pull down to refresh
380 sats \ 11 replies \ @k00b OP 4 Feb \ parent \ on: Are you a foot person or a car person? earth
Most places have turned into car places and I think most people at heart are foot people. I expect that to be what a lot of the book is about.
There is good reason for this. A roadless, carless city is a nice idea like communism is a nice idea until everyone lives in dilapidated buildings and starves. Modern society and our standard of living is dependent on the most efficient means of transporting goods/equipment and labour to build, operate, supply, and maintain everything we interact with on a daily basis. Roads and cars/trucks that give you access essentially right to the doors of where you want/need to go are the most efficient way to do that.
Could you build a city from scratch in a thoughtful way that prioritized walking/biking and mass transit over cars, sure, but the idea that we can take existing cities that have been built up over the past hundred years to be optimized for the efficiency roads and cars provide and change them to be walking cities is ludicrous. It comes out of the fairy tale imaginations of academics and city "planners" that sit behind a desk all day and who are incentivized to come up with "nice" ideas instead of producing anything of value.
So you can put me down as undecided.
reply
I read a piece a long time ago that argued American cities were artificially oriented around cars. The argument was more or less that during the Cold War gas was artificially cheap, because most of the world was kneecapping itself with communism, which dramatically reduced demand. That's also the period when most American cities were rapidly expanding spatially.
I don't know that the argument is entirely correct, but I think there is something to the idea that American car culture is at least in part a market distortion. Also, there would unquestionably be more neighborhood stores if residential zoning were relaxed or abolished.
reply
during the Cold War gas was artificially cheap, because most of the world waskneecapping itself with communism
still being plundered by Western neo-colonialism, and suffering coups and wars instigated by the West to secure access to their resources (e.g. the West kept cheap access to Iran's oil by removing Mosaddegh in 1953 and installing their puppet the Shah).
(This is not to say that central planning in China and Russia didn't cause economic retardation.)
reply
Those are fair points, they just weren't part of the argument. However, if it was a simple matter of plunder, rather than endogenous impoverishment, then the reduced global demand would have been offset by the west spending their spoils.
The issue is primarily reduced demand from self inflicted economic wounds throughout the non-western world. The Iran point would be more relevant if it also explained why that cheap oil wasn't consumed in the communist economies, but it is certainly part of the picture.
reply
My point would be how 'self-inflicted' those economic wounds actually were. (Even the Communist revolution in China only happened after the 'Century of Humiliation' by the West. And Lenin and a party of 40 Bolsheviks were put on a sealed train out of Switzerland, organised and secured by Germany1, and given safe passage back to Russia before the October Revolution.)
Footnotes
reply
I accept that correction. I was speaking loosely and do really hate the idea of blaming the victims of either communism or colonialism for what they suffered under.
The more rigorously stated point is that communist central planning artificially depressed what should have been most of the global economy. That made oil artificially cheap in the west. That led many American cities to grow in an environment of limited fuel constraints. The result is that American cities are distorted towards car use from what would have happened without communism in the East and South.
reply
The introduction argues Detroit collapsed because the car industry distorted its city planning and lacked the land use diversity to survive the industry leaving.
One of the things this book argues (apparently as I'm not far enough to know) is that mixed use is ideal both for foot people and efficiency.
reply
I think you can make a reasonable argument that any city dominated by one industry where a large portion of the populous are employed either directly or indirectly by a few megacorps all located in a small radius is susceptible to collapse if that industry fails or leaves.
Could a more diverse use of the land in the city have helped mitigate the effects of the downfall of the auto industry, possibly, but I find it hard to believe a market of auto workers who were making excellent salaries in unionized low skill jobs would have chosen different lifestyles or vocations before the collapse or were going to suddenly build and flourish in a diverse services based economy after the collapse if only the land had been used differently.
"Nice" idea for the intellectuals to ponder and write books about but a bit of a
reply
I get the bend against central planning but I don't know anything about the rigor of urban planning so I wouldn't conclude it's pointless. When people give their life to studying something, I tend to believe they uncover at least something of value even if it doesn't amount to much absolute value.
I find it hard to believe a market of auto workers who were making excellent salaries in unionized low skill jobs would have chosen different lifestyles or vocations before the collapse or were going to suddenly build and flourish in a diverse services based economy after the collapse if only the land had been used differently.
Me too which is why I'm interested in reading a book that claims otherwise.
reply
Update:
- the book is actually about how "planning theory" is dead wrong about everything and her examples of good neighborhoods are those that lacked planning and were bottom-up
- Jacobs never went to college
- Jacobs has lived in big cities and everyone of her arguments so far is supported by that kind of direct empiricism
- I'm only a chapter in but she sounds like the Mises of Urban Planning
I suspect she'd argue that Detroit fell into a wasteland on top of losing most of its economic activity because it was excessively planned.
reply
My first instinct is to check if I can walk when I have to go somewhere. From where I live, though the answer is pretty much always "no".
reply