Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Urban planning and pro motoring or not

While Forester has not identified what urban planning camp he is affiliated with here in Baltimore we are dealing with one of Robert Moses mistakes and the ideals of Robert Moses remind me a great deal of Forester’s claims of “ideal” urban planning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_moses

Robert Moses ideals stand in stark contrast to Jane Jacobs who opposed Robert Moses and questioned who are we accommodating, cars or people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Jacobs

Here is an interesting background to a future project area (Note: possible solutions should not be considered professional.)
http://www.plainview3d.com/Baltimore/Franklin_Mulberry.html

Hmmmm, seems like they both came with a lot of baggage.

Hmmmm, seems like they both came with a lot of baggage.

The essence of “great” minds????

This is an interesting case study. Unfortunately, the 5 solutions proposed for the Baltimore tract are all Robert Moses-inspired solutions. They continue, or even worsen, the splitting of the city where the highway to nowhere currently lies. Business and commerce suffer greatly when people can't even travel directly across the city. Bikes, buses and walking become impractical because the barriers to travel greatly increase the distances people must travel to do their daily business.

I think Jane Jacobs would propose rebuilding the city streets to knit the city back together again. She would probably zone the reunited streets for high density mixed use development, along with a few small but very accessible parks. She would encourage people to move into these areas and use them in their daily lives. Reuniting the streets would foster normal flow of traffic and commerce across the city, whether by car, bike or walking.

I think the people who made these proposals have a very limited understanding of planning for people. All 5 solutions propose facilities that are too large and forbidding to encourage use by the people of the city. This is all too typical of the state of city planning all over the country today. I vote no to all 5 proposals.

The essence of “great” minds????

:lol:

Yes ... quite so Barry.

It is a little late -- so I really can't elaborate at the moment -- but I understand that urban areas involve a lot of externalities that would be difficult for markets to capture. Consequently, some regulation and urban planning is necessary for a well functioning society of even moderate density. But the short bios -- to my quick read -- are examples of how difficult of a problem urban development is and how good intentions can lead to poor results.

As a New Yorker, I can tell you Moses is still despised for his megalomaniacal efforts to completely destroy the city.

Luckily, people like Jacobs ultimately prevented this, but Moses' vision of car-topia & the legacy thereof continue to cripple the city.

I think the people who made these proposals have a very limited understanding of planning for people.

That is correct. The proposed solutions on the link I provided are not any where near the top contenders for the area so please don’t panic in that respect. I shared the link as I thought the background provided was interesting and informative.

:lol:

Yes ... quite so Barry.

It is a little late -- so I really can't elaborate at the moment -- but I understand that urban areas involve a lot of externalities that would be difficult for markets to capture. Consequently, some regulation and urban planning is necessary for a well functioning society of even moderate density. But the short bios -- to my quick read -- are examples of how difficult of a problem urban development is and how good intentions can lead to poor results.

Jacobs said that cities, and only cities, can create diversity, wealth and markets. This is a function of people freely mingling and cooperating (as well as competing) in the urban environment--much as nature has created webs of diversity, cooperation and competition in the wild environment. She wasn't really very big on "planning cities," as she believed they would develop and expand nicely on their own--if allowed to. She opposed the big central plans of Moses because she thought they interfered with the natural economies of cities, which require a complex web of interdependence among people as they move and associate freely. Ultimately, the city that's disunited by big inaccessible "projects" will wither and die. I think that's nicely illustrated in the Google satellite shots linked by The Human Car. That highway is a rend in the fabric of the city, and the 5 "solutions" would tear the fabric even more.

roody! replacing a sub one mile stretch of superhighway with a greenspace or park cannot be described as 'further ripping apart the fabric of a community' by any reasonable person, much less urban planners.

come on, I think the auto culture of southern michigan is getting to you ;) and addling your sensibilities!

roody! replacing a sub one mile stretch of superhighway with a greenspace or park cannot be described as 'further ripping apart the fabric of a community' by any reasonable person, much less urban planners.

come on, I think the auto culture of southern michigan is getting to you ;) and addling your sensibilities!

Sorry you're wrong. Look at the blight in the neighborhoods to either side of the highway. This is typical of areas near entrenched highways, whether in Maryland, Michigan or Washington. It's especially evident when a part of the city is severely isolated from the rest. Notice on the map that there are other nearly identical highways further disrupting the traffic flow in this part of the city. Now notice that the proposed solutions block traffic flow even more than the highway does. They are prettier than the highway they would replace, but these green spaces, fountains or canals would have the same deleterious effect on the region that the highway has had. It's one of Jacobs' fundamental principles: an isolated urban community cannot survive, any more than a few isolated acres of old growth forest could support a diverse ecology of wolves, spotted owls and other plants and animals.

