A Vibrant
Bay Area reader had the same response, “Urbanism is one of those fuzzy terms
that means several things. Usually when
urbanists talk about urbanism, they mean urban environments and the planning
and development of urban environments. There
can be good urbanism and bad urbanism.”
I don’t fully
agree with everything he writes. I’d
argue that it’s urban planners who focus on “the planning and development of
urban environment”. I’d argue instead that
urbanists talk about how to plan and to develop the urban environment better
than we might have done previously, often through an emphasis on development aspects
that proven successful. Urbanism isn’t solely
about development in urban places, but about good development in urban places.
But even
with that caveat, the reader makes a good point, and one that forces me to
update my definition of urbanism. And it
must become a dual definition. My
current thinking is that urbanism is:
(1) The study,
promotion, and implementation of development concepts for settings that are
significantly denser in residential, working, and commercial opportunities than
rural or suburban locations.
(2) The advocacy
of concepts for (1) that meet beneficial goals such as improved walkability,
reduced energy consumption, stronger social networks, more stable municipal
finances, or other identified positive outcomes.
The
editorial position of this blog falls squarely into (2).
Some may wonder
about using “urbanism” in two senses, both in the broad, nonjudgmental sense
and in the more focused sense, oriented on positive results. But I’ll argue that language often develops
with this duality.
One may
argue for “education”, presumably meaning the positive aspects of education,
while also acknowledging that there are bad teachers and failing schools.
One may
argue for “youth sports”, while understanding that youth sports can sometimes
have a dark underbelly.
Similarly,
one may argue for “urbanism” without advocating for every development concept
in an urban setting.
Is my
definition perfect? Probably not, but no
definition ever is. It’s a better
definition than my last effort and will hopefully lead me to an even better
definition in the future.
My thanks go
to reader “Laurence Aurbach” for pushing me along the path.
Milestone
For what it
may be worth, this is the 500th post I’ve written for this blog. I recall when I first began. The first five posts were a chore and the
thought of fifty posts seemed incomprehensible.
And yet here I am at 500. It
shows the value of moving ahead one persistent step at a time, without being
intimidated by the long view.
But
ultimately, this blog isn’t about achievements measured in numbers of
posts. It’s about achievements measured
in incremental steps toward a more sustainable, resilient, and affordable
world.
Which makes
the Petaluma Urban Chat conceptual design effort for the Sonoma Marin Fairgrounds
so important. In the next post, I’ll
provide an update on the process. But
for now, remember to put the Urban Chat meeting on the evening of Tuesday,
February 24 on your calendars. Even if
you haven’t participated with one of the conceptual design teams, it’ll be your
chance to ponder the plans they’ll put forth and to become motivated to
advocacy.
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