Good question of the day.

In reference to the book Big Plans:The Allure and Folly of Urban Design, which is mentioned in the post immediately below, one Amazon reviewer asks:

Here's the question: Can a governmental unit, whether an emperor, city planner, zoning commission, or legislature, succeed in making a city more vibrant or livable? Here's a hint from the book -- in Reston, VA homeowners in a development pay $11,000 apiece to demolish a modernist plaza designed as public space for the community. From the forced imploding of public housing to the history of urban "renewal" in our large cities, the dismal track record of governmental actions in cities is in front of us every day.

This question relates back generally to matter of "creativity" and the sensible scope of governmental action. Just as my question about the Iraq war relates more to the possibility of successfully concluding it than to something so arguable as "morality," so too with the proper scope of governmental action in cities. (I am not saying that "morality" is irrelevant but you don't even have to reach a lot of issues if something is not feasible.) Government obviously must approve of many social frameworks --- for example, subdividing land into lots and blocks --- but once those frameworks are established --- and of course there is argument about the extent of its review power in establish such framework to begin with --- what is government's proper role?

I think that reviewer above (and I have no idea if he gets the gist of Kolson's book correctly) states the case far too broadly. It's obvious that fire & police departments, and water systems, for example make cities more "livable." So atthe very least city government can succeed that far. Zoning, too, as a basic structure of society, is clearly successful, if perhaps now at its limits and overused as a tool.

But "vibrancy" is another matter and leads us off into Floridian issues of "creativity" whichy I believe is beyond government's proper competence.

Comments

[Stirling Newberry]

If there is one thing that is more boring than people screaming about the evils of government, it is people screaming about the evils of government on a communications medium developed almost wholly at government expense.

If the free market works so well, then why are they on the internet? Why isn't someone paying them handsomely for their brilliant ideas.

Talk is cheap, because the supply greatly excedes demand.

[John Massengale]

The argument here seems to be that because the government developed the internet they are beyond criticism? That either the government is always right, or the free market is always right, and that the truth is NOT somewhere in the middle?

[Matthew]

I listened to Jan Gehl talk recently. he says yes: by doing things like putting the benches at the edges of spaces against walls (so people feel comfortable with security at their back), breaking up long flat walls with niches & columns (which gives pearl people somewhere to oyster attach) etc.

[David Sucher]

I imagine it's mostly a matter of degree. Cretianly Gehl is correct and the design of a public park or square determines whether it is sociable/functional or not.

But I am talking at a more strategic level about gov't's proper role, which I think is at most as a background facilitator in these matters. Desiging a park so that the benches are in the right spot for easy chatting? Yes. Hiring a social worker to introduce people? No.

As with most things, it's a matter of degree.