Most cities have arterials every mile and stuff in between does not necessarily “isolate.” What about Central Park in NYC, does that isolate or is it a community resource? I’m not sure if I would agree that something a lot smaller would have deleterious effect.

I am a big supporter of mixed use. So whatever does go in there I would like to see some green as that is really lacking in that area. But too small of a green area and you get these sterile little parks and they do not function as a community resource.

FWIW I found it interesting that the original dig destroyed a lot of business, namely breweries.

This is an interesting case study. Unfortunately, the 5 solutions proposed for the Baltimore tract are all Robert Moses-inspired solutions. They continue, or even worsen, the splitting of the city where the highway to nowhere currently lies. Business and commerce suffer greatly when people can't even travel directly across the city. Bikes, buses and walking become impractical because the barriers to travel greatly increase the distances people must travel to do their daily business.

I think Jane Jacobs would propose rebuilding the city streets to knit the city back together again. She would probably zone the reunited streets for high density mixed use development, along with a few small but very accessible parks. She would encourage people to move into these areas and use them in their daily lives. Reuniting the streets would foster normal flow of traffic and commerce across the city, whether by car, bike or walking.

I think the people who made these proposals have a very limited understanding of planning for people. All 5 solutions propose facilities that are too large and forbidding to encourage use by the people of the city. This is all too typical of the state of city planning all over the country today. I vote no to all 5 proposals.

I tend to agree. I also agree with invisiblehand, these folks did come with a lot of baggage.

I suppose I think a bit more like Jane Jacobs, but I also see the need for well designed high speed transit for economic reasons; I just happen to think that such transit can be designed to better merge with a city, and more importantly the people within that city.

Most cities have arterials every mile and stuff in between does not necessarily “isolate.” What about Central Park in NYC, does that isolate or is it a community resource? I’m not sure if I would agree that something a lot smaller would have deleterious effect.

I am a big supporter of mixed use. So whatever does go in there I would like to see some green as that is really lacking in that area. But too small of a green area and you get these sterile little parks and they do not function as a community resource.
.....




I don't see how a mile long park could be misconstrued as a 'sterile little park' but agree that the Olmsteadean approach to public green space -connectivity - is more beneficial to communities than disconnected collection of parks.

I didn’t mean to imply that the mile long park would be sterile (but it could be) just that cutting up green space into little small chunks doesn’t always seem to work too well. A lot of buildings have landscaping and landscaped plazas, most of these are sterile, and void of people but green. Space for people should be used by people or it has failed.

I don't see how a mile long park could be misconstrued as a 'sterile little park' but agree that the Olmsteadean approach to public green space -connectivity - is more beneficial to communities than disconnected collection of parks.

I think a park like this is likely to be sterile in the sense that few people would use it. It has the feeling of a barricade, and that will definitely turn people away. There's a beautiful park right behind my house that's like this. It blocks the flow of traffic through the city, so nobody goes through it. I discovered a single track path that I can ride through to the other side of town, and I now use the park all the time.

Olmstead's great parks are very different from the parks proposed for Baltimore. Remember that Central Park, when it was first built, was located in the country, just outside the inhabited areas of Manhattan, as Manhattan was settled from it's south tip northward. The traffic patterns of NYC, both subways and boulevards are duplicated on the East Side and the West Side. East and West have distinctive feels, almost like different cities, but there is good circulation of the Manhattan traffic around the park, almost like a river current going around an island. Similarly, large parks in Paris and London, and even Balboa Park in San Diego, were all founded on the edges of the city, and the city later grew naturally around their sides.

Another Olmstead park you might be familiar with is Belle Isle in Detroit. Since it's on an island, it doesn't sever transportation in Detroit. The large lakefront parks in Chicago are similar in that they don't get in the way of the flow of transportation. I believe that Baltimore also has a lot of parks on its waterfront, where they don't disrupt the flow of the city.

Most cities have arterials every mile and stuff in between does not necessarily “isolate.” What about Central Park in NYC, does that isolate or is it a community resource? I’m not sure if I would agree that something a lot smaller would have deleterious effect.

I am a big supporter of mixed use. So whatever does go in there I would like to see some green as that is really lacking in that area. But too small of a green area and you get these sterile little parks and they do not function as a community resource.

FWIW I found it interesting that the original dig destroyed a lot of business, namely breweries.

Entrenched highways do tend to isolate parts of the city because they typically don't have enough bridges to carry all the surface streets across them. And even when they do have bridges, building is still discontinued for the approaches and the highway right of way. There are usually 100 or even 200 yard long blank streets along every bridge. This blankness is daunting to pedestrians, and it destroys people's sense of identification and connectedness with their city.

