The problems of suburbia demonstrate the constant failure of central planning. The American tragedy differs only in scale, not in kind, from the collapse of the Soviet Union. Doing less central planning, we suffer less societal strife. But the problems arise regardless.
City governments assume they, and they alone, can divine the "best and highest use" of local land. And in accord with their own oracles they demand vast tracts of land be devoted to nothing but residential use -- then other acreage concentrate all retail -- then that garages, PC repair shops, and welding yards be segregated to still another area -- churches in still another -- parks/schools somewhere else -- all resulting, under penalty of law and threat of arrest, in the requirement that residents MUST get their cars and drive from zone to zone around town to perform daily functions. The vet who sleeps over the animal clinic, the widow running the daycare or bed-and-breakfast from her large vintage home, the convenience store at the intersection of residential streets; these are all forbidden.
And some "savants" STILL advise solving problems with MORE central plannning, and stricter city codes -- down to prescribing the inches of insulation in every attic and the number of panes of glass in every window. Mavericks who have a new idea, or want to resurrect an old one, are NOT welcome. If "front yards" are a good thing then ALL yard must line up, houses standing at attention like a regiment of soldiers, thirty feet (no more, no less) back from the curb. If composition shingles pose less fire risk than wood or less hail risk than clay tile, why then ALL roofs WILL be asphalt -- until the global warming alarmists decree some albedo-reducing replacement. All siding SHALL be brick, all garages MUST be attached, and all fences ARE REQUIRED to be cedar. Oh, and the list of mandates must be longer and more detailed every year -- suburbs where "the code" has not been regularly amended, appended, and extended MUST be chastised for falling behind.
The ironic thing is that the hippie anti-authoritarian guru of livable cities, Jane Jacobs, writing in 1961 The Death and Live of Great American Cities identified the problem a half-century ago. "How is bigger administration, with labyrinths nobody can comprehend of navigate, an improvement?" She anticipated that small local townships and suburbs would reject New York City-style massive highway and urban renewal projects and embrace a "crazy quilt" of vibrant, lively, unofficial plans, ideas and opportunities.
Instead she spawned a generation of city-managers who now claim they embrace Jacobs' vision of walkable downtowns, mixed-use development, variable building styles ... then demand and win czar-like powers to impose one vast vision, willy nilly, upon each newly available development. We see faux history, Disney-fication of town centers with war monuments and bandstands where crowds do NOT gather and where balloon vendors, ice cream men, jugglers and mimes would be arrested on sight. Light industrial zones where city councils envision "industries" that don't require parking a tractor-trailer rig overnight. Local historic family-owned catfish or barbeque take out places considered by code enforcement as eye-sores while the pallning and zoning bend backwards thru flaming hoops to bring in a Waffle House or IHOP. Lofty bois d'arc (hedge apple) or cottonwood trees are bull dozed away so that saplings from an "approved" list of more policitically correct trees can be (temporarily) staked into place. Potholes are ignored and sidewalks between homes and schools go unbuilt while visions of neo-Egyptian obelisks erected at highway intersections are showcased in PowerPoint presentations at community meetings. It's a sport, like figure skating or gymnastics, and those cities making the right moves to the current fashionable rhythms earn accolades and medals as "Tree City USA" or "All-American City". Our experts compete with their experts in front of expert out-of-town-judges and the people who actually live in town have no voice, no vote, and no joy in any victory.
The PBS show has one thing exactly right. A few people walkin', talkin' and knockin' on doors in the neighborhoods --old and new -- is the only solution. Get a crosswalk painted on a busy street. Build a school bus stop with a trash can. Put a picnic table and a bulletin board at the neighborhood entry. Little projects that neighbors do without, or more likely DESPITE, the city and the commercial developers.
Very well put, as usual J. The question that seems to linger in Lancaster is, "With so many separate political agendas and so many views of what Lancaster could and should be, who's to say who is right or wrong except the residents that live there every day?" The reason I say "except" in that statement is because it has become painfully apparent that the citizens are only listened to when their wishes coincide with the preconceived plans of the counsel. Take Millsbranch. Here's a great concept that sits and rots because the buyer for that product has no idea it's there! Even if they knew, who's going to move into a neo-classic community based on walking trails and a "Mayberry like" atmosphere when there's no grocery store or car wash within comfortable walking distance. And for those that would dare to challenge the walking distance comfortability in Lancaster, I'd remind you that in a city of less than 40,000 people last year Lancaster had not one, but two high profile murders. One car jacking that made the news, and robberies galore. Counsel, are you reading? Maybe garage door ordinances and aggressive code enforcers aren't necessarily the answer...unless they have guns and badges.
