Soapbox Update

I've begun planning out (no pun intended) my soapbox in greater detail. Phil suggested that I start giving some fast facts that shock people (e.g., for every 15 miles you live away from your workplace, an extra $6,000 you spend annually on automobile expenses) into finding out what they can do about it.

So I started a thread on HCOL that discusses the premise of the Soapbox: I'll present a brief overview of zoning and planning history in the United States, briefly mentioning urban development prior to Euclid v. Amber, but really focusing on the Euclidean Zoning that has occurred since then.

Basically in America prior to 1926, cities followed a standing practice of growing organically, that is buildings were erected as they were needed. When a city reached a threshold in which it needed some service (butcher), that service (Butcher Shop) opened up at the center of the area to be served. The butcher shop may be in the center of town, right next to six-story apartments. Later, when more services were needed, they moved in to where they could best serve the community. This worked fine for relatively unimportant services such as laundromats (if they existed), bookstores, etc. But what about when America started to Industrialize? At that point in time, you begin to see Industrial factories belching smoke right next to a hospital, right next to a sewage plant, right next to a residential community. This created a most unhealthy situation.

After Euclid v. Amber, zoning as a tool for guaranteeing segregated land uses really took off. Cities began not just segregating out the undesirable land uses, but also segregating different land uses. Whereas prior to Euclidean zoning, an apartment complex may be developed right next to a single-family house, Euclidean zoning usually guaranteed that Multi-family residential lots would NOT exist right next to a single-family lot suburb.

What's more, non-offensive commercial uses (office space, bookstores, dry cleaning) were usually relegated to commercially-zoned areas far away from a residential sector. After all, nobody wants a bookstore right next to their house.

Over time, as Euclidean zoning replaced the traditional, organic growth of cities, and cities started segregating EVERY single type of possible land use, cities reached an unhealthy situation in which any trip to any part of the city required an automobile. If you wanted to walk to a bookstore, tough! You'll have to drive.

Enter New Urbanism. New Urbanism seeks to reverse the negative aspects of Euclidean zoning by allowing mixed-use developments, and the growth of urban areas oriented around the pedestrian, not the automobile. It doesn't seek to reverse growth (though it does tend to slow it down to a responsible level); it doesn't prohibited growth (far from it); it merely provides what I call "Planned Organicism", by attempting to formally zone cities in such a way that they might have grown organically in the first place.

And from there, I go into discussions of social problems. My polemic is that any social problem (poverty, environmental, racism, etc.) can be solved through responsible New Urbanism.

And just for kicks, here's a critique of New Urbanism that is slightly off. I can disprove his argument if I wanted to, but that's outside of the context of this post. :D