[tfld]

Check this video out..what do you think of these ideas?

YouTube - James Howard Kunstler: The tragedy of suburbia

[DMLD]

Originally Posted by tfld

Check this video out..what do you think of these ideas?

YouTube - James Howard Kunstler: The tragedy of suburbia

Interesting indeed!

I thought it was ironic that right after the talk was over there was a BMW commercial touting their luxury hydrogen car! I wonder if that was an accident?

Anywho, in a way, the speaker Kunstler was right. Things do in fact need to change. Attitude for one. Constant apology for enjoying the blessings of liberty and freedom devoid of a king and a pope is another. Electing blue bloods is another.

[tfld]

I think the material Kunstler presents is probably obvious and well-ingrained to most of us in and around this profession. He emphasizes better buildings, but when is someone going to step up and recognize landscape as the all-encompassing architecture and infrastructure that ultimately dictates the shape and order of those cute boxes we all know and love?

A movement toward better spacemaking and more conscious land development would probably benefit everyone. I hope some others from this site will chime in on their take...

[agla]

Nothing new. Anti-suburbia has been a staple of academia for a long time. Lots of bitching about how some unknown, unseen, evil force has forced suburbia on America. The ideal of the downtown core - everyone walking down the sidewalk saying good morning to each other, shopping along the sidewalks, professional offices on the second floors and third floors, housing on the 3rd, 4th, and 5th, tight infrastructure, .... everything is right there and all is just great.

So, who amongst us is going to sell his house and move into that D-Lux apartment in the sky? Who is going to parallel park on Main Street and walk three blocks to get the gallon of milk instead of swinging into the strip mall, running into the ugly building and running right back out and getting home to your lawn, patio, and kids safely playing.

The idealism is great when we are taliking about other people and how they should live. Some people love living in urban areas. Reality is that most people prefer to have a home of their own, at least a buffer between themselves and a neighbor, and want their own outdoor spaces whether or not it is a cartoon.

I this this guy is like most lecturing planners. He knows everything that is wrong, wants us to believe he has all the solutions, but can not offer anything more than an idealistic concept.

Architects do not decide where and how people want to live. They can only fill the needs created by "citizens". You can't sell what someone does not want to buy.

Sure there are some great new down town cores being built and with people gladly moving into them. There are little suburban lots being purchased all of the time as well. There are large lots being bought all the time as well. Different people want different lifestyles. Some are more economical and efficient than others. As long as no one is expecting someone else to pay for the inefficiencies, what is the harm?

I lived in rural Idaho for several years. There were people who loved living in trailer homes 30 miles from nowhere. Try telling one of those folks that they should live an a third floor between two other families and enjoy the great outdoors with 350 other people in a pocket park.

Architects never designed box stores, malls, strip malls, and single family residences? Planners did not write the zoning laws that allowed this stuff?

I can take my camera and take pictures of very nice single family houses with great outdoor spaces. He can't?

I can flip on the Fox network and watch prostitutes and crack heads get arrested in urban centers without seeing shiny happy people saying good morning on the sidewalk.

Architects and planners designed Boston City Hall Plaza with academia's ideals of the day at the time that it was done. Corbosier designed the high rises surrounded by lawns with the ideals and accolades of his day. This is the same one size fits all mentality that created what he is bitching about.

For every nicely functioning downtown mixed use core there are several more that are not functioning so nicely.

Everyone should stop and think about how you would like to live in an apartment in your town's down town, and the down towns of your neighboring towns. If they are not places you want to live, will changing the architecture and de-cartooning the landscape change that?

What changes when these areas are revitalized? Demographics. The poor people get booted out when the buildings get torn down and they can't afford the luxury townhouses that replace them. There is a segment of professionals that enjoy the convenience of being in town, but it is a limited segment. You can't keep building luxury townhouses in downtown cores and keep on filling them.

Ask yourself where you want to live, not in concept, but specifically. If you like the sound of the picture this guy is painting, what is the address of the place you want to live?

I'm not going to speak for anyone else, but I want a home and yard to come home. I want to swing into a parking lot at 9 PM, park the car, jump out of the car, go through the door, grab that gallon of milk, toss down my money, jump back into the car, get on the road and pull into my driveway instead of dealing with whoever is hanging out on the sidewalk down town at night.

