstrated that you are, indeed, quite the know it all knucklehead.

The "elite" classes aren't the only ones who need to know what the real world is like. People like you need to quit judging and actually get to know who and what they speak of as well.

In the end, it appears all of us, regardless of econimic class or race, live in a glass house (frontloading garage or no) of some type. We all are also quite prone to huck stones from them, stupidly.

|11.8.05 @ 3:48PM|#

That's the problem with your more "liberal" folks, or those who favour centralised planning and whatnot. They're the ones with elitist attitudes, because they don't trust people to do the "right" thing, whatever that might be. It takes an expert to tell everyone how to do everything, including how to utilise your hard-earned cash.

Me, I realise that people are often wrong, but that each individual is usually in the best position to know what's best for him or her. And in the long run, the only people you can really trust are those who you've fostered a relationship with over time and know to be trustworthy. Some beaurocrat, no matter how well-meaning he may be, can be wrong, for one, and secondly knows nothing about me. Why should I trust him to make any decisions for me?

On top of that, people can be greedy and corrupt, and anyone wonders why I'm a libertarian??

|11.8.05 @ 3:52PM|#

RC, "I especially like the line about creating natural, unforced contacts and collaborations by dictating what kind of neighborhood you can live in."

Which line would that be, you dishonest piece of crap? Would you care to quote the part where I suggest "dictating what kind of neighborhood you can live in?"

I'm sure you would care to do that, were it not for the fact that I wrote nothing even remotely similar to this.

It's kind of funny - the author makes a statement in favor of one design. I make a statement in favor of another design. And you all line up to damn for promoting state control. Baa. Baaaaaaaa!!!!

|11.8.05 @ 3:56PM|#

JDM,

"Your position is that there would be no suburbs in a lassez faire real estate market?" I can see how you could get that from my statement, "No, there are many different types of surbubs. The "streetcar suburbs" of the late 1900s and first half of the 20th century, for example, are quite open and accessible. And there are urban developments that are quite isolationist." Oh, no, wait, no I can't.

My position, to dumb it down for you, is that the TYPE of suburb you are so fond of would be less common in a laissez faire real estate market.

"The more I read about urban planning, the more it looks like high priced feng shui."

FYI, you can safely dismiss any planning ideas from people who describe the field as "high priced."

|11.8.05 @ 3:57PM|#

I find it odd that when joe speaks of reducing regulations in the suburbs which have had the effect of creating vast spreads of identical houses with little variety and no choice but to drive everywhere, that everyone jumps all over him claiming that he wants to dictate how everyone should live. The fact that many of our cities are bursting at the seams and have their highest occupancy rates ever, indicates that not everyone wants the suburban life; and that in fact suburban-style zoning is not providing enough variety for everyone.

MP|11.8.05 @ 4:01PM|#

Would you care to quote the part where I suggest "dictating what kind of neighborhood you can live in?"

"Because free people in free socieites shouldn't live in walled bunkers surrounded by No Man's Land, that's why." - joe's first post on this thread.

shouldn't implies force. I'm not sure how you expected this to be interpreted.

|11.8.05 @ 4:01PM|#

Cedarburg, " However, city living seems to consist, to a large degree..."

The problem here is "to a large degree." The fact that there are parts of the life of city dwellers (in traditional cities, anyway - as I said before, there certainly are isolationist urban designs) that is private does not negate the fact that their professional, recreational, and commercial lives do, in fact, allow for many more opportunities for spontaneous contact with other people. The fact that you "have to" make efforts to avoid this contact proves this point - you don't "have to" make such efforts to nearly the same degree when you live, work, shop, and play in post-WW2 suburban communities.

|11.8.05 @ 4:07PM|#

Fart,

You're "disproving" my point about there being choices other than Tokyo highrises and sprawl subdivisions by telling me that you live on a single family home on an acre? Uh, yeah, you really got me there.

Lowdog, "That's the problem with your more "liberal" folks, or those who favour centralised planning and whatnot. They're the ones with elitist attitudes, because they don't trust people to do the "right" thing, whatever that might be." You mean like how we assume that poor urbanites will inevitably riot, and promote home designs intended to alleviate that eternal condition? Oh, no, wait...

|11.8.05 @ 4:10PM|#

"shouldn't implies force"

No, MP, "shouldn't" implies judgement. It is completely silent on the means to achieve the desired end. "Shall" implies force.

When the author wrote that his preferred design was better, did that imply that he wanted to achieve it by force? Or is it only design preferences that you disagree with that cause you to make that assumption.

|11.8.05 @ 4:11PM|#

"My position, to dumb it down for you, is that the TYPE of suburb you are so fond of would be less common in a laissez faire real estate market."

So changing from "would not exist" to "would be less common" is dumbing it down for *me.* Sound reasoning there. Most people would probably call that "you being shown how dumb your statement was." At least I would. I don't expect you to admit that that is what happened, but you're welcome nonetheless.

"I find it odd that when joe speaks of reducing regulations in the suburbs which have had the effect of creating vast spreads of identical houses with little variety and no choice but to drive everywhere, that everyone jumps all over him claiming that he wants to dictate how everyone should live."

