The pastor,
who with his family has always lived where he can walk to his church and to shopping,
believes strongly in the role that good community design can provide toward
strong, functioning communities. In his
words, “…for both understanding and flourishing in the built environment, we need to
experience it on foot.”
He goes on to
argue that suburbia has failed because it fails to include all of the land use
elements needed for a complete life within walking distance of each other.
I heartily
endorse his thoughts on the role that can a church building can fill, or not
fill, in a community. “Churches shape
the built environment either by becoming a key gathering spot within a
particular neighborhood or by becoming a kind of alien presence in a
neighborhood where a whole bunch of cars from 'who knows where' show up
intermittently throughout the week, but especially on Sunday morning.”
I disagree with
the pastor on a couple of points. First,
he argues that good neighborhood design isn’t sufficient by itself to induce
good neighborly behavior. I believe he’s
wrong. I think that good neighborhood
design, without any other factors, can change how we interact. (See my note below about Coady Court.)
Also, he argues
that effective communities lie at the intersection of family, church, and
city. While I agree that the fellowship
of a church can help build a community, I don’t believe it’s essential. I’ve had many neighbors and fellow community
members with whom I had great relationships without ever knowing what their
religious beliefs were.
But these
disagreements would only be quibbles among friends who agree on most points about
the need for urbanism.
Follow-Ups
and Schedule Notes
Pocket
Neighborhoods - Three months ago, I wrote about the book “Pocket Neighborhoods” by
Ross Chapin. In the book, Chapin lays
out his thoughts about compact developments, a form of land use that violates many
of the established zoning rules but nonetheless results in effective,
functioning communities.
In the
earlier post, I noted two developments in Petaluma that had elements of pocket
neighborhoods. One was Coady Court. I asked if anyone had information to share on
Coady Court. For three months, that
request went unanswered. And then the following
comment appeared on Petaluma Patch, where my post had been re-published.
“I live on Coady Court and I feel so
lucky. We do share a lot of butter, eggs, milk and such and we give each other
rides to the airporter, borrow each other's cars, lawn mowers, bread makers.
There are three 12 year olds on the block in the same class in the same school
and we carpool most of the time. Sometimes there are up to seven neighborhood
kids running up and down the street shrieking. We watch out for each other and
we don't have fences around our front lawns. Lucky.”
What great testimony about a successful
neighborhood. We need more neighborhoods
like this. Therefore, we need to change
both the zoning codes and the development mindset to make them happen.
More Pocket Neighborhoods - On the
subject of pocket neighborhoods, I recently learned an intriguing bit of
Petaluma news. I’m not yet in a position
where I can share the news, but it’s potentially a very good thing for
Petaluma. Stay tuned.
Petaluma Urban Chat – A collection of Sonoma
County residents continues to gather monthly to talk about urbanism issues in
the North Bay. Under the working title
of “Petaluma Urban Chat”, we meet at the Aqus Café in Petaluma. Most months, we meet on the second Tuesday of
the month at 5:30pm. But this month, the
meeting has been rescheduled to the third Tuesday. So, if urbanism interests you, please join us
on October 16 at 5:30pm for a casual exchange of ideas. Soon, we may also add an urbanism book club
element to our meetings.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me. And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
No comments:
Post a Comment