What We Choose

June 5, 2006
     The New Urbanists met for their annual confab in Providence over the weekend and I was there among them, as I have been for thirteen years, because there is no other organization in America that is doing more to remediate the fiasco of suburbia -- or, as I call it, the greatest misallocation of resources in the history of the world. I have been telling college lecture audiences for a while now that pretty soon the only urbanism will be the New Urbanism. I am not being facetious.

     This movement has been broadly misunderstood over the past decade, especially by some of the major morons in the mainstream media, such as David Brooks and John Tierney of The New York Times, who repeatedly make the fatuous argument that suburbia must be okay because Americans overwhelmingly choose to live in it. Well, that's nice. The trouble, though David and John, is that suburbia is coming off the menu. In a world of $70 oil and upward, suburbia is a dish that can no longer be served up in America's economic kitchen. Someone should inform the waiters.

     The New Urbanists were first among the entire architecture-and-planning establishment to volunteer to help in the areas devastated by Hurricane Katrina, and they have received nothing but scorn and ingratitude for proposing that the Gulf Coast towns be redeveloped as something other than parking lots with casinos, or that FEMA learn how to deliver a well-designed small cottage instead of a trailer to people who have lost their homes. The minions of the elite architecture schools, lead by Reed Kroloff of Tulane University, have been especially dismissive, proposing instead architectural exercises in irony and High Art -- just what people living in tents with no plumbing need.

     The New Urbanists are the only group I know of who offer a comprehensive set of intelligent responses to the awful challenges we face in a looming mega crisis of the environment. Assuming that the human race wants to carry on, and to do so under civilized conditions, we are going to need collective dwelling places, civic habitations. It has yet to be determined what scale will be possible, and exactly what kind of energy will be available to us for running them. But the signs so far indicate that the scale will have to be much more modest than what we are currently used to, and the quality will have to be much higher.

     The New Urbanists performed an extremely valuable service to this society over the past decade. They dove back into the dumpster of history and retrieved the knowledge needed for the design and assembly of real civic environments -- knowledge that had been thrown away gleefully by the traffic engineers and municipal Babbitts in the delirious years of building the easy motoring utopia.

     One day soon, America will wake up from its infotainment-fueled sleepwalk and start desperately looking for answers to the predicament it finds itself in. A lot of that will revolve around the basic question of where we live, and how things in it are arranged. When that wake-up occurs, the New Urbanists will be ready, reliable, confident, and congenial as always -- something like our country used to be.

Comments

[The Interloafer]

New Urbanism is right on target for new development in the suburbs, but what about infill development within the area encompassed by Old Urbanism? Wouldn't it be better to try to rebuild Buffalo than to strike anew in some greenfields and cow pastures?

[Daniel Hopkins]

I'd like to know what you think about the millions who fled the high expenses of urban living for the affordable homes available in suburbia post WWII. These people were making economic choices not ideological ones. You seem to blame victims. Oil then was plentiful, paying the cost of commuting was a sacrifice in time and money homeowners-parents-employees made to survive.

[Todd]

Many people who lost everything from Katrina would have much rather gotten the "Katrina Cottage" instead of the poorly built yet wildly expensive trailers that FEMA is handing out. The cottage is surprisingly sturdy and can actually be hosed out if flood waters should get inside.

I remember all the talk of the new footprint of New Orleans, what will New Orleans look like in five years, etc just after Katrina struck. I guess that was all just talk, because months after the storm hit the plan seems to be rebuild where ever you are, let's get back to the way things were.

There needed to be a bold plan backed by the federal government to buy properties in the most vulnerable areas. As it stands now the plan seems to be that the government may buy your property if you want to sell it (I believe the details are still being worked out in the legislature), but if you want to rebuild that's okay too.

Katrina Cottage info here http://www.cusatocottages.com/index_content.html

[fizure]

Good link, Todd--thanks.

As for Daniel's comment that JHK seems "seem to blame victims", I'd just respond by saying that I think it is a matter of pointing out the impractibility of living far from your job, and having to commute or drive long distances to one's job or to get any basic services. I believe that Kunstler is referring to the insanity that has become ubiquitous in our culture... You blame him for blaming our society? Who is responsible? No one?! Someone must be, and I would assume that responsibility lies within the realm of millions of people, and certainly planners, developers and government--not to mention the massive corporations which benefit from the never-ending crapscape of cookie-cutter suburban sprawl. We all make choices, and they add up.

