Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Dunno - Obama probably had a lot of what Kotkin writes about in this article in mind when he decided to pick - and now retain - Biden as his VP running mate. And Kotkin's blend of demography and sociology is not too different from what Richard Florida and David Brooks often write about, although it takes them in different directions.
I guess this is relevant to the thread because this big CSA will go for Obama again and people can look at the polls afterwards to see if Kotkin's analysis held up.
1. I think Obama wanted to appeal better to working class whites who he personally did not appeal to them. The reasons he personally did not appeal to them could be debated - I am quite sure BHO did not think it was because the policies he proposed were harmful to their interests. I mean Hillary famously did much better than BHO with working class white than BHO - yet she also is smart, and attended prestigious universities. On economics, her husbands policies were somewhat more friendly to finance and less focused on the manufacturing sector than BHO's, and as Senator from NY she was harly hostile to "urbanism". There are differences in experience and style and background - but those are largely orthogonal to the urbanist thing. AFAICT BHO has also done better than most previous Democrats in affluent, highly educated northern suburbs. I saw an article the other day on Delaware shifting from a swing state to solidly Dem - thats hardly a city vote thats doing that.
That he retained Biden may just be because he feels Biden is qualified. Other than FDR I can't think of any 20th c president who was changed VPs in midstream, and FDR was moved by serious ideological fractures in the Dem coalition - certainly Biden is not out of touch with Obama on any substantive issue.
2. I don't particularly care for what Richard Florida does - he also is too filled with rhetoric. Though he I think has at least a better (if still flawed) view of data analysis than the other two. As for Brooks, I have found him unreadable for quite some time. He is certainly challenged in the area of data and analysis - as his postings on budget and macroecon matters show. I forget, is he one of the "Very Serious" pundits who considered Paul Ryan "serious"?
3. This is relevant because much of the discussion on the thread, in particular the attacks on Bluefly, seem to me to involve a rhetorical strategy similar to Kotkin's.
I think it's fair to say all of us come off as more sanctimonious about our positions than we actually are. Jeb77's spent too much time around urbanists who do not support auto-centric lifestyles and is tired of them pointing out the many negative impacts of sprawl and thinking they have a better idea about development than people who just want a home without neighbors bothering them and a safe place to raise their kids. When he sniffs one of us out, he pounces and doubles-down on promoting the value of auto-centric lifestyles, probably more than he truly believes. We, in turn, pounce on him back with a strong focus on the walkable / TOD areas because it's accepted as the status quo that the more suburbanized areas are desirable and nice. High demand for TOD is still relatively new and requires a lot more investment to meet current demand. The more who embrace it the better for all of us, but obviously millions will always live in this region away from transit, and that's great too. In the end, to borrow from the article, it's just basic math:
Also - I've never understood the "cookie-cutter" slander since rowhomes and apartment hallways are all pretty cookie-cutter, too.
I've read this more than once and keep finding that I agree with almost all of it. I'll have to decide whether I ask the mods to change my screen name to "NotJoelKotkin."
So white working class people can't also be smart in your view? Come on, Brooklyn. You're better than that
huh? I meant she is also smart, like Barack Obama is. So if his intellectuality and articulateness comes off as elitist, and alienating to many, its not clear why hers does not. Maybe I should have said "articulate" or "intellectual" or whatever, rather than "smart".
smart seems to be a word that gets peoples goats.
I still wonder if Mitt thinks using "smart growth" meant he was an elitist who dissed suburbanites.
I've read this more than once and keep finding that I agree with almost all of it. I'll have to decide whether I ask the mods to change my screen name to "NotJoelKotkin."
