Excellent post. In addition to the fear of serious issues like crime, you also see a tendency to assume any existing or historical limitation on city life is inherent to cities rather than a function of the urban decline that America (somewhat unintentionally) engineered. For example, "You can't raise a family in a Manhattan studio apartment." Well, no. But if it weren't for all the NIMBY restrictions people could build enough vertically to make affordable 4-bedroom apartments -- not in midtown Manhattan but certainly in the outer boroughs and inner NJ/Long Island/Westchester suburbs. Would the kids have their own backyard? No, that's probably inherent to city life -- but without legal restrictions on verticality it's easy to imagine plenty of shared green space preserved.
And also a shame that many people around the world seem (perhaps?) to have inherited that American Boomer fear of the city and worship for suburbia even if it doesn't conform to local circumstances.
I wonder how much of that is "well this is how America does it, and look everyone has their own park to themselves." Or "now we've moved on up, let's get ourselves space from the folks who aren't as moved up."
Just came across this, what a great article to counter the increasingly popular narrative that cities are decadent wastelands. There's a reason cities exist and always have and always will. Many people want to live closer together for social and logistical reasons, and that should be okay.
There’s often a generalized status quo bias underlying both right wing suburban nimbys and ideological left wing nimbys (actual ideologies, not folks just concerned about displacement) that boils down to “I like things the way they are, change is bad, and I’m able to veto change”
I think you’ve nailed some of the downstream manifestation of that though wrt older Americans views’ of urbanism and how seemingly innocuous things get re-codes as urban bedlam.
One of the greatest challenges facing American cities is the refusal of suburban and rural residents, and their elected representatives, to acknowledge the responsibility we all have as citizens to each other. Cities, suburbs and rural areas are interdependent both economically and functionally. The borders of each are artificial lines on a map delineating mere political subdivisions of a sovereign entity — the state. Cities belong to all of us. Their problems are our problems. We ignore our mutual responsibility at great cost to everyone.
Excellent post that really captures the things I’ve realized over the last several years as I fell into the deep well of urbanism. Grew up in Philly, now live in Seattle and currently on a train on vacation in Kyoto. The difference in the Japanese city form is striking and lovely. Fewer rules, more haphazard building and continued change and renewal. Coupled with great transit and intercity trains it’s been an eye opening experience for what could be.
Agreed! I'm struck by how the fictional district of Richmond in the show Ted Lasso feels so alive, integrated, and attractive. Maybe fiction is the answer in the vein of Berry's Port William or Tolkien's Hobbiton. Tours of great towns help too. I'm always showing off Lancaster City, and at least here there is a growing belief "the city" is a life-giving place to live, tough in spots but no hell hole. Thanks for your writing that is helping move the dial of favorability toward our peopled places.
Excellent post. In addition to the fear of serious issues like crime, you also see a tendency to assume any existing or historical limitation on city life is inherent to cities rather than a function of the urban decline that America (somewhat unintentionally) engineered. For example, "You can't raise a family in a Manhattan studio apartment." Well, no. But if it weren't for all the NIMBY restrictions people could build enough vertically to make affordable 4-bedroom apartments -- not in midtown Manhattan but certainly in the outer boroughs and inner NJ/Long Island/Westchester suburbs. Would the kids have their own backyard? No, that's probably inherent to city life -- but without legal restrictions on verticality it's easy to imagine plenty of shared green space preserved.
And also a shame that many people around the world seem (perhaps?) to have inherited that American Boomer fear of the city and worship for suburbia even if it doesn't conform to local circumstances.
I wonder how much of that is "well this is how America does it, and look everyone has their own park to themselves." Or "now we've moved on up, let's get ourselves space from the folks who aren't as moved up."
Just came across this, what a great article to counter the increasingly popular narrative that cities are decadent wastelands. There's a reason cities exist and always have and always will. Many people want to live closer together for social and logistical reasons, and that should be okay.
There’s often a generalized status quo bias underlying both right wing suburban nimbys and ideological left wing nimbys (actual ideologies, not folks just concerned about displacement) that boils down to “I like things the way they are, change is bad, and I’m able to veto change”
I think you’ve nailed some of the downstream manifestation of that though wrt older Americans views’ of urbanism and how seemingly innocuous things get re-codes as urban bedlam.
Very thoughtful post.
One of the greatest challenges facing American cities is the refusal of suburban and rural residents, and their elected representatives, to acknowledge the responsibility we all have as citizens to each other. Cities, suburbs and rural areas are interdependent both economically and functionally. The borders of each are artificial lines on a map delineating mere political subdivisions of a sovereign entity — the state. Cities belong to all of us. Their problems are our problems. We ignore our mutual responsibility at great cost to everyone.
Excellent post that really captures the things I’ve realized over the last several years as I fell into the deep well of urbanism. Grew up in Philly, now live in Seattle and currently on a train on vacation in Kyoto. The difference in the Japanese city form is striking and lovely. Fewer rules, more haphazard building and continued change and renewal. Coupled with great transit and intercity trains it’s been an eye opening experience for what could be.
Agreed! I'm struck by how the fictional district of Richmond in the show Ted Lasso feels so alive, integrated, and attractive. Maybe fiction is the answer in the vein of Berry's Port William or Tolkien's Hobbiton. Tours of great towns help too. I'm always showing off Lancaster City, and at least here there is a growing belief "the city" is a life-giving place to live, tough in spots but no hell hole. Thanks for your writing that is helping move the dial of favorability toward our peopled places.
The concept of invincible ignorance explains so much online behavior and discourse, thank you.
This essay speaks to how common it is for anything new and different that originates in cities to be problematized or pathologized.