Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The problem with most "urban planners" is that most are schooled "the collective" (thinking/community) than "individualist" (thinking/community). They are steeped in academia or really "socialist academia", and they attempt to alter the physical space or "built city" to support an underlying notion of social engineering/architecture. They are been taught by Euro-planners and philosophies that are anathema to most cities in America, and particularly the South. Most American "city culture" doesn't mimic the Euro scene, but they are trying to re-create that physical and social milieu to suggest a sort of weird, ill-placed effort in many American cities. It's a globalist, communal thing in their heads, and they are constantly trying to sell it to cities that are essentially suburban and ex-urban, such as Tampa Bay. These leftist egghead planners are superimposing their design scheme when the average dweller in the MSA isn't clamoring for such "enlightened Euro, high density, so-called walkable lifestyles". These "enlightened minds" are self-aggrandizing pipe dreamers, attempting to shape the world around them how THEY want to see it. This ain't Europe. High density living isn't found in most cities in the South, the Southwest, or for that matter not in the Midwest either (save perhaps Chicago).
The DNA of Tampa Bay is not going to be transformed into a pedestrian high density mecca....neither is the totality of Sarasota County, Manatee County, Lee or Collier.
Vinik certainly doesnt fit the profile you just described.
The problem with most "urban planners" is that most are schooled "the collective" (thinking/community) than "individualist" (thinking/community). They are steeped in academia or really "socialist academia", and they attempt to alter the physical space or "built city" to support an underlying notion of social engineering/architecture. They are been taught by Euro-planners and philosophies that are anathema to most cities in America, and particularly the South. Most American "city culture" doesn't mimic the Euro scene, but they are trying to re-create that physical and social milieu to suggest a sort of weird, ill-placed effort in many American cities. It's a globalist, communal thing in their heads, and they are constantly trying to sell it to cities that are essentially suburban and ex-urban, such as Tampa Bay. These leftist egghead planners are superimposing their design scheme when the average dweller in the MSA isn't clamoring for such "enlightened Euro, high density, so-called walkable lifestyles". These "enlightened minds" are self-aggrandizing pipe dreamers, attempting to shape the world around them how THEY want to see it. This ain't Europe. High density living isn't found in most cities in the South, the Southwest, or for that matter not in the Midwest either (save perhaps Chicago).
The DNA of Tampa Bay is not going to be transformed into a pedestrian high density mecca....neither is the totality of Sarasota County, Manatee County, Lee or Collier.
Wow.. So, I grew up in family that was almost completely Republican, and a primarily Republican voting area. I myself still have a fair number of fiscally conservative tendencies, and generally speaking would subscribe fully to the elements of the "Invisible Hand Theory", and people being able to make something of themselves without a significant amount of regulation.
That said, this just strikes me as a very "all or nothing" way of thinking. On one hand, I do understand your point that America is a more individualist society than others. That isn't all bad. Nor is the fact all bad that America will likely never (at least in my lifetime, and I'm young), truly mimic the Euro urban scale, it's just a different sort of place overall, I'd say that's also fair.
That said, you seem to be putting anything favoring high density living into a box that is carved entirely by politics. You have to remember that cities are far older than the past 100 years when people in American cities are as you put it, placing zany/wacky "socialist" principles of having high density/so called walkable lifestyles. Cities have been forming since Jericho, the initial socialist experiment, in about 9,000 BC. Of course, prior to that, we didn't have cities. In fact, this was even prior to the agricultural revolution. Before humans came together in groups in cities, we lived bascially like glorified pack animals, not really doing much different than monkeys, etc., living in caves, no real language, etc. to speak of. I'll be honest with you: that wasn't all bad either. We were probably less stressed as a whole then! Though we wouldn't have probably made the brain connections, or language to express to form whatever that is exactly. Ironically though, these pre-agriculture humans were in some ways worse for the environment and in creating extinction of species than our present day ones are. Food for thought.
But anyways, this, for most of human history was kind of how it was. You had people in small rural areas, farmers, out in the country, and then you had core cities. Basically all of the knowledge, technology, progress etc. we had came from those central places were humans were able to come together and interact. Now, this was before cars, certainly. And once cars came around, humans, as they naturally do (nothing wrong or bad, necessarily), of course particularly in the US, land of opportunity, wanted more space. And so home ownership, sprawl, etc., became the thing to do.
Now, I know you made the comment about "sprawl being our friend". I'm actually not going to entirely disagree. It is part of the process of what has caused to get "where we are" now. But just as the horrible/socialist/wacko Euro style living you mention is in many ways not all bad, suburbia is not perfect either. For one thing, it's grossly cost inefficient (from what I have seen, at least). Since the country's current national debt is at, IDK, 22 TRILLION, I feel like it's healthy at least to look at on a micro scale also. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/...y-has-no-money
Consider this: the entire tax revenue base of Lafayette, LA is 16 billion, whereas infrastructure expenses, come to 32 billion.
