The enduring question of embracing high principles vs. accepting current practices, plus the problem of automobile-centric intersections, part infinity
Thanks Russell, and my guess is we are in heated agreement. Two things - first, I think my comments now seem to have been taken not as I intended by more than one person. So that's something I need to work on and clarify. What I had in my had in making those remarks had more to do with our older urban communities (pre-WWII), and how even those are dominated primarily by single-family detached homes. And that's true virtually all over America. The idea that these can all just magically transform into ideal European villages is just silly. I think it would be wise for more folks in our world to learn to love and appreciate our old urbanism for what it is, and embrace its gradual transformation into something that won't be France or Italy. But, it could still be truly wonderful.
Second I'm all for transforming your stroad and the intersection. I've had in my mind for quite some time a short series on what I think a practical approach to sprawl repair can look like, and can actually get done at scale. Again I think most of our fellow urbanists have fantastical ideas about sprawl repair that just aren't helpful. They might look great on a rendering, but there's zero chance it happens. As a born and bred Midwesterner, I just can't let myself promise things to people that have no chance of coming to fruition. It's a character flaw, but there it is. Cheers -
Thanks for the comments, Kevin; it's much appreciated. And yes, I did misunderstand your initial point in the passage that I quoted. I don't know if it's necessarily a failure of communication on your part, because now that you emphasize it I can understand (and agree) with your point clearly: 19th-century, and most of the pre-WWII 20th-century, urban housing in America really IS different from European urban housing, and learning to appreciate that, and using that as the basis for idealistic proposed reforms in our built environment makes a lot more sense than using, say Copenhagen. I suppose the hang-up was your line "individual lots and often into single family detached houses"; that immediately makes me think of post-WWII suburbia, but of course that's not the only model of single-family housing in American history, and I need to remember that. Looking at it that way also addresses my insistence that the revealed preferences of lots of Americans actually DOESN'T seem to suggest a love for post-WWII suburbia; whether that polling and the other data I was thinking of holds up are not is besides the point, because I now presume you're actually talking about, for example, how lots of Americas really like the kind of early, inner-ring suburban neighborhoods from the 1930s-1950s that have maintained their structural form over the decades; that I don't deny at all, because I can (almost) see the evidence of that from my kitchen window.
As for promising things that have no chance of coming to fruition, and the philosophical argument over idealistic planning in general, well, between being trained as a political theorist, being a perpetually frustrated democratic socialist, and maybe also because I'm a transplanted Kansan, I think there's an important place for hopelessly radical, utopian thinking. (And because I'm shameless, see here: https://inmedias.blogspot.com/2022/03/localism-intentionality-and-utopia.html.) Though whether that is a politically HELPFUL approach is another, and much tougher, question entirely.
Thanks Russell, and my guess is we are in heated agreement. Two things - first, I think my comments now seem to have been taken not as I intended by more than one person. So that's something I need to work on and clarify. What I had in my had in making those remarks had more to do with our older urban communities (pre-WWII), and how even those are dominated primarily by single-family detached homes. And that's true virtually all over America. The idea that these can all just magically transform into ideal European villages is just silly. I think it would be wise for more folks in our world to learn to love and appreciate our old urbanism for what it is, and embrace its gradual transformation into something that won't be France or Italy. But, it could still be truly wonderful.
Second I'm all for transforming your stroad and the intersection. I've had in my mind for quite some time a short series on what I think a practical approach to sprawl repair can look like, and can actually get done at scale. Again I think most of our fellow urbanists have fantastical ideas about sprawl repair that just aren't helpful. They might look great on a rendering, but there's zero chance it happens. As a born and bred Midwesterner, I just can't let myself promise things to people that have no chance of coming to fruition. It's a character flaw, but there it is. Cheers -
Thanks for the comments, Kevin; it's much appreciated. And yes, I did misunderstand your initial point in the passage that I quoted. I don't know if it's necessarily a failure of communication on your part, because now that you emphasize it I can understand (and agree) with your point clearly: 19th-century, and most of the pre-WWII 20th-century, urban housing in America really IS different from European urban housing, and learning to appreciate that, and using that as the basis for idealistic proposed reforms in our built environment makes a lot more sense than using, say Copenhagen. I suppose the hang-up was your line "individual lots and often into single family detached houses"; that immediately makes me think of post-WWII suburbia, but of course that's not the only model of single-family housing in American history, and I need to remember that. Looking at it that way also addresses my insistence that the revealed preferences of lots of Americans actually DOESN'T seem to suggest a love for post-WWII suburbia; whether that polling and the other data I was thinking of holds up are not is besides the point, because I now presume you're actually talking about, for example, how lots of Americas really like the kind of early, inner-ring suburban neighborhoods from the 1930s-1950s that have maintained their structural form over the decades; that I don't deny at all, because I can (almost) see the evidence of that from my kitchen window.
As for promising things that have no chance of coming to fruition, and the philosophical argument over idealistic planning in general, well, between being trained as a political theorist, being a perpetually frustrated democratic socialist, and maybe also because I'm a transplanted Kansan, I think there's an important place for hopelessly radical, utopian thinking. (And because I'm shameless, see here: https://inmedias.blogspot.com/2022/03/localism-intentionality-and-utopia.html.) Though whether that is a politically HELPFUL approach is another, and much tougher, question entirely.