1. Yes, our city planning paradigm has a strong Marxist / Soviet / Planned Economy character, and it astounds me that more Americans don’t see that and shudder. 🤷♂️
2. The physical experience of suburbia is a deconstructed city - every activity is atomized into a self contained property and you exit the human realm — getting into your transporter pod and flowing through the infrastructure — to move between them. This fundamentally changes the relationship of people to the population around them. In that environment you can only physically gather on purpose, you have to pick a place to go and go there at a scheduled time to meet others. Is it any wonder that people live online instead? Whereas in a traditional walkable environment you are immersed in the shared space with the people around you whether you like it or not, and living daily life leads to the repeated social encounters that cultivates relationships. You don’t *have* to engage with that, but it’s so much easier, and most people want to.
Thanks for the great comments! On (1), in suburban subdivisions, at least, I think it might be because it's the only/primary pattern of development that people are familiar with, now for generations; the resemblance to the towers-in-the-park is more obvious. (2) Well said.
"In the absence of a physical town square, whither the revolution?"
Streets are socially constructed in some sense. In pre-industrial times, streets were multi-functional public corridors. In that way, streets had the same social uses as fora and squares. Taking control of streets and reassigning their uses could be the start of the revolution, at least in terms of the way we think about streets
This isn't either/or. There are no squares without streets, of course—but many of these places have been built without regard to the public realm entirely, whether it's streets, squares, parks, etc. There have been some efforts here in Austin to reclaim/reassign some neighborhood streets for non-car use, or at least shared use, and these are good starts, but none are permanent reassignments.
I don’t recall if I argued this in the linked essay, but in terms of ancient Roman practice, fora and viae were functionally similar, at least before Augustus. I extrapolate this idea to all pre-industrial streets: squares and streets were functionally similar. For example, the Forum Romanum, in my view, was just a wide street. Squares are streets if we are thinking in terms pre-industrial functions.
By contrast, Times Square in New York does not function as a square. . . or at least it didn’t when I last visited about 20 years ago.
Generally, modern streets are too wide. Closing off modern streets make them safe for other uses, but they are too wide.
I have watched an effort to create a totally new town square for 21 years. It staggered at first and struggles still because Ryan is right. I would say you have to create the community first, rather than the town, but in this context I think we’re talking about the same thing.
While New Urbanism has done much to bring back the town square, its focus on roundabouts has curtailed consideration of using multiple squares. In The Oglethorpe Plan (University of Virginia Press, 2012), I compare the two, showing the many advantages of squares. Thomas Wilson
Some version of this is the answer on so many levels:
- improves community, quality of third spaces - this brings to mind the studies on happiness that show personal connections matter more than anything else.
- allows for people to prioritize on a much smaller scale public works and interventions that matter to them
Although a much different emphasis, I wrote a piece with a similar theme of town square in which I pose a central question about the role of local government, particularly the funding of public spaces. I state that while governments themselves have never had a Renaissance, they were instrumental in creating one. Between the 14th and 17th centuries, city-states and local governments laid the foundation for an explosion of art, science, and culture. My byline is that a plaza tells you everything about a community—its pulse, its priorities, its possibilities. https://open.substack.com/pub/munisquare/p/about-munisquare?r=zi8ao&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
While I am interested in the role of zoning, I prefer a James C. Scott variety of skepticism that suggests people will organize wherever and whenever they need in order to adapt. The creation of small communities that formed around the fringes of Brasília (and became the popular places to go) are one such example. The squatters (who built the city) were given land rights. No zoning laws!
There may be more going on at “Bob and Shirley’s” than you give them credit for. According to a quick AI search:
“Several significant grassroots political movements have originated or gained traction in suburban areas, reflecting the diverse and influential role of suburbia in American politics. These movements span across the political spectrum, including grass-roots conservatism, environmentalism, feminism, and social justice, according to Oxford Research Encyclopedias.”
