That article is quite a read. I've never thought of those trying to solve the housing crisis as sneering at the suburbs, rather they are trying to consider what is best about the suburbs and best about cities and create a new vision. Wanting walkable areas doesn't mean outlawing cars.
Part of the "American Dream" has been selling the illusion of autonomy: your home is your castle rather than a node inside a larger community. That dream included a big house and a big backyard to be filled with big possessions. It also sells the dream that homes never lose value and that this is the only path to financial security, all the while getting yourself deeper in debt.
Maybe the changes that are happening now are temporary, maybe they aren't but it seems that larger shifts are at work. Younger generations are asking themselves if they really want the full responsibility of a home and yard, which require upkeep and expense. Household size is shrinking, and employment is less certain. Part of planning for the future is looking at the reality of now, not pining for a dream that never really benefitted everyone in the first place.
Unfortunately, in real life advocacy and sometimes in the comments section here, I've encountered folks who respond to things like "maybe we shouldn't design cities around cars or plow highways through urban neighborhoods for the benefit of suburban commuters" as an attack on cars and suburbs. Some folks, like the authors of this article, cannot see that the city is a real place with real people, many of whom actually want to live here—and who want to fight to make it more livable rather than a place merely to be consumed by people who don't care about it as a real place. It's culture war myopia, I guess.
As for the The Dream...however illusory, it's powerful and deeply embedded in our culture, so I'm not sure it will go away. But perhaps the shape of it will change as younger generations reevaluate the preferences of prior ones.
"... a world in which people are allowed to have and act on preferences different from theirs..."
I live in a very walkable community with access to a commuter rail line and buses, a "downtown" strip of restaurants and shops, and modest lots of 40x100 homes. It is hardly urban sprawl, but it's a glorious combination of walkable and community-minded, with just enough privacy and property to satisfy those of us who want to be in a thriving metropolis without being jammed up against 100 neighbors. I am very much in favor of a city in which people are allowed to have and act on preferences different from theirs.
But this new trend toward increasing density everywhere, regardless of those preferences (I'm talking to you, City of Yes), flies in the face of that argument. Despite our significant investments in the homes and communities of our preferences, and despite our powerful opposition to overdevelopment, we are being told that our historic little neighborhood will become more dense, more heavily populated, with taller buildings that block light and less green space to absorb water. It will forever alter our community based on the urbanization trend du jour, just as the Moses vision divided our neighborhood with a highway.
We have our preferences, and we acted on them. Now let's have the city leave us alone, shall we?
Thanks for the comment, Roseann. I appreciate this perspective and acknowledged in this essay how tricky these tensions can be within cities that include suburban-style neighborhoods.. But when we're talking about New York City, a city whose history is defined by increasing densification, it's a stretch to call this a "new trend" rather than a natural evolution that was interrupted by restrictive zoning.
I'm not suggesting every neighborhood in New York should be Manhattan—nor would "City of Yes for Housing Opportunity" do that—but Manhattan alone can't meet the city's housing needs. Transit-connected neighborhoods are sensible places for modest increases in density. I suspect some resistance stems from the recognition that there are property owners who would redevelop if allowed.
Cities evolve—your historic neighborhood was only made possible by the redevelopment of farmland—and a city of 8 million people, with its economic engine, will continue to attract newcomers. Your neighborhood is a part of New York, not an independent entity that exists apart from it. It must be part of the solution to citywide problems.
And for what it's worth, you'll find no love for Robert Moses here.
That article is quite a read. I've never thought of those trying to solve the housing crisis as sneering at the suburbs, rather they are trying to consider what is best about the suburbs and best about cities and create a new vision. Wanting walkable areas doesn't mean outlawing cars.
Part of the "American Dream" has been selling the illusion of autonomy: your home is your castle rather than a node inside a larger community. That dream included a big house and a big backyard to be filled with big possessions. It also sells the dream that homes never lose value and that this is the only path to financial security, all the while getting yourself deeper in debt.
Maybe the changes that are happening now are temporary, maybe they aren't but it seems that larger shifts are at work. Younger generations are asking themselves if they really want the full responsibility of a home and yard, which require upkeep and expense. Household size is shrinking, and employment is less certain. Part of planning for the future is looking at the reality of now, not pining for a dream that never really benefitted everyone in the first place.
Unfortunately, in real life advocacy and sometimes in the comments section here, I've encountered folks who respond to things like "maybe we shouldn't design cities around cars or plow highways through urban neighborhoods for the benefit of suburban commuters" as an attack on cars and suburbs. Some folks, like the authors of this article, cannot see that the city is a real place with real people, many of whom actually want to live here—and who want to fight to make it more livable rather than a place merely to be consumed by people who don't care about it as a real place. It's culture war myopia, I guess.
As for the The Dream...however illusory, it's powerful and deeply embedded in our culture, so I'm not sure it will go away. But perhaps the shape of it will change as younger generations reevaluate the preferences of prior ones.
That article was WILD - I wonder if the Bronitskys have ever lived in a walkable neighborhood 😂
Yeah, it was a doozy. They claim to have lived in cities—but they swear they didn't like it! 🙄
"... a world in which people are allowed to have and act on preferences different from theirs..."
I live in a very walkable community with access to a commuter rail line and buses, a "downtown" strip of restaurants and shops, and modest lots of 40x100 homes. It is hardly urban sprawl, but it's a glorious combination of walkable and community-minded, with just enough privacy and property to satisfy those of us who want to be in a thriving metropolis without being jammed up against 100 neighbors. I am very much in favor of a city in which people are allowed to have and act on preferences different from theirs.
But this new trend toward increasing density everywhere, regardless of those preferences (I'm talking to you, City of Yes), flies in the face of that argument. Despite our significant investments in the homes and communities of our preferences, and despite our powerful opposition to overdevelopment, we are being told that our historic little neighborhood will become more dense, more heavily populated, with taller buildings that block light and less green space to absorb water. It will forever alter our community based on the urbanization trend du jour, just as the Moses vision divided our neighborhood with a highway.
We have our preferences, and we acted on them. Now let's have the city leave us alone, shall we?
Thanks for the comment, Roseann. I appreciate this perspective and acknowledged in this essay how tricky these tensions can be within cities that include suburban-style neighborhoods.. But when we're talking about New York City, a city whose history is defined by increasing densification, it's a stretch to call this a "new trend" rather than a natural evolution that was interrupted by restrictive zoning.
I'm not suggesting every neighborhood in New York should be Manhattan—nor would "City of Yes for Housing Opportunity" do that—but Manhattan alone can't meet the city's housing needs. Transit-connected neighborhoods are sensible places for modest increases in density. I suspect some resistance stems from the recognition that there are property owners who would redevelop if allowed.
Cities evolve—your historic neighborhood was only made possible by the redevelopment of farmland—and a city of 8 million people, with its economic engine, will continue to attract newcomers. Your neighborhood is a part of New York, not an independent entity that exists apart from it. It must be part of the solution to citywide problems.
And for what it's worth, you'll find no love for Robert Moses here.