Horses, skis, boats, golf sticks etc etc

City Comforts Blog is starting a slight sabbatical. (This is where having a newsreader comes in handy; if/when I blog again on cities, a newsreader would make it easier -- were that to be an issue for you -- to learn about it.)

I've pretty-much said what I have to say about cities etc etc for now; and I can sum up the core message, if you want good cities, pretty simply:

1. Follow the Three Rules of Urban Design. I've discussed them at some length here so I won't repeat myself. (As well, they are outlined in the book, which "if you really care about cities", you will consider buying.)

2. Favor states which will consider a libertarian answer. I phrase that carefully for it contains an obvious even comical tension. Few states except a very wise and enlightened one ("Hey Diogenes!") will even consider a non-statist solution. How often does a government agency ever start with a "least intrusive means" approach to solving a problem? Of course that is just human nature: a carpenter is liable to think that every answer involves a hammer. States (or more precisely the people who gain from them) are structurally unable to see the limits of their own power. That any of my fellow liberals could, for example, even propose that the state be an agent of "creativity" indicates to me we have gone off the deep-end in calcuating what a state can/should do. Of course that any of my fellow conservatives & libertarians could think that land use issues can be solved without a government is likewise and equally disingenuous & coy.

3. Hang great architeture. It has little to do with creating good places to live.

Anyway, I will be blogging on another blog --- the subject of which is my diversions Horses, Boats, Skis, Golf Sticks etc etc ---very shortly.

Of course I could simply blog here on Horses, Boats, Skis, Golf Sticks etc etc. That is a thought. Same mind applied to different subject matter. Then again, a different blog might avoid any dilution of the "City Comforts" brand with what what some people might view as is frivilous and silly subjects such as Horses, Boats, Skis, Golf Sticks etc etc...I dunno...Any thoughts?

Comments

[heidi]

Are you going to really have the time to keep up two separate blogs over time? You could just add categories to your archives to enable people to find city-related posts more easily if they just want to read those. I guess it depends on how focused and active you think your other blog will be.

[Bill Seitz]

I intend to stop by UrbanCenterBooks to pick up a copy any day now...

[JRoth]

Well, I hate to see City Comforts go dormant, but I can't argue with you pursuing other interests.

Anyway, to take issue with one of your summary statements:

"That any of my fellow liberals could, for example, even propose that the state be an agent of "creativity" indicates to me we have gone off the deep-end in calcuating what a state can/should do."

I'm on the design review committee of a local Community Development Corp (a very, very successful one, I might add). Pittsburgh also has a (largely toothless) Design Review Committee as part of its Dept of Planning (it only reviews certain projects, I hasten to add). I can state unequivocally that designs are better, more thoughtful, more creative, and more urban after they've come through this statist, bureaucratic, anti-libertarian process. Every damn time. Is it always the most efficient system? Does it result in the best possible designs? Of course not. But I've never seen a design (including my own) that has not been improved by the input of 2 groups of thoughtful, intelligent, and trained people.

I'm really not clear on what basis you summarily dismiss the possibility. I know that romantic dogma states that creativity flows from the genius soul of inspired individuals, and that libertarian dogma states that everything that the state touches is tarnished, but I've read enough of your work to know that you subscribe to neither dogma. So I'm curious to hear your response.

[Note: privately-financed buildings on privately-developed land outside certain planning districts don't go through this process]

[David Sucher]

JRoth.
I don't see what design review -- which in a very limited form I like -- has to do with government fostering creativity. We may simply be using the terms in different ways. I dunno.

Bill Setitz.
YES!!

Heidi.
No, you are right; I couldn't really do both. And I'd go with horses and boats and skis. :)
But I'd probably do that in the same manner with which i do this one. Btw, I've got it up in beta form at Dave's Diversions.

[Murph]

JRoth,

1. Is a review process a "creative" process? Or a critique process that triggers a different creative process in the, uh, creator? (architect/developer/etc)

2. Must the review process be necessarily a "statist, bureaucratic, anti-libertarian" process? Must a libertarian process exclude outside (peer?) review? What if a developer takes his plans to a local but non-public entity for review and critique? Would this be an anti-libertarian process? Would it fail to have the same effect as the review by a public entity?