One of the things that make the Antiplanner see red is whenever anyone talks about the need for government to help create a “sense of community.” John Gardner, of Common Cause, thinks of government “as a critical partner in” restoring a sense of community, and particularly would like to see more federal involvement.
As noted here last week, David Brooks thinks the infrastructure stimulus bill can build a sense of community by helping to “create suburban town squares.” Architect/planners like Andres Duany think their designs create a sense of community for the people who live in them.
Sense of community is hard to measure, which makes it ideal for urban planners who love to muck things up without being responsible for the results. Precisely because it is so difficult to measure, government should stay out of any efforts to create it.
The first important point to understand about community is that it is not now and probably never has been geographically based. Back in the 1950s, Herbert Gans spent a year living in Boston’s West End, a dense, mixed-use neighborhood that Jane Jacobs would predict had a high sense of community, and another year living in Levittown, New Jersey, a suburban neighborhood that Jacobs might predict would have a low sense of community. In fact, Gans found the same sense of community in both places, but specifically noted that people in Boston’s West End identified with their ethnic or religious groups more than with their physical neighborhood.
You do not want to endanger viagra viagra online your health, hence the need to stop using it. The fascinating trivia encompassing Kamagra is it was at first prepared to enhance circulatory system purchase viagra http://www.slovak-republic.org/visa-embassies/comment-page-1/ stream into the heart and mitigate cardiovascular issues. He might likewise recommend some better different options for unsafe solutions and now and then alluding you to clinical clinician or relationship advisor. viagra wholesale price These are the reason buy female viagra for the medicine to their patients. Nor does sense of community have anything to do with town centers. We view town centers as places to shop, but if they don’t have the goods to satisfy our needs or desires, we will go somewhere else without a pang of guilt that we might feel if we actually felt any sense of community with those centers. There is also no evidence that any particular architectural design, such as pedestrian-friendly streets, improves a sense of community, though it may be attractive for a time as a novel type of shopping experience.
Instead of being geographically or architecturally based, we form a sense of community with those who share some of our likes and dislikes. Having moved into a new neighborhood about a year ago, the Antiplanner has discovered a strong sense of community here, but it is among people who own dogs. Most of the people who do not own dogs do not participate in the community activities shared by those who do own dogs — presumably, the non-dog-owners have their own little communities.
The sense of community that comes from shared interests extends well beyond any political boundaries such as city, state, or even nation. The lump in my throat that I feel when I watch the Where the Hell is Matt? video must be due to some sense of community, but this sense has absolutely no geographic boundaries.
While it is fine to enjoy your sense of community if you have one, it isn’t clear to me that it is an essential part of daily life. It is clear that, in order to be able to function in society, people need to empathize with others — those who cannot end up being cruel and inhumane. But it is not clear that a sense of community is a necessary part of that empathy.
In fact, emphasizing community carries with it a real danger that people will end up placing community over individuals. This attitude has led to some of the worst evils in history. This makes me all the more interested in keeping government out of any sense of community we may have.
Thanks to the automobile, airplane, telephone, and Internet, we can share our sense of community with people all over the world. If we can’t take the initiative ourselves, people like Matt Harding can do it for us. We don’t need government to give us a sense of community, and we are better off if it doesn’t try.
Just for the closet socialists lurking here is the death toll of some previous grand experiments in telling others how they should live in various Perfectly Planned Paradises:
* 20 million in the Soviet Union
* 65 million in the People’s Republic of China
* 1 million in Vietnam
* 2 million in North Korea
* 2 million in Cambodia
* 1 million in the Communist states of Eastern Europe
* 150,000 in Latin America
* 1.7 million in Africa
* 1.5 million in Afghanistan
* 10,000 deaths “resulting from actions of the international communist movement and communist parties not in power.”(p. 4)
Of course the above does not include the deaths from that other planner’s paradise, WWII Germany. See http://www.rmastudies.org.nz/documents/UrbanRomanticsUS.pdf for a hint of this.
