I agree with my colleague Matthew Cantirino below, who, it should be noted, does not mean to defend the policies Kurtz criticizes. Further, I wonder if Kurtz, an opponent of regulation, would join in calls to abolish free parking and otherwise relax zoning codes.
Suburban sprawl is not, after all, the product of wholly free choices but of highly constrained, bizarrely conceived, and economically distorting zoning laws. Minimum parking lot requirements systematically subsidize driving, to the disadvantage not only of pedestrians but also of builders and property tax payers whose bills go up when so much land is given over to empty concrete. Meanwhile, separate-use zoning and large setbacks make dense and mixed-use neighborhoods illegal. Perhaps the most immediate and powerful way to deregulate American life is to oppose the laws that make suburban sprawl not only possible, but in many jurisdictions legally required. Repeal and replace, I say.
August 2nd, 2012 | 5:12 pm
I agree completely. Restraint, mixed-use and localism generally lead to healthier communities. The suburbs as they exist now ar egenerally terrible. Why encourage them?
August 2nd, 2012 | 7:36 pm
This helps me understand so much of my frustration with suburbia, as well as to appreciate how complex the problem really is. Any must-read sources on this topic?
August 2nd, 2012 | 7:53 pm
Sorry, but I live in the suburbs (of Rochester, NY). And, no, we don’t have a “3 acre lot,” just a modest 1/3 acre one; we know our neighbors; we like it here.
I grew up in the country, like some space around me, and have no desire whatsoever to live in the city (or, God forbid, to be in a regional government dominated by the city). If that makes me a nutbar, right-wing looney, so be it.
August 3rd, 2012 | 8:40 am
The solution, as always, is to reduce the size and scope of the federal government. States, counties, and municipalities are perfectly capable of working out their own problems without having to deal with the federal government.
You know what? Two-thirds of any problem these days is trying to deal with the centralized one-size fits all “solution” imposed by half-wits inside the Beltway.
Seriously, the bureaucrats in Washington are no smarter than the bureaucrats in Austin or Lexington. or the duly elected and locally accountable commissioners and board members of various counties. If it is about the money, stop sending the money to Washington and let the local folks spend their own money as they see fit.
August 3rd, 2012 | 9:59 am
Schmitz nails it with precision. I have no real problem with letting the free market guide our building and transportation patterns, but no one should pretend that it’d be anything other than a first.
August 3rd, 2012 | 4:07 pm
If the proposed policies are a good idea, let us debate them openly.
It is my understanding that Kurtz is alleging that Obama is trying to influence policy in ways that deliberately sidesteps the entire concept of transparency and public debate.
If this is even partially true, then mocking Kurtz’s allegations with caricature-words like “sinister” was really cheap.
I don’t know what the correct policy is with regard to suburbs. But I would like to be part of the discussion. I don’t want the major policies that impact my world to be made in secret, by people who mock the very idea that people like me could want, need, or be entitled to a voice.
August 5th, 2012 | 4:57 pm
I’m not going to comment on Kurtz’s article here, but since some seem interested in engaging the larger urban/suburban debate taking place on the contemporary right, I thought I’d make a few points regarding traditional neighborhoods and suburbs:
1. There are a lot of older suburbs, developed in the first half of the twentieth century, that have good traditional residential architecture, nice streets, pedestrian-friendly commercial activity close by, and generally encourage interaction between neighbors. Put more simply, these are suburbs that function like small towns, even if close to a large city (like Rochester or Minneapolis, for example). So not every suburb is “sprawling,” and plenty of American suburbs are great places to live.
2. These are different from sprawl suburbs, which are only habitable if one uses a car. Houses, shops, offices, and public buildings are found in separate, mono-use “zones.” Physically, sprawl suburbs are characterized by large parking lots in front of buildings, lots of roads and lots of traffic, and ugly, low-slung buildings of dubious construction quality and durability. The zoning laws used to achieve this were thought up by the utopian lefty-modernist-progressives of the early 20th century (the same people who gave us “urban renewal”), and were implemented after World War II by municipalities. Most post-war development in the US follows the sprawl model; the homes built in 1950′s-70′s sprawl are typically modest in comparison to the “McMansions” that became commonplace in sprawl suburbs of the 1980s-90-2000′s. A growing number of folks on the right, myself included, worry that these suburbs contribute to the disposability of American places and, more broadly, culture.
3. The beautiful, traditional neighborhood or small town comes in a wide variety of densities and plans. Criticizing post-war suburban development is NOT the same as advocating tenement-style living conditions, or arguing that mid-town Manhattan density is what we should be aiming for throughout America (heaven forbid). Most American cities have examples of great neighborhoods; it is this heritage we should be reclaiming.
4. There is neither the time nor the space here in a com-box for a full-blown exposition of the arguments against sprawl and in support of traditional cities, towns, and neighborhoods. Some must-read sources include: “Till We Have Built Jerusalem” by F.T. contributor Philip Bess. A more shrill, if no less entertaining book would be “The Geography of Nowhere” by James Howard Kunstler.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact