You have that pic of the mega road as an example of groupthink, and I agree. But I think it goes much deeper and is more invisible than that. Take ADUs. No great world city is filled with single family homes that have ADUs in their back yards. There are no ADUs in Paris, Barcelona, etc etc. But the more progressive, forward-thinking, YIMBY cohort treats ADUs not as a stepping stone to a better future but as an end in itself. You see this again and again with things like bike lanes, infill, zoning reform, etc etc. If you criticize an ill-used bike network, you're assumed to be a shill for cars not a pro-bike pragmatist who thinks results matter more than intentions.
There's very little discussion of how modest today's reforms are, or — critically — how on their own they will not get car-dependent American cities anywhere near the true goal of being more genuinely walkable. There's a bunch of old planners and engineers who are stuck in the 20th century. But there's a younger cohort of more progressive people who have lost sight of the end goal and resist critical discussions of how to make big changes.
💯 I run into that with zoning conversations. There's a YIMBY youth movement that chooses to position as anti-SFH rather than pro-variety. They want zoning to mandate the stuff they believe is proper rather than legalizing housing outright.
yeah I get where people are coming from. The good stuff has been illegal or undoable for so long that it's tempting to just focus on whatever you want. But the groupthink ends up being strong haha
In attendance should also be the workingclass parents, school age children, and elderly belonging to those groups who are disproportionately slaughtered by the current built environment and the resultant driver supremacy.
Absolutely. If I was crafting these forums, I wouldn't try to cram all the issues in all the forums. Same with audiences. Would be interesting, for example, to have working class parents w/ their K-12 children in the room with land use planners & traffic engineers.
Right on. I love that idea. Possibly, it would provide awareness of responsibility the planners have to the human beings that must navigate, live, work, and grow within the systems they have created. The notion that we can't do any better because of cost is indefensible in the face of the folks that bear the real cost on a daily basis, often with their lives.
You have that pic of the mega road as an example of groupthink, and I agree. But I think it goes much deeper and is more invisible than that. Take ADUs. No great world city is filled with single family homes that have ADUs in their back yards. There are no ADUs in Paris, Barcelona, etc etc. But the more progressive, forward-thinking, YIMBY cohort treats ADUs not as a stepping stone to a better future but as an end in itself. You see this again and again with things like bike lanes, infill, zoning reform, etc etc. If you criticize an ill-used bike network, you're assumed to be a shill for cars not a pro-bike pragmatist who thinks results matter more than intentions.
There's very little discussion of how modest today's reforms are, or — critically — how on their own they will not get car-dependent American cities anywhere near the true goal of being more genuinely walkable. There's a bunch of old planners and engineers who are stuck in the 20th century. But there's a younger cohort of more progressive people who have lost sight of the end goal and resist critical discussions of how to make big changes.
💯 I run into that with zoning conversations. There's a YIMBY youth movement that chooses to position as anti-SFH rather than pro-variety. They want zoning to mandate the stuff they believe is proper rather than legalizing housing outright.
yeah I get where people are coming from. The good stuff has been illegal or undoable for so long that it's tempting to just focus on whatever you want. But the groupthink ends up being strong haha
The socratic circle sounds like a superior local conversation. We could plan something like that for spring 2025 in Richmond.
In attendance should also be the workingclass parents, school age children, and elderly belonging to those groups who are disproportionately slaughtered by the current built environment and the resultant driver supremacy.
Absolutely. If I was crafting these forums, I wouldn't try to cram all the issues in all the forums. Same with audiences. Would be interesting, for example, to have working class parents w/ their K-12 children in the room with land use planners & traffic engineers.
Right on. I love that idea. Possibly, it would provide awareness of responsibility the planners have to the human beings that must navigate, live, work, and grow within the systems they have created. The notion that we can't do any better because of cost is indefensible in the face of the folks that bear the real cost on a daily basis, often with their lives.