Two key through-lines:
1. Yes, our city planning paradigm has a strong Marxist / Soviet / Planned Economy character, and it astounds me that more Americans don’t see that and shudder. 🤷♂️
2. The physical experience of suburbia is a deconstructed city - every activity is atomized into a self contained property and you exit the human realm — getting into your transporter pod and flowing through the infrastructure — to move between them. This fundamentally changes the relationship of people to the population around them. In that environment you can only physically gather on purpose, you have to pick a place to go and go there at a scheduled time to meet others. Is it any wonder that people live online instead? Whereas in a traditional walkable environment you are immersed in the shared space with the people around you whether you like it or not, and living daily life leads to the repeated social encounters that cultivates relationships. You don’t *have* to engage with that, but it’s so much easier, and most people want to.
Thanks for the great comments! On (1), in suburban subdivisions, at least, I think it might be because it's the only/primary pattern of development that people are familiar with, now for generations; the resemblance to the towers-in-the-park is more obvious. (2) Well said.
"In the absence of a physical town square, whither the revolution?"
Streets are socially constructed in some sense. In pre-industrial times, streets were multi-functional public corridors. In that way, streets had the same social uses as fora and squares. Taking control of streets and reassigning their uses could be the start of the revolution, at least in terms of the way we think about streets
This isn't either/or. There are no squares without streets, of course—but many of these places have been built without regard to the public realm entirely, whether it's streets, squares, parks, etc. There have been some efforts here in Austin to reclaim/reassign some neighborhood streets for non-car use, or at least shared use, and these are good starts, but none are permanent reassignments.
I don’t recall if I argued this in the linked essay, but in terms of ancient Roman practice, fora and viae were functionally similar, at least before Augustus. I extrapolate this idea to all pre-industrial streets: squares and streets were functionally similar. For example, the Forum Romanum, in my view, was just a wide street. Squares are streets if we are thinking in terms pre-industrial functions.
By contrast, Times Square in New York does not function as a square. . . or at least it didn’t when I last visited about 20 years ago.
Generally, modern streets are too wide. Closing off modern streets make them safe for other uses, but they are too wide.
I have watched an effort to create a totally new town square for 21 years. It staggered at first and struggles still because Ryan is right. I would say you have to create the community first, rather than the town, but in this context I think we’re talking about the same thing.
I completely agree. I'm using "town" broadly to encapsulate both the people and the physical place.
Amen, so important to have accessible, safe public spaces
While New Urbanism has done much to bring back the town square, its focus on roundabouts has curtailed consideration of using multiple squares. In The Oglethorpe Plan (University of Virginia Press, 2012), I compare the two, showing the many advantages of squares. Thomas Wilson
Some version of this is the answer on so many levels:
- improves community, quality of third spaces - this brings to mind the studies on happiness that show personal connections matter more than anything else.
- allows for people to prioritize on a much smaller scale public works and interventions that matter to them
Although a much different emphasis, I wrote a piece with a similar theme of town square in which I pose a central question about the role of local government, particularly the funding of public spaces. I state that while governments themselves have never had a Renaissance, they were instrumental in creating one. Between the 14th and 17th centuries, city-states and local governments laid the foundation for an explosion of art, science, and culture. My byline is that a plaza tells you everything about a community—its pulse, its priorities, its possibilities. https://open.substack.com/pub/munisquare/p/about-munisquare?r=zi8ao&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
While I am interested in the role of zoning, I prefer a James C. Scott variety of skepticism that suggests people will organize wherever and whenever they need in order to adapt. The creation of small communities that formed around the fringes of Brasília (and became the popular places to go) are one such example. The squatters (who built the city) were given land rights. No zoning laws!
There may be more going on at “Bob and Shirley’s” than you give them credit for. According to a quick AI search:
“Several significant grassroots political movements have originated or gained traction in suburban areas, reflecting the diverse and influential role of suburbia in American politics. These movements span across the political spectrum, including grass-roots conservatism, environmentalism, feminism, and social justice, according to Oxford Research Encyclopedias.”