2 comments:
The problems of suburbia demonstrate the constant failure of central planning. The American tragedy differs only in scale, not in kind, from the collapse of the Soviet Union. Doing less central planning, we suffer less societal strife. But the problems arise regardless.
City governments assume they, and they alone, can divine the "best and highest use" of local land. And in accord with their own oracles they demand vast tracts of land be devoted to nothing but residential use -- then other acreage concentrate all retail -- then that garages, PC repair shops, and welding yards be segregated to still another area -- churches in still another -- parks/schools somewhere else -- all resulting, under penalty of law and threat of arrest, in the requirement that residents MUST get their cars and drive from zone to zone around town to perform daily functions. The vet who sleeps over the animal clinic, the widow running the daycare or bed-and-breakfast from her large vintage home, the convenience store at the intersection of residential streets; these are all forbidden.
And some "savants" STILL advise solving problems with MORE central plannning, and stricter city codes -- down to prescribing the inches of insulation in every attic and the number of panes of glass in every window. Mavericks who have a new idea, or want to resurrect an old one, are NOT welcome. If "front yards" are a good thing then ALL yard must line up, houses standing at attention like a regiment of soldiers, thirty feet (no more, no less) back from the curb. If composition shingles pose less fire risk than wood or less hail risk than clay tile, why then ALL roofs WILL be asphalt -- until the global warming alarmists decree some albedo-reducing replacement. All siding SHALL be brick, all garages MUST be attached, and all fences ARE REQUIRED to be cedar. Oh, and the list of mandates must be longer and more detailed every year -- suburbs where "the code" has not been regularly amended, appended, and extended MUST be chastised for falling behind.
The ironic thing is that the hippie anti-authoritarian guru of livable cities, Jane Jacobs, writing in 1961 The Death and Live of Great American Cities identified the problem a half-century ago. "How is bigger administration, with labyrinths nobody can comprehend of navigate, an improvement?" She anticipated that small local townships and suburbs would reject New York City-style massive highway and urban renewal projects and embrace a "crazy quilt" of vibrant, lively, unofficial plans, ideas and opportunities.
Instead she spawned a generation of city-managers who now claim they embrace Jacobs' vision of walkable downtowns, mixed-use development, variable building styles ... then demand and win czar-like powers to impose one vast vision, willy nilly, upon each newly available development. We see faux history, Disney-fication of town centers with war monuments and bandstands where crowds do NOT gather and where balloon vendors, ice cream men, jugglers and mimes would be arrested on sight. Light industrial zones where city councils envision "industries" that don't require parking a tractor-trailer rig overnight. Local historic family-owned catfish or barbeque take out places considered by code enforcement as eye-sores while the pallning and zoning bend backwards thru flaming hoops to bring in a Waffle House or IHOP. Lofty bois d'arc (hedge apple) or cottonwood trees are bull dozed away so that saplings from an "approved" list of more policitically correct trees can be (temporarily) staked into place. Potholes are ignored and sidewalks between homes and schools go unbuilt while visions of neo-Egyptian obelisks erected at highway intersections are showcased in PowerPoint presentations at community meetings. It's a sport, like figure skating or gymnastics, and those cities making the right moves to the current fashionable rhythms earn accolades and medals as "Tree City USA" or "All-American City". Our experts compete with their experts in front of expert out-of-town-judges and the people who actually live in town have no voice, no vote, and no joy in any victory.
The PBS show has one thing exactly right. A few people walkin', talkin' and knockin' on doors in the neighborhoods --old and new -- is the only solution. Get a crosswalk painted on a busy street. Build a school bus stop with a trash can. Put a picnic table and a bulletin board at the neighborhood entry. Little projects that neighbors do without, or more likely DESPITE, the city and the commercial developers.
Very well put, as usual J. The question that seems to linger in Lancaster is, "With so many separate political agendas and so many views of what Lancaster could and should be, who's to say who is right or wrong except the residents that live there every day?" The reason I say "except" in that statement is because it has become painfully apparent that the citizens are only listened to when their wishes coincide with the preconceived plans of the counsel. Take Millsbranch. Here's a great concept that sits and rots because the buyer for that product has no idea it's there! Even if they knew, who's going to move into a neo-classic community based on walking trails and a "Mayberry like" atmosphere when there's no grocery store or car wash within comfortable walking distance. And for those that would dare to challenge the walking distance comfortability in Lancaster, I'd remind you that in a city of less than 40,000 people last year Lancaster had not one, but two high profile murders. One car jacking that made the news, and robberies galore. Counsel, are you reading? Maybe garage door ordinances and aggressive code enforcers aren't necessarily the answer...unless they have guns and badges.
Post a Comment