I agree with it as well (though I would add that in addition to "urbanists who do not support auto-centric lifestyles" there exist "suburbanists" who strongly dislike even moderately balanced policies on either transportation or development - and that some of us encounter the results not only in rhetoric, but in tangible aspects of our lives - whether its a complete streets project in our neighborhood prioritized below a road widening, or a driver honking at us while we bicycle as allowed law)
perhaps I could change my name to "notJamesKunstler" or 'notRichardFlorida" if there is any confusion.
huh? I meant she is also smart, like Barack Obama is. So if his intellectuality and articulateness comes off as elitist, and alienating to many, its not clear why hers does not. Maybe I should have said "articulate" or "intellectual" or whatever, rather than "smart".
smart seems to be a word that gets peoples goats.
I still wonder if Mitt thinks using "smart growth" meant he was an elitist who dissed suburbanites.
huh? I meant she is also smart, like Barack Obama is. So if his intellectuality and articulateness comes off as elitist, and alienating to many, its not clear why hers does not. Maybe I should have said "articulate" or "intellectual" or whatever, rather than "smart".
smart seems to be a word that gets peoples goats.
I still wonder if Mitt thinks using "smart growth" meant he was an elitist who dissed suburbanites.
In some ways, I find it more interesting to be an observer of this particular culture war/skirmish than a participant in it, in the same way that some journalists prefer to write about the mommy wars (SAH moms vs. working moms) than become sharp-edged partisans.
On the particular concept of "smart growth," I would gently suggest that context matters. In isolation, using a term like that as shorthand to refer to development that is designed to be energy efficient, take advantage of existing knowledge, and improve people's quality of lives would raise no hackles and can readily be embraced. Combine it, however, with other statements made by some individuals (assume that I am not ascribing such statements to you or Bluefly) who tout their academic credentials, do not hide their disdain for post-WW II suburbs, seek to limit future growth on the periphery, talk about being "car-free" the way that some dieters describe being "carb-free" and/or blithely tell their acquaintances that "I could never live out where you live" and you have the ingredients for cultural misunderstanding and hostility, whereupon a term like "smart growth" takes on a very different connotation, no matter how many times you suggest that this is "faux" outrage manufactured to deceive the unwary.
I do recognize that there is a competing narrative, in which urban dwellers just want to go about their business, but are besieged by those who accuse them of being selfish hedonists or, if they have children, are accused of putting their interests above those of their children if they allow them to attend local schools or live in an area where the crime rates have been even marginally higher than in Chevy Chase or Arlington.
In some ways, I find it more interesting to be an observer of this particular culture war/skirmish than a participant in it, in the same way that some journalists prefer to write about the mommy wars (SAH moms vs. working moms) than become sharp-edged partisans.
On the particular concept of "smart growth," I would gently suggest that context matters. In isolation, using a term like that as shorthand to refer to development that is designed to be energy efficient, take advantage of existing knowledge, and improve people's quality of lives would raise no hackles and can readily be embraced. Combine it, however, with other statements made by some individuals (assume that I am not ascribing such statements to you or Bluefly) who tout their academic credentials, do not hide their disdain for post-WW II suburbs, seek to limit future growth on the periphery, talk about being "car-free" the way that some dieters describe being "carb-free" and/or blithely tell their acquaintances that "I could never live out where you live" and you have the ingredients for cultural misunderstanding and hostility, whereupon a term like "smart growth" takes on a very different connotation, no matter how many times you suggest that this is "faux" outrage manufactured to deceive the unwary.
I do recognize that there is a competing narrative, in which urban dwellers just want to go about their business, but are besieged by those who accuse them of being selfish hedonists or, if they have children, are accused of putting their interests above those of their children if they allow them to attend local schools or live in an area where the crime rates have been even marginally higher than in Chevy Chase or Arlington.