They have roads throughout the community that cost 18x what the available revenue to complete them is.
Also consider: From 1950 to now, the median household income has gone up by 160%. However, the cost of certain pipe related infrastructure has gone up 1,000%.
Sure in some ways, walkable areas were present before because well, cars weren't. But, it's undeniable that there are certain advantages to living in a walkable area or having one around. It can:
-Have a smaller environmental footprint
-Provide a more unique and engaging lifestyle
-It can increase public health (both on obesity and lifespan, America doesn't rank among elites there)
-It can be more cost effective (which, unless we are truly living in an anarchist, build everything yourself society, which comes with risks too, is important. Even for a comparatively individualistic society).
-It can lead to more productivity (more interactions between people, more people in right careers, innovation and development, etc.)
Among other things.
Generally speaking, my impressions from the Euro cities which you seem to write off as all bad is that they are safer, healthier, have more educational/cultural resources, longer lifespans, and comparable (some more, some less) levels of economic success to that of the US. Consider that in the US, some of the wealthiest cities, both straight up and per capita, are it's older ones which generally have walkable principles and elements. So, as an open minded young person, I really can't consider those things to be the all bad type of picture you present.
I love the US, and want to always call it home, but I think we'd be staring blind into wind if we just said, "oh we are best at everything", and "there is not a single thing that can be done to improve".
The bottom line is that even sprawling cities (cough Nashville, Austin) that happen to have an active, inviting, engaging downtown/core that attracts people generally tend to reap the economic benefits of that, and I see very limited or no evidence pointing to the contrary.
Edit: Socialism has it's roots very recently (1797 in writing regarding the French Revolution, with first mention of the word from about 1822). European cities were already heavily built at that point, too, many with the dense centers of the style that you'd recognize today but perhaps call socialistic. I guess it was more collective oriented from that time on too, but Europe was also heavily seen as leaders of the world in development, innovation, etc at that time also. Is it really and truly socialism, if it's a chosen collective rather than a forced one? Forced collectivism is something I disagree with. When a group makes a choice to be a collective though, generally speaking, that has what has basically built and preserved the world. We are called to be in community and care about it as humans. That is something I feel is kind of core to our behavior as a species.
Last edited by theurbanfiles; 04-16-2019 at 08:34 AM..
And my wife is from Cleveland so we root for both as well.
I hope you have been back recently to see how some of the downtown, and nearby areas like Ohio City are thriving.
As far as density and crime, New York has a much lower crime rate than most American cities. While it wasn’t always that way, it demonstrates that it can be done.
That's awesome. Yes, I'm usually back every single summer, for at least a full week, often two (nice to escape the Florida heat when I can).
There are so many great places there and it makes me proud as a native to see them revitalized. Frankly, I would strongly consider moving back at some point but that would be a tough sell with the wife due to the winters lol.
New York is a perfect example. I think economies of scale perhaps helps, but it's a center of just about everything, and I'd agree, Manhattan is probably safer than just about any other major US city.
Thanks for sending that link. Looks like it's a long one, so I may have to watch at some point when I have more time.
That's awesome. Yes, I'm usually back every single summer, for at least a full week, often two (nice to escape the Florida heat when I can).
There are so many great places there and it makes me proud as a native to see them revitalized. Frankly, I would strongly consider moving back at some point but that would be a tough sell with the wife due to the winters lol.
New York is a perfect example. I think economies of scale perhaps helps, but it's a center of just about everything, and I'd agree, Manhattan is probably safer than just about any other major US city.
Thanks for sending that link. Looks like it's a long one, so I may have to watch at some point when I have more time.
I have been trying to convince her to buy something in Lakewood, or somewhere else near or on the lake on the west side because I love the summers there. I get the same resistance - she hates the cold.
reasonablevoice: That makes sense but even perhaps owning something there in the summers might make sense, I think there are such great values in Lakewood now and I'm not sure that there always will be!
I'm hoping to watch it at some point this weekend. I'm balancing working at a title 1 school and trying to work on my doctoral dissertation at this point also haha, that being said, I like taking study breaks and that looks like a perfect one when I have time.
ADVANCEDmgmt: I'm actually very glad we are having this conversation now, especially early on in the life of this thread. I think it is important to discuss what the role of the city is at all at this current time, what it was, and what it will be moving forward. Especially considering that as you correctly mention, many people in the area as a pct., and land area, do not necessarily live in what could be considered the urban core. A few points, and questions that I'll respond to though, and hopefully you can better direct them as answers so that our dialogue around this can be more specific in nature:
1. You've mentioned that your background is in this academic/political environment. What generally is your role? Clearly there is something that has caused you to feel very strongly or come down on a certain end of this discussion.
2. The fact that people (students, professors, etc.) in this area have leftist or "collectivist" mindsets to me is hardly a surprise. Academia in general is very leftist, not just this domain IMO. The collectivist thing in general shouldn't come as a surprise. Even if right leaning in other ways, wouldn't cities (defined by Dictionary.com as "the inhabitants of a city collectively") naturally be more collectivist than others if open to living in closer quarters in the first place?
3. You mention this thinking about the collective as if somehow the idea of making things for the collective is fundamentally at odds with individual expression and achievement, like the two just can't coexist. I wouldn't necessarily agree with this, what makes you feel this is the case?
4. "There is nothing inherently productive and good about "high density living". That is a farce." This is an absolutist statement IMO. Just as much as someone from the other side saying there is absolutely nothing inherently good about low density living. Yet, there seem to be a fair number of people that are happy enough, or have a preference in living in both sorts of ways. If there was truly nothing good about high density living, then how come up until basically WWII from the dawn of human history, most human cities formed in that way? Also, how come many of the world's cities that have had the most accelerated rates of development and innovation, and then in the present tense are also looked upon as some of our wealthiest, healthiest, safest, etc., and I can say based at least on most common QOL metrics, most desirable to live in, if one had the ability to?
5. You seem fundamentally opposed to the idea of a high density city center (though there are numerous economic studies showing this area is often the greatest producer of revenue for a city to maintain fiscal solvency). Shouldn't people that have a desire for walkable urban spaces have the ability to choose them, even if not for living, for perhaps pursuing work or leisure options? What exactly would you see as the role of a center downtown if not having it be as it is defined (to or in the main business section of a city). If urban or vertical development were not in any way inherently good, why would these capitalist entities all decide to congregate in a high density place either, perhaps instead being spread separately in some sort of endless suburb? Or would you not have there be a downtown space at all, and what would you see as the outcome of this for the ability of this area to remain competitive in attracting talent, companies, etc?
6. I wouldn't necessarily disagree with the fact that the goal should be for total mobility. But, I think that where much of post WWII planning got us in America and elsewhere was to car really being the only option for someone seeking any way to remain remotely competitive in our professional world. True or False: If you don't own a car in almost any American city besides NYC (and perhaps even there), you are basically a second class citizen. Is that wrong? But then is that consistent with the total mobility you just described? I also wanted to highlight your opinion that older city dwellers don't care about walkability. I don't necessarily agree with it, and the reason I don't is that almost matching 20 and 30 somethings without children, is the rapidly increasing population at retirement age (55+) that are now empty nesters, returning to and living in core urban spaces. If that type of set up you mention was truly antithetical to what they wanted, why would there be such a clamor still (and not just in Sarasota, this is noticed in St. Petersburg, and cities throughout the country), to scoop up spaces like this?
7. A point you made was that "with communal ideology and design, individualism is compromised and sometimes lost", and I'd agree, and I'd also posit that this is very visible... within our current suburbs. In fact, many have communal ideology and design. Many suburban zoning codes are uniform throughout the country, and are quite restrictive, and anti-competitive in nature. I'm assuming you are familiar with parking minimums, but generally speaking, there are a fair number of major operating companies in suburbia (McDonald's fully acknowledges here: https://medium.com/@alexcjensen/forg...y-49658d4d9061) that they are a real estate company, as much as a food one. So, they can be the direct landlord for tenants that then operate/maintain the spaces at minimal cost to McDonald's personally, while also continuing to profit from tenants. Wal Mart often is able to operate or open in a city for a certain time tax free, also. What the parking minimums policy does (certainly a crony capitalist policy at it's heart, which while I favor capitalism very much, I don't like crony capitalism) is it prices out any sort of small business owner that would even borderline be able to open a space from the get go, as the only people that can afford to pay the land cost for both opening the restaurant and the mass of parking around it are franchises. All that can create a very sterile, generic, setup throughout much of the sprawl of America where actually, individualism, small business, etc. has already been lost.. heavily.
8. The last thing I'll say is that you do seem to be able to articulate your thoughts about the current state of cities and their perils pretty clearly, at least. However, I'm curious, when you mention the current DT setup as being "expensive, inappropriate, wrong headed, without historical basis", these all seem to be claims that are without statistical evidence to this point. What statistical evidence do you have showing that these things are comparatively true, or that Sarasota will actually look "worse" in a few decades as a result? I am very open to seeing them, if present.
You offer some interesting points and perspective in that last post. FWIW, I am from Cleveland, OH. Suburbs, mind you, but even then, when I wasn't into this as I am now, as a kid, there was a fundamental fascination with the city. That's kind of the way that it was in the north in general though, perhaps. Even for the vast population surrounding Cleveland, there is a deep sense of ownership and loyalty towards the core there, which I don't even see in Tampa proper, and especially don't see in the areas surrounding Tampa compared with how it is up north.
