Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
So, you think the planners in your area are taking something a little too far? Be glad you aren’t in Venezuela… I wish I could link to the article by Michael Mehaffy in The Urban Land Institute’s May edition of Urban Land titled “Venezuela’s New Socialist Cities”, but ULI doesn’t provide the online edition to non-members. However, I have been able to find some related articles online, which I can share with you. Development of Caminos de Los Indios, the first of five “Socialist Cities” has begun south of Caracas. In his 2007 inaugural speech, Hugo Chavez said, “We need to a system of cities based on federations, federal regions. We need to build communal cities, Socialist Cities.” “Economic power needs to be transfered to these local bodies (“councils of popular power”) – so that we can work toward the communal and social state and move away from capitalism.” The concept is tauted by the government as a way of empowering locals and creating sustainable places for the 1/2 million residents. In Nov 17, 2007’s Washington Post, Ramón Carrizales, Venezuela’s housing minister is quoted “A city that’s self-sustainable, that respects the environment, that uses clean technologies, that is mostly for use by the people, with lots of walking paths, parks, sports areas, museums and schools within walking distance.” However, many environmentalists are appalled, since these cities will be build in the wilderness, requiring roads and infrastructure to these newly deforested locations. Not only that, many rural residents will be forced to resettle into the “Socialist Cities.” The history of these sort of projects are dismal. From the Washington Post article Chávez’s ‘Socialist City’ Rises: “The majority of socialist cities that were built in socialist countries failed,” said Maria Josefina Weitz, an urban planner in Caracas. “When you create something by […]
The Antiplanner discusses how well-intentioned agencies become wasteful government-planning bureaucracies. The mal-investment in our socialist highway system and the resulting congestion, pollution, disrepair, and sprawl come to mind. Using smart growth, modern day planners are trying to correct the lack of foresight of the planners and politicians of past generations who brought us the sprawl and congestion in the first place. However, with the lack of signals the market give us, it took several generations to recognize we had been going the wrong direction. We won’t know for another generation or two which wrong road modern planners are sending us down. Even if it’s unlikely we can privatize everything overnight, by introducing market solutions to our highway/transit systems, we can begin to make better decisions for the long run. Politicians need to welcome the ideas of tolling and privatization and stop pandering to the automobile-reliant voters.
All these different players trying to “plan” economic growth could end up smothering it. Instead of letting the developer take the risk, politicians want to play hero. NY Times: West Side Redevelopment Plans in Disarray Curbed: West Side Doom & Gloom: Moynihan the Key for Megaprojects
NIMBYism and exclusionary zoning has helped “preserve the character” of desirable urban areas by driving out the economically unfortunate. Green Disparate Impact
Samuel Staley of The Reason Foundation discusses the relationship between planning and economics at Planetizen: http://www.planetizen.com/node/30142