(How long will it be before some nitwit replies with some imaginary number of people killed by freedom?)
Thanks
JK
How long will it be before some nitwit replies with some imaginary number of people killed by freedom?
Let’s see: do Native Americans count as real people, or were they imaginary?
I think John Gardner talking more about some thing in a civic sense and I’m not talking a about the Honda product.
ROT:Instead of being geographically or architecturally based, we form a sense of community with those who share some of our likes and dislikes. Having moved into a new neighborhood about a year ago, the Antiplanner has discovered a strong sense of community here, but it is among people who own dogs. Most of the people who do not own dogs do not participate in the community activities shared by those who do own dogs  presumably, the non-dog-owners have their own little communities.
THWM: Though in an over all civic sense there has to be a mutual understanding or a good dialogue between dog owners and non dog owners.
I don’t think you would like non dog owners pushing for a dog ban policy, because a few people didn’t pick up after their pets.
Oh my god! I didn’t know England, France and Canada killed so many millions of people…
Oh wait. They didn’t. My bad.
I like the sense of community that my car & truck brings me and my family.
When my kids play on sport team we can go to where others with the same interests are.
During the Christmas holiday my family was brought together with our suv’s, cars and trucks.
I have many interests and hobbies that my neighbors don’t have. But I can get together with hundreds of people that have the same interests as me, for a afternoon or weekend of a hobby, shopping or activities.
Then when I come home me and my neighbors have a sense of community in a neighborhood that we live in, with different interests.
Then there is the sense of community I feel, when I go to the Preserving the American Dream Conference. This year in Seattle. I often fly to these events, but I may drive this time.
My vote is for the automobile for my sense of community
Government will stifle a sense of community. Rather than work out problems or seek community solutions people will turn to government since they have the power of force. Have a dispute with your neighbor? Call code enforcement or the police instead of talking over the back fence.
If anything has led to the decline of social interaction it is the rise of government power and intervention.
While we’re on the subject of difficult-to-define concepts:
I’ve seen antiplanners around here argue that density causes congestion.
Yet, I don’t recall seeing antiplanners provide a definition of congestion.
How do antiplanners define congestion?
In Oregon the department of transportation rates the roads
A: Free flowing
B: A little less
C: Able to travel the speed limit the majority of the time
D: Unable to travel the speed limit often
F: Gridlock or smart growth or a dense area
This is off my head but pretty close except I added Smart Growth or a dense area.
ODOT explains that:
“‘”Level of Service” is a term used to describe the quality of traffic flow. Levels of service A to C are considered good; Urban streets and signalized intersections are typically designed for level of service D. Level of service E is considered to be the limits of acceptable delay. F is considered unacceptable by most drivers.’
Pictorial definition.
No word on the definitions used for Eminent Domain cases to widen roads to keep LOS A.
DS
Your right O’Toole… Putting disney-like town centers in the already faux finish suburbs isn’t going to create any sense of community. Many of the people that live in these areas like not having the “sense of community.” But your (and Karlock’s) fear of Government in “planning a sense of community” is laughable to me. Karlock states “How long will it be before some nitwit replies with some imaginary number of people killed by freedom?” If you look at “freedom” as a word that symbolizes something greater (much like capitalism, communism etc.) you can see that from some perspectives “freedom” and the protection of the “individual” over the “community” has committed the same atrocities the O’Toole and Karlock accuse on communist (I’m not saying these acts were not committed). My point is that while the ap’s so quickly acknowledge the dark side of communal thinking the haven’t awoken to the fact that there benefiting from the dark side of individualistic thinking. I’ll leave you with a quote from Major General Smedley Butler (1933) who was one of the most (if not the most) decorated officers in U.S military history.
