pull down to refresh
596 sats \ 3 replies \ @k00b OP 4 Feb \ parent \ on: Are you a foot person or a car person? earth
The introduction argues Detroit collapsed because the car industry distorted its city planning and lacked the land use diversity to survive the industry leaving.
One of the things this book argues (apparently as I'm not far enough to know) is that mixed use is ideal both for foot people and efficiency.
I think you can make a reasonable argument that any city dominated by one industry where a large portion of the populous are employed either directly or indirectly by a few megacorps all located in a small radius is susceptible to collapse if that industry fails or leaves.
Could a more diverse use of the land in the city have helped mitigate the effects of the downfall of the auto industry, possibly, but I find it hard to believe a market of auto workers who were making excellent salaries in unionized low skill jobs would have chosen different lifestyles or vocations before the collapse or were going to suddenly build and flourish in a diverse services based economy after the collapse if only the land had been used differently.
"Nice" idea for the intellectuals to ponder and write books about but a bit of a
reply
I get the bend against central planning but I don't know anything about the rigor of urban planning so I wouldn't conclude it's pointless. When people give their life to studying something, I tend to believe they uncover at least something of value even if it doesn't amount to much absolute value.
I find it hard to believe a market of auto workers who were making excellent salaries in unionized low skill jobs would have chosen different lifestyles or vocations before the collapse or were going to suddenly build and flourish in a diverse services based economy after the collapse if only the land had been used differently.
Me too which is why I'm interested in reading a book that claims otherwise.
reply
Update:
- the book is actually about how "planning theory" is dead wrong about everything and her examples of good neighborhoods are those that lacked planning and were bottom-up
- Jacobs never went to college
- Jacobs has lived in big cities and everyone of her arguments so far is supported by that kind of direct empiricism
- I'm only a chapter in but she sounds like the Mises of Urban Planning
I suspect she'd argue that Detroit fell into a wasteland on top of losing most of its economic activity because it was excessively planned.
reply