Another sad, self contradictory element of NIMBYism here is that when you can build, the intersection of bad zoning codes and a constricted economic equilibrium prevents many types of building that you'd see under "organic growth" from being produced. In other words, NIMBY laws create circumstances where you can only build 4-over-1s or whatever it is, and then lament that we can't build anything else.
"Historic preservation" is used as a shorthand for "human-scaled, thematically consistent, aesthetically pleasing". Georgetown, DC for instance does allow large projects (hotels and apartment blocks) to be built on available land, so long as they are appropriately scaled and aesthetically integrated with their surroundings. In other words, new development integrates just fine with "old-fashioned urbanism" where strict planning rules require it.
The task of concerned urbanists could therefore be boiled down to "how do we turn every community into a 'historic district'"? Obviously a new terminology and vocabulary is needed, for starters.
Hi - If you would like to receive each email, a digest email, or no emails from this listserv, you can adjust your settings at any time here: https://groups.google.com/g/cpsmartgrowth
Like a justice system without institutions like trial-by-jury or common-law, which fall into the mercy of ideological fads that destroy justice, our system of determining what styles of architecture to build seem to be lacking institutions that mediate the ideological fads that destroy beauty. Virtually any pre-bauhaus style of architecture in any tradition around the world is preferable to any style invented in some manifesto by a self-lobotomized "intellectual" like Le Corbusier or his imitators in the architecture schools. Public opinion polls generally agree with this too. If there was some institution that forced architects to respect public opinion more than respecting their own brainwashing in architecture schools, which are basically indistinguishable from scientology cults, that would be a start. Even though I'm a strict traditionalist, I agree that historic preservation misses the point. I would be fine with tearing down a historic beautiful piece of architecture, if only it were the case that some more beautiful structure would likely replace it, rather than crappy modern architecture. So I am a YIMBY in that respect.
Another sad, self contradictory element of NIMBYism here is that when you can build, the intersection of bad zoning codes and a constricted economic equilibrium prevents many types of building that you'd see under "organic growth" from being produced. In other words, NIMBY laws create circumstances where you can only build 4-over-1s or whatever it is, and then lament that we can't build anything else.
"Historic preservation" is used as a shorthand for "human-scaled, thematically consistent, aesthetically pleasing". Georgetown, DC for instance does allow large projects (hotels and apartment blocks) to be built on available land, so long as they are appropriately scaled and aesthetically integrated with their surroundings. In other words, new development integrates just fine with "old-fashioned urbanism" where strict planning rules require it.
The task of concerned urbanists could therefore be boiled down to "how do we turn every community into a 'historic district'"? Obviously a new terminology and vocabulary is needed, for starters.
Are you plugged into CSG? I do not agree with everything they do, but enough to be a supporter
action@smartergrowth.net
They also have a listserv:
Bob Ward
From:
bob.ward.dc@gmail.com
To:
cpsmartgrowth@googlegroups.com
Wed, Apr 24 at 8:37 AM
Hi - If you would like to receive each email, a digest email, or no emails from this listserv, you can adjust your settings at any time here: https://groups.google.com/g/cpsmartgrowth
Like a justice system without institutions like trial-by-jury or common-law, which fall into the mercy of ideological fads that destroy justice, our system of determining what styles of architecture to build seem to be lacking institutions that mediate the ideological fads that destroy beauty. Virtually any pre-bauhaus style of architecture in any tradition around the world is preferable to any style invented in some manifesto by a self-lobotomized "intellectual" like Le Corbusier or his imitators in the architecture schools. Public opinion polls generally agree with this too. If there was some institution that forced architects to respect public opinion more than respecting their own brainwashing in architecture schools, which are basically indistinguishable from scientology cults, that would be a start. Even though I'm a strict traditionalist, I agree that historic preservation misses the point. I would be fine with tearing down a historic beautiful piece of architecture, if only it were the case that some more beautiful structure would likely replace it, rather than crappy modern architecture. So I am a YIMBY in that respect.