“There isn’t a trick in the Racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its ‘finger-men’ to point out its enemies, its ‘muscle-men’ to destroy its enemies, its ‘brain-men’ to plan war preparations and a ‘Big Boss’ Super-Nationalistic Capitalism. It may seem odd to me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this countries agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. I helped make Honduras ‘right’ for American fruit companies in 1903. I helped make Mexico especially Tampico, safe for American oil interest in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boy to collect revenues in. I helped the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interest in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested. During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.â€Â
So that nitwit, Karlock, happens be an American hero.
I’m glad JK goes from “sense of community” to Gulags and the Gestapo.
Does anyone realize that many of the “town centers” that the anti-planner crowd decries were designed by many of our founding fathers? Alexandria was highly influenced from George Washington, Thomas Jefferson helped design/plan te University of Virginia.
There are many more and these people utilized principles that helped develop a sense of community through public gathering spaces. Duany simply takes the great things about tradition towns developed by those “radical” early Americans and applies them to new developments.
ws, we have an implicit “Immediate Godwin’s Law” for certain commenters on this site. That is, it is expected, thus ignored so the thread can go on.
The fringe minority that doesn’t like people and is content to inflate their BMIs and ecological footprints by auto doesn’t define built environment design.
Don’t worry: we are returning to good design such as what was typically found prior to WWII.
DS
Antiplanner wrote:
“Instead of being geographically or architecturally based, we form a sense of community with those who share some of our likes and dislikes. Having moved into a new neighborhood about a year ago, the Antiplanner has discovered a strong sense of community here, but it is among people who own dogs. Most of the people who do not own dogs do not participate in the community activities shared by those who do own dogs  presumably, the non-dog-owners have their own little communities.”
Communities are geographically based. It’s alright people being with others of like mind, and indulging in a peaceful activity with them – the problem comes when someone decides to trash your car or house at 2 a.m. Then you run out to confront them, and get shot or stabbed for your pains, whilst your neighbours watch from behind their net curtains – after all, what are you to them? Why should they risk their life for a complete stranger?
That’s why communities are so important. They, not the police, are the front line against crime. It is a paradox of our age that the voters keep bullying the politicians about crime – yet the voters have the answer in their own hands.
Antiplanner also made an aside to Wikipedia’s entry on Pol Pot.
Pol Pot was a product of French and US imperialism in South-East Asia.
Cambodia and Vietnam used to be part of French IndoChina. Vietnam, a WW 2 ally of the USA, rebelled against French rule, and appealed to the USA (land of the free, home of the brave, etc.) for assistance. The USA cynically tried to stop the people of Vietnam from gaining their freedom in two brutal wars. The second war de-stabilised Cambodia and Laos, and led to a Vietnam which was, and is, substantially less free and democratic than it should be.
Pol Pot was a university educated man. He bought into the French scientific theory on the rise and fall of ancient Cambodia – that better irrigation produced a rise in population, an increase in economic and millitary power, and hence domination of the neighbouring countries. He honestly tried to make it work, and it was only later that this theory was dismissed – that in fact the rise of ancient Cambodia was due to a temporary weakness in their neighbours. In the process, the Killing Fields were created. Naturally, when one uncritically possesses the ‘truth’, then anyone who opposes or critises the ‘truth’ is a traitor.
Vietnam, provoked by a reckless red khmer attack on the Vietnamese white khmers, invaded Cambodia, and would have destroyed the Khmer Rouge but for the intervention by the USA and the UK in their support for Pol Pot.
I’m not sure that Pol Pot is a good example of how communities kill people – it looks more like an example of how the UK and USA have in the past killed millions of people in the name of civilisation.
“ws, we have an implicit “Immediate Godwin’s Law†for certain commenters on this site. That is, it is expected, thus ignored so the thread can go on.”
Sorry, I’m new here. I simply cannot let abhorrent lies go through.
We have people one here arguing against planning when almost every early American city was planned and had codes dictating their design.
Washington DC (our Nation’s capital for those who aren’t aware) was designed and planned by Pierre Charles L’Enfant (a Frenchie) per George Washington’s appointment (George Washington was our first president).