Right, again, because he favors keeping and increasing government regulations that hinder the type of development he doesn't like. In the regulated market we have, you can't claim neutrality by removing one side of the regulations. I jump on him, at least, for his disingenuous double speak.

"The fact that many of our cities are bursting at the seams and have their highest occupancy rates ever, indicates that not everyone wants the suburban life;"

Who says everyone wants it? Please live in the city if you like. I used to when I was younger and more single.

|11.8.05 @ 4:16PM|#

Joe,

You are a leftist, communist, envious class warring twit.

We are a family of four who lives on 50K per year so that my wife can raise our children in one bathroom, wood heated, linolium from the 50's wreck we own.

Face it, you DON'T know what you're talking about. You are a judgmental elistist. You assume anyone who doesn't live in a tiny apartment in a crappy part of town isn't as good as you are.

I'm glad you've found a rationalization that makes you feel like a superior person. You're house is still glass, and both the pot and kettle are black, my friend.

fyodor|11.8.05 @ 4:21PM|#

Is it Groundhog Day?

|11.8.05 @ 4:21PM|#

I am stopping in to note the futility of bickering with "joe". He is the quintessential extreme leftist. Good for a spar, no doubt. joe I just have no idea why you come to Reason when there are so many digital venues better suited to your fascist ideas.

|11.8.05 @ 4:21PM|#

Who says everyone wants it?

I've heard it stated on this board over and over again - the claim that American "sprawl" suburbs represent "the will of the people" or some such.

Also, it's not an either-or thing. I grew up in a city with large lawns *and* plentiful public transit, with a garage on every house *and* within walking distance of shopping. When I say "the city" I don't necessarily mean "Manhattan". But the fact is, suburban regulation allows mainly just the large lawns and garages, without transit or being able to walk anywhere. My point is that such regulation, along with cheap gasoline, is as much if not more resposible for the shape of American suburbs than "consumer desire".

|11.8.05 @ 4:22PM|#

BP, New Urbanism is a crime prevention strategy. Streets that are full are safer to walk down that streets that are empty. Places that are easily seen are less attractive places for crime than streets that are isolated.

Apparently I have to dumb thid down even further for JDM. What I wrote was, "most of what I would like to see involves the elimination of regulation - the regulation that made the places you prefer possible. They would not exist if the builders weren't forced to build that way."

"The places you prefer," in this quote, refers to communities in which multifamily homes, mixed use buildings, and small house lots are completely absent. In a laissez faire land development system (a concept equivalent to the square root of -1, btw), these land uses would be combined with houses on large lots, on the block, street, and neighborhood scale. This mixing has been forbidden by the suburban sprawl snob zoning that is necessary to create the mono-culture of the large lot SFH subdivision. Please, let me know if any of these words are too big for you, of if grunts and hand signals would be better.

|11.8.05 @ 4:22PM|#

I never said anything about assuming people will riot. And usually when I post, it's from my pov, so I don't know what you're talking about.

I believe RC was mentioning something that I said above, see where I quote you and then wonder about your reasoning.

|11.8.05 @ 4:23PM|#

"You assume anyone who doesn't live in a tiny apartment in a crappy part of town isn't as good as you are."

Not to agree with joe or anything, but to think that this is his position based on his posts here you pretty much have to be hopped up on goofballs. No more goofballs for you, Fart!

|11.8.05 @ 4:23PM|#

I must be winning, because the "yur a commie fashit elitist dummy" posts are coming fast and furious.

MP|11.8.05 @ 4:28PM|#

No, MP, "shouldn't" implies judgement. It is completely silent on the means to achieve the desired end. "Shall" implies force.

commie

;)

|11.8.05 @ 4:29PM|#

But that's not the dynamism that propels culture.

Dynamism doesn't propel culture. Freedom does.

|11.8.05 @ 4:30PM|#

'"The places you prefer," in this quote, refers to communities in which multifamily homes, mixed use buildings, and small house lots are completely absent.'

I'll repeat myself, though I admit that I don't know how to change the words to make you understand:

This is shown to be a lie by the existence of large covenanted developments that look exactly as you describe. In many areas of the country the laws mandate minimum density, which causes these developments to be more dense than builders would otherwise have made them. It is, in fact, the Urban planners that try to force developers to include condos, apartments, etc. into these developments.

|11.8.05 @ 4:31PM|#

Not to agree with joe or anything, but to think that this is his position based on his posts here you pretty much have to be hopped up on goofballs. No more goofballs for you, Fart!

Speaking against sprawl around here *always* results in charges of elitism, sooner or later. It must be something in the water.

Dave W.|11.8.05 @ 4:38PM|#

Dave W: Have you tried playing loud country music?

Oh, much better, I have played lots of loud Farces Wanna Mo. That clears areas much better than (FU)TK ever could.

However, the broader arc of my story was that I did a lot of Joe-like things for a lot of Joe-like reasons. I have observed many of the advantages that he writes so well about. However, I now have this problem that threatens to offset all the advantages. A problem here that many of the other posters probably would have predicted when I moved into the old style neighborhood. Now I am looking to Joe for advice, but not hearing any.

|11.8.05 @ 4:40PM|#

No, MP, "shouldn't" implies judgement. It is completely silent on the means to achieve the desired end. "Shall" implies force.

