>>sometimes the truly progressive thing to do when you’ve taken a wrong turn is to go back till you find the right road.
Something that occurs to me is the idea that "you can never go home again". While it's undeniably true that suburbanism was a mistake, that the traditional human-centered development pattern was always the best for human flourishing, there's also the objective ground truth that this can't simply be reversed.
Rather, we need to build over what was mis-built. This will require new forms: Apartment buildings in excessively large/empty parking lots, maybe eventually towers to be built over big-box stores. While the old methods will absolutely be excellent rubrics for the next generation, parts of them are also obsolete.
But I think this only reinforces the point that we need to snap progressives out of their own hubristic idiocy, their insistence on renaming old concepts and selling fundamentally conservative and incremental visions as menacingly great leaps forward (allegory intended). To some extent, they can't help themselves. It's what progressives do.
Yet, on another level, perhaps conservatives need to embrace our own small-p progressivism ourselves. It's why I consider myself a con-prog: progressive values and mission at heart, but conservative principles of implementation. Conservatism must embrace the fact that change, regardless of how slow we might like it, is still a core to our worldview; if it weren't, we'd be regressives or staticists, not conservatives.
The best thing we can do is outsell the progressives. Part of the reason why they're progs, after all, is that they're shitty salespeople -- otherwise they'd be in sales instead of liberal arts.
I agree that there is a lot of conceptual confusion in the 15-minute city advocacy. And I am favorable to at least some version of the idea! The point being, if allies are not buying the arguments, you will definitely have a hard time persuading non-believers. My solution is to re-appropriate "neighborhood" as the 15-minute catchment idea. As far as what I believe is the most common interpretation of "15-minute city" among advocates, is what Sam Bass Warner, Jr called the Walking City in 1962, to which Kenneth Jackson and Elizabeth Blackmar are just two historians who elaborated on this. I am now critical of the Walking City Hypothesis. Most functions of neighborhoods are not dependent on the cities in which they reside.
>> is [the 15-minute city idea] fundamentally new (innovative, revolutionary, transformative, etc.) or fundamentally old (return, restoration, rediscovery, etc.) <<
Perhaps a more usful first-order dichotomy is organic/designed.
In 1900 the conditions we now define as integral to "the 15-minute city" were probably present in most or all cities, and were present *by default*, were present by virtue of how things naturally developed with little or no planning, were present organically.
But today when building at scale, getting a 15-minute city probably requires self-consciously holding that as a goal, and intentionally designing those conditions into what's built.
* The organic 15-minute city is old.
* Going against the grain to intentionally design new development to function as a 15-minute city is new.
Looked at another way:
# The *actual* 15-minute city is old.
# The *idea* of the 15-minute city is recent.
It wasn't until we no longer built that way that we began to see & appreciate what we left behind.
As Joni Mitchell wrote, "you don't know what you've got 'till it's gone" (in Big Yellow Taxi).
# The *project* of intentionally building 15-minute cities is new.
The problem with "just discuss the substance" is that carelessly using left-coded words (or right-coded, for that matter) makes it impossible to do that.
As a conservative, if I read/hear that something's going to be "progressive", or "promote equity", or "fight climate change", it triggers in me a desire to oppose whatever is being advocated.
Now as it happens I'm personally committed to good urbanism, and agree that "my triggers are my responsibility", and as a result I'll usually read past that language to see what's being advocated. But many (most?) people won't, and to use ideologically-coded language is to hobble the extent to which you can persuade.
The best description of the progressive temperament was found in an odd place. The Canadian Patent Register, an official monthly record of new patents, had an editorial in 1886. The writer was talking about the scientific progressives of the French Revolution, who were identical to today's Tech Tyrants like Altman and Elon.
"There is another class, who are led on by a wild passion for the destruction of the old and the creation of something new. They need restless activity: their present condition seems the worst possible."
"As a rule, too, they are very fond of notoriety. They are in love with crime. The pain of others is a keen satisfaction to them: its horror attracts them. The French revolution shows such types."
>>sometimes the truly progressive thing to do when you’ve taken a wrong turn is to go back till you find the right road.
Something that occurs to me is the idea that "you can never go home again". While it's undeniably true that suburbanism was a mistake, that the traditional human-centered development pattern was always the best for human flourishing, there's also the objective ground truth that this can't simply be reversed.