They were touting this when I was in school. Fairfield County Connecticut is hell on earth and down town Portland, Oregon is utopia. Where do you want to live?

[tfld]

I'm not necessarily endorsing his specific philosophy, but I think it's an intriguing notion of how, at bare minimum, the presence of a lawn and some trees (or lack thereof) can have a direct effect on the psyches of the people living around it.

I'm still trying to figure why the hell what we do is important. If it's all ornamentation I may just have to find some other hobby. Still, I'm compelled to believe there is something valuable in making good spaces (now whats a good space..) and not letting the engineers and bean counters "go to town" literally, with curb and gutter, in-ground storm conveyance, and standardized detention basins.

As the economy seems to fly further south, I have a feeling the first cut from big land development projects would be the landscape architects, with that landscape construction. So, in my mind, there has to be a way to assign quantifiable value to trees, shrubs, and grass, outside of pretty scenery.

That in mind, should licensed landscape architects even be called "landscape" architects or should "land" architects be more fitting, suggesting something broader and more meaningful than scenery?

[agla]

There is always a four way battle between the ideals of the planners, the cost controlling efforts by the developers, concerns about "consumer" traffic from the businesses that would lease or buy the spaces, and the design professionals (arch/eng/LA) trying to meld it all together so that everyone is happy.

The thing that Academia fails to point out is that it is not the idealists that hire and pay the design professionals. It is the developers. If you are not working for their interests, you are not going to be working.

There has been a lot more attention given to both architectural and site aesthetics by planning and zoning boards over the last several years. A lot of it is cookie cutter standards have been written into zoning bylaws based on new urbanism as the people on staff and on the boards all attend the very kind of seminar that is in that video. They all go to as many seminars as possible to go on little trips, get out of the office, socialize with others doing the same kind of work, to pad their resumes as well as because they want to do a good job.

They can rewrite guidelines and bylaws that force developers to follow these philosophies. You and me don't unless we are sitting on a planning board (done that). We can only respond to them while we are working for the developers. Certainly, we can be very informed and responsive to these ideals, but we are not the ones who will be the driving force to make it happen. We are the people who make it take shape once others decide it is going to happen.

The planners don't build anything either. All they can do is set up criteria that does not allow other things to happen making it impossible to build unless you build what they want. If it is not practical, the building will happen somewhere else. Ultimately, it only gets done when the evil developers decide that they want to do it whether they like the idea or feel there is no better alternative site in another zone.

Ultimately, it is up to the developers.

[dandyliondancer]

there is a general notion which at least seems to be borne out by observation that most developers are motivated by profit more than social or environmental idealism. i see this played out time after time in zoning board meetings where environmental groups are pitted against development interests, and its a battle of wills and finances to see who prevails (and we know how that usually goes ...)

i'm actually not going to go on a rant about that - the only point i want to make is that people who are anti-sprawl pro-environment, etc. are usually the first ones to distance themselves from developers. i would suggest that if someone really wants to change the shape of development, then the only real way is to embrace development, and become part of that process. planners and architects only have so much say in the process. it is not a career that most environmentally sensitive type folk might be naturally drawn to, but that is in fact exactly what is needed. development is going to happen - resisting it is like resisting a force of nature, but the developers themselves have a lot to say about the shape it takes. high-density urban areas are not the only arena in sustainable design. there is a lot more that could be done in the suburban and rural areas. possible to have a drive-in shopping center and private yard in a green suburban development? why not? i am content enough to play a tiny part in tackling the problem one yard at a time, but i would love to see more idealists entering the development industry. i do believe that if you build it, they will come, and they will pay, but it doesn't seem like anyone is even trying.

[jshilan]

Originally Posted by dandyliondancer

i would suggest that if someone really wants to change the shape of development, then the only real way is to embrace development, and become part of that process. i am content enough to play a tiny part in tackling the problem one yard at a time, but i would love to see more idealists entering the development industry. i do believe that if you build it, they will come, and they will pay, but it doesn't seem like anyone is even trying.