I hate to be pedantic but 'Shall' and 'Should' are synonomous. Both imply an obligation or duty. Therefore, if 'Shall' or 'Shall not' imply force, so do 'Should' or 'Should not'.

I inferred coercive force from Joe's first post in the thread.

|11.8.05 @ 4:42PM|#

'Speaking against sprawl around here *always* results in charges of elitism, sooner or later. It must be something in the water.'

No, it's because "speaking against sprawl" is a prima facie elitist position, just as speaking against urban living would be.

joe's interest and the interest of New Urbanists is not in deregulating the market and allowing people to pay for the housing they choose, it is in using regulation to herd people into his preferred vision of development. He's on a libertarian site, so he uses absurdly transparent doublespeak to pretend he's in favor of less government control of housing.

|11.8.05 @ 4:44PM|#

No, JDM, the fact the SOME developments do not include other building does not prove that large lot SFHs are the only units demanded by the market, any more than the fact that SOME developments include only multifamily apartment buildings "proves" that they are the only units demanded by the market.

There are quite a few of both varieties being built right now.

Were you to have a better understanding of development, as well as a shred of honesty and an IQ over room temperature, you would be making a libertarian argument that the additional costs imposed on homebuilders is serving as a barrier to entry, pushing more of the market towards big developers, who favor large projects and build multiples of the same building style in order to achieve greater efficiency by working from a commodity model rather than a craftsman model.

But then, if wishes were...uh...something...

|11.8.05 @ 4:48PM|#

Dave W,

Agitate to end the drug war. I really don't see a planning solution to your problem. It's not really a planning problem.

Mac Daddy Hoon, no, they are not synonymns. "Shall" and "will" statements are mandatory, while "should" is not. Court cases have been won and lost over this distinction.

Hey, JDM, since you are such a good mindreader, which large mammal's ass am I comparing you to right...now?

|11.8.05 @ 4:57PM|#

additional costs imposed on homebuilders is serving as a barrier to entry

Apply the same logic to the higher taxation in urban areas. The point becomes moot.

|11.8.05 @ 4:58PM|#

"No, JDM, the fact the SOME developments do not include other building does not prove that large lot SFHs are the only units demanded by the market, any more than the fact that SOME developments include only multifamily apartment buildings "proves" that they are the only units demanded by the market."

Keep flailing joe, but what you kept saying up until now is that they wouldn't exist at all. Go back and read, if you can stand it.

"There are quite a few of both varieties being built right now."

I'll give myself special bonus points for essentially turning you around into arguing against yourself.

"Hey, JDM, since you are such a good mindreader"

Yes, I am a mindreader. I've used the mystical practice of reading 3 years of your posts here to determine what you are thinking.

"which large mammal's ass am I comparing you to right...now?"

Polar bear? I hope so. I like polar bears.

|11.8.05 @ 5:00PM|#

it's because "speaking against sprawl" is a prima facie elitist position, just as speaking against urban living would be.

Yet speaking against urban living seems to be par for the course around here, and I've never heard those who do it called "elitist".

Anyway, if "elitism" means "pointing out what's wrong with something" then it doesn't really mean anything much at all anymore, does it?

|11.8.05 @ 5:02PM|#

I'm all for deregulating the market and letting the chips fall where they may. Alowing more development and allowing people to form and join voluntary ROAs to govern aesthetic neighborhood concerns. How about you, joe?

|11.8.05 @ 5:02PM|#

Now, when I say that buying organic beef is better than buying factor farm beef, and people should buy free range organic, what I'm saying is twofold:

First, I'm saying that I think I'm better than people who buy beef from factory farms. Smarter, better looking, a better lay, taller, smell better - the whole lot.

Second, I'm saying that harsh criminal penalties should apply to anyone caught buying beef from a factory farm source. Ideally, castration, but in certain cases, I would support reducing the penalty to branding and "F" on the cheek with a hot iron.

There seems to be some confusion about my intent, and I just wanted to clear that up.

|11.8.05 @ 5:03PM|#

Yet speaking against urban living seems to be par for the course around here, and I've never heard those who do it called "elitist".

joe uses the term "snob zoning" all the time. "Snob" and "Elitist" are interchangable terms.

|11.8.05 @ 5:04PM|#

Do "room temperature IQ" comments trade on a 1-for-1 basis with "commie fascist elitist" comments?

|11.8.05 @ 5:05PM|#

"Keep flailing joe" = "Oh, I read that wrong, but I'm going to pretend not to understand how."

"I'll give myself special bonus points for essentially turning you around into arguing against yourself." Apparently, the points, like your argument, are based on playing dumb about such distinctions as "some vs all."

