Comments on: The Story of I’On: Struggles of a New Urbanist Project http://marketurbanism.com/2009/01/21/the-story-of-ion/ Urbanism for Capitalists / Capitalism for Urbanists Sun, 20 May 2012 15:18:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Anonymous http://marketurbanism.com/2009/01/21/the-story-of-ion/#comment-11741 Anonymous Sat, 19 Nov 2011 08:54:00 +0000 http://marketurbanism.com/?p=727#comment-11741 By the sound of it, it seems like the opponents of the school are more likely to be afraid that it wouldn't turn their children into socialists.  They're the ones in favor of using central planning to determine the disposition of resources, after all. By the sound of it, it seems like the opponents of the school are more likely to be afraid that it wouldn’t turn their children into socialists.  They’re the ones in favor of using central planning to determine the disposition of resources, after all.

]]> By: Anonymous http://marketurbanism.com/2009/01/21/the-story-of-ion/#comment-11729 Anonymous Tue, 15 Nov 2011 20:26:00 +0000 http://marketurbanism.com/?p=727#comment-11729 Wow. As a resident of a new urbanist community I love and a strong supporter of new urbanism everywhere this is pretty depressing but I suppose, not surprising. I find many people who come into my neighborhood--especially suburban realtors--don't "get it" because all they've seen is traditional sprawl. NIMBYs are everywhere but are especially it seems, virulent in suburbia. How could you possibly be against a SCHOOL? Especially one in a nearby neighborhood. Did they think Montessori was going to turn the kids into socialists? Sadly, NIMBYs even exist in the place I would least expect them--a new urbanist neighborhood. There is great homeowner opposition in Seaside, Florida to the establishment of an academic village facility using repurposed--and great looking IMO--Katrina cottages, as well as great opposition to converting a current low profile series of rentals into higher density condos. Isn't the point of new urbanism that increasing density and complexity of the neighborhood ADDS to it? People don't give a crap about the philosophy that made their neighborhood great if they perceive it might, just possibly, harm their self interest. Wow. As a resident of a new urbanist community I love and a strong supporter of new urbanism everywhere this is pretty depressing but I suppose, not surprising. I find many people who come into my neighborhood–especially suburban realtors–don’t “get it” because all they’ve seen is traditional sprawl. NIMBYs are everywhere but are especially it seems, virulent in suburbia. How could you possibly be against a SCHOOL? Especially one in a nearby neighborhood. Did they think Montessori was going to turn the kids into socialists?

Sadly, NIMBYs even exist in the place I would least expect them–a new urbanist neighborhood. There is great homeowner opposition in Seaside, Florida to the establishment of an academic village facility using repurposed–and great looking IMO–Katrina cottages, as well as great opposition to converting a current low profile series of rentals into higher density condos. Isn’t the point of new urbanism that increasing density and complexity of the neighborhood ADDS to it? People don’t give a crap about the philosophy that made their neighborhood great if they perceive it might, just possibly, harm their self interest.

]]> By: Market Urbanism http://marketurbanism.com/2009/01/21/the-story-of-ion/#comment-3889 Market Urbanism Wed, 21 Jan 2009 17:08:58 +0000 http://marketurbanism.com/?p=727#comment-3889 Interesting. I'd like to understand the roots of land ownership and planning better. A few thoughts: Land ownership may be quite constrained, but market forces and prices still play a roll in land use patterns despite the constraints. So, I wouldn't call it completely communistic, but it gets as close as you can get to communism in an otherwise relatively-free society. Could public bodies "ensure harmonious development" rationally? If so, what mechanisms need to be in place for this to be successful? And by what standards could we judge success? Interesting. I’d like to understand the roots of land ownership and planning better. A few thoughts:

Land ownership may be quite constrained, but market forces and prices still play a roll in land use patterns despite the constraints. So, I wouldn’t call it completely communistic, but it gets as close as you can get to communism in an otherwise relatively-free society.

Could public bodies “ensure harmonious development” rationally? If so, what mechanisms need to be in place for this to be successful? And by what standards could we judge success?

]]> By: MarketUrbanism http://marketurbanism.com/2009/01/21/the-story-of-ion/#comment-8767 MarketUrbanism Wed, 21 Jan 2009 17:08:00 +0000 http://marketurbanism.com/?p=727#comment-8767 Interesting. I'd like to understand the roots of land ownership and planning better. A few thoughts: Land ownership may be quite constrained, but market forces and prices still play a roll in land use patterns despite the constraints. So, I wouldn't call it completely communistic, but it gets as close as you can get to communism in an otherwise relatively-free society. Could public bodies "ensure harmonious development" rationally? If so, what mechanisms need to be in place for this to be successful? And by what standards could we judge success? Interesting. I’d like to understand the roots of land ownership and planning better. A few thoughts:

Land ownership may be quite constrained, but market forces and prices still play a roll in land use patterns despite the constraints. So, I wouldn’t call it completely communistic, but it gets as close as you can get to communism in an otherwise relatively-free society.

