The question you pose is an interesting one - what is considered "enough" and "doing your part"? I think, however, there is a fundamental flaw in the warrant of the question (that is, suburbs have a responsibility to densify/not density) that a) assumes opinions to be static and absolute and b) assumes that the current view of suburbs (i…
The question you pose is an interesting one - what is considered "enough" and "doing your part"? I think, however, there is a fundamental flaw in the warrant of the question (that is, suburbs have a responsibility to densify/not density) that a) assumes opinions to be static and absolute and b) assumes that the current view of suburbs (in this case, Arlington), is "the best," and that the "ideal" is an absolute concept.
In terms of point A, when we pose questions like "this suburb has done enough" or "this suburb has not done enough," we are positing that we (planners, citizens, etc) have a unity of opinions, which they can use to complete control over all the elements of a built space, manipulating them to our will. This view fails to account for both market elements (which I will put aside for now), but also diversity of opinion - what if a resident believes that Arlington as is isn't enough, and wants to see more urban development? What if the first generation believes that Arlington is enough, but the second generation wants to see more TOD? I guess what I am trying to say is that whenever we consider places to be "complete," what we are actually doing is placing our opinion of a place as absolute and concrete, without considering that there are other opinions even within a homogeneous society. The question ends up enforcing the tyranny of the majority, without considering the democracy of opinions that exist in the US (and especially in NoVA, which itself is made up of so many different peoples). Sure, you might want to have a single-family Arlington - but do your kids agree? What if your neighbor wants to add a duplex? Questions of "fairness" arbitrarily decide one viewpoint as correct and inherently morally superior, and thus we have a right to bend a space to our will (or not develop it, as it may be). But that assumes that everyone is of equal mind, and so can agree that it is "fair" or "unfair" to develop a space. What is fair to you might not be fair to another person. What then? This reveals that there is no inherent moral argument in redeveloping it - your opinion is just one among many. Even if you are the majority, the minority opinion exists - and you are still one among many. And you might say then, why move here if you disagree - but then what about the people who were born in Arlington, and want to develop it? Does they opinion matter less because it's not in concordance with the majority? If fairness cannot be achieved in common grounds, because there are too many different versions of fairness - what we have left is: why not then leave people to their own devices, let them devise what is fair/unfair in their own domains? That is the only way to ensure fairness - so that in your plot of land, in your council of one, there is an absolute consensus, and thus an ability to truly adjudicate fairness. Land redevelopment is inherently amoral in that sense - it is not inherently "fair" or "unfair." The fairness comes from the individual person's opinions of what should happen, and how it contrasts to development/a lack of development. That sort of absolute, totalitarian opinion can exist in spaces where you have absolute, totalitarian control, because you can bend it to your will. But it doesn't make sense in spaces with competing or common control, because then you have different ideas of fairness - and thus no definition of fairness at all.
In terms of point B, I would be careful of ascribing a place as "ideal," - we are not God, and we do not know if a place truly is ideal. We think it is good because that's what we are exposed to - but that does not mean there can potentially be better alternatives, and labeling a place as "closed" and "not to be developed further" merely limits us from these better possibilities. How do we know that Arlington won't benefit from being more like Paris, or on the flip side, more like Clifton? We don't. It reminds me a lot of your earlier posts about "what makes NoVA." Growing up here, the only NoVA I know is one that's filled with immigrants - I think this is great! Another example is Eden Center - I love Eden Center. But what if Eden Center was redeveloped to add more housing and better transit? It might lose some of the stores, but it might also end up better in ways we can't predict. Which is truly more "idea" - the small scale, incubator-style urbanism, or the more holistic, but perhaps more sanitized, TOD version? You don't know. But it's very different to the dairy farms that used to exist decades before I was born. Who's to say one is better than another? You can't, of course. But also, who's to say one is more ideal than another? You can't, either. What I am trying to say is that a place can be ideal - but it doesn't preclude the existence of other ideals. And if there are multiple ideals, it means that there are also no ideals - i.e. any of the variations is acceptable. Limiting the current state to "ideal" both is an arrogant assumption of what "ideal" is, and precludes us from finding other ideals that can exist.
In other words, I think the question is inherently flawed, arrogant, and short-sighted. Questions of fairness and ideals don't really make sense for development, in my opinion, because they assign an inherent, absolutist, static totalitarianism into an otherwise dynamic, fluid concept. I'm not a conservative by any stretch of the word, and I'm not sure if we would agree on anything aside from urbanism; but you are one of my favorite urbanists because you engage in the idea of possibilities that is inherent to YIMBYism. Thanks to you, I became convinced of NOVA's uniqueness in its stripmall urbanism (which I used to hate because of its inherent unwalkability, but now appreciate its incubator qualities for immigrant spaces/small-scale, implementable urbanism). And I get the importance of thought exercises, but I would be sad to see you lose some of that inherent, free spirit that permeates your writings.
P.S. I grew up here and don't think Arlington is an ideal suburb at all - I think it's still too car-oriented, not dense enough, not enough transit, and too little infrastructure. For me, an ideal suburb would be something like the inner rings of a place like Chicago or Philly. Do I think personally it's unfair that there are hundreds of NIMBYs blocking any sort of development in that direction? Yes. Do I think I have a right to call this lack of development as a whole/as a concept unfair? No. My opinion, after all, is just one of many.