I can envision very wide bridges across highways, with shops and offices built right on the bridges. If you've ever seen pictures of the medieval London Bridge, you know what I mean. This is the only development I know of that would remove the severing and disuniting effects of entrenched highways tearing apart a city.

Jacobs said that cities, and only cities, can create diversity, wealth and markets. This is a function of people freely mingling and cooperating (as well as competing) in the urban environment--much as nature has created webs of diversity, cooperation and competition in the wild environment. She wasn't really very big on "planning cities," as she believed they would develop and expand nicely on their own--if allowed to. She opposed the big central plans of Moses because she thought they interfered with the natural economies of cities, which require a complex web of interdependence among people as they move and associate freely. Ultimately, the city that's disunited by big inaccessible "projects" will wither and die. I think that's nicely illustrated in the Google satellite shots linked by The Human Car. That highway is a rend in the fabric of the city, and the 5 "solutions" would tear the fabric even more.

Clearly, I know little about Jacobs. My experience with Moses is from growing up in NYC.

Virtual worlds might replace the function of cities at some point. Although my understanding from a few general articles is that companies find that most functions still require face-to-face interaction on a regular basis.

I expect that big projects to require some sort of urban planner and government intervention due to the amount of capital and the risks involved. Moreover, I suppose that a lot of the benefits from say a "public" transportation system might be difficult for the owner to capture. There are a lot of reasons to think that the Coase Theorem would fail in these situations.

Fascinating thread and interesting contrasts on the part of urban planners. I fall more in the Jacobs camp but cities are an ever evolving entity so one person will never be able to embody all the practical realities that urban environments require. Often times the city has transformed into another kind of being by the time changes that were necessary only ten years before are incorporated. Horses, coaches, bicycles, trains, streetcars, automobiles have come through cities like waves. As has electricity, gas, coal, oil.

But the fundamental aspects have remained constant since the earliest times of human civilization.

The book "A Pattern Language (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195019199/bookstorenow57-20)" encompasses principals that are applicable through time and from the microcosm of our smallest living environments to our most extended- the planet itself.

I've lived on North Calvert Street in Baltimore, quite near the the Mulberry Highway. I only lived in Baltimore long enough to sense it's vast potential as a great American city but could see how it was carved by highways and poor urban planning so that certain neighborhoods were shut off from the rest of the city and collapsed in on themselves in some of the worst urban blight in the nation.

The best example of it can be seen in the film "Being There" as Chauncy Gardener exits a once glorious Baltimore home and walks along the highway that has isolated it.

Fascinating thread and interesting contrasts on the part of urban planners. I fall more in the Jacobs camp but cities are an ever evolving entity so one person will never be able to embody all the practical realities that urban environments require. Often times the city has transformed into another kind of being by the time changes that were necessary only ten years before are incorporated. Horses, coaches, bicycles, trains, streetcars, automobiles have come through cities like waves. As has electricity, gas, coal, oil.

But the fundamental aspects have remained constant since the earliest times of human civilization.

The book "A Pattern Language (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195019199/bookstorenow57-20)" encompasses principals that are applicable through time and from the microcosm of our smallest living environments to our most extended- the planet itself.

I've lived on North Calvert Street in Baltimore, quite near the the Mulberry Highway. I only lived in Baltimore long enough to sense it's vast potential as a great American city but could see how it was carved by highways and poor urban planning so that certain neighborhoods were shut off from the rest of the city and collapsed in on themselves in some of the worst urban blight in the nation.

The best example of it can be seen in the film "Being There" as Chauncy Gardener exits a once glorious Baltimore home and walks along the highway that has isolated it.

I grew up in Detroit (Highland Park, a few blocks from Ford's first assembly line) and I saw first hand the effect of cars and highways on a great American city. The irony that the car both created and destroyed Detroit was always evident. The superhuman scale of the Moses inspired highways and housing developments didn't help either. I've always been fascinated by the patterns of human habitation, and the Patterns book looks fantastic. I placed a hold on the one copy at my library. Evidently it's still popular even though it was published 30 years ago.

Thanks for the suggestion, buzzman, :)

both approaches have things to recommend them, and i think what a lot of people forget about Moses is that, in among all the poor decisions and myopia, he was an enormous advocate of and did much to make possible popular, working class access to recreation. Jones Beach, the rescue of Central Park, his parkways leading to state parks where people from the cities could swim and camp, the pools and parks he built in the five boroughs...all of these have benefits the city continues to enjoy. It's fortunate there were checks on some of his more lunatic schemes, and believe me, having grown up at the ass end of Brooklyn and having spent more time on the Gowanus than any one person ought to, there's plenty wrong with what he did. But I think it's simplistic to pat oneself on the back for having read Robert Caro's book and let the examination of his legacy end there. And I'd argue, Bicure, that the city has been harmed more by the paralysis in public works since his fall and by the tacit acceptance of the will of private developers like Bruce Ratner and his slimy ilk as a substitute for public works than it ever was by Moses. I'll see your Gowanus Expressway and raise you one Atlantic Yards.