Good catch Francis:
In fact, emphasizing community carries with it a real danger that people will end up placing community over individuals. This attitude has led to some of the worst evils in history.
I didn’t read the whole post, and missed that blatant bullsh*t.
Homo sapiens is a social animal and every single society in history, both ancient and modern, places the importance of the survival of the community over the survival of the individual. This is utterly basic, as assemblages of populations are more apt to survive than individuals.
Marginal fringe fantasies, maladjusted individuals and unworkable ideologies think otherwise.
And I agree with Francis wrt Communities are geographically based. They are, with the evolving exception of on-line communities. What Randal describes is a sub-culture, misconstruing due to ignorance, hasty generalization, or selection bias.
DS
ws,
there are certain commenters here (that you have identified) that will blow Randal’s bandwidth and server storage if replied to, via relentless commenting. The larger discussion gets lost in the resultant turgid, fulminating spam.
Caveat respondor.
DS
Randal has identified another common “wrong way round” fallacy, common to central planners.
Just as “our behaviour determines our location” rather than the central planners’ belief that “our location determines our behaviour” so too, “communities create places” while central planners believe “places create communities”.
I have enlarged on this here (Planners Mired in an Irrelevant Past):
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10127060
I suspect some of you are confusing “community” with “Neighbouring”.
Neighbours will get together to form neighbourhood watch groups and so on but this is just one form of organisation and the members of the watch group may not share in any other community activities or groups of likes or dislikes.
Back in the sixties I did short study of neighbouring in trailer parks and found there was a stronger sense of neighbouring and even community because the risks were perceived to be lower because of the “myth” of the mobility of the trailer home. In other words, in our modern world, people are loathe to get too close to their immediate neighbours because they are well aware they may be stuck with them, even if they prove to be the “neighbours from hell”.
On the other hand I can remove myself from this blog community any time I decide to.
Just as “our behaviour determines our location†rather than the central planners’ belief that “our location determines our behaviour†so too, “communities create places†while central planners believe “places create communitiesâ€Â.
No.
Owen, this is badly wrong, and I’ve discussed this numerous times here (self-sorting/Tiebout sorting).
This is in line with your coral-acidification misstatement, and your binary-logic screed about big box – an excellent example of oversimplification and argument from ignorance.
DS
I suspect some of you are confusing “community†with “Neighbouringâ€Â.
No. These are matters of scale.
HTH.
DS
From your op-ed:
“This is a seductive claim. Sadly it is wrong. Places do not create communities. Communities create places. ” -Owen McShane
I would tend to disagree. I think you’re confusing two different concepts here. Communities are a place, as in community = a place. A country is a place, a home is a place, and neighborhood is a place. Just like a places are spaces, but spaces are not necessarily places. You can also have places inside places inside of other places (a home inside a neighborhood inside a community).
Place insinuates something we cherish or has a value. Here’s a good article:
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~jpd/publications/place-paper.html
Place is not partial to scale (neither is space). Community has something to do with scale and neighborhood has something to do with scale. In fact, some people put an actual number on how many neighborhoods are in a community, but this does not really matter.
You cannot differentiate between place and community because they can be, in some cases, the same thing.
Not to get too technical on architectural theory, but I think there needs to be some clarification on this matter.
To add to this, you might ask yourself, “When does a community become a place?” It became a place when we applied the word “community”. If it was not a place, it would just be “houses”.
“When does a community become a place?†It became a place when we applied the word “communityâ€Â.
That’s a good, concise way to put it. Each informs the other, and each influences the other in an iterative, evolving, emergent process.
The GF had an excellent project that began last year that goes into certain neighborhoods – basically, collections of houses, and partners with others to do “community building” stuff. A lot of this “community building” involves implementing certain psychosocial practices.
That is: just because there are people there doesn’t mean its a “community”, as there are barriers to formation everywhere – look at what we did to the Native Americans.