Polar bear asses have enough of a covering that you can't actually see how large the asshole is, so that can't possibly be right.

|11.8.05 @ 5:08PM|#

Russ D,

"Snob zoning" refers to zoning that has the purpose and intent of keeping people from moving into town based on their income. Yes, I'm going to call that elitist. No, such zoning is not the same as preferring one style of development over another based on its own merits.

|11.8.05 @ 5:10PM|#

Mac Daddy Hoon, no, they are not synonymns. "Shall" and "will" statements are mandatory, while "should" is not. Court cases have been won and lost over this distinction.

Perhaps, but is this a court of law, or a blog?

I just refer to the Webster's definitions, which are good enough for me.

Oh well, too trivial of a point for me to get worked up over.

|11.8.05 @ 5:11PM|#

"Anyway, if "elitism" means "pointing out what's wrong with something" then it doesn't really mean anything much at all anymore, does it?"

It depends on what you mean by "pointing out what's wrong with it." The fact is that New Urbanisms critique of suburbia is built on a thin tissue of judgments against those who live there. But rather than get into the entire can of worms right now, (which is impossible ot do on a blog comment section like this) I just shoot down the ones that show up in these threads as they show up.

Like the farcical notion that suburbanites are fleeing other races I picked at in the beginning of this thread. Perhaps true in the past, but equally true of those who walled themselves off in cities, which are by many measures more segregated than the suburbs. Which puts the lie to the idea that it is a valid criticism of suburbia.

Dave W.|11.8.05 @ 5:13PM|#

It's not really a planning problem.

How so? It is certainly a problem with a planning solution. There are plenty of planned communities where you can rest assured that you won't have your washing machine 1 meter away from a sleeping black crack dealer. The planning in these communities completely prevents the problem. If planning can solve this problem, why shouldn't it?

|11.8.05 @ 5:21PM|#

joe,

You are poisoning this discussion with all of your insults.

|11.8.05 @ 5:23PM|#

'Apparently, the points, like your argument, are based on playing dumb about such distinctions as "some vs all."'

Ok, last time. You are the one that said "all" and are now pretending it meant the same thing as "some."

MP|11.8.05 @ 5:26PM|#

You are poisoning this discussion with all of your insults.

HA! Triple dog whammy touche!

|11.8.05 @ 5:28PM|#

Oh, this isn't good at all. . . .

|11.8.05 @ 5:30PM|#

MP,

:)

|11.8.05 @ 5:35PM|#

"which large mammal's ass am I comparing you to right...now?"

I wanted to guess "Anna Nicole Smith.

|11.8.05 @ 5:37PM|#

"I wanted to guess "Anna Nicole Smith."

I was going to go with "your mom's," but absurdity won out over traditionalism.

|11.8.05 @ 5:39PM|#

The fact is that New Urbanisms critique of suburbia is built on a thin tissue of judgments against those who live there.

Well, *my* criticisms of suburbia don't put any judgement on the people who live there. My main judgement is that suburbia - by its very design - is a boring place to live, especially for teenagers, and that cheap government loans for new construction have made it attractive enough to create a drain of people, brains, and money from once vibrant cities.

|11.8.05 @ 5:47PM|#

Dynamism doesn't propel culture. Freedom does.

Ms. Postrel would like a word with you on line 2.

. . . when I say that buying organic beef is better than buying factor farm beef, and people should buy free range organic . . .

Taking into consideration your illumination of the distinction between "should" and "shall," etc., this statement still only makes sense if you're talking to someone who shares the concerns that lead you to buy organic beef in the first place. If they don't, then it's at best a wash, and at worst a point against organic beef that it's more expensive. It's not "better" in any objective sense, and particularly not if it doesn't align with the moral/ethical/economic/dietary concerns of the person in question.



All of them? No. Some of them? Yes.

On preview, what joe says about " . . . pushing more of the market towards big developers, who favor large projects and build multiples of the same building style in order to achieve greater efficiency . . . " is absolutely correct, at least here in Northern VA. I've seen about a dozen new projects go up within a couple of miles of me in the last year. All of them -- every single one -- look exactly like this. Housing demand here would support much higher-density units with more floors, but the zoning prevents it. Thus, everything is the same, and it's all more expensive.

|11.8.05 @ 5:52PM|#

"My main judgement is that suburbia - by its very design - is a boring place to live, especially for teenagers,"

You must be a Rush fan. They are a great place to live for families, in my and many people's estimation. Fortunatly, teenagers get to grow up, and go where they like. Especially suburban teens.

"and that cheap government loans for new construction have made it attractive enough"

That's true, but that's hardly the totality of government's interference in the market. There are innumerable interferences that drive up the cost of living in suburbs as well.

"to create a drain of people, brains, and money from once vibrant cities."

Eh, if they want to move elsewhere, it's hardly alright to stop them just because you want the cities to be "vibrant." Also, you don't seem to have gotten the memo. All of us suburbanites are all spoiled children who have room temperature IQs.

|11.8.05 @ 5:54PM|#

look exactly like this.

OK, I will be elitist and say those houses are ugly :-) and a cheap imitation of past design flourishes (the little round windows, the peaked roofs) meant to remind you of the city you just moved out of. Although they look dense enough to support walking to shopping, but probably don't.

