Very nice work here Ryan. I count myself and Risk & Progress as part of this “abundance faction.”
Though you are right, ideologies differ somewhat, there is a common thread, a double helix belief in both the power of markets and competent policy to deliver strong outcomes.
There is also strong faith in cities as cauldrons of progress, human supercomputers that are essential to the store of the present and the future.
I am getting into the faction idea. That said in Philadelphia to give one example third party city council candidates have been successful. There are more mayors than senators who are Independent. I don't think third parties work at the national level, but they do at the local level and sometimes at the state level.
I like the Teles and Saladin essay very much. But I worry a little that abundance framing is quite vague. Urbanism is tied to very specific things in very specific places. Eg, best practices for picking up the trash. What I think distinguishes my interests from the Abundance faction is a focus on results that favor the success of urban places This may not be for everyone, but I think it's worthy of more support. I think it would be interesting to get state-wide officials to vouch for urbanist principles -- or risk losing the urban vote.
I basically agree with all that. I think "emerging" is doing a lot work right now with respect to "emerging abundance faction," but I also think we can see the contours of an orientation that would lead to specific policy proposals whether the context is urban or rural, local or national.
As for differences: given the challenges of national third parties, are you suggesting not a national urbanist party but rather a plethora of individual ones in various cities, then? I don't see why there couldn't be a nationwide urbanist faction that advocated for best practices (especially from a certain pro-abundance orientation)—e.g., bins are a great way to store trash!—but that then left room for variation and local context.
Another example, for instance, is office-to-residential conversions: a nationwide abundance urbanist orientation would be for the removal of whatever barriers prevent these from happening while recognizing that in many cities it won't really be relevant (like in Austin, where we have too many new buildings and few old ones).
Both the trash policy and the conversion policy strike me as policies that focus on results that favor success in cities. Having abundance-oriented state-level politicians would also help, even if they themselves are not super-urbanists, because they would understand that we need all areas of a state to thrive, including having healthy cities.
Very nice work here Ryan. I count myself and Risk & Progress as part of this “abundance faction.”
Though you are right, ideologies differ somewhat, there is a common thread, a double helix belief in both the power of markets and competent policy to deliver strong outcomes.
There is also strong faith in cities as cauldrons of progress, human supercomputers that are essential to the store of the present and the future.
I am getting into the faction idea. That said in Philadelphia to give one example third party city council candidates have been successful. There are more mayors than senators who are Independent. I don't think third parties work at the national level, but they do at the local level and sometimes at the state level.
I like the Teles and Saladin essay very much. But I worry a little that abundance framing is quite vague. Urbanism is tied to very specific things in very specific places. Eg, best practices for picking up the trash. What I think distinguishes my interests from the Abundance faction is a focus on results that favor the success of urban places This may not be for everyone, but I think it's worthy of more support. I think it would be interesting to get state-wide officials to vouch for urbanist principles -- or risk losing the urban vote.
I basically agree with all that. I think "emerging" is doing a lot work right now with respect to "emerging abundance faction," but I also think we can see the contours of an orientation that would lead to specific policy proposals whether the context is urban or rural, local or national.
As for differences: given the challenges of national third parties, are you suggesting not a national urbanist party but rather a plethora of individual ones in various cities, then? I don't see why there couldn't be a nationwide urbanist faction that advocated for best practices (especially from a certain pro-abundance orientation)—e.g., bins are a great way to store trash!—but that then left room for variation and local context.
Another example, for instance, is office-to-residential conversions: a nationwide abundance urbanist orientation would be for the removal of whatever barriers prevent these from happening while recognizing that in many cities it won't really be relevant (like in Austin, where we have too many new buildings and few old ones).
Both the trash policy and the conversion policy strike me as policies that focus on results that favor success in cities. Having abundance-oriented state-level politicians would also help, even if they themselves are not super-urbanists, because they would understand that we need all areas of a state to thrive, including having healthy cities.
> "Get over yourself" is the pop culture version of the black mass of Christian death-worship.