DS
craig Says:
I like the sense of community that my car & truck brings me and my family.
When my kids play on sport team we can go to where others with the same interests are.
During the Christmas holiday my family was brought together with our suv’s, cars and trucks.
I have many interests and hobbies that my neighbors don’t have. But I can get together with hundreds of people that have the same interests as me, for a afternoon or weekend of a hobby, shopping or activities.
Then when I come home me and my neighbors have a sense of community in a neighborhood that we live in, with different interests.
Then there is the sense of community I feel, when I go to the Preserving the American Dream Conference. This year in Seattle. I often fly to these events, but I may drive this time.
My vote is for the automobile for my sense of community
THWM: That’s great Craig, though not every one wants to do the same things that you like to do. Also why should they?
That’s great Craig, though not every one wants to do the same things that you like to do. Also why should they?
Whoa, there mister: that’s what their policy prescriptions are based on – everyone is like a small-minority ideology. Don’t go poppin no bubbles now.
DS
My point is you will never be able to build the sense of community, with everyone happy with the results.
We have to many opinions and interests and none of you can build nirvana.
I get the feeling if Ws, dan D4P and the thwm all lived in the same 4 plex, you would find plenty to disagree on. As you built your dream community.
What is lacking in post-WWII subdivisions is gathering places (hence the rise of enclosed shopping malls), non-motorized safety, interesting architecture, and a few other details. There is no need to create built environments that overspecialize to a great degree, as craig argues incorrectly.
The fallacy or wishful argument that built environments are engineered too precisely is bullsh*t and is an argument from ignorance.
DS
For many of us “Life is a beach”.
The perfect “open space” – confined but infinite.
craig Says:
My point is you will never be able to build the sense of community, with everyone happy with the results.
THWM: The same goes for you too.
craig: We have to many opinions and interests and none of you can build nirvana.
THWM: Again, the same goes for you too.
craig: I get the feeling if Ws, dan D4P and the thwm all lived in the same 4 plex, you would find plenty to disagree on. As you built your dream community.
THWM: Ahh shucks, you make it sound like sibling rivalry, how sweet;-)
There is no need to create built environments that overspecialize to a great degree, as craig argues incorrectly.
DS
=—
I’m not arguing for that, as you assume something that is not there.
I’m arguing that, what is right for you, may not be for me. And all the planners will not get it right, no matter how many time you tell us you are right.
Right craig. But most others are not like you. So don’t gather in public gathering spaces. If the majority starts calling out for you, let me know.
DS
Right craig. But most others are not like you. So don’t gather in public gathering spaces. If the majority starts calling out for you, let me know.
DS
But most others are not like you
DS
What does that mean?????
Again that is my point most people are not like me or you.
Who are the Majority?? Or did you mean the collective?
How do you plan to make them all conform to you vision?
Your widdle fear phrases give you away. No one conforms to any vision. People need gathering places. So they are provided for in good built environments. Your premise that they are overdesigned shows you don’t know what you are arguing about.
DS
People need gathering places. So they are provided for in good built environments.
DS
I have no fears.
How do you plan to build your gathering places and good built environments and who decides if they are good or not?
D4P asked:
> How do antiplanners define congestion?
I will not presume to answer for the Antiplanner, but I would start with this.
“How do you plan to build your gathering places and good built environments and who decides if they are good or not?” -Craig
We are all aware that not all public gather spaces are going to be liked, that is why offering an array of spaces, from passive to active is best.
I like baseball and I think it’s a great activity, and I also think that there should be access to these fields in neighborhoods (especially within walking distance so pickup games can be formed by pre-driving adolescents).
Some people don’t like baseball and hopefully through the proper design and implementation of quality public spaces – other options can be formed. There is not a one-size-fits all public space, and no planner or architect would make such a statement.
In Portland specifically, you have some very good parks that offer different activities. Jamison Square is a highly active fountain that draws a lot of families, whereas Pioneer Courthouse the activities are limitless due to the open nature of the space.
