One of the weirdest things about modern urbanism is that we build the opposite of what we like.
— David Perell (@david_perell) October 4, 2020
We adore Europe’s narrow streets, but build skyscraper-lined cities with six-lane roads and sterile shopping malls, that are impossible to walk. pic.twitter.com/sAN51OTRCt
Somebody interested in urban planning with strong opinions on urban planning and many replies all predicated on the capacity to ignore the wishes of others and any sort of democratic participation in planning. Experts want the power to expert over others.
This is most clearly exemplified in the unspecified "we." As they used to say in the movies, "Who's this "we", kemosabe."
In this instance, the unspecified "we" appears to be academic urban planners. Definitely not, we citizens.
Before solving a problem, we have to know whether there is a problem, and if so what are its causal mechanisms, and its measured consequences.
We don't build build skyscraper-lined cities with six-lane roads and shopping malls in a vacuum. It is the answer to some question or response to some need. And if we choose not to build narrow laned European environments, that also would seem to be for a reason.
The fact that Perell and his ilk might wish to build something different is no argument to do so.
The interesting question is, what current and future needs are being met under current arrangements which could be better met under any other condition? The default assumption has to be that what we see is an acceptable emergent order from tens of thousands of individuals with tens of thousands of opinions, based on tens of thousands of experiences and tens of thousands of objectives and tens of thousands of ideas of how to realize those objectives.
If we want to build something which involves and addresses the needs and objectives and constraints of tens of thousands of individuals, then we need to know those needs and objectives and constraints. Discussion like the tweet stream are just the dreamy side of totalitarianism.
We have, other than a relatively free market, no means by which to perceive, weight or balance all those tens of thousands of constantly evolving needs and objectives and constraints. Without that mechanism, then all we are doing with these exercises in academic urban planning, is indulging the dream of totalitarian power over fellow citizens.
When seen from that perspective, there is a lot of disdain and disqualifying arrogance apparent in the replies. The ivory tower is not a place for a full and charitable life.
Eight years ago, my City became enamored with ham-fisted planning. Much of this was due to the financial excitement over the billions of City, State and Federal money to be spent on a rails to trails project called the belt line, intended to reinvigorate downtown and some of the inner suburbs.
Beyond the commercial core of the project there was much frothy social justice, new urban planning babble. It was proposed that an extension transportation corridor be built on some of our dwindling nature preserves and along a creek in order to "connect" a chain of neighborhood nature preserves used by locals of all ages.
In the review 2012, evidence was amassed that the transportation corridor (walkers and bicyclers) users would likely drive out local users, that the environmental and ecological damage would be extensive and that the increased permeability of the neighborhood would likely lead to a rise in crime. All the virtuous planners argued otherwise.
A third of the proposed trail had few participants from the affected neighborhoods involved. It was decided to proceed with the new trail in that third and leave the two-thirds where there was overwhelming opposition till later. Opponents pointed out that this would represent a natural experiment. We could examine the differences in crime levels between the different neighborhoods and it was predicted that the neighborhoods would have higher crime.
A forecast which all the experts (fronts for developers) proclaimed would not happen.
Here we are eight years later and the forecast has come to fruition. The neighborhoods where the trails were built have crime rates 2-4 times higher than those neighborhoods where trails were postponed. Also, 2-4 times higher than crime rates at the state or national level. Whereas the city has experienced a 16% decline in crime since 2015, the connecting trail neighborhoods have experienced a 15% increase in crime.
The natural experiment is a pretty compelling answer. The connecting trails have destroyed tree canopy, environment and wildlife, with little citizen use because the trails are dominated by urban campers, expulsion of neighborhood users and rapidly rising crime.
None of the new urban plan designs turned out as was intended. So of course they now want to implement the rest of the trail. This time on the grounds that the whole trail system has to be in place for it to work.
Shades of "you have to pass the bill to see what's in the bill." No wonder citizens are turning their backs on anti-epistemic totalitarians who just make things worse with their pipe dreams.
UPDATES: I had meant to include this empirical data indicating that people are in fact much, much happier in low density communities rather than high density urban areas. Why? Almost certainly because some objective other than happiness is being better served by being in a city.
No comments:
Post a Comment