Could public bodies “ensure harmonious development” rationally? If so, what mechanisms need to be in place for this to be successful? And by what standards could we judge success?

]]> By: mhelie http://marketurbanism.com/2009/01/21/the-story-of-ion/#comment-3886 mhelie Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:04:11 +0000 http://marketurbanism.com/?p=727#comment-3886 As hard as people want to deny it, land ownership in America is not a market. It is communistic, and it has roots going as far back as the early republic, as Alexis de Toqueville witnessed. The American confusion is demanding that the communistic landlords, county and municipal governments, planning boards, and so forth, be more market-like in their treatment of their tenants. However the map of communities is not a market but a plan imposed by legislatures, in the same commanding, inflexible pattern that the anti-planners of this world have condemned within their narrow range of personal interests. Any community needs to have rules to ensure harmonious development, but public bodies will tend to set these rules irrationally, hence why the anti-planners complain. This confusion has been, I believe, the root cause of America's perpetual urban chaos, starting with the industrial city and now the regional sprawl. Nobody ever questions the model of community ownership inherited from the early republic. The map of communities is itself infinitely complex, and cannot be controlled without being the outcome of a market. More on this at my blog: http://mathieuhelie.wordpress.com/2009/01/06/regional-complexity-and-local-community/ As hard as people want to deny it, land ownership in America is not a market. It is communistic, and it has roots going as far back as the early republic, as Alexis de Toqueville witnessed. The American confusion is demanding that the communistic landlords, county and municipal governments, planning boards, and so forth, be more market-like in their treatment of their tenants. However the map of communities is not a market but a plan imposed by legislatures, in the same commanding, inflexible pattern that the anti-planners of this world have condemned within their narrow range of personal interests. Any community needs to have rules to ensure harmonious development, but public bodies will tend to set these rules irrationally, hence why the anti-planners complain.

This confusion has been, I believe, the root cause of America’s perpetual urban chaos, starting with the industrial city and now the regional sprawl. Nobody ever questions the model of community ownership inherited from the early republic.

The map of communities is itself infinitely complex, and cannot be controlled without being the outcome of a market. More on this at my blog:

http://mathieuhelie.wordpress.com/2009/01/06/regional-complexity-and-local-community/

]]> By: mhelie http://marketurbanism.com/2009/01/21/the-story-of-ion/#comment-8766 mhelie Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:04:00 +0000 http://marketurbanism.com/?p=727#comment-8766 As hard as people want to deny it, land ownership in America is not a market. It is communistic, and it has roots going as far back as the early republic, as Alexis de Toqueville witnessed. The American confusion is demanding that the communistic landlords, county and municipal governments, planning boards, and so forth, be more market-like in their treatment of their tenants. However the map of communities is not a market but a plan imposed by legislatures, in the same commanding, inflexible pattern that the anti-planners of this world have condemned within their narrow range of personal interests. Any community needs to have rules to ensure harmonious development, but public bodies will tend to set these rules irrationally, hence why the anti-planners complain. This confusion has been, I believe, the root cause of America's perpetual urban chaos, starting with the industrial city and now the regional sprawl. Nobody ever questions the model of community ownership inherited from the early republic. The map of communities is itself infinitely complex, and cannot be controlled without being the outcome of a market. More on this at my blog: http://mathieuhelie.wordpress.com/2009/01/06/regional-complexity-and-local-community/ As hard as people want to deny it, land ownership in America is not a market. It is communistic, and it has roots going as far back as the early republic, as Alexis de Toqueville witnessed. The American confusion is demanding that the communistic landlords, county and municipal governments, planning boards, and so forth, be more market-like in their treatment of their tenants. However the map of communities is not a market but a plan imposed by legislatures, in the same commanding, inflexible pattern that the anti-planners of this world have condemned within their narrow range of personal interests. Any community needs to have rules to ensure harmonious development, but public bodies will tend to set these rules irrationally, hence why the anti-planners complain.

This confusion has been, I believe, the root cause of America’s perpetual urban chaos, starting with the industrial city and now the regional sprawl. Nobody ever questions the model of community ownership inherited from the early republic.

The map of communities is itself infinitely complex, and cannot be controlled without being the outcome of a market. More on this at my blog:

http://mathieuhelie.wordpress.com/2009/01/06/regional-complexity-and-local-community/

]]>