Sunday, May 5,2005
In recent weeks, there has been a slew of commentaries in the Trad-Arch listserv regarding "political correctness" and the return of oligarchies of superior knowledge to "run things" the right way. The underlying theme of those in support of "oligarchies" running things the right way is that "they", mostly white men, are tired of the pretense of "democracy", read inclusiveness, as imbedded in various versions of "political correctness". "Let's not have any more of this ineffective community participation and pretention of everyone-has-a-role that lead to bad decisions, fuzzy thinking, and the destruction of things we cherish. In this case, that which is cherished is the past when the really bright and accomplished folks ran things for the "others". A good, actually awful, example of smart people running things, is the conduct ofthe Vietnam war by Pres. Johnson, Dean Rusk, Robert MacNamara, McGeorge Bundy, and George Bundy that left 58,000 American dead for a very questionable and foggy cause.
The more extreme white male reactions to this "political correctness stuff" have to do with being emasculated by women and others who want to take their place and really don't measure up to their, the white male's, standards. That sounds pretty silly and retro, doesn't it?
None of this protest has to do with cause and effect or conditions and racist and sexist experiences the "others" have had, prior to the rise of women and so-called minority groups assuming leadership or "participation" of one sort or another. It's more a case of male social darwinism.
As applied to the New Urbanist movement this translates into New Urbanism as some kind of ideology that others, in moments of good sense and reflection, must adopt. It makes sense. It creates better places, preserves the environment, brings work closer to residence, is healthier for all (e.g. walking to convenience centers and schools is better than driving far a wide) and enables "affordable neighborhoods" for diverse groups.
There are two outstanding flaws in the protest for a return to the "old oligarchies" and the New Urbanist ideology. And they have little or nothing to do with whether they are democratic, facist, monarchist, or socialist political systems.
What's wrong with oligarchies? I assume that this term applies to well educated, accomplished, balanced thinking people who know the "right" way to action and implementation of good outcomes. The failure of the "brain trust" that conducted the Vietnam war is an extreme example of the weakness of oligarchies. In every day terms, oligarchies are ultimately flawed because, in the end, they exclude other points of view which may seem unsophisticated or oppositional. In the case of Vietnam, many of that brain trust felt in their guts that the war was unwinnable, but continued their prosecution of the war, because they could not relinquish their control over the situation in any way. There is no doubt that the best and the brightest should lead. But to keep that club enriched and protect it from imperial behavior and failures of that kind, it behooves them to let the "other" people in and deliberate and accept new and, in some cases, oppostional beliefs.
New Urbanist ideology. It is a given that New Urbanism is the best thing to happen to planning in the last 50 years. It is a set of goals, professional practice, and detailed standards that is the only hope for economic development to turn the ugly present into something else. In this case, away from its ugly, inefficent, environment wasting, growing traffic congesting present to better, safer, efficient, aesthetically pleasing, community centered places, cities and regions. But this body of code of practice and detailed standards is just that and not ideology.
It cannot become another CIAM that followed the theory of Corbusier, with the result of giant blocks of develpment sitting in a senseless green and parking and the loss of a sense of community that this kind of physical isolation produced. The ruling oligarchies then swore unwavering allegiance to it, and they were wrong.
New Urbanism has described its brand of democracy as bringing others, e.g. the libertarians, environmentalists, traffic engineers, developers, and all kinds of "self and political seeking" interest groups, "under their tent". Again, new urbanism sounds like some exclusive club that has finally let in "the others". When, in fact, what should be going on is to make new urbanism a sensible way of cooperative working together that truly gives "physical space" for all of them and produces a "sustainable environment".
"Sustainable environment" and "smart growth" have turned out to be hopes rather than truly attainable goals. One of the primary reasons for this "failure", if it is to be called that, is that methods and legal buttresses were not truly examined to ascertain limits and ways to overcome them. That includes forming a larger group of New Urbanists who work together to achieve a new planning "paradigm", fact based planning that has examined risks, achievable implementation strategies, and costs and benefits for everyone to examine and evaluate. There should be a new future where statements like, "My way is the right way" are supplanted by, "this way satisfies local requirements-a city, a region, a hamlet- for sound development and preservation and aesthetically pleasing outcomes".
This way, another way for New Urbanism to operate, provides a platform to respond to critics, the O'Tooles and other blowhards. The challenge to its opponents should be, "let's examine your system of planning practices and standards, so that we can understand where we disagree and agree". It's no longer one ideology opposing another one. It is a case of your facts and my facts.
Comments