Who decides if they are good or not? The people – they vote with their their presence. Both aforementioned PLACES are highly popular.
If you don’t like public spaces or ball fields or parks, then I don’t know what to tell you. We have some great parks and public spaces America.
craig Says:
I’m arguing that, what is right for you, may not be for me. And all the planners will not get it right, no matter how many time you tell us you are right.
THWM: Then why are groups like Reason, Cato, The American Dream Coalition trying to dictate a certain life style them selves?
Hey I live in a suburb my self, though I rarely drive. I mostly travel on foot & by suburban train.
Then why are groups like Reason, Cato, The American Dream Coalition trying to dictate a certain life style them selves?
Ouch!
My irony klaxon just went off and hurt my ears!
DS
Are we livng in 1984 again when bloggers are saying things like
“Reason, Cato, The American Dream Coalition trying to dictate a certain life style them selves”
Seems to me it is just the opposite.
But this has to be expected from the Planners and transit supporters on this blog in a upside down world.
Seems to me it is just the opposite.
Someone’s in denial. Denial is a human trait, and we find some ideologies find it useful to keep their worldview viable.
DS
craig Says:
Are we livng in 1984 again when bloggers are saying things like
“Reason, Cato, The American Dream Coalition trying to dictate a certain life style them selvesâ€Â
Seems to me it is just the opposite.
But this has to be expected from the Planners and transit supporters on this blog in a upside down world.
THWM: Dan this isn’t just an example of denial, it’s sheer hypocrisy!
hypocrisy is an element of denial.
DS
I stand by my comments
Are we living in 1984 again, when bloggers are saying things like
“Reason, Cato, The American Dream Coalition trying to dictate a certain life style them selvesâ€Â
Seems to me it is just the opposite.
But this has to be expected from the Planners and transit supporters on this blog in a upside down world.
Yes Craig.
Four lanes good, two tracks bad!
Four lanes good,
paid for by user fees gas and registration etc
Two tracks good paid for by user fees or the fare box
Unlike many transit supporters.
No asphalt and auto users must pay for most of rail too!
In Portland transit supporters only pay 19% of operating cost and non of the capital construction.
We are living in a upside down world.
How nice of you Craig to over look property & income taxpayers.
An upside down world indeed!
Sorry, I meant to post this here rather than in the discussion on the UK Town and Country Planning Act.
I wonder if the word you are looking for (rather than hypocrisy) is Marx’s well established term “Contradictionsâ€Â.
For example here is a “Smart Growth contradiction†– after all, shade trees do need space:
Study: Shade Trees Lower Bills, Emissions
Jan 06 – United Press International
Shade trees on the west and south sides of a house in California can reduce summertime electricity use and reduce carbon emissions, a study indicates.
The study conducted last year on 460 single-family homes in Sacramento, is the first large study using utility bill information to demonstrate that trees can reduce energy consumption, the U.S. Agriculture Department’s Forest Services said in a news release.
“Everyone knows that shade trees cool a house. No one is going to get a Nobel Prize for that conclusion,†says study co-author Geoffrey Donovan. “But this study gets at the details: Where should a tree be placed to get the most benefits? And how exactly do shade trees impact our carbon footprint?â€Â
Donovan, a research forester with the Forest Service’s Pacific Northwest Research Station, co-authored the report with economist David Butry of the National Institutes of Standards and Technology. Their findings have been submitted to the journal Energy and Buildings.
A service of YellowBrix, Inc.
I see Ed Glaeser has written a nice compact essay on Urban Economics at
http://www.economics.harvard.edu/pub/hier/2008/HIER2149.pdf
Naturally I appreciate the last sentence in the abstract that reads:
“The economic approach to urban policy emphasizes the need to focus on people, rather than places, as the ultimate objects of policy concern and the need for policy to anticipate the mobility of
people and firms.”
In other words, people make places, and cities churn.