Sacre Bleu~!|11.8.05 @ 5:55PM|#

Maybe we should call them "Freedom Fires?"

|11.8.05 @ 6:00PM|#

Rhywun, they've put in some shopping -- a Wegman's grocery store recently, this place -- but most people still friggin' drive to everything. Still, I know they could've gotten away with some higher-density residential if zoning permitted it. 5-7 story condos or apartments, at least, instead of solely this 3-level garden-style nonsense.

|11.8.05 @ 6:07PM|#

JDM,

Unlike joe, I try to refrain from personal attacks. Sorry :-)

You must be a Rush fan.

You bet.

They are a great place to live for families, in my and many people's estimation.

They are a great place for *parents*. However, kids who tire of their backyard and their neighbors are bored shitless there and want nothing more than to get their driver's license and get the hell out. I grew up in a city with big yards and garages, too; but it also came with plentiful transit and a lot more to do that the suburbs have dispensed with.

Eh, if they want to move elsewhere, it's hardly alright to stop them just because you want the cities to be "vibrant."

I never said I wanted to stop anyone from doing anything. But if the government paid everyone to jump off a cliff I would still say I think it was the wrong thing to do.

|11.8.05 @ 6:14PM|#

Phil, that's the kind of new development New Urbanists love...

|11.8.05 @ 6:15PM|#

Phil,

Well, northern Virginia is quite different from what I'm used to. When I say I don't like the suburbs, I'm talking about mile upon mile of nothing but detached ranch houses, with the occasional megamall surrounded by an ocean of parking, � la Buffalo and Rochester upstate. This is where about 1/2 the population of those cities departed for, leaving those cities reeling in poverty and decay. I left at the earliest opportunity.

|11.8.05 @ 6:18PM|#

Rhywun,

I like mega-malls. :)

|11.8.05 @ 6:20PM|#

Hakluyt,

I only like megamalls when they appear in Grade-Z horror movies.

|11.8.05 @ 6:20PM|#

Rhywun,

And so do a lot of other people too.

|11.8.05 @ 6:31PM|#

While I'm not fond of cookie cutter developments, to imply those who live there are racist or have ruined cities--which is the biggest tangental discussion I see currently--is patently abusrd. It is also quite intolerant to sling mud at Suburbanites. Some people do well in the cities, some do not. Some live in places with a little flavor of it all.

The point is, each person is going to have a point of view that is motivated primarily by their personal tastes and where they are coming from.

I've lived in gang infested apartments and I've lived in cookie cutter developments. I adapted to some degree in each case, but that is because I moved so much I had grown up forced to adapt to different environments. I do know which suited me and which didn't.

Look, the whole vinyl siding-minivan-latte housewife thing doesn't make a lot of sense to me. But living in NY city doesn't either. I see the cool aspects of each, but neither are my thing. So why on earth would I insinuate that EVERYONE should think and feel as I do?

Our preferences come from our own human exeperience.

And to the original post I say this: If someone wants a garage, even if it's so they can store KKK signage, it's really nobody's business, is it? I am perplexed at the increasing moralizing, that "my preference is better and more meaningful than yours". Says who?

I'm not just a libertarian, I'm an individualist. I don't care what motivates you, provided that you aren't materially impacting someone else's rights. What is disturbing is how many people feel they have some sort of moral authority to tell people how to live or judge their motives and choices.

|11.8.05 @ 6:40PM|#

What is disturbing is how many people feel they have some sort of moral authority to tell people how to live or judge their motives and choices.

Take that away and what would libertarians have left to talk about? ; )

|11.8.05 @ 6:49PM|#

"I never said I wanted to stop anyone from doing anything. But if the government paid everyone to jump off a cliff I would still say I think it was the wrong thing to do."

Sure, my point is just that the loss of vibrance in the cities is not an argument that should have standing alongside the question of who's subsidizing who. Those who argue that the suburbs are signifigantly subsidized on net are generally one sided in their arguments. Nationally, transit, for example, is subsidized, while travel on highways is not.

http://www.reason.org/commentaries/balaker_20050717.shtml

People have shown a willingness to move to the suburbs in spite of the fact that the cost of housing in them has risen faster than the cost of housing in urban areas. This has to reflect to one degree or another a willingness to pay the costs of living in them.

|11.8.05 @ 7:53PM|#

Mac Daddy Hoon,

You really should buy your mother something nice for her birthday.

UNDER PENALTY OF PUBLIC BEHEADING!

Really, if it was unclear, I hope I've cleared it up.

|11.8.05 @ 7:57PM|#

"This has to reflect to one degree or another a willingness to pay the costs of living in them."

Since the cost of housing in the suburbs is still cheaper than in urban areas (even if they are getting closer to each other), it seems a bit strange to consider that an added cost of living there.

|11.8.05 @ 7:57PM|#

"The fact is that New Urbanisms critique of suburbia is built on a thin tissue of judgments against those who live there."

The people buying homes in New Urbanist developments are quite similar to people who buy new homes in suburbia, demographically. As a matter of fact, most of people buying into these developments (most of which are suburbs) are moving there from other suburbs.