The sorry state of affairs in our development quality is illustrated nicely in this article a couple weeks ago in the NYT headlined "Bigger Houses, Longer Commutes":

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/21/realestate/21cov.html?ex=1305864000&en=2765c95824987a0e&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

On the second page there is a sad picture of a women in sitting at command in her SUV with a *massive* mcmansion that seems to be plopped right in the middle of nowhere...

"Julie Kroloff leaves her home in Hopewell Junction, N.Y., at about 6 a.m. to begin her two-hour drive to Manhattan."

Yup, you read that right!

A freakin' 4 hour commute... I mockingly salute her... but jesus, how long can this go on?

[grok]

After living for a month in Utrecht in the Nederlands, a medium sized city, coming back to Chapel Hill, NC surprised me. Where are all of the people? The sidewalks are virtually empty. The densities of our urban areas are very low compared to european standards.
We have withdrawn funding and caring from the public sector so all that remains is the worst american society has. Everything is designed planned for the car and McMansion lifestyle.
grok out

[Sarah (Mrs. Irani)]

"fatuous argument that suburbia must be okay because Americans overwhelmingly choose to live in it."

My husband and I live in suburbia. I am not happy about it. Our town is revitalizing the downtown and is one of America's Great Mainstreets. We talk about moving into town. We could get rid of one car and bike to work. Sounds great- we'd love it! We talked to someone yesterday about a New Urbanist condo downtown. $240K starting for a one bedroom. We might be able to swing the $240K thanks to my husband's fairly lucrative job, but where are we going to put the kids when they show up? $500K for a small single family downtown. Same for a townhouse closer to the town center. Sure we'd love to live in town, but who can afford it?

-Unhappy, but affording suburbia

[Barry]

Sarah - I read you loud and clear. This is, I think, an example of how the yawning chasm of wealth disparity between the 'top' and the 'middle and bottom' classes works to keep people 'trapped' in an environment that, ultimately, is doomed. Coupled with ever-increasing costs of new construction (fueled largely by inflation), renovations and restoration of urban centers prices those who could benefit the most out of the market. It would appear that we've created a monster of such proportion that we, literally, do not have the resources available to return to a more reasonable way of life. Jim's ideas about railroads, others' notions about nuclear power as an alternative, tar sands, etc., all fit in the same perspective. The driving force is the 'market,' and the market doesn't care about anyone.

[aj]

Sadly, economics is still a driver of suburban sprawl. I have friends with kids who moved to the South Shore of Montreal because it was the cheapest way to get a house-with-yard on a quiet street. The Plateau Mont-Royal district has houses with yards and quiet streets just steps away from parks, urban amenities, shops etc, but there's only so much of it and what is there is expensive, on the order of $400k for a small row-house cottage, maybe $300k-ish for a flat in a duplex or triplex.

that said, Montreal's default housing style is row-house duplexes and triplexes (similar to Boston triple-deckers). It packs a lot more people into a small amount of land, there's generally some sort of garden, and it preserves space for neighborhood parks, and you get a nice balance between privacy and "eyes on the street." It's a space-sensitive pattern I wish more cities would adopt when approving new subdivisions and urban infill.

[ConservativeGreen]

Sarah said

"but where are we going to put the kids when they show up?"

A couple of questions for the group:

How can we make urban living affordable?

Who is going to go first?

These two questions seem to arise most frequently. I live in a very small city where I can bike to work downtown in 40 minutes. Actually, commuting by car, bus or bike all takes about forty minutes.

I have a wife and two children and have been trying to figure out how we can live without a car, by living "in the city". But the numbers are still hard to figure out, even when you throw in a new car every 10 years, plus insurance and maintenance. As for where to put the kids? How about a nice hotel, or sleep on the living room floor.

I have actually considered using Japanese style bedding arrangements to get more usable space. I mean, a queen size bedroom set takes way to much room. Murphy beds used to be quite common in urban environments. Until they were torn out for more modern conveniences.

[Mike]

Morning all-

I'll probably wade in on JHK's latest at some point later today.

But, for those of you interested, a little tidbit on The Decider-in-Chief's latest Hail Mary to win the losing game at the closing gun:

http://mikesneighborhood.blogspot.com/2006/06/constitution-defining-separation-of.html

. . . as well as the usual Monday Morning Gardening Update for all us self-sufficient (or at least striving in that direction) folks. Consider me in the "still sriving" camp, if you please):

http://mikesneighborhood.blogspot.com/2006/06/weed-grows-in-queens.html

[Semanticleo]

"These people were making economic choices not ideological ones. "

You mean 'voting with their pocketbooks'?

