Forbearing ideology for the sake of getting something done

Here, by Robert Locke, is a contra-example to the post below (The sidewalk has no ideology.) Locke's piece is a thoughful article about designs for the WTC site in Manhattan; and you would hardly know that the guy is a (quote) "conservative" except if you had read other of his articles; at least that's how it seems to me. I found it refreshing to read such a discussion, knowing the author's politics and never (oh maybe just a bit) being able to discern them from the article.

The author's common-sense and sensibility shines through. Unlike some cultural conservatives who call for "traditional design" and leave it at that, as if the matter is self-explanatory, Robert Locke starts to explain what that means -- in physical terms -- without even stating that it is "conservative." It comes across as just a matter of good city-building. (Oh he does use the word "traditional" but even aware left-wingers use the word "traditional" when it comes to neighborhood structure, so that's no necessary tip-off to politics.) And he does it well in setting forth his own vision for the site.

The base of the new complex, the part that pedestrians actually encounter and where tens of thousands of people will go to work every day, should be modeled on New York’s famously successful Rockefeller Center. You know: the place with the ice rink and the Christmas tree and the Radio City Music Hall. Since the place is full of tourists whenever I go there, I am assuming it has some familiarity to Middle American readers. Its design is not really that complex, nor hard to duplicate. Its secret is relentless attention to human scale, plus enough detailing to bring the huge towers down to earth and save them from the oppressive abstraction of much modern architecture. It has the singular virtue, which is the finest thing about a skyscraper, of giving the ordinary pedestrian a feeling of intimacy with the heroic. A key advantage of its art-deco style is that, unlike stripped-down geometric modernism and post-modernism, it lends itself well to the addition of decorations, murals, and motifs, so there would be plenty of opportunities to fit in stylized American flags, heroic firefighters, icons of religious tolerance, et cetera.

I wish he'd be even more specifc in explaining what is "traditional" and why Rockefeller Center (largely) works. He ought to have just cut to the jugular about site plan, which he implicitly states is where urbanism starts. But it's a level-headed approach and at least he doesn't try to advance the silly claim that a "traditional design" would be an expression of "conservative values" etc etc.

If in fact "traditional design" will surreptitiously and subtly inculcate traditional values -- and I'll take the risk that it won't -- then conservatives don't need to talk about it. Just drop the rhetoric and build. I think their pitch would be far more effective if they soft-pedalled the ideology and just stuck to promoting a certain kind of city -- the kind I believe that this conservative, above, clearly appreciates and which I, of course, share, though from a moderate, sensible middle-of-the-road political perspective. But claiming and posing such a city as an expression of "cultural conservatism" (or "liberalism," for that matter) is a political non-starter.

Good city-building should be non-ideological common ground. Why? Because it is. I listen intently to both sides and neither -- as even the watered-down ideologies they are -- has much to offer intellectually. Liberals should understand that city-building does not require complex and oppressive public regulation or huge "programs." Conservatives should understand that markets cannot do it by themselves.

Does that sound wimpy and Pollyannish? Well just remember that in David M. Sucher the "M" might stand for moderate.

Comments

[Michael Blowhard]

But do you think there's a chance in hell that these issues and concerns won't get politicized? Architecture and urbanism are public arts -- that's part of the fun of them, or at least of following them. It's where art rubs most directly up against money and politics.

And is the "Moderate" in "David M(oderate) Sucher" really a non-political stance? I'm not sure that fighting for the moderate p-o-v is the same thing as arguing that we set politics aside.

I dunno, I guess my (admittedly not well-thought-through) hunch here is that 1) politicization of many architecture and urbanism matters is inevitable, and that 2) since it is, it makes less sense to fight the inevitable than it does to let it rip. Which I guess means that the question finally is, how to get pull the best architecture and urbanism out of the whole, inevitably-politicized process, no?

[David Sucher]

I think there is a great difference between contentious but substantive public debate and making that discussion partisan. Yes, public (or maybe even private) works should be subject to some level of public debate over merits, impacts, etc. But that debate does not need -- and does not benefit from -- framing the issues as ones of left/right ideology.

For example, the construction of a monorail in Seattle is still debated and there are rumblings of people trying to overturn the "Yes" vote we gave it two years ago. It is an extremely political issue -- but is not, so far as I can tell, partisan in the least. There is no conservative versus liberal flavor to the discussion -- just pure human fury but without any discernible ideological element.

[JRoth]

I know nothing of the Seattle monorail, so I shouldn't doubt you, but I find it a bit hard to believe your description of the controversy as non-partisan. Perhaps you simply mean that the Yes/No divide does not closely follow ideological lines. But surely many of the adherents on both sides make explicitly partisan (or ideological) arguments? To wit: wouldn't many supporters be liberals who like the idea of subsidized mass transit (vs. subsidized highways & sprawl), while many in opposition would be conservatives who oppose public money being spent on [certain kinds of] transit, not to mention conservatives who oppose the whole thing as (yet another) gov't boondoggle? I'd be impressed if those lines aren't at least faintly drawn.

Anyway, I agree in some sense with your initial premise, which is that urban design (as distinct from urban policy) is not inherently ideological. It's hard to believe that anyone with even a passing familiarity with urban fabric would find your Three Rules to be somehow ideological. But I think you may underestimate how eager many partisans are to spy hidden ideologies in the urban plans of others. In some ways, this is mirrored in environmentalism, where even the most common sense, anodyne suggestions (airborne mercury is bad; not every forest must remain pristine) instantly foment controversy.