But I can see how "this style of development causes more pollution and eats up more land" come can across as a personal insult. Oh, no, wait. No, I can't.

|11.8.05 @ 8:04PM|#

I suppose the people who move into New Urbanist suburbs are motivated by self hatred. Or, perhaps, by hatred of their neighbors.

But then, since their new neighbors are likely to be pretty much the same as their old neighbors, they're going to hate them, too. Which makes it very odd that they'd choose to move into neighborhoods in which they're going to be seeing a lot more of their neighbors.

I'll tell you, the sheer lack of logic here is enough to make you think that "You think you're better'n me" isn't enough to explain why people oppose building neighborhoods than those produced by the heavy handed zoning of the late 20th century.

|11.8.05 @ 8:08PM|#

"But I can see how "this style of development causes more pollution and eats up more land" come can across as a personal insult. Oh, no, wait. No, I can't."

Right, that's the extent of it.

Does this sound familiar:

"It is refreshing to see an anti-urbanist so openly admit that his design preferences stem from the desire to protect himself from rampaging hordes of poor people."

P.S. It's you.

|11.8.05 @ 8:09PM|#

Rhwyun,

"When I say I don't like the suburbs, I'm talking about mile upon mile of nothing but detached ranch houses, with the occasional megamall surrounded by an ocean of parking..."

A better term here would be "sprawl," rather than "suburbs." There are many other variety of suburbs (most New Urbanist developments are suburbs, after all), and there are many core cities (such as Phoenix) that fit this description.

|11.8.05 @ 8:12PM|#

Someone else, "While I'm not fond of cookie cutter developments, to imply those who live there are racist or have ruined cities--which is the biggest tangental discussion I see currently--is patently abusrd. It is also quite intolerant to sling mud at Suburbanites. Some people do well in the cities, some do not. Some live in places with a little flavor of it all."

Yes, quite so. This thread began with my observation that people who choose isolationist designs for bigoted reasons are wrong to do so. I later noted that there are many perfectly valid reasons for choosing to live in a sprawly suburb.

Then, for some reason, people began making the predictable arguments "You think racism is the only reason people move to suburbs" and "You think you're better'n me."

|11.8.05 @ 8:13PM|#

"Since the cost of housing in the suburbs is still cheaper than in urban areas (even if they are getting closer to each other), it seems a bit strange to consider that an added cost of living there."

My point is that as the prices continue to climb relative to urban areas, people continue to move to them, away from urban areas. So it's not true as they've become relatively more expensive, that people stop choosing them. That refutes the idea that people move to them based on a nominal subsidy over urban areas. At least as far as the argument that they wouldn't substantially exist as they do now.

|11.8.05 @ 8:16PM|#

JDM,

'"It is refreshing to see an anti-urbanist so openly admit that his design preferences stem from the desire to protect himself from rampaging hordes of poor people."'

'P.S. It's you.'

Ah, I get it. You don't know the difference between "an urbanist" and "everybody who buys a home in a suburb."

Seriously, if this does not describe your motivations, why assume that I was talking about you? Guilty conscience?

|11.8.05 @ 8:18PM|#

"My point is that as the prices continue to climb relative to urban areas, people continue to move to them, away from urban areas."

Imagine that, when there are widespread regulations forbidding the construction of urban-style housing and requiring sprawl patterns, more people buy suburban homes than urban ones. Shocking, really.

|11.8.05 @ 8:20PM|#

"that's the kind of new development New Urbanists love."

And, like most other kinds of new developments that New Urbanists love, it is wildly successful, and the homes there are near the top of the regional housing market, despite having lower land costs per unit.

Oh, if only I had taking some freshman economics, I could draw a conclusion about what this means for demand!

|11.8.05 @ 8:24PM|#

Phil,

On "people still drive to everything" - old habits are hard to break. If the residents of that community are like those of other New Urbanist places, they moved there from auto-dependent suburbs. New Urbanism is still quite new.

I live in an fashioned type of suburban neighborhood - a streetcar suburb, actually - near the edge of an old city - the kind of place that New Urbanist designers copy and tweak. Many of the residents come from the city itself, and there are people walking all over the place.

|11.8.05 @ 9:21PM|#

"Seriously, if this does not describe your motivations, why assume that I was talking about you? Guilty conscience?"

So are you renouncing all the bigotted remarks you've made about suburbanites over the years as support for your religion, or simply denying you've made any? If so, it's a pretty recent development. It was about 2 weeks ago that you were expounding on the selfish evil of anyone with a larger yard than the one you chose.

"Imagine that, when there are widespread regulations forbidding the construction of urban-style housing and requiring sprawl patterns, more people buy suburban homes than urban ones. Shocking, really."

I know there are 2 parts to this, but please, try to follow along. The supposed regulatory advantage of the suburbs results in a price premium for urban dwellings, or so goes your argument. This results in a disproportionate number of people moving to the suburbs. You would have to expect that as that premium shrinks, whatever the cause of the shrinking, fewer people would choose the suburbs. The premium has shrunk (whatever it's source was,) for many reasons, and yet people still choose suburbs in large numbers. This refutes the argument that they developed in the first place soley, or chiefly as a result of a price premium that I'd argue is not signifigant anyway, but save that for another day.

