Re: ecumenicism - the underlying lesson may be that the stated reasons for disagreement are not the true or most important ones. An arguably more important document for Catholic-Lutheran relations was the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. This was supposedly the core issue behind the Protestant Reformation, but coming to an agreement had had essentially no effect. Some notable Lutheran bodies did say the Declaration was a linguistic fudge. It seems more likely to me, however, that the real motivating disagreements were being obscured by the declared ones.
I don't hear any ecumenism from the official urbanists around here. It's all climate all the time, resulting in some uniquely awful plans. They wrote a new zoning code that would have required every building to be rebuilt to Green standards if one Karen complained about it. How is that "sustainable"? More waste in the landfill, more trees cut down to make lumber, more drywall from coal-powered China. Fortunately there were some sane people in the city government who stopped the plan before it could be implemented.
Interesting statements. You know your readers best. How they react and how we work from this space, together, Democrats and Republicans, is important. I read through the comments and can live with most statements.
On the beauty idea, is not everyone very abstract. We allow LIHTC deals that lack beauty. Trailer parks, old version or new, are not my definition of pretty. Heck, subdivisions with snout garage houses are certainly not beautiful, but they are efficient to build. How do subdivisions with garages in front have occupants that talk of beauty?
A further remark about ecumenism: The so-called ecumenical movement withered on the vine and did not unify anything except as a conversation claque among the cognoscenti. What did happen is that the "unwanted stepchildren" of the Reformation multiplied around the globe, especially in Pentecostal form (nothing mainline). What does this suggest about the future of urbanism?
“And now you sound as if you’re taking people’s homes hostages: “Cornices or the people don’t get housing!” And that kind of obstruction more or less has to be opposed by a movement whose goal is to get housing built.”
See, this is the part I don’t get. Are cornices or ornamentation generally so objectionable that they’re a major stumbling block for a large segment of YIMBYS? Historic buildings that are falling apart go for substantial premiums over modernist buildings, so clearly there is demand. It’s difficult to not believe that a substantial portion of YIMBYS have taken the position that the current unholy alliance of trendy left-wing architects and cost cutting developers should be allowed to build eyesores unimpeded for purely ideological reasons. Considering how unpopular new building is, I would hope YIMBYS would find friends who can help sell the idea to the general public.
Re: ecumenicism - the underlying lesson may be that the stated reasons for disagreement are not the true or most important ones. An arguably more important document for Catholic-Lutheran relations was the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. This was supposedly the core issue behind the Protestant Reformation, but coming to an agreement had had essentially no effect. Some notable Lutheran bodies did say the Declaration was a linguistic fudge. It seems more likely to me, however, that the real motivating disagreements were being obscured by the declared ones.
I don't hear any ecumenism from the official urbanists around here. It's all climate all the time, resulting in some uniquely awful plans. They wrote a new zoning code that would have required every building to be rebuilt to Green standards if one Karen complained about it. How is that "sustainable"? More waste in the landfill, more trees cut down to make lumber, more drywall from coal-powered China. Fortunately there were some sane people in the city government who stopped the plan before it could be implemented.
Interesting statements. You know your readers best. How they react and how we work from this space, together, Democrats and Republicans, is important. I read through the comments and can live with most statements.
On the beauty idea, is not everyone very abstract. We allow LIHTC deals that lack beauty. Trailer parks, old version or new, are not my definition of pretty. Heck, subdivisions with snout garage houses are certainly not beautiful, but they are efficient to build. How do subdivisions with garages in front have occupants that talk of beauty?
I'll leave the Catholic Church alone.
A further remark about ecumenism: The so-called ecumenical movement withered on the vine and did not unify anything except as a conversation claque among the cognoscenti. What did happen is that the "unwanted stepchildren" of the Reformation multiplied around the globe, especially in Pentecostal form (nothing mainline). What does this suggest about the future of urbanism?
“And now you sound as if you’re taking people’s homes hostages: “Cornices or the people don’t get housing!” And that kind of obstruction more or less has to be opposed by a movement whose goal is to get housing built.”
See, this is the part I don’t get. Are cornices or ornamentation generally so objectionable that they’re a major stumbling block for a large segment of YIMBYS? Historic buildings that are falling apart go for substantial premiums over modernist buildings, so clearly there is demand. It’s difficult to not believe that a substantial portion of YIMBYS have taken the position that the current unholy alliance of trendy left-wing architects and cost cutting developers should be allowed to build eyesores unimpeded for purely ideological reasons. Considering how unpopular new building is, I would hope YIMBYS would find friends who can help sell the idea to the general public.