Simple statements have become loaded, such that every urbanist who decries sprawl for its wastefulness, its costs to human health (to say nothing of costs to infrastructure), and its ugliness is suspected as some sort of Maoist looking to forcefully relocate suburbanites to some inner city education camp. Sprawl is damaging to values held on both sides of the partisan divide (if you think gated communities promote traditional community values, you're nuts), yet conservatives (Republicans?) have largely made its defense a primary tenet of their philosphy (at least insofar as their philosophy acknowledges the built environment). I'd like to think that a populace more educated on the topic would hold more thoughtful and nuanced positions, but I don't see many issues out there where public discussion has led to public thoughtfulness (see environmentalism, above)

[David Sucher]

Nope, it really is true. The divide is not ideological. The Monorail's support/opposition is not along pro-transit or anti-transit lines or any other even remotely ideological lines. Many/most people who oppose it are very much in favor of transit -- and I believe them. They just don't think that this is a good idea. People are actually arguing about the merits with no ideological underpinning. It's a civil war and that may be why the fight is so intense. I am essentially pro-monorail and many people I know -- other vaguely liberal urbanites who appreciate the importance of transit, urban spaces etc etc fully as much as I do -- are very much against it. (There is no suburban element as the project is a Seattle-only system at the present.)

[praktike]

I do find it quite interesting that the neo-traditionalists (the CNU crowd) in urban design are essentially from the left, while their opponents are to the right. Then there are the contrete lobbies and unions, which generally favor unfettered growth and oppose transit. Similarly confusing, left-wing designers and Randites together glorified the naked use of materials qua materials to produce modern architecture, which has generally been hostile to human habitation.

My view is that urban spaces are primarily the product of transportation, which ought to resolve the seeming contradiction between the views of left and right on urbanism; transit represents a commitment to shared urbanism, while the glorification of the automobile and prpoerty rights is largely in keeping with traditional libertarianism.

Remember that conservatism is an ideology--it's a resistance to change. In that sense, the CNU are the "conservatives," while their opponents are the "progressives." I happen to lean more to the CNU side of things here, but so it goes.

[Thomas]

Law professor Cass Sunstein talks about 'incompletely theorized agreements.' He uses the phrase to refer to agreement about outcome without agreement on the reasons for the outcome. For example, those on the left and the right might be able to support free speech rights in a particular case (the outcome) without agreeing on what the reasons for the outcome should be. It seems to me that people on the right and on the left could support NU for their own reasons--that we could have an incompletely theorized agreement on the desirability of NU--without agreeing on the reasons for NU. The left can support NU for all the reasons the left would support it, and the right can support it for all the reasons the right would support it. That doesn't make NU ideological, or nonideological--it simply makes it something that both the left and the right can agree on, even if they can't agree on why they both like it.

[David Sucher]

Thomas,
That's an extremely interesting perspective and no doubt true in many cases; such 'incompletely theorized agreements' are the very basis of politics, of coalition-building to achieve discrete goals. And that's part of the underlying message of my initial post, I think.

My reaction has two prongs.

1. What about NU might lead one to believe that conservatives and liberals could support it for very different reasons? i.e. what might those different reasons be? To me, NU simply creats better places to live and I personally go no further. What different goals do you see that enthusiasts might realistically (or not) hope for?

2. So what? Even supposing that the sides of the current political spectrum support NU for very different reasons, if they see their own goals being achieved they will stay happy-campers. Of course, and this is why I propose non-ideological support for NU, if each has different but separate unrealistic expectations, their support will wither. And speaking personally, that's why I am wary of such a basis of support to begin with. I think that both sides may be sorely disappointed when NU by itself fails to produce either the socially-conservative or socially-progressive world for which they hope. And their support will disappear. That would be bad. NU is a good idea on its own terms.

NU can produce better places to live but I would not want to claim that a "Main Street" world will produce better people. If it does, marvelous! But my advice to oraganized proponents of NU is to lower expectations and to "Promise Less and Deliver More."

[Thomas]

On the first question: those on the left may be more likely to emphasize the health and environmental benefits of NU; those on the right might instead recognize child-friendlyness, sociability, and Burkean obligations to take tradition (and traditional design) seriously.

I don't know that anyone would believe better design would, in itself, lead to people of particular politics. But I suppose it is possible--maybe modern patterns of development lead to liberalism, or to conservatism. We can all construct the narrative each way, I'd bet.

On the second point: I don't know that any idea advances if those who insist that their politics should be of a piece with their rest of their beliefs can't accomodate the idea. Those people are likely to think that NU is a good idea insofar as it is consistent with what they know to be true. Those who need a total theory are going to build a total theory, while those are who--like you--more pragmatic can simply ignore those theories and concentrate on the concrete.

I think it is a good thing that those with different political perpspectives can agree on NU. I'd be worried if it were otherwise--if the idea of a good city were something that we couldn't share because of our politics, rather than in spite of our politics.

[David Sucher]

Thomas,
I don't know that your first paragraph convinces me; I am glad you phrase it in the subjunctive.

Here in liberal Seattle, for example, "child-friendly" housing is one of the themes of the zoning code, as is sociability. (I don't claim that it is particularly successfully done but it is clearly an explict goal.)

Your attempt to associate different goals with different views of the world reaffirms my initial sense. I think that idological lines truly do break down when it comes to urban form. The politics is all over the place; and that is a telling sign, and I belive a very welcome one as, as you say, coalitions can be built which cross ideological lines. That may disappoint the extremes of either side but I like it.

[Christopher Davis]

Interesting discussion indeed.

I've posted my comments at http://www.unfolio.com/archives/000153.html