Comments on: Reason’s Commenters Put Reason’s Contributers to Shame on Urbanism http://marketurbanism.com/2008/11/06/reasons-commenters-put-reasons-contributers-to-shame/ Urbanism for Capitalists / Capitalism for Urbanists Wed, 28 Jul 2010 20:37:16 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Market Urbanism http://marketurbanism.com/2008/11/06/reasons-commenters-put-reasons-contributers-to-shame/#comment-2088 Market Urbanism Thu, 06 Nov 2008 19:19:47 +0000 http://marketurbanism.com/?p=452#comment-2088 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. 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.

]]> By: Benjamin Hemric http://marketurbanism.com/2008/11/06/reasons-commenters-put-reasons-contributers-to-shame/#comment-2084 Benjamin Hemric Thu, 06 Nov 2008 16:57:07 +0000 http://marketurbanism.com/?p=452#comment-2084 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. 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.

]]>