This note on Urban Density was drafted by Tyson in response to my Guru Interview with him. In general, as more and more urban sprawl is taking place vs. reinvestment within urban cores, cities are becoming less sustainable (more car traffic, pollution, distance between work/home; less time for family). Tyson identifies the issues which allow sprawl to occur and puts some reason into why folks live within it without complaint:

Increasing urban density is often a not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) issue, which is perplexing because people like to visit cities. They enjoy the variety, diversity, convenience, of the urban core and the walkable urban neighborhoods. But for many it’s just “elsewhere.” I think the pathology of this mindset varies, but at its core is the inability of contemporary Americans to express how and why a particular place appeals to them. Design, let alone urban design, isn’t part of our core curriculum. The average citizen doesn’t have the vocabulary to articulate how design affects the built environment, so it goes unremarked upon. Folks can’t recognize good design because poor urban and architectural design litters every corner, from emerging towns to established urban centers. This lack of understanding about the quality of the built environment (from buildings, to blocks, to neighborhoods, to cities, to regions) carries with it a lack of understanding about how the built environment affects the human experience. People rely on a basic instinct or “feel” to describe whether they like or dislike a particular place, and leave it at that. There is no analysis of our surroundings because we have no collective basis for describing the attributes that define a good urban place.

Technology exacerbates the problem; it affords us near instant mobility, both physical and virtual. This in turn minimizes the significance of any particular place. The impermanent, dynamic nature of modern society, careers, and associated changes of domicile also allow us to devalue the permanence of the built environment.

Another driving factor is Fear-of-Change, or more precisely a lack of understanding about the process of change. Radicals often call for abrupt policy shifts, sea changes, yet no thought is given to transition planning. Why does the question of ‘how to get there from here’ so often go unanswered? Again, we don’t understand design. Since planning is a form of design, change is actually designed. Major changes are the accumulation of many small changes, each particular to its place and time. We possess a limited design vocabulary to describe this process.

To carry this line a few steps further, when you have a citizenry that is generally uninformed about the process of change, or how to use design as a tool for effecting change, you end up with apathetic stakeholders. Apathy hastens disengagement from public processes, which empowers bureaucrats to make unilateral decisions. Poor outcomes ensue, which leads the public to take an evermore defensive stance when it comes to “changes.” That’s NIMBYism. So we need to teach architectural design and urban planning in the schools. The foundations of freedom and democracy are built on individual’s right to own land, and a house is the largest investment most people ever make. We should pay closer attention.

—–

end

Learn more about Tyson Domer at his website here: LINK