Rather, we need to build over what was mis-built. This will require new forms: Apartment buildings in excessively large/empty parking lots, maybe eventually towers to be built over big-box stores. While the old methods will absolutely be excellent rubrics for the next generation, parts of them are also obsolete.
But I think this only reinforces the point that we need to snap progressives out of their own hubristic idiocy, their insistence on renaming old concepts and selling fundamentally conservative and incremental visions as menacingly great leaps forward (allegory intended). To some extent, they can't help themselves. It's what progressives do.
Yet, on another level, perhaps conservatives need to embrace our own small-p progressivism ourselves. It's why I consider myself a con-prog: progressive values and mission at heart, but conservative principles of implementation. Conservatism must embrace the fact that change, regardless of how slow we might like it, is still a core to our worldview; if it weren't, we'd be regressives or staticists, not conservatives.
The best thing we can do is outsell the progressives. Part of the reason why they're progs, after all, is that they're shitty salespeople -- otherwise they'd be in sales instead of liberal arts.
I agree that there is a lot of conceptual confusion in the 15-minute city advocacy. And I am favorable to at least some version of the idea! The point being, if allies are not buying the arguments, you will definitely have a hard time persuading non-believers. My solution is to re-appropriate "neighborhood" as the 15-minute catchment idea. As far as what I believe is the most common interpretation of "15-minute city" among advocates, is what Sam Bass Warner, Jr called the Walking City in 1962, to which Kenneth Jackson and Elizabeth Blackmar are just two historians who elaborated on this. I am now critical of the Walking City Hypothesis. Most functions of neighborhoods are not dependent on the cities in which they reside.
>> is [the 15-minute city idea] fundamentally new (innovative, revolutionary, transformative, etc.) or fundamentally old (return, restoration, rediscovery, etc.) <<
Perhaps a more usful first-order dichotomy is organic/designed.
In 1900 the conditions we now define as integral to "the 15-minute city" were probably present in most or all cities, and were present *by default*, were present by virtue of how things naturally developed with little or no planning, were present organically.
But today when building at scale, getting a 15-minute city probably requires self-consciously holding that as a goal, and intentionally designing those conditions into what's built.
* The organic 15-minute city is old.
* Going against the grain to intentionally design new development to function as a 15-minute city is new.
Looked at another way:
# The *actual* 15-minute city is old.
# The *idea* of the 15-minute city is recent.
It wasn't until we no longer built that way that we began to see & appreciate what we left behind.
As Joni Mitchell wrote, "you don't know what you've got 'till it's gone" (in Big Yellow Taxi).
# The *project* of intentionally building 15-minute cities is new.
I think this is an overreaction. Jane Jacobs wasn’t interested in modernity. Conservatives go bananas at words like diversity and planning.
Rather than center the culture wars in discussions about urban spaces, maybe we can just discuss the substance.
I agree with you! But my point is that by not being clear, intellectual types are themselves getting in the way of talking about the substance.
C.S. Lewis noted that his stories were never invented (say, out of word salads) but pictured, "a fawn carrying an umbrella." That's clarity.
The problem with "just discuss the substance" is that carelessly using left-coded words (or right-coded, for that matter) makes it impossible to do that.
As a conservative, if I read/hear that something's going to be "progressive", or "promote equity", or "fight climate change", it triggers in me a desire to oppose whatever is being advocated.
Now as it happens I'm personally committed to good urbanism, and agree that "my triggers are my responsibility", and as a result I'll usually read past that language to see what's being advocated. But many (most?) people won't, and to use ideologically-coded language is to hobble the extent to which you can persuade.
The best description of the progressive temperament was found in an odd place. The Canadian Patent Register, an official monthly record of new patents, had an editorial in 1886. The writer was talking about the scientific progressives of the French Revolution, who were identical to today's Tech Tyrants like Altman and Elon.
"There is another class, who are led on by a wild passion for the destruction of the old and the creation of something new. They need restless activity: their present condition seems the worst possible."
"As a rule, too, they are very fond of notoriety. They are in love with crime. The pain of others is a keen satisfaction to them: its horror attracts them. The French revolution shows such types."
Pretty much covers all the bases.
The original document in Google Books:
https://books.google.com/books?id=5EpGAQAAMAAJ