Not that I expect you to admit that. But it's a better clarification for Ben of my argument the sketch I made before.

Now please, joe, post a raft of non-sequitous posts that ignore as much of what I've said as possible. You'll feel better, I guess.

|11.8.05 @ 9:45PM|#

I'm sorry, but I have to point out that this thread is fucking hilarious...

|11.8.05 @ 9:50PM|#

"The premium has shrunk (whatever it's source was,) for many reasons, and yet people still choose suburbs in large numbers....But it's a better clarification for Ben of my argument the sketch I made before."

But it's still missing a step to make your argument valid. There's a difference between "people still choose suburbs in large numbers" and "people still choose suburbs in _the same_ large numbers." For this to refute in any meaningful way the price premium argument, you need to have information on the absolute difference in price, the change in that difference over some time period, the absolute numbers of people moving to the suburbs, and the change in those numbers (if any) over the same time period. Estimates of those numbers are probably around somewhere on the inter-thingie.

|11.8.05 @ 9:56PM|#

Oh, if only I had taking some freshman economics, I could draw a conclusion about what this means for demand!

Could it mean that in a low interest rate environment--where anything recently built has sold for top dollar--a new urbanist project--just like any other--will sell amidst monster demand?

|11.8.05 @ 10:06PM|#

On "people still drive to everything" - old habits are hard to break.

Well, there's that, plus the fact that in NoVa, everyone is always looking for the new places to go, thanks to Yogi Berra syndrome ("Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded"), so you drop a Wegman's in the midst of an area that was only previously served by a dozen other grocery chains, and everybody wants to drive from all over the county to shop there.

I live in an fashioned type of suburban neighborhood - a streetcar suburb, actually - near the edge of an old city - the kind of place that New Urbanist designers copy and tweak. Many of the residents come from the city itself, and there are people walking all over the place.

That's what I used to live in in Cleveland, and what I intend to move back to, eventually. Both in the W. 40s, then further out in Lakewood; although the former is now stuck in that netherland between "overrun by crackheads" and "fully gentrified."

|11.8.05 @ 10:30PM|#

My parents are suburbanites, JDM. I grew up in the suburbs. I just took a job in a suburb, the one that my sister lives in. You've literally been reading bigoted remarks about the people who live in suburbs into my comments about land use patterns and policies FOR YEARS? That's really sad.

Ken,

"Will sell" is one thing. "Will sell near the top of the market, despite lower production costs, consistently, across numerous regions" (the situation of most New Urbanist developments) is quite another. New Urbanist neighborhoods aren't just managing to find buyers - they are a roaring success, and are beginning to change the way the larger real estate market works.

|11.8.05 @ 11:17PM|#

I do commercial first and foremost, but we recently got a residential project approved with what I understand to be new urbanist elements.

If you're adding big setbacks for trails, walkways, etc., density isn't improving. ...not compared to traditional tract homes in this area. And when I say it's not improving, I mean I'm not gettin' more houses on the same amount of land. ...and having more parking than anyone really needs doesn't improve density either. ...and having fewer houses per acre doesn't keep the price of new homes down.

...It's hard to imagine new requirements lowering costs. I think it's unlikely that planners and others have their fingers on the pulse of homebuyers more so than developers and builders whose capital is at risk. Maybe new urbanism, as it's applied out here, makes fewer people happier--are you sure that's a good thing?

I know of a town in the Southwest with a population of around 150,000. ...Within that radius, right now, they have more than 30,000 units in various stages of construction. They can't build 'em fast enough 'cause they're sellin' like hotcakes. It wouldn't matter what you built, people want to buy. ...and that's because there's a huge gap between supply and the number of units demanded, especially with financing as it is and the job market as it is.

I know the product out here is much different than what you see in the Northeast. I don't think anyone ever built the kinds of tract homes out here that I've seen back there. I don't remember seeing a project out here with the kinds of yards that were typical back east. I'm not sure new urbanism is much of an improvement out here in that way. ...and the mass transit system in Southern California is either non-existent or inefficient.

|11.8.05 @ 11:36PM|#

JDM,

Remember, joe never insults, flames, etc. anyone. :)

|11.8.05 @ 11:47PM|#

JDM,

New Urbanism is rooted in a bunch of ahistorical nostalgia for a bygone era. Anyway, despite joe's claims about its popularity, the new urbanist model still represents a very tiny portion of the housing market and new housing development. This is partly because of the top-down centralized process involved in new urbanism; these people, though they deny it, are still in love with how Brasilia came about. That city was a flop and new urbanism will be a flop for the very same reasons.

Indeed, I'd bet that despite all of joe's rhetoric , that most of the new urbanist communities out there are probably very homogenous and also far above the ability of the average home buyer to get into.

|11.9.05 @ 12:42AM|#

"When I say I don't like the suburbs, I'm talking about mile upon mile of nothing but detached ranch houses, with the occasional megamall surrounded by an ocean of parking..."

, and there are many core cities (such as Phoenix) that fit this description.

