Southern California writer Joel Kotkin has a new report about urban growth that in many ways is a sequel to his previous report on Opportunity Urbanism. While Opportunity Urbanism focused on Houston, The Broken Ladder look at London, Mexico City, and Mumbai. The common theme is that density is no longer vital to wealth creation, and land-use regulation aimed at achieving such density
has become an obstacle to the upward mobility of low- and middle-income people.
Kotkin also has a great web site, NewGeography, which has numerous contributors and in many ways is an antidote to the anti-suburbs, anti-auto sites that have proliferated across the web. For example, two writers from the center-left New Democrat Network have an article pointing out that a majority of blacks, Latinos, and other minorities all now live in the suburbs, so the old arguments that suburbs were the result of “white flight” is no longer valid.
Thus, only 30 minutes is possible by taking help tadalafil from canada from a medical advisor. Buy Kamagra cialis samples in canada Tablets It is easy to use as one just needs to squeeze the sachet to consume it. In this sense, marketing can be regarded as the institutionalization of this view of cheap cialis human nature. Further your ejaculation time will get increased and you will be able to perform better on bed. cheap levitra
The Antiplanner’s faithful ally, Wendell Cox, regularly submits articles to NewGeography, including one refuting the notion held by some Brookings Institution scholars that there is a “bright flight” trend of creative young people moving to the cities. Cox shows that just about every demographic — regardless of age, education, or income — is growing faster in the suburbs than the cities. The one exception is people older than 85 years, which as Cox points out is “not exactly the epitome of ‘bright flight.'” Another recent article by Cox addresses the claim (previously discussed here) that the suburbs are becoming the slums of the future.
As a recent report of black flight from Detroit suggests, those who want to promote urban centers would do better focusing on crime and schools than on land-use planning. Unfortunately, urban planners aren’t taught how to fight crime, so they rely on the tools they know even if they are the wrong ones.
The Antiplanner wrote:
> … those who want to promote urban centers would do
> better focusing on crime and schools than on land-use
> planning. Unfortunately, urban planners aren’t taught
> how to fight crime, so they rely on the tools they
> know even if they are the wrong ones.
In most instances, this is correct.
In the obsessive rush to create “compact” and “walkable” and “transit-oriented” neighborhoods, planners and architects have repeatedly created areas that are very friendly to criminals (including, but not limited to, dealers of drugs illegal in most places familiar to readers of this blog).
I know this based on extensive personal observation.
One way to solve at least some of these problems is to legalize most drugs that are now considered illegal.
planners and architects have repeatedly created areas that are very friendly to criminals
This is false, and emanating fear of density, not command of facts.
Fear of cities notwithstanding, so Kotkin is shilling suburbia again and neglects the basic, simple fact that industries aggregate for exchange of ideas. Silicon Valley. LA electrical. Rust Belt.
It’s what humans do.
DS
Dan wrote:
> This is false, and emanating fear of density,
> not command of facts.
How about a dense community composed of all lowrise and midrise apartment buildings, designed by stridently anti-auto/anti-highway planners and architects, clustered around a heavy rail transit station with parking spaces deliberately located at a distance from the housing, where great emphasis is placed on getting people to walk and bike to their destinations.
Would you like that? Would you allow your family to live there?
I’m not talking about the Beaverton Round (discussed by the Antiplanner some years ago here).
I am speaking of a suburb of Stockholm, Sweden called Rinkeby. You can read more about the Smart Growth Disaster that is Rinkeby here and here (in English).
Trying to change the subject to a slightly different direction doesn’t validate the fact that fraidycatism isn’t a rational response to density, or that hasty generalizations are compelling arguments.
DS
Negative environmental determinism about crime is just as flawed as the positive environment determinism espoused by many planners and architects about their projects, C. P. Zilliacus.
Thank you TexOkie. After reading todays post my first thought was “what have hyperbolic bloggers done to fight crime?” Does the Anti-almosteverythinger focus on crime and schools? Nope.
And BTW, planners do happen to focus on education and crime, often with pro bono work. Here is an example:
http://soa.utexas.edu/work/eaejp/Papers/Storyboarding.pdf
Speaking of crime, “smart growth” Portland has way less crime than no-zoning Houston. What’s funny is if it were the other way around for Portland and Houston, ROT and the Cox’s of the world would be arguing that smart growth causes crime, or some wackadoodle theory with no evidence and cherry picked data skewed to show that.
Rank 38th highest crime rate for cities for Houston, and 212th rank for Portland.
I’m not going that route or arguing that smart growth prevents crime by any means because I’m not a hack and I have to look myself in the mirror everyday. But density has nothing to do with causing crime.
Actually, planners and designers are very concerned about crime and what promotes or facilitates crimes from occurring.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_prevention_through_environmental_design
Jane Jacobs also argues that “eyes on the street” prevent crimes from occurring. And that holds true in a lot of regards. If you’re a criminal, are you going to steal someones car with people around, or are you going to steal someones car with nobody around? I’d choose nobody being around, but there’s still some brazen criminals out there.
Kuo at HERL seems to have decent findings that greenery in certain environments reduces crime as well. This is basic environmental psych. de Botton explores this further in The Architecture of Happiness. Not determinism surely, but influential yes. Basic EnvPsych.
DS
If government planners don’t acknowledge and explain the Chicago Housing Projects, then they have zero credibility on predicting crime associated with government planning of housing. These towers, built with the advice of the best and brightest government planners, had to be abandoned because of the retched human living environment they created. I would think that government planners would have a sense of humility after blowing that.
Borealis,
I think today’s planners reject the Corbusian philosophy. My first text in planning School (Cities of Tomorrow by Peter Hall) covers many of the problems with the planning solutions of yesteryear.
If government planners don’t acknowledge and explain the Chicago Housing Projects, then they have zero credibility on predicting crime associated with government planning of housing.
Those who insist that this hasn’t happened over and over and over and over and over and over and over – yet insist planners don’t acknowledge this period of history – should have a sense of humility when faced with the reminder that it has been done over and over and over….
DS
Bennett – I cannot find any information about Corbusian philosophy. Could you please provide some links or further information so I can understand what that is. Thanks.
Dan – Did you say something? Oh, never mind.
Yes, I said you should be humble about using false premises…
DS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Corbusier
Many housing projects were pulled from Le Corbusier’s philosophy on urbanism. The projects in the South Bronx is another good example of this failed idea. South Bronx is a good example of the planning failures of planning’s former elite mind, Robert Moses, and the idea that we can just run giant highways through poor areas so the the rich folks in Manhattan can have better mobility.
Borealis,
Here is “good urbanism” according to Corbusier. Look familiar?
http://joltofthecapital.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/paris.jpg
Planners do accept failure in public housing projects, actually. To further on the concept of Le Corbusier and housing projects, it was thought if you could give people housing inside of a park setting with trees and grass, crime would drop. Obviously that’s a complete failure.
He was also influential with the concept of office parks (the literal concept of office buildings in a park setting again connected by highways) and rejected the street environment.
Obviously that’s a complete failure.
No. I mentioned Kuo and HERL upthread.
DS