And moralizing about urban form comes from both left and right

Ron Rosenbaum observes:

The implication was evident: We deserved it. It would be a salutary lesson. It was the Pat Robertson wing of the Left in full flower: Sinful America deserved this Judgment from the sky. Crocodile tears could be shed for those people who died in the towers, but those buildings were so ugly, they were such eyesores, they were a symbol of globalist hubris— it was as if the terrorists who flew the planes into the towers were really architectural critics, flying Herbert Muschamps, not mass murderers.

More broadly, what confounds me is that urban form is seen by some of both Left and Right as a moral issue — as opposed to the more obvious, to me, analysis of it as the logical & simple result flowing from mis-use of an historically brand-new tool i.e. the automobile. Perhaps that's why I decline to hector our society. As one who makes oodles of mistakes, more each day, I have sympathy for persons and groups who makes mistakes. And I view our mis-use of the auto as simply a mis-take.

Comments

[Brian Miller]

A very good reminder-especially for someone who is a "fan" of James Howard Kunstler, the ultimate moralist urbanism scold :)

I refuse to reduce my moralistic scorn for two things, though: Sports Useless Vehicles and the "Gaming" culture of gambling casinos and the whole tawdry illusion that they will make up for the fact that the United States is a rapidly declining economy in real terms. I hate both SUVs and casinos :)

[Brian Miller]

Even more importantly, this article (along with my own laziness) explains why I never joined a war protest. The professional protestors were, in general, an amazingly shrill and deluded lot. Islamo-Fascism is a a threat, and people like me would be the first to be tortured under such a regime.

[Matthew Amster-Burton]

I have to force myself not to read Kunstler's blog--he is a raving loon who happens to be right about urbanism. Even reading his books I sometimes have to stick my fingers in my heard and say "nyaa nyaa nyaa" while reading.

It's amazing how easily adults can forget that different does not equal bad. I think a lot of people enjoy a suburban lifestyle the same way I enjoy an urban one, and I can't see why I should have a problem with that as long as they don't try to build a big parking garage in my neighborhood. I might argue their lifestyle choice isn't totally fair to their parents and kids, but you could argue that mine isn't either.

[Dave P.]

I just ran across Sprawl Kills, a site (which accompanies a book and newsletter) by Joel Hirschhorn. Where Kunstler insists that sprawl bankrupts our souls (I still haven't figured out how), Hirschhorn goes farther, apparently, as far as I can tell from the title of his work, implicating sprawl in actual loss of life. If Kunstler is the ultimate moralist urbanism scold, Hirschhorn is the ultimate urbanism alarmist.

It's silly to think that sprawl is the result of intentional malice, that a group of people got together somewhere and decided upon "sprawl" as the ultimate weapon to do in the American people (a massive, national sprawl industry? a sprawl lobby?), where it's really just something that happened because we weren't paying attention.

[brian miller]

Thanks for the referral, Dave P. Mr. Hirschorn lacks Kunstler's skill for the invective-and the foul mouth :)

[Brian Miller]

I have to say Kunstler is right on today. there is no miracle cure for the (potentially) looming gas crisis, there is no divine right to our high concumption lifestyle, and there is no easy "solution" to off-shoring of jobs. And, John Kerry is pandering to the American people when he claims otherwise. (not that I will vote for Bush. I may be a skeptic about the war protestors, but I share their dislike of the war itself.)

[David Sucher]

Brian,
What is the concern about gas?
The price will go up. We will either pay more and/or we will adjust our consumption.
Gas is now, adjusted for inflation, very affordable. Life is full of problems; the price of gas is not a significant one unless one desires to continue our current profligate level of consumption.

[dave p.]

I know it is a desire of proponents of mass transit and denser development that gas become very expensive, the hoped for result being that people will be unable to afford to drive, therefore walking and using mass transit more. That, and the powers that be will more urgently search for alternatives.

[Brian Miller]

I realize that, David S. I just hate the pandering by Kerry, the main point of my post. People driving $50,000 Lincoln Navigators (got I hate those pompous, swollen monsters) can-or should be able to-afford an extra $10-$15/tank.

Of course, high oil costs ripple through our entire economy. If inflation begins to return in a noticable fashion (some non-mainstream economists claim the CPI vastly understates inflation-especially in high cost areas like the West Coast) that means increased interest rates and the whole shell game collapses. (Geez. Add a couple of cuss words and I'll sound just like Kunstler :) )

Dave P: I think, as David's point makes clear, that we are a long way from that point. Our entire lifestyle is based on private automobiles. Barring a Kunstler-style collapse, you won't get many people, outside highly congested areas like San Francisco, on public transit. (You know that, I know. I'm just ranting.)

[Walter Hall]

Kunstler's moralism is a cheap thrill, but his apocalyptic prognoses are usually wrong. He spent 1999 warning about the end of life as we know it because of YK2. A big never-mind moment, that.

While I appreciate Kunstler's caustic wit and jeremiads on a literary level, I am also left with a sense of someone who is neither very kind nor very wise. We cannot shame middle America into becoming "better" people (i.e., people who agree with us). Eventually, the terrain will shift toward our viewpoint. Perhaps not in this obnoxious election cycle, but soon enough.

[Michael Blowhard]

I feel like I'm probably missing the point here, but ...

Aren't y'all mixing up two different things: questions of morality, and the person who takes an aggressively shrill and moralizing tone?

As far as discussing urban issues (and even more-strictly architectural ones), why not be willing to take on the topic from a "morality of it all" point of view? It doesn't have to be the one and only p-o-v, or the one and only conversation, or the determining one. But it seems odd to me to argue that the "morality of it all" discussion has no validity or relevance. Part of what's striking about architecture and urbanism as a topic is that it has so directly to do with how we treat each other, and with such questions as what we want as a culture, what our values are, etc. I can't see how these concerns can be seen to exist in some sphere where matters of morality don't apply.