We get the government and leadership
we deserve

[ChrisS]

New Urbanist condo downtown. $240K starting for a one bedroom.

A) I don't know where you live, or;
B) what the condo is like

but, the problem with many revitalizations and new urbanists designs in city centers is that they look for upscale clients first . Here in Syracuse, there's a bit of a two-way battle between new urbanists and a giant mall developer about the future of the city's development. The problem is that no one will commit to downtown redevelopment unless there's a gourmet cherry kitchen with granite countertops and stainless steel appliances which runs the cost out of the realm of normal working people who still need to pay for transportation (cars).

The equation is simple:
housing and transportation costs are joined, they're not separate, such that car + suburb home is the choice versus housing + public transportation, and when C+S

If we spent half the resources on the city centers and public transportation that we do on suburbs and automobile transportation we would bring the costs with both in line (and with the increase in fuel costs, city living would be even more of a value).

[masterson]

There is another dirty little secret at work here, the desire of people to live next to People Like Us, or at least, Not next to People Like Them. The word *exclusive* does tend to show up in development advertising doesn't it?

Ask yourself if you would even look at a development that used words like "inclusive" and "diverse."

I live in an old town in southern NJ. They built it on a grid. There are bigger lots and bigger homes in areas. There are smaller homes on BIG lots (imagine!). There are big homes on small lots! There are sidewalks everywhere and people go out for walks at night.

Big Developement (Toll Bros. etc.) could just as easily offer a variety of homestyles to create a diverse neighborhood of simple ranchers and capes graduating to McMansions as we move up that hill, but they don't. Because they know the market and they build to suit the demand.

Many americans today have a strong anti-social, tribal, gated community ethos. And the angst that is visible bubbling up into the zeitgeist is over the fact that they don't have the language to defend putting up the gates (yet).

But it is coming. The language has been created to support the shifting rationales for war, denying its failure, nevermind the massacres that are being spun into "concerned acceptance--cost of war" talk. Gates should be no problem.

[ellie]

Only 10 comments this late on Monday morning? All JHK's gender drivel and missguided-hawkishness must be really driving people away.

That being said, I'm glad he's returned to the topic many of us are here to read about. But he's been saying the same thing for so long. He seems to be unwilling to get more specific in his predictions. "One day soon, America will wake up from its infotainment-fueled sleepwalk"? He's been saying that for months and months. When does he think it will actually happen. I wonder if it will ever happen at all. If hurricane Katrina wasn't enough of a wake up call, I doubt anything can get Americans collectivly out of their stupor. Pockets may wake up here and there, but I'm not seeing a mass moment of eureka where the people realize JHK is right and suburbia is not an option.

[kd]

Fine post today, Jim.

Here's a piece you & others might find interesting:

http://www.rut.com/misc/urbandecay.html

[kevin_m]

Yeah, at least in NYC, you really have to toss the whole concept of the "decaying inner city" out the window. When neighborhoods like Bed-Sty and the South Bronx (SoBro!) see property values soaring, the middle class is in for a fix.

What's the solution? Obviously more investment in public housing and transportation, possibly a return to rent control. Still, until we get that long-awaited economic meltdown, that's never going to happen...

[Paul Cooley]

I admire the knowledge which the new urbanists are bringing back into play, however, I question the execution of the projects now underway.

I live in a community -- Santa Fe, NM -- which is, by nature of its size and distribution of resources, already walkable and bikeable. Governor Richardson is putting commuter trains in place which will provide service to Albuquerque. There is a bus system in place. I've been working with the city to make the streets bicycle friendly.

The difficulty rests with the attitude of the public. There has been a big ballyhoo about the construction of Oshara Village, a new urbanist community at the edge of the city. We DON'T NEED a new urbanist community. We need people to get out of their f*****g cars. As I see it, people who want to feel progressive will move into the new urbanist community, will occasionally walk to the coffee shop, which will be staffed by low-income workers driving in from the south of town, and then they will drive everywhere else.

Our family of four has been carfree for a little over two years. Our longest bike trips, in town, take about 45 minutes. We have a locally owned grocery store, restaurant, coffee shop, florist, and pharmacy within a five minute bike ride or fifteen minute walk. We have access to hiking trails, libraries, museums and movie theaters. But when I tell people that Santa Fe IS new urbanist, they look at me like I am crazy and continue to rant about Oshara.

It's just another Disneyland.

We need a culture-wide change in behavior BEFORE we start to invest a lot of money in changing the architecture. In terms of conserving energy and behaving in a sensible manner, we need to make better use of what we have first.