The only problem i have with the above is the apparent binary - that a smart growth advocate is either the arrogant cad of the second part of the first paragraph, or that they just want to go about their business. To me there is a very important middle ground between those - someone who thinks that changes in development patterns and transportation choices are good AND important things, that enabling car free living is a good idea and that those who do it are admirable, that there are major social negatives to the design of most 1945-1990 era suburbs - but who A. explicitly acknowledge a place for the automobile (and not ONLY for car lite households) B. acknowledge a significant percentage of the housing stock should be "autocentric" C. would never say something rude like "I could never live out where you live" to someone IRL
Most of the thinkers on the issue I like do NOT suggest 100% of housing should be in "walkable urban places" Rather they suggest that in building close to 100% of our new housing between 1945 and 1990 in autocentric places, we created a vast unmet demand for WUPs. Now its not possible to say at this point how far the pendulum will or should move the other way - the Pew study shows about a third SAY they like prefer walkable, but on the one hand some of those are folks who wont really sacrifice any space for that, and arent really serous - OTOH there are some now cool to the idea who may warm to it in time, or the number may increase with generational change. In either case it will leave a decidedly non trivial amount wanting classic autocentric suburbia (itself a simplification of several subtly different development styles) Some people believe that the amount of demand for that autocentric suburbia is not enough to lead to more new building of it - but they are often focused on metros where total population and effective demand is not growing as it currently is in metro Washington. I personally am skeptical that the SFH on a quarter acre in a single use neighborhood with cul de sacs will go the way of the enclosed shopping mall or the tower in the park.
' "smart growth" takes on a very different connotation, no matter how many times you suggest that this is "faux" outrage manufactured to deceive the unwary. '
I very much doubt that the folks who are causing Agenda 21 to be a major issue today are folks who have lived surrounded by arrogant hipster urbanists, as perhaps you have. From the articles I have read they are mostly folks who live in rural areas or in the suburbs of small cities, where such urbanists are not much more common than hens teeth. The outrage by them may not be faux - but its an outrage triggered by other issues - and the outrage is directed against everything from the Federal Reserve Bank, to the Law of the Sea Treaty, to the folks trying to get govt involved in our Medicare. There are significant elements of ignorance in it, and some of the outrage is manipulated by the "vastrightwingconspiracy". For a better explanation of how the outrage machine works (on a different though related issue), with an interlocking set of media outlets, websites, "institutes" etc to reinforce lies, slander serious academics, and control policy, I would suggest reading Amazon.com: The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines (9780231152549): Michael E. Mann: Books a very good discussion of what one scientist has been through.
While I did not say the outrage was faux, I did say the populism was faux. I believe true populism is directed at financial and economic elites. This wave of populism has been carefully manipulated to divert attention from the financial sector, and to focus it on "culture enemies" whether they are urban planners, climate scientists, etc.
Last edited by brooklynborndad; 09-07-2012 at 02:49 PM..
"The Agenda 21-related conspiracies are only the most recent incarnation of this country's property rights movement, which has long used disruptive techniques to foment dissent against environmentalists and land regulations. Often associated with groups like the John Birch Society and the Heartland Institute, and seen most prominently in the 1990s as the Wise Use movement, property rights groups oppose any government interference in land rights.
This might appear on the local level as a farmer’s dispute over zoning regulations, but it more often involves the struggles of natural resource-dependent industries against environmental regulations: coal plants fighting pollution controls, logging companies battling clear-cutting restrictions, and chemical plants fighting waste disposal regulations.
In the case of the UN’s Agenda 21 and the anti-smart growth fervor it has spawned, the attention is largely coming from development and construction companies. Their ire is aimed more specifically against septic tank regulations, wetlands protections, and any other restrictions on new construction in rural areas."
at least in NoVa limiting future growth on the periphery is an action of county govts, responding it would seem to a combination of rural dwellers seeking to preserve their community's character, and suburban homeowners concerned either with the infrastructure and education costs of new growth, competition with their own homes in the market, or both.
I think the situation in MoCo is not far different.
I dont see the statewide urban growth boundary a la Oregon as a particularly widespread policy. I also dont see it much on the internet - I see a lot of debate about transit lines (including street cars) about densities in urban areas and suburban TOD areas, about the details of zoning codes, about new suburban highway projects, etc. But precious little about UGB's. I do see some urbanists making the point that TOD/WUPS are good because, among other reasons, they preserve rural land, but thats not the same as actually advocating for a UGB.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
