Although I have not yet read the new book by Anthony Flint, "Wrestling with Moses: How Jane Jacobs took on the Master Builder and Transformed the American City", Harvard Professor Ed Glaeser offers a reasoned analysis in this review of the book about the frivolous dichotomy present in practically every debate about planning. The dichotomy in this case being the all-too common battle between the grass-roots level activism of obnoxious 'NIMBYs' versus the greedy ambitions of the 'big bad developer'.
As Glaeser notes, both Jacobs and Moses have become caricature-like figures in representing the opposing sides of the dichotomy. This characterization reduces planning debates to a Biblical 'Good versus Evil' dialogue, resulting in the prohibition of many potentially worthwhile urban proposals. In fact, urban development is much more random and unpredictable than planners, developers, and city officials would be comfortable admitting. Ultimately, it would be beneficial to all stakeholders if this was kept in mind before engaging in yet another pointless argument about new development being 'evil'.
As Glaeser notes, both Jacobs and Moses have become caricature-like figures in representing the opposing sides of the dichotomy. This characterization reduces planning debates to a Biblical 'Good versus Evil' dialogue, resulting in the prohibition of many potentially worthwhile urban proposals. In fact, urban development is much more random and unpredictable than planners, developers, and city officials would be comfortable admitting. Ultimately, it would be beneficial to all stakeholders if this was kept in mind before engaging in yet another pointless argument about new development being 'evil'.
0 comments:
Post a Comment