I am enjoying your platform. You put in some form of logical progression the random thoughts I have about cars and stores and planning and all that stuff. A conversation about "New Urbanism" cannot be has without talking about the New Nibmy's, those that oppose growth, even smart sensible growth, as gentrification. Have you explored any of that theme in your musings?
That's a less familiar angle to me because most of my real-life exposure to NIMBYs is of the right-NIMBY variety: the themes there are crime, urban disorder, sometimes race (not obviously in a good way.) NIMBYs on the left who adopt the language of social justice are something I've only seen on Twitter for the most part (though Montgomery County, Maryland is famous for these folks, as I gather).
I've come to see auto dependence through a different lens lately. Land development is always dictated by transportation infrastructure. Seaports, canals, railroads, post roads, the interstate highway, airports... Each kind of city is built on an underlying network of ships, barges, trains, carriages, cars, trucks, and planes. As each new form of transportation peaks and ages the associated infrastructure becomes too expensive to maintain relative to its ongoing productivity. So the seaports continue to exist, but in a reduced form as the excess docks and waterfront warehouses are abandoned. The truly vital canals that transport wheat, soy, and iron ore in bulk are still with us, but the majority were filled in decades ago. The streetcars that ran through our early suburbs served their purpose (to add value to cheap land by providing a commuter rail link to new homes) and then contracted as the cost of upkeep outstripped revenue. There will come a day when the cost of keeping every far flung cul-de-sac and suburban side street paved will no longer be financially viable and triage will set in. That process is already underway in poorer neighborhoods.
There's an idea that these far-flung suburbs, that we think of as being affluent bedroom communities, will end up disinvested and trapping people who can't afford to leave. I don't know how this will play out, but it's hard to imagine that all of this stuff will be maintained for the long run. Even compared to the early postwar suburbs, its far more spread out and infrastructure-heavy. And I wonder if these new homes will still be in fine condition 60 or 70 years later. It's kind of amazing how many shoebox houses from the 1950s are still going strong.
I am enjoying your platform. You put in some form of logical progression the random thoughts I have about cars and stores and planning and all that stuff. A conversation about "New Urbanism" cannot be has without talking about the New Nibmy's, those that oppose growth, even smart sensible growth, as gentrification. Have you explored any of that theme in your musings?
thanks for the thoughtful approach,
Ric
That's a less familiar angle to me because most of my real-life exposure to NIMBYs is of the right-NIMBY variety: the themes there are crime, urban disorder, sometimes race (not obviously in a good way.) NIMBYs on the left who adopt the language of social justice are something I've only seen on Twitter for the most part (though Montgomery County, Maryland is famous for these folks, as I gather).
I've come to see auto dependence through a different lens lately. Land development is always dictated by transportation infrastructure. Seaports, canals, railroads, post roads, the interstate highway, airports... Each kind of city is built on an underlying network of ships, barges, trains, carriages, cars, trucks, and planes. As each new form of transportation peaks and ages the associated infrastructure becomes too expensive to maintain relative to its ongoing productivity. So the seaports continue to exist, but in a reduced form as the excess docks and waterfront warehouses are abandoned. The truly vital canals that transport wheat, soy, and iron ore in bulk are still with us, but the majority were filled in decades ago. The streetcars that ran through our early suburbs served their purpose (to add value to cheap land by providing a commuter rail link to new homes) and then contracted as the cost of upkeep outstripped revenue. There will come a day when the cost of keeping every far flung cul-de-sac and suburban side street paved will no longer be financially viable and triage will set in. That process is already underway in poorer neighborhoods.
There's an idea that these far-flung suburbs, that we think of as being affluent bedroom communities, will end up disinvested and trapping people who can't afford to leave. I don't know how this will play out, but it's hard to imagine that all of this stuff will be maintained for the long run. Even compared to the early postwar suburbs, its far more spread out and infrastructure-heavy. And I wonder if these new homes will still be in fine condition 60 or 70 years later. It's kind of amazing how many shoebox houses from the 1950s are still going strong.
You guys are reading, or channeling, Chuck Marohn. Maybe taking his ideas beyond where he took them.
Great observations, Addison!
Thank you!
I have a feeling you might enjoy the movie Americathon!