Smart Growth Types' Dumb Rhetoric

This article is a great example of the divide --- of psychology and sensibility --- in the debate on sprawl, property rights, urban design etc. etc.

Smart Growth Types' Dumb Rhetoric

The author thinks that the basic argument against current suburban development patterns is that it is bad for us. Of course perhaps he has indeed picked up that line of reasoning from all too-earnest "Smart Growth" enthusiasts, and so his critique is understandable.

My own personal reason for detesting most of what has been built over the past 50 40 years (King County a great example) is that it is so unpleasant, ugly, uncomfortable etc. etc. It's just awful to be around; I have a visceral not intellectual reaction. And actually most of my venom is directed to the commercial areas; the detached single family pattern, which includes much of Seattle, is benign.That's why I like Phil Langdon's argument for the New Urbanism: it's "simply a better way to live." Doesn't have the moralistic oomph as does "Smart Growth" and "Sustainability." I suspect that most supporters of Smart Growth share that same sensibility which is repelled by the look and feel of the suburbs.

But moralizing about resource utilization doesn't really go very far when it comes to land use decisions; personal taste & preference wins out. So we might as well start from self-interest anyway, as that is where we end up.

The author does have one good line:
' "smart growth" advocates should use that money to pass out gym memberships.'