White Flight?

[ablarc]

It's not size that makes a place urban. All countries in Europe are full of hamlets and villages that are urban and have populations of fifty or less. Such places have clear borders interfacing with farmland or forest, so they don't sprawl and they have no suburbs. They usually have a small square in the middle, and of course they're fully walkable. In some of them, buildings actually touch, forming a street wall.

 

[a630]

FLAindy,
On here, people's definition of "urban" is based on the personal preferences they have as traditionalist aesthetes, that is to say, it is narrow, maybe arbitrary, takes little consideration of social or economic factors, or even the aesthetic sensibilities of many others, including a great number of fellow architects and urbanists. It is an opinion, however they tend to present it in an anti-illectual manner. So if you try to present anything besides the local new urbanist development and ask if it indicates that a city is urban, the answer will be "NO." I wouldn't worry about it.

 

[czsz]

Clearly this is a hugely loaded and subjective term. In the lingua franca of this forum it has a different meaning than it might in other contexts. For us, it's a shortcut to describing a certain specific type of development. For others, it may mean as little as "not rural".

 

[ablarc]

If you broaden the definition of a term enough, you end up with a useless term. If you say urban is what is not farmland or forest you have to lump urban and suburban together --whereas they are actually opposite kinds of habitat.

The end result is the oxymoronic tern "urban sprawl", which is thankfully by now absent from the conversation of most thinking people. While this term raged, it enabled regular folks to erroneously think that the source of sprawl was the city, and laws were passed based on this fallacy. We all know otherwise.

You know you're in an urban place if it doesn't sprawl.

South Beach and Back Bay don't sprawl and are urban.

Miami and most other American "cities" do sprawl and are not urban.

 

[Ron Newman]

Seems to me that urban/suburban is a continuum, not a sharp division. Think of Boston -> Cambridge/Somerville -> Arlington -> Lexington -> Lincoln, for instance.

 

[czsz]

Ablarc - okay, but if you really only want to restrict "urban" to one, very specific context you run into all kinds of other problems. For one, what about "urban" as an aesthetic - "urban" art, music, etc.? Even to "thinking people," a one-story commercial strip covered in graffiti along a wide LA boulevard through a poor, minority neighborhood would probably be considered "urban" - for better or worse - whereas, say, Newton Centre might not.

What about shifting understandings of what's urban? Do we classify everything that's not high density and pedestrian friendly as "suburban"? From exurbs with three acre lots to fin de siecle streetcar suburbs? Doesn't that then overload that term?

 

[blade_bltz]

^ see West Roxbury vs. Mattapan

 

[ablarc]

From exurbs with three acre lots to fin de siecle streetcar suburbs? Doesn't that then overload that term?

No, it doesn't, because they have in common that you can't live without a car.

Urban places are completely different animals from suburbs. So they need completely different policies to keep them healthy. You wouldn't feed horse pills to your garden or fertilizer to your horse.

Setbacks, buffers, on-site parking requirements: these are suburban concepts routinely force-fed to places that could otherwise be urban. No wonder they don't thrive.

 

[a630]

anything besides dogma in the arsenal you will use to save us from all this non-urban decrepitude?

 

[ablarc]

You could start by looking at Los Angeles.

 

[a630]

I wonder if you know anything about Los Angeles or anywhere else that wasn't spoon-fed to you by elitist design fascists Kunstler or DPZ. As someone who does know much more, I can see how much of LA doesn't fit into your narrow perception of a pleasing environment. People who do share your opinion have ample opportunity to influence public policy and do. People who would prefer a different aesthetic also have that opportunity. Then there are those of us who see the city as more than an aesthetic endeavor, who dare I say, are concerned with the ability to pursue life opportunities beyond the ability to buy or rent a home in a mixed use building or a handsome row of townhomes, as nice as those things are. These strange folks also understand that they have opinions, not a monopoly on knowledge. They avoid dogma and blind faith, and tend to respect the opinions of others, as long as they are not presented in an entirely anti-intellectual manner. Which leads me to the question: what is the difference between a new urbanist architect and a counter-reformation era Jesuit?

 

[ablarc]

I wonder if you know anything about Los Angeles or anywhere else that wasn't spoon-fed to you by elitist design fascists Kunstler or DPZ.

I came upon my opinions about cities at age ten; my parents took me to Paris for a month, bought me a Metro ticket, and told me to get lost. Since I?m older than either of the gents you cite, it can?t be spoon feeding; I must have gotten there first. Later, in architecture school, my professors tried to spoon-feed me Modernist urban design, but I could see from my experience in Paris that it was almost pure hogwash.

As someone who does know much more, I can see?

I?m glad you know much more. Whom do you know much more than?

I can see how much of LA doesn't fit into your narrow perception of a pleasing environment.

Glad you can see how LA doesn?t fit in my perception of a pleasing environment; it gives us a base for mutual understanding.

I like to walk in cities.

People who do share your opinion have ample opportunity to influence public policy and do.

I?m glad, and Los Angeles seems to be urbanizing. The times, they are a-changin?.

People who would prefer a different aesthetic also have that opportunity.

Yes, what is that exactly?

Then there are those of us who see the city as more than an aesthetic endeavor, who dare I say, are concerned with the ability to pursue life opportunities beyond the ability to buy or rent a home in a mixed use building or a handsome row of townhomes, as nice as those things are.

? as opposed to us clueless yokels.

These strange folks also understand that they have opinions, not a monopoly on knowledge. They avoid dogma and blind faith, and tend to respect the opinions of others, as long as they are not presented in an entirely anti-intellectual manner.

Could this be an example of the pot calling the kettle black? Do you need lessons in the very humility you espouse?