When I was 13, I went on my first trip to Europe, and that was truly eye opening and changed the paradigm about what I thought of city living, and what the role of high density and city can be in our lives (Copenhagen, Helsinki, London especially, but even Tallinn, in a classical sense.
I don't necessarily see anything wrong with concentric development, either for suburban or urban purposes, that can be a good thing. But, while you aren't wrong, there's still no doubt that Atlanta, Nashville, Orlando even of late, see significant development happening and much more attention provided to the core and core neighborhoods than there was even a decade ago. I believe Atlanta became the first American city to go from a majority caucasian, then African American, then caucasian majority again (not a race topic in either direction, but the reality was, there was demand for urban living in Atlanta of late which led to gentrification-for direct proof, even look at businesses open along Edgewood Ave. right across the street basically from MLK's own Ebenezer Baptist Church. Now, I could be wrong, but I would at least assume (esp. in a place like Midtown and certain nabes east of downtown that some of the same principles you've mentioned in Sarasota have been incorporated there).
Generally speaking, because of the smaller influence of industry in southern cities as you mentioned, there are less bones. And generally speaking, outside of New Orleans, southern cities didn't really have nearly the diversity of northern ones. Hence, why Ybor City is such a big deal historically, as it was one of the very very few ethnic neighborhoods in all of the south.
I understand that generally speaking, there was this focus more on an agrarian lifestyle in the south vs. in the north. Now, to be fair, this was at least part stemming from a time when the only way that this root could be sustainable in it's profitability was by the fact that it was built on the backs of unpaid labor. This being said though, it's still worth considering, and you are right that many natives are not big on that. But, even if none at all are, should their wishes come ahead of (or at the expense of) the fact that there is also a fair amount of population that is transplants (not just from the north as you mention, but from Latin America, etc.), that perhaps does have more of a desire for this type of living, or at least to be able to visit and participate in a vibrant core? My understanding is that this being a free country, there should be a variety of options for everyone (which a densely planned core helps create, for those that want it). For those that don't-as you point out, there are plenty of suburbs available that a majority may find more affordable, and preferable anyways, so why can't those people just agree to disagree then and coexist? Quite honestly-if we are talking about Sarasota-Bradenton in particular, I would be willing to guess over 80% of the population are transplants from within the past generation or two. Maybe it's not that much, but I'd at very least guess it's a plurality.
I agree that is the trend. But what happens when that occurs for another generation, and then besides just environmental negatives (and I say that as someone again, who is by no means a liberal, just keeping track of what generally happens when that many people settle on previously undeveloped land), the area is bankrupted by infrastructure costs/debts, and people in these places have over an hour commute? It took me 36 minutes to drive less than 3 miles east in Bradenton yesterday. Again, suburbia doesn't exist for no reason, but it is far from a perfect/final solution or something, either. Personally, if more people are living in the core, that probably means there are more jobs down there, and fewer of their cars on the road also ideally due to other means they have of getting to their offices. I say that's a good thing, even if I myself never live in the core of said city. Again-it must be pointed out that city centers are generally the greatest contributor of tax revenue for the whole area, at very least on a per capita basis, by a wide margin.
It is much cheaper and easier to build out on cornfields/previously undeveloped spaces in the short term, and there are many more of them that are safer, easier to maintain since they're new etc., which is why it makes so much sense in the immediate term. That's no question. The question is (A) is that sustainable (B) are there QOL or economic drawbacks to our current setup (I believe there are (C) and can an area function with no core, or what impact does it have on an area to have a rotting, low density, ignored core (generally, my experience is a bad one. On the WHOLE area).
You aren't wrong about the fact people lived here before northerners did, but that doesn't give people living here before greater rights, it gives them equal rights to it. And generally speaking, if new people move to a place, they generally implement their ideas on how it should be shaped with time. That is just generally human nature/how things have evolved with time.
Honestly, it sounds like you just really have a strong distaste for urban planners-it is what it is. It sounds like you have a general distaste for density and think of urban spaces like that as misguided or unnecessary in general. Again, I don't have a problem with that either. But, why can't you just let the people in those places do their thing, and then you do things in your way? Again, isn't it okay for people to choose to live in a variety of different settlements? It would be one thing if people in Downtown Sarasota were telling you or me how and where you needed to live (which I would have a problem with), but as it is they are not.
Duany went to Ecole des Beaux Arts and perhaps has French ancestry, but he grew up in Cuba and has been an American citizen for much of his life. I don't know whether where someone is from is relevant, so long as they have a vision for something, don't be upset at him necessarily, be upset at people within the core of Sarasota that chose to listen to him! Lol.
Again, I respect your opinion that you don't like urban planners and believe that building places that are urban in nature is a fallacious practice, but it doesn't seem like you have specific statistics or data or anything of the sort noting why everything you mention is so bad, actually is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