We live in the suburbs with our honeybees, chickens, and gardens. We just ripped out our driveway to plant a permaculture garden of perennials in the front yard.

Let's deconstruct some of the crap that's gone in, and let's plant more gardens and build a sense of community in the suburbs before we start building New Urbanist fortresses, gated against the people left behind in the suburbs without any support or knowledge of how to make what's there productive.

[Lise]

I keep reading about expensive condos for the rich on this site, but there is another alternative. Buy an old house or building that is relatively sound and fix it up yourself. My parents did that with some old Victorians, and I continued the tradition. Years ago when I lived in Wilmington DE, we shocked the real estate agents by insisting on an in-town home (yes, even next to families on welfare!). It was becoming a mixed neighborhood of poor, middle class and even a few wealthy. Most of the middle class hired some work out, but most of it was a self-fix. Town houses with turrets, graceful porches, spacious rooms came back to life. Note: the beauty of in-town life is that you've got lots of mixed neighborhoods of different socio-economic persuasions.
I'm now living in an upstate NY city and one of my neighbors is a lawyer, one of them works for the city garbage crew, one of them is an architect, one of them is on public assistance (but shovels snow from our neighborhood walks, fixes our cars, mows our lawns, calls the police when there is trouble on the street). These are neighbors that live within 3 houses from mine.
People are diverse and it's okay to have that diversity living around you.

[Mr. Raven]

Ah much better, this is what JHK is good at talking about the sociological, economic and architectural choices ahead as we go further into an age of energy scarcity. Last weeks weeks reactionary dribble only produces needless distracting division. I will bee forwarding this article far and wide. And last weeks? Not...

My own choice will be to live on some land in Oregon in a yurt. It will be a hard life but there is plenty of water, a mild climate, and it's easy to grow food. And if the garden doesn't provide enough protein there is hunting and fishing. I think if people want to live in cities JHKs approach is the right one, I just don't happen to be a city person (shrug).

[kd]

Paul Cooley,

How do you support your family of four in Santa Fe?

[rho]

or that FEMA learn how to deliver a well-designed small cottage instead of a trailer to people who have lost their homes

The horror of choosing to go with the FEMA trailers instead of actual construction is yet to be fully realized. Unless you've got a lot of discipline, the camper trailers, not meant for such long-term living, will be thoroughly trashed. They will likely be offered to the residents at pennies on the dollar, and thus the primary visual of coastal living will be pockmarked with these flimsy, sheetmetal yard-warts.

[george]

Consider Seaside, FL, a the home church of the New Urbanists. Located right on the Gulf Of Mexico and GUARANTEED to be GONE when a hurricane hits. Plastic imitations of antique housing styles. Peopled by filthy rich people who spend a few days each year there, so there is no real community there, nor has there ever been. It is dependent of nearby Ft. Walton Beach for medical, fire, emergency response, and other necessities. This is what we should emulate?

[Bob]

Good post but as pointed out by Sarah, these places are unafforable for most.

Hey gang, if you are having trouble getting your family and friends to grasp the importance of oil and the implications of Peak Oil, have them watch this video. http://karavans.typepad.com/karavans/2006/06/history_minus_t.html

My brother finally got it after watching it. Some people need to be entertained while being educated which means that serious documentaries such as the End of Suburbia will only put them to sleep.

[Weaseldog]

"These people were making economic choices not ideological ones. You seem to blame victims." - Daniel Hopkins

That argument comes up again and again.

We've had a good idea of our planet's limits since the 19th century. In the early 20th, Nobel Prize winning chemist Frederick Soddy laid the groundwork for quantifying the limits. Then since, we've continued expanding our understanding of the limits and framework that our civilization works within.

Yet, we've decided, both passively an actively to pretend that this knowledge must be false. We have practiced intentional ignorance.

That makes us both the perpetrators and the victims. And whomever blames whom, doesn't matter. The universe runs on it's own laws and it's own time. We can consume fossil resoruces for a time, while we pretend we live in a fairy tale land of magic, but the universe doesn't care. It seeks balance and when we can no longer hold back the natural order of things by buring fossil fuels or pumping 50,000 year old fossil groundwater, nature's pendelum will swing back the other way.

Everybody dies sometime. Does that mean we are all born victoms? Should the stars weep for us?

[Bob]

Re the FEMA trailers and overall treatment of the poor, how many here suspect that the powers that be really didn't want the poor returning to New Orleans?