The question you pose is an interesting one - what is considered "enough" and "doing your part"? I think, however, there is a fundamental flaw in the warrant of the question (that is, suburbs have a responsibility to densify/not density) that a) assumes opinions to be static and absolute and b) assumes that the current view of suburbs (in this case, Arlington), is "the best," and that the "ideal" is an absolute concept.
In terms of point A, when we pose questions like "this suburb has done enough" or "this suburb has not done enough," we are positing that we (planners, citizens, etc) have a unity of opinions, which they can use to complete control over all the elements of a built space, manipulating them to our will. This view fails to account for both market elements (which I will put aside for now), but also diversity of opinion - what if a resident believes that Arlington as is isn't enough, and wants to see more urban development? What if the first generation believes that Arlington is enough, but the second generation wants to see more TOD? I guess what I am trying to say is that whenever we consider places to be "complete," what we are actually doing is placing our opinion of a place as absolute and concrete, without considering that there are other opinions even within a homogeneous society. The question ends up enforcing the tyranny of the majority, without considering the democracy of opinions that exist in the US (and especially in NoVA, which itself is made up of so many different peoples). Sure, you might want to have a single-family Arlington - but do your kids agree? What if your neighbor wants to add a duplex? Questions of "fairness" arbitrarily decide one viewpoint as correct and inherently morally superior, and thus we have a right to bend a space to our will (or not develop it, as it may be). But that assumes that everyone is of equal mind, and so can agree that it is "fair" or "unfair" to develop a space. What is fair to you might not be fair to another person. What then? This reveals that there is no inherent moral argument in redeveloping it - your opinion is just one among many. Even if you are the majority, the minority opinion exists - and you are still one among many. And you might say then, why move here if you disagree - but then what about the people who were born in Arlington, and want to develop it? Does they opinion matter less because it's not in concordance with the majority? If fairness cannot be achieved in common grounds, because there are too many different versions of fairness - what we have left is: why not then leave people to their own devices, let them devise what is fair/unfair in their own domains? That is the only way to ensure fairness - so that in your plot of land, in your council of one, there is an absolute consensus, and thus an ability to truly adjudicate fairness. Land redevelopment is inherently amoral in that sense - it is not inherently "fair" or "unfair." The fairness comes from the individual person's opinions of what should happen, and how it contrasts to development/a lack of development. That sort of absolute, totalitarian opinion can exist in spaces where you have absolute, totalitarian control, because you can bend it to your will. But it doesn't make sense in spaces with competing or common control, because then you have different ideas of fairness - and thus no definition of fairness at all.
In terms of point B, I would be careful of ascribing a place as "ideal," - we are not God, and we do not know if a place truly is ideal. We think it is good because that's what we are exposed to - but that does not mean there can potentially be better alternatives, and labeling a place as "closed" and "not to be developed further" merely limits us from these better possibilities. How do we know that Arlington won't benefit from being more like Paris, or on the flip side, more like Clifton? We don't. It reminds me a lot of your earlier posts about "what makes NoVA." Growing up here, the only NoVA I know is one that's filled with immigrants - I think this is great! Another example is Eden Center - I love Eden Center. But what if Eden Center was redeveloped to add more housing and better transit? It might lose some of the stores, but it might also end up better in ways we can't predict. Which is truly more "idea" - the small scale, incubator-style urbanism, or the more holistic, but perhaps more sanitized, TOD version? You don't know. But it's very different to the dairy farms that used to exist decades before I was born. Who's to say one is better than another? You can't, of course. But also, who's to say one is more ideal than another? You can't, either. What I am trying to say is that a place can be ideal - but it doesn't preclude the existence of other ideals. And if there are multiple ideals, it means that there are also no ideals - i.e. any of the variations is acceptable. Limiting the current state to "ideal" both is an arrogant assumption of what "ideal" is, and precludes us from finding other ideals that can exist.
In other words, I think the question is inherently flawed, arrogant, and short-sighted. Questions of fairness and ideals don't really make sense for development, in my opinion, because they assign an inherent, absolutist, static totalitarianism into an otherwise dynamic, fluid concept. I'm not a conservative by any stretch of the word, and I'm not sure if we would agree on anything aside from urbanism; but you are one of my favorite urbanists because you engage in the idea of possibilities that is inherent to YIMBYism. Thanks to you, I became convinced of NOVA's uniqueness in its stripmall urbanism (which I used to hate because of its inherent unwalkability, but now appreciate its incubator qualities for immigrant spaces/small-scale, implementable urbanism). And I get the importance of thought exercises, but I would be sad to see you lose some of that inherent, free spirit that permeates your writings.
P.S. I grew up here and don't think Arlington is an ideal suburb at all - I think it's still too car-oriented, not dense enough, not enough transit, and too little infrastructure. For me, an ideal suburb would be something like the inner rings of a place like Chicago or Philly. Do I think personally it's unfair that there are hundreds of NIMBYs blocking any sort of development in that direction? Yes. Do I think I have a right to call this lack of development as a whole/as a concept unfair? No. My opinion, after all, is just one of many.