Is arrogance OK, as long as it?s not ?anti-intellectual??

Which leads me to the question: what is the difference between a new urbanist architect and a counter-reformation era Jesuit?

I don?t understand this question at all ?though it has a whiff of dogma about it.

Why don?t you enlighten us.


(Undogmatically and respectfully, if you please.)

 

[a630]

ugh.
I have zero problem with your perspective. I have a problem with the way you present it. All the time I go to lectures or presentations around LA where some esteemed architect argues such and such is the best neighborhood in Los Angeles, end of discussion. Inevitably I agree with them that it is an attractive place, but I thoroughly don't understand how it can be the "best." Inevitably a lot of people point out that the area has countless problems, even from a design perspective, and the architect shrugs off the comments, he/she is an unreasonable uncompromising zealot, who is not even open to discussion, yes indeed he/she an anti-intellectual. Personally I don't understand how anybody can so narrowly describe one neighborhood as the "best," THE goal, THE model - and if I did understand I would NEVER display such arrogance as to say it out loud, because I would sound like a presumptuous prick.

Generally I find this to be a problem among architects. They're as bad as NIMBYs. They come into meetings and piss on everyone else and leave. Then they complain about how awful the state of cities is because they never bothered to consider the diversity of elements that make them work beyond some narrow criteria they developed in Paris at age 10. There's this attitude of "nobody understands what is good urban space besides me" (this inevitably being a personal design preference, this is your attitude exactly). That arrogance has no role in the public process, good architects know that.

Thank you for representing every counter-productive architect (or anyone else) who brings things to a stand-still, I can't share my feelings in public for political reasons obviously.
Enjoy your endless frustration.

 

[ablarc]

Well, you do sound frustrated, and I'm sorry about that.

Shadowboxing.

I bet we don't disagree about anything important.

 

[kennedy]

There's this attitude of "nobody understands what is good urban space besides me" (this inevitably being a personal design preference, this is your attitude exactly).

I was under the impression that good cities had very little to do with actual architectural design. This sounds like you're criticizing the stylistic tastes of certain architects, whether those tastes be the Back Bay, or LA Live. As a matter of fact, truly good architects understand that good urban design has little to do with style, and far more to do with function. Wide sidewalks, continuous streetwalls, mixed uses, and good public transit all make good cities, regardless of the brownstone townhomes, or the minimalist Apple stores.

The problem is, many people don't understand what a good urban space is. The problem isn't that they're wrong, it's that they've never been taught what "good" is, mostly because they've never experienced it on a daily basis. That's why architects will try to give model neighborhoods - what better way for a community to learn about the potential some project could have, if they could see how their neighborhood might feel should it encourage a specific type of development.

I'm sorry you've had such bad experiences with architects. It's true that they can come off as dogmatic, I'm sure. But please know that whatever sour impressions you've had, all architects aren't pricks (as many on this board can attest to). Perhaps the GSD could offer a few more classes in public speaking, though.

 

[a630]

The GSD and other architecture schools really need to introduce something to educate architects on the virtues and how-to of public engagement. At the architecture school I'm most familiar with (because I was in it, albeit not for an architecture degree) ...the focus was highly theoretical, resulting in the creation of strong opinions (often presented dogmatically, so off-putting) among the student body, inevitably resulting in frustration with the ennui or whatever of much of the urban environment, and most sadly a desire to disengage from local issues because their thinking was just too profound to be wasted on petty everyday matters, those are for planners.

I have continually tried to get some of my friends who are architects to participate in public meetings. They could at least learn so much about why they only are permitted to design downtown object-buildings or houses for the wealthy. The AIA used to weigh in on every single zoning matter in the city of Los Angeles, every single one. The AIA was historically interested in enhancing the flexibility of regulation, or simply ridding it of the more absurd, obviously suppressing for the sake of suppressing tidbits (which is a lot of it). This flexibility can also grant "built-out" (according to the NIMBY homeowner associations who tend to have the planning departments and city councils by the neck) cities the room they need to provide better economic and social opportunities, and even take some pressure off the fringe deserts, forests, farms and mountains.

For every architect who just shows up thinking he's the next prophet and preaches new urbanism, or every architect who just stays at home and complains, I have to believe there are at least two who are willing to just show up at a meeting and say "Hey, maybe this development has benefits, how can we enhance them at a low cost? Here's my opinion." Every development can't be beautiful, but hopefully better representation of people interested in a more flexible environment will eventually help achieve that environment in which architects (and nearly everyone else) have greater freedom and opportunity. BABY STEPS. If just 10 non-dickwad architects showed up at important meetings and shared a simple sympathy for change, no dogma, that would really have an impact on the course of decision making, trust me. (hint hint)

I care about cities (not just the cute walkable bits) deeply, and nothing is more sad then seeing their dynamism frozen - not only because I enjoy this dynamism, but because when it is hindered there are genuinely awful repercussions for multitudes, economically, socially, environmentally etc. I think we mostly agree on all this?

 

[kennedy]

Spot on. I totally agree with everything you said just there.

Pragmatic, non-dickwad architects showing up for community meetings and what not would be exactly what is needed to help "educate the public." Schools need to preach to this, and the AIA needs to be committed to this - if the public is made more sympathetic to architects' goals, that means more jobs for architects. Simple economics, man!

 

[Joe_Schmoe]

Anyway, back onto the subject (sort of). The new white flight is black flight as African American's leave historically black neighborhoods in the wake of Hispanic immigrants. See:

http://www.economist.com/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=10697106

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704292004575230532248715858.html

htthttp://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/060610dnmetblackflight.1bffbc6.html

http://housingresearch.wordpress.co...ing-baltimore-in-greater-numbers-than-whites/