You present an excellent argument on this issue. It is much easier to criticize and add commentary than it is to actually invest your time and money on proving whether your concepts or theories work or not. Builders and developers are business people not philanthropists. It is easy to sit in your "ivory tower" and tell others what they should do and how they should do it, but see how confident you will be when you are risking, your home, your kids college tuition and your retirement money on a dream.

I completely agree that if you want to participate in sustainability and be green, than become politically active, partner with the people getting things done and show them how you can positively affect the bottom line by incorporating your ideas and theories. You should also consider investing in the project, just to keep things interesting. There is nothing like a little financial risk to help you clearly identify what you really believe in.

[agla]

Dandy is absolutely right in that in order to implement your ideals you need a project to do it within. You need a client in order to do that, so someone has to see you as the best person to get their job done for their best interests. Then you need to continue to work in their best interests or you will be replaced.

The developer is not free either. He has to lease or sell the development as well. Bigger projects usually can not get off of the ground unless there are commitments from bigger tenants like a retail chain or hotel that has particular criteria that the developer has to meet. Even if the developer has warm and fuzzy intentions, he is at the mercy of his client as well.

I am working on a hotel project where this is the case. The planning board wants any new hotel to be in the "downtown core". The hotels will not franchise there because there is not enough driveby tourist traffic. They have planned with ideals that they learned from the same kind of seminar that was posted above. They rezoned with those ideals. The result is that they will most likey grant a variance in order to bet the hotel built where it will be able to function.

Build it and they will come only works if other things don't keep them from coming.

[familyguy]

i think that any time someone feels really passionate about something, that person starts to get tunnel vision about how important it really is.

he makes some crazy claims in his rants,

"america's spaces that are not worth caring about will eventually become a country not worth caring about" or something to that effect

"our children are experiencing anxiety and depression because the style of home they are living in" or, again, something to that effect

the idea that we are all, or should all be, headed to the second floor of of a strip mall to live is laughable. $ is what is going to dictate, as always, where people live. the more $ one has in this country, the more space and choice one has. if fuel prices force a family to live closer to walmart where dad works, then that family will move closer to walmart. all the more convienient if in the future that is an apartment upstairs from the store.

the important issue from a "bigger picture" perspective (i think) is the amount of nature and green that has been destroyed to put buildings and roads in. things like green roofs, permeable roadways, and more islands of nature in cities is going to be the difference between a planet having to change the zones to start with zone 4 and go up from or (i think the zone 4 scenario is completely inevitable)

[molson]

gosh, i agree with mr. kunstler 100%. i couldn't of said it better myself.

i'd add these three videos #1 and #2 and #3 to the mix too...

and yes agla, i live downtown... with neighbors... and sometimes there's crime... it's usually not violent... my neighbors are very successful people (some are definitely very, very rich actually!) not prostitutes or crack dealers...

i'm with kuntsler.

as a society... but especially us here, the designers anyway... we should always be taking the long view and it should be filled not only with the ideas that come from academia and urban planners but also from inspired art, poetry and our own creative places that should be filled with hope and dreams of always making things better for the future and doing the best, smartest work we possibly can. always.

i can't imagine thinking any other way.

[agla]

I agree that there are great spaces like that. I don't agree that all of them are great and that all else is bad. You have that opportunity and choice and that is good. There are other opportunities and other choices. That is all that I am saying.

Enjoy your downtown core. You should. I'll enjoy my 1/4 acre as I should. My friend in Idaho is enjoying his 3,000 acres and is also providing food and building materials for you and me, as he should.

Choice, diversity, opportunities that match economics, ... its all good. Its bad when one set of values thinks it should trump any and all other sets of values.

[schnue]

I agree with AGLA. Everyone has a different idea of utopia...or whatever you want to call it. I loved living in the country but when it was time for the kids to be in school, have time with friends and replenish the food supply every few days, living in town seems the wisest choice. I would love for our house to be more unique, not like 1/3 of all the houses in the neighborhood..but it's what we could afford. Our house backs up to 30 acres of undeveloped open space (flood plain) that we can use whenever and just about however we want....would love some horses out there, but oh well..

Mr. Kuntzler paints such a bleak picture. There are some very horrible places, but I think that's why we are in the profession we're in...one tree at a time?