For example, take a piece of especially obnoxious starchitecture. Perhaps it shows some design (and some careerizing) brilliance. But ... well, it's offensive. It disrupts the street in disagreeable ways. It violates the building language of the neighborhood it's in. It's a waste of city money, and its construction was arrived at in ways that were an affront to local people -- perhaps it was a dumb or corrupt attempt at urban renewal.

I look at the above paragraph and see no moralizing screeching, but plenty of conclusions that were arrived at at least partly due to moral convictions. The language shows it: "obnoxious," "violates," "affront," "corrupt," "offensive" ... These are to some extent moral judgments, no? They're to some extent empirical judgments, and to some extent aesthetic judgments too. But can anyone argue that they aren't to some extent moral judgments? So why quarrel with that? Why not admit that there are inevitably going to be some morality-centric discussions about urbanism and architecture? If that can be admitted, then maybe the hoped-for thing becomes better-quality morality-centric discussions, useful and enlightening ones, and ones that don't create so much noise that they drown out all the other perfectly-legit architecture and urbanism discussions, ie., practicalities, empirical matters, and aesthetic questions.

[David Sucher]

"...plenty of conclusions that were arrived at at least partly due to moral convictions..."

Well I can see where you are going. But I think it's reasonable to draw a firm and strict line in the sand: Values, of course.

(A commenter on another post asked me if my acceptance of the suburban housing revealed a "personal bias"? Uh...yes...definitely...What is at work in all these discussions is personal values not policy-wonk "it's better for you." I say it's better for me and if you don't agree, then feel move somewhere there are more parking lots.)

But Morals clearly brings in religion, no? and I while I might even approve of religion as a private matter, I definitely do not approve of faith-based arguments, -- (except in extremis such as when a Priest or Rabbi persuades a would-be murdered to drop his gun because God would not approve.) Otherwise, I like to see people express their values but keep their morals to themselves. Subtle line? Yes, maybe but it does for me keep the discussion to one which avoids recourse to the authority of a higher-power as the ultimate arbiter of what should happen. We should have walkable neighborhoods because they are more fun and also further certain values of health, a degree of neighborliness etc etc...But I think it's a bad idea to urge a walkable neighborhood because God wants it that way.

OK, in the final analysis, there is an awful lot of overlap between "values" and "morals." But I think that the "moral" argument lifts the discussion from a personal preference/public policy basis ("how do we want to live?") to a faith-inspired "how does God want us to live?" I don't favor the latter. If you do, God bless.

A perfect example as mentioned above is Jim Kunstler. Not only does he moralize but he seems to me to dismiss any other judgement as immoral. Maybe that's what I am driving at. Values leave open the option that you and I simply hold different values: you will pay more to live in Greewnwich Village because it is walkable; I don't value it as much, let's say. But if you start to claim that living in Greenwich Village is a sign of superioer morality, then that must mean that my decision to value something else is immoral. No?

[Brian Miller]

"While I appreciate Kunstler's caustic wit and jeremiads on a literary level, I am also left with a sense of someone who is neither very kind nor very wise." True. My appreciation for his nasty wit is a bad commentary on myself, perhaps :(

Ironically, Jim Kunstler is an agnostic/atheist.

David, would you agree that driving a 10 mpg Lincoln Navigator 45 miles to work down a narrow winding road where the local, sustainable agricultural economy/culture has been destroyed by land speculation for exurbanites pretending to be "rural" residents is an immoral position or merely an "invalid" one? (This is indeed a common scenario.)

[David Sucher]

"immoral?" Not at all.

I might allow myself the luxury of the sin of smugness (that I have better taste etc etc) but I don't think I would (nor do I) judge other people as "immoral." Now don't get me wrong - I am an extremely judgmental person and I constantly assess myself and others as to a host of criteria...but I simply do not judge others' actions (except when it comes to capital crimes, unfaithfulness, lying, cheating etc etc etc.) as "moral" or "immoral." They are simply choices -- stupid one, perhaps, but that's not my business -- and only if they impinge on me do I object. But rarely would I object on the basis of "morality." I may think that Herbert Muschamp writes foolish things but I couln't possibly decribe him or his writings as "immoral."

I might thusly think that an SUV is unwise, silly, foolish, not taxed high-enough by society, bad social policy etc etc etc but they are legal in our world and I would never say that a person who drives one on a long daily commute is "immoral."

But hey! I am 56 and have finally learned a little humility about the choices others make; we are all falliable fools in some way. And perhaps the most falliable (or most annoying) are those who are holier than thou and try to persuade by recourse to their knowledge of superior morality.

[Brian Miller]

Well, it is certainly easy and maybe even fun to fall into that very trap of smugness. Or, in the case of Kunstler, very, very profitable :) (He has found quite a niche :) ).

The problem I have, though, is that these invalid decisions often have very serious moral repercussions (i.e., bloody wars over scarce resources, devastation of local environments for the benefit of a few, overall environmental impacts on others that the, for example, SUV driver may be able to escape due to affluence). Thus, one can argue that thoughtless decisions, while mistakes, have moral repercussions. I am not quite as willing to let people (or myself) skate on some of these things. Gluttony is a "sin" as well as a mistake :)

But (and this is a very big "but"), given my lifestyle (I love cars and driving), I am hardly the one to cast the first stone. I drive a small car, but it is certainly no Prius in efficiency (Subaru WRX).

[atdebykfiqj]

bullocks! Your rocks amateur wives off just a place of danger and unmanageable. I.