Hi Addison, thanks for this piece. It's really, really good. I'm a commercial real estate appraiser and I spend a lot of time working with cities and villages that are trying to decide what sorts of places they want to be. There's a real push and pull between people with different ideas ... but at the same time I think most people don't actually know what they believe.
"X is soulless and new and bad, while Y is historical and beautiful and good." You're saying, step back a second, and notice that ... sometimes, just maybe ... X is actually a new version of a much older reality -- something that makes possible a more real dynamism, a better life for all of us.
The ability to step back and contemplate that possibility is not something that everybody has! I'm not sure I have it, but I feel like maybe I can learn.
Wow, thank you! Yes - that is what I try to do. And look, I've made it clear I don't *prefer* the modern form development often takes, but I prefer it over nothing. And I think democratizing building and development will get more little guys in the mix and give us more variety and texture to new things.
But yes, the core of it is that some element of change is supposed to be in the DNA of these places. It's abnormal for a place to look utterly the same for decades, at least when it's still economically doing alright (which my hometown certainly is - it's the county seat of a very wealthy county.)
You present a false dilemma that our only choices are ugly, polluted, crime filled, overpriced cities, or soul deadening sterile suburbs. But many of us enjoy living in rural areas with good local produce, and others of us enjoy living in wilderness area where there is still abundant wildlife that hasn’t been exterminated by the cancerous growth ideology as Edward Abbey wisely put it.
Well you got me there - I don't believe growth is cancer. But I think you're missing my point or I'm not communicating it - I've written a heck of a lot in praise of small towns as a distinct kind of place to live. I love them. (I like cities too.) My point is more framing - that traditionally even very small towns are urban places, albeit at low intensity and small scale. When I say that, I don't mean that they should all become big cities. I'm just making the argument that they already are very small cities, and that's fine.
When you look at the history of a lot of quiet, quaint small towns today, often you'll see they were bustling places that clearly functioned as small cities and not as lifestyle amenities for folks living in sprawl. I don't like that that's what a lot of them are today.
Some of us are consciously and with clarity of purpose rejecting the soullessness of bustling urban hustle culture that strips mines life of the personal and unique which gives life meaning.
That simply isn’t truthful, in fact it’s a giant lie. The small town of 200 people I live near is literally nothing like a city. It has community and a common culture. There are no pride flags on any business or government buildings. There aren’t people from all around the world. There is very little crime as everyone is heavily armed and people know better than to fuck around. It is literally the antithesis in all respects of a city.
I'm not going to carry this on anymore, but it seems like for you "city" refers to everything *except* actual land use and design. Many American cities have been mismanaged but I don't think urban problems are inherent in cities. (Frankly American cities are pretty poor by global standards.)
“What the small town is, in essence, is an embryonic city. And what the big city is, in essence, is a small town all grown up. They are the same creature….”
This is literally the opposite of the truth. Small towns are about a sense of place, about knowing the stories of local people and their relationship to a local and unique particular geography. It is about unique local cultures with distinctive architecture and local customs.
Big cities are about the triumph of capitalism and conmodified sameness destroying the uniqueness of places. In a city the same progressive pride flag bedecked hipsters drink the same pretentious beers in the same overpriced bars. It doesn’t matter if it’s Athens Greece or Athens Georgia.
You really think big cities don't have a sense of place? Modern culture exists everywhere, but New York City is very much a place, as is, say, New Orleans. Some cities (at least from my limited perspective/experience) feel less so - Houston, for example. But maybe I don't know it well enough.
Of course small towns have their own local sense of identity, but they're broadly the same sort of place, and a traditional city is really just *that* scaled up. It's sprawl that departs from urbanism at any scale.
I notice you studiously avoided my example of pride flag bedecked hipsters drinking overpriced beer in bars that differ little in ambience between Athens Georgia and Athens Greece. Could it be because you are that person?
Hi Addison, thanks for this piece. It's really, really good. I'm a commercial real estate appraiser and I spend a lot of time working with cities and villages that are trying to decide what sorts of places they want to be. There's a real push and pull between people with different ideas ... but at the same time I think most people don't actually know what they believe.
"X is soulless and new and bad, while Y is historical and beautiful and good." You're saying, step back a second, and notice that ... sometimes, just maybe ... X is actually a new version of a much older reality -- something that makes possible a more real dynamism, a better life for all of us.
The ability to step back and contemplate that possibility is not something that everybody has! I'm not sure I have it, but I feel like maybe I can learn.
Wow, thank you! Yes - that is what I try to do. And look, I've made it clear I don't *prefer* the modern form development often takes, but I prefer it over nothing. And I think democratizing building and development will get more little guys in the mix and give us more variety and texture to new things.
But yes, the core of it is that some element of change is supposed to be in the DNA of these places. It's abnormal for a place to look utterly the same for decades, at least when it's still economically doing alright (which my hometown certainly is - it's the county seat of a very wealthy county.)
You present a false dilemma that our only choices are ugly, polluted, crime filled, overpriced cities, or soul deadening sterile suburbs. But many of us enjoy living in rural areas with good local produce, and others of us enjoy living in wilderness area where there is still abundant wildlife that hasn’t been exterminated by the cancerous growth ideology as Edward Abbey wisely put it.
Well you got me there - I don't believe growth is cancer. But I think you're missing my point or I'm not communicating it - I've written a heck of a lot in praise of small towns as a distinct kind of place to live. I love them. (I like cities too.) My point is more framing - that traditionally even very small towns are urban places, albeit at low intensity and small scale. When I say that, I don't mean that they should all become big cities. I'm just making the argument that they already are very small cities, and that's fine.
When you look at the history of a lot of quiet, quaint small towns today, often you'll see they were bustling places that clearly functioned as small cities and not as lifestyle amenities for folks living in sprawl. I don't like that that's what a lot of them are today.
Some of us are consciously and with clarity of purpose rejecting the soullessness of bustling urban hustle culture that strips mines life of the personal and unique which gives life meaning.
That simply isn’t truthful, in fact it’s a giant lie. The small town of 200 people I live near is literally nothing like a city. It has community and a common culture. There are no pride flags on any business or government buildings. There aren’t people from all around the world. There is very little crime as everyone is heavily armed and people know better than to fuck around. It is literally the antithesis in all respects of a city.
I'm not going to carry this on anymore, but it seems like for you "city" refers to everything *except* actual land use and design. Many American cities have been mismanaged but I don't think urban problems are inherent in cities. (Frankly American cities are pretty poor by global standards.)
“What the small town is, in essence, is an embryonic city. And what the big city is, in essence, is a small town all grown up. They are the same creature….”
This is literally the opposite of the truth. Small towns are about a sense of place, about knowing the stories of local people and their relationship to a local and unique particular geography. It is about unique local cultures with distinctive architecture and local customs.
Big cities are about the triumph of capitalism and conmodified sameness destroying the uniqueness of places. In a city the same progressive pride flag bedecked hipsters drink the same pretentious beers in the same overpriced bars. It doesn’t matter if it’s Athens Greece or Athens Georgia.
You really think big cities don't have a sense of place? Modern culture exists everywhere, but New York City is very much a place, as is, say, New Orleans. Some cities (at least from my limited perspective/experience) feel less so - Houston, for example. But maybe I don't know it well enough.
Of course small towns have their own local sense of identity, but they're broadly the same sort of place, and a traditional city is really just *that* scaled up. It's sprawl that departs from urbanism at any scale.
I notice you studiously avoided my example of pride flag bedecked hipsters drinking overpriced beer in bars that differ little in ambience between Athens Georgia and Athens Greece. Could it be because you are that person?