Subscribe to Market Urbanism

 Subscribe in a reader

 Subscribe to the audio version

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Categories

Book Store

Book Store

Reason’s Commenters Put Reason’s Contributers to Shame on Urbanism


Reason Magazine, the Reason Foundation, and Cato are generally pretty okay libertarian standard-bearers, but they lose serious libertarian cred when it comes to land use. In those areas, they’ve been completely co-opted by hacks like Randal O’Toole, Wendell Cox, and Robert Poole, who take every opportunity to bash the budding New Urbanist movement over its support of anti-sprawl land use regulations, without recognizing that the biggest part of the New Urbanist agenda is to repeal the highly restrictive minimum density zoning laws, minimum parking requirements, and other regulations that limit the sort of unregulated, organic growth that we see in the oldest and most desired parts of American and European cities today.

So anyway, it was totally unsurprising to see this article by Cox referenced in reason.com’s blog, where he blames the recent subprime meltdown on New Urbanism. But what I was surprised to see is the incredible outpour of knowledge in the comments section, where various commenters methodically rip Cox’s argument to shreds. Reason ought to look into its land use and transportation coverage, and instead of relying on these tired one-trick ponies, perhaps hire some of the commentators. They, at least, recognize that New Urbanism is nothing compared to the already-entrenched pro-sprawl regulations that have been in place since the advent of the automobile.

This post was written by Stephen Smith, who has his own blog called Rationalitate.

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • e-mail
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Twitter

Related Posts:

  • Stephen,

    Thanks for posting that. Especially since I haven't kept on top of posting regularly - I've been swamped with work and personal business, plus the bailout and elections have seemed to be the topics everyone wants to discuss....

    Nonetheless, for awhile I've been compiling an article comparing New Urbanism to Market Urbanism. Hopefully, it'll be ready to publish soon. Unfortunately, New Urbanists want to create new regulations to promote their ideals, whereas Market Urbanists want to remove the interventions that caused the problems in the first place.

    I think I agree with Benjamin that we should be careful not to defend New Urbanists too staunchly. Instead, I think the best strategy is to convince free-market types and New Urbanists that Market Urbanism is a better solution.
  • Benjamin Hemric
    While I'm skeptical that the New Urbanist movement was a significant contributor to the subprime meltdown / housing bubble (and skeptical of some of the other ideas of the writers you mention too), it does seem to me that the New Urbanist movement "in general" is indeed not what it makes itself out to be. I see the New Urbanist movement as being something of a Trojan horse -- really just another form of sub-urbanism that’s being deceptively packaged as “urbanism.” But when you really look at it, it is almost as pro-sprawl, anti-density, anti-mixed use, anti-high rise, anti-unplanned growth, anti-market urbanism as standard post-WWII suburbanism.

    To use another metaphor, like the Puritans, who weren't really for religious freedom but just for the freedom to establish their own theocracy, it seems to me that New Urbanists (generally speaking) aren't really for market urbanism and the "unregulated, organic growth that we see in the oldest and most desired parts of American and European cities today," but for the freedom to establish their own kind of government planned, highly regulated (and essentially static), relatively homogenous, single-use, low-rise, low-density suburbs.

    For example, ook closely at the writings of some of the writers identified with New Urbanism (e.g., some of the writings of Christopher Alexander, Andres Duany, Roger Scruton, Nikos Salingaros, etc.) and I think you will see the implicit anti-marketplace, anti-urbanism (e.g., anti-unplanned growth, pro-planning, anti-high density, anti-high rise, etc.) of “New [Sub-]Urbanism” made explicit.
blog comments powered by Disqus