There's a bizarre area here in San Diego, Mission Valley. Passed over originally because it's a river valley, it now forms what to me is an unattractive hellhole. In between areas developed earlier in the century is a community right out of 70s and 80s suburbia, and the mall/shopping center traffic patterns are so confusing I sometimes end up in a traffic version of Charlie on the MTA

And what's up with so many comments on a Reason Express posting? These things usually get something like 4 posts.

Dave W.|11.9.05 @ 5:21AM|#

So it is 5.16 am and somebody has been rapping at my neighbor's basement door for 16 minutes now, quietly, but persistently. Maybe it is some sort of protest against the drug laws and I should go join whoever it is in a show of solidarity.

Dave W.|11.9.05 @ 5:34AM|#

There's a bizarre area here in San Diego, Mission Valley

The traffic takes so loooooong -- I remember a couple times having to run from my car to the Fashion Valley washroom, thinking my bladder would burst. I remember when they shot that Chinese restaurant guy. I remember when the Best Buy opened. that's about when I left.

|11.9.05 @ 9:50AM|#

joe,

I'm not on your case about the snob/elitist thing.

What I've always been on your case about is your deliberate misuse of "merit" when all your kvetching is about personal taste, not merit. You aren't the only one who tries to find some economic/social justification in one's own personal taste, but on this blog you are the most in denial that you do it.

|11.9.05 @ 10:04AM|#

Chinese restaurant guy?

Can't yet find a Google image of Mission Valley for others' edification that does justice to its condo-mall-hotel-stadium hell. Suffice it to say that winter floods -- one underpass floods every winter (rainy season) and now there's a giant street-destroying sinkhole from six near-straight months of rain last year -- make it a stupid location for anything.

|11.9.05 @ 10:18AM|#

Russ D.,

Just wait until he starts describing urban planners as the ubermensch. :)

Dave W.|11.9.05 @ 10:41AM|#

Yeah, some guy who owned a chinese restaurant was shot to death when he went out to his car. I am not sure which restaurant it was or if it is still around.

Dave W.|11.9.05 @ 10:44AM|#

The Chinese restaurant owner who got shot when he went to his car. Couldn't find story in SignOnSanDiego archives, probably pre-Jan-1-2000.

Doesn't one of those underpasses have a guy that plays a drum kit in it, right by the side of the road, or did they shut that down?

|11.9.05 @ 10:48AM|#

Russ D, it is a fact, not an opinion, that building at greater density allows for the provision of housing at lower cost, and with less loss of open space.

It is a fact, not an opinion, that people living in urban or traditional neighborhoods consume less fossil fuels, and cause smaller amounts of pollution to be emitted, than people living in auto-dependent suburbs.

It is a fact, not an opinion, that some types of community designs result in a higher number of spontaneous encounters between neighbors than others.

It is a fact, not an opinion, that large lot SFH-only zoning reduces the availability of less costly housing options below those that would be produced in the absence of such regulations. It is also a fact that dividing communities into single- and multi-family districts results in economic segregation.

Now, if you are accusing me of valuing biodiversity, access to natural areas, air and water quality, sense of community, adequate housing for low income families, and socialization among people in different economic strata, I plead guilty.

|11.9.05 @ 1:53PM|#

Oh my God, I forgot about drummer guy! Just off Friars Rd, right? (At Mission Center Rd? Stadium Way?) I don't go down to the maul much anymore, but now that I think about it, I don't think I've seen him in a coupla years at least.

Dave W.|11.9.05 @ 2:24PM|#

My grandmother in law always talks about how that whole area Mission Valley area used to be pastures with cows when she was building them planes for the big war.

|11.9.05 @ 11:52PM|#

Very tardy, but I found an answer re drum guy(s).

|11.10.05 @ 11:31AM|#

it is a fact, not an opinion, that building at greater density allows for the provision of housing at lower cost, and with less loss of open space.

That only accounts for the initial cost of the house. Conveniently leaving out all the other costs of "living" as well as taxation.

It is a fact, not an opinion, that people living in urban or traditional neighborhoods consume less fossil fuels, and cause smaller amounts of pollution to be emitted, than people living in auto-dependent suburbs.

Conveniently leaving out things like noise pollution and trash.

It is a fact, not an opinion, that some types of community designs result in a higher number of spontaneous encounters between neighbors than others.

Sometimes that's a benefit, sometimes that's a cost.

It is a fact, not an opinion, that large lot SFH-only zoning reduces the availability of less costly housing options below those that would be produced in the absence of such regulations. It is also a fact that dividing communities into single- and multi-family districts results in economic segregation.

If your dividing into single and multi-fmaily districts, then there isn't a reduced availability. You're refuting your own fact. And again, the economic segregation is either a cost or a benefit, depending on your opinion.

Now, if you are accusing me of valuing biodiversity, access to natural areas, air and water quality, sense of community, adequate housing for low income families, and socialization among people in different economic strata, I plead guilty.

You are free to buy or rent property in whatever community you enjoy the most, joe. The fact of the matter is that you and I live in very similar neighborhoods. I just wish you'd stop trying to justify your choice as "better" and other people's choices as "worse". It's a very self-centered thing to do.