rssElitism of Urban Planning
Monday, February 25, 2008 at 8:50 am
- 2 Comments
The Atlantic’s recent story “The Next Slum” is the kind of piece that gets people talking, as stories about urban life and the growth of suburbs and exurbs tend to do. We just weighed in on the subject ourselves last week.
But what I found most interesting – and disturbing – about the Atlantic piece was what it left out.
Author Christopher Leinberger, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institute and an urban planning professor, predicts the decline of the exurbs: Today’s McMansions turning into tomorrow’s tenements. Cities and urban-style living, in the meantime, will become more desirable as people choose communities where they can walk and socialize with their neighbors. As proof, the article cites the popularity of suburban towns that have walkable urban centers, featuring a mix of residential and commercial development.
I’ve seen those places: Seaside in Florida, or Kentlands, in Gaithersburg, Md. And they are nice, with homes built close to each other, featuring front porches and town squares, a throwback to small towns, a contrast to the isolation of the cul-de-sacs. This whole movement started back in the 1980s and was popularized by Miami architects Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk. It came to be know as New Urbanism and there are developments like it around the county, examples of Leinberger’s thesis.
But what he fails to point out is this: New Urbanism’s greatest failure has been its inability to provide for mixed-income housing. That was the idea at the start – all this neighborliness and high-density development was supposed to include people of all income levels. That was the dream. But the developments proved to be so popular, and so expensive, that the moderate income houses never did get built on any substantial scale. The only mixed-income living at Kentlands turned out to be the Au pair suites above the garages.
Leinberger also is a real-estate developer. That should tell you something about his view. It’s nice to talk about desirable communities and walkable urban centers. But the biggest dilemma for urban planners and developers is not building these traditional-style towns. It’s giving everyone a piece of the dream.
2 Comments
Comment posted February 27, 2008 @ 11:19 pm
Mary Kane has a point, but so does Chris Leinberger. As someone who has worked in and around the planning profession for nigh on to 30 years (gulp), my main beef with this story is the headline. It says – or means to imply – that urban planning is elitist. GOOD urban planning is not; it attempts to promote equity, diversity, opportunity and environmental quality to make better places to live for everyone. Planners are often thwarted in this effort by politicians and developers who choose not to use their influence to promote community values over profit and expedience.
First, let’s distinguish between "planning" and "design." Planning takes into account a wide range of factors including social conditions, demographics, environmental impacts, the synergistic effects of a mix of uses, infrastructure, externalities, and on and on. Design is far more limited than that. (Architects often market themselves as "planners." Don’t fall for it.) Design is very important and should be part of all good planning, but it is only one part of real town planning. If some of the products of good design – Kentlands, Seaside – turn out to appeal to a well-healed clientele, that is because their aesthetics are good and valued by
Comment posted February 27, 2008 @ 5:19 pm
Mary Kane has a point, but so does Chris Leinberger. As someone who has worked in and around the planning profession for nigh on to 30 years (gulp), my main beef with this story is the headline. It says – or means to imply – that urban planning is elitist. GOOD urban planning is not; it attempts to promote equity, diversity, opportunity and environmental quality to make better places to live for everyone. Planners are often thwarted in this effort by politicians and developers who choose not to use their influence to promote community values over profit and expedience.
First, let's distinguish between "planning" and "design." Planning takes into account a wide range of factors including social conditions, demographics, environmental impacts, the synergistic effects of a mix of uses, infrastructure, externalities, and on and on. Design is far more limited than that. (Architects often market themselves as "planners." Don't fall for it.) Design is very important and should be part of all good planning, but it is only one part of real town planning. If some of the products of good design – Kentlands, Seaside – turn out to appeal to a well-healed clientele, that is because their aesthetics are good and valued by
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