^^^^
one excellent example of this is the High Line, btw. There's no coherent public works philosophy to make it happen, and so private developers are exploiting that resource.

While Forester has not identified what urban planning camp he is affiliated with here in Baltimore we are dealing with one of Robert Moses mistakes and the ideals of Robert Moses remind me a great deal of Forester’s claims of “ideal” urban planning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_moses

Robert Moses ideals stand in stark contrast to Jane Jacobs who opposed Robert Moses and questioned who are we accommodating, cars or people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Jacobs

snipped


I have also read the longer and more thoughtful responses that have appeared in this discussion up to today. I find that, at least, there's some thought and some knowledge being presented. I find it interesting that my name appears right at the beginning, although with a very mistaken suggested description of my views. Also, I think, the suggested opposition between Moses and Jacobs is not as great as is commonly assumed. They were both advocates for cities, but they differed as to how to go about making cities better. Both saw cities as centers of economic energy; they differed as to how to encourage that energy.

In a way, Moses saw New York as comprising two classes of person, those with enough money to own cars and those with insufficient money. For those with cars, Moses developed parkways so that they could drive out of the city for a breath of fresh air (so to speak). For those without cars, and living in poor housing, Moses built what at the time were considered the best housing for the working classes, good apartments in high-rise buildings surrounded by some open space. Acts have consequences, and Moses's plan, if that is what it was, failed. The housing became the worst type of housing for the working poor, as we know. The parkways also became the route into town for suburban residents who worked in NYC. Did Moses not recognize this? I think that he must have, and there is evidence that he acted to enable the greater economic development of NYC. In short, the other side of his plan was to enable greater economic activity in NYC by daily importing more skilled labor from the suburbs. After all, the idea of allowing NYC Manhattan residents free access by automobile to the outside world failed because it became practically impossible to afford to keep a car in Manhattan.

Jacobs, on the other hand, opposed planning because she had noted that planners too often did the wrong things. She did not oppose motoring as such, but remarked that our troubles with urban motoring simply showed that planners had not worked out how to properly account for motoring in urban life. It also seems that she differed from Moses about the proper scale of urban economic activity. Moses appears to have valued most the kind of economic activity that occurs in midtown office towers, while Jacobs appears to have valued most the kinds of economic and cultural activity that occur when smaller groups of residents of urban centers become mixed together in one location. (Jacobs's view of urban economic activity also included the idea of import replacement, which might include large-scale industry. However, it is a failed hypothesis, because it is contradicted by many actual occurrences of innovation. Henry Ford was not replacing imported motor cars; neither were the silicon entrepreneurs replacing the importation of computer chips; nor, really, was Matthew Baldwin replacing imported steam locomotives. And, I think, one would not really consider any of these innovations the creation of the kind of downtown activity that Jacobs advocated.) I think that one would say that Jacobs opposed planning for two reasons, or for just one and its corollary. She opposed planning because she saw that, done in the style of Moses and many others, it did harm to existing urban residents. She supported existing small scale urban economic and cultural (maybe based on a larger population) activity because she felt that this was the essence of urban living.

I am of neither school. I note that sometimes events occur in the manner that I attribute to Moses; NYC Manhattan and the SF Financial District are such cases. However, I also note that, in both cities, the cultural events largely depend on tourism, and not all, by any means, are created locally, as Jacobs would assume. I note that cultural and economic activities have now spread to the suburbs, contrary to the views of both Moses and Jacobs. I note that, to a great extent, the residents of the high-rise workers' housing planned by Moses (and, of course, by many others in many places) have chosen to move out to the suburbs, tract homes though these are, while the new lowest class, the immigrants, have largely gone to the areas of older, pre-planned housing.

I recognize that because the availability of private motor transportation has enabled many people to do more of what they prefer, they will do it. As far as cycling and cyclists are concerned, it is up to us to best manage our policies so that we can best operate within the general suburban culture that the automobile has created.

...

I recognize that because the availability of private motor transportation has enabled many people to do more of what they prefer, they will do it. As far as cycling and cyclists are concerned, it is up to us to best manage our policies so that we can best operate within the general suburban culture that the automobile has created.

While I clipped John's post, this is a more general response than a direct response to John.

With the caveat that I am no master of urban development -- other than what people have told me or what I read in popular articles, I am unable to say much about Jacobs or Moses -- it appears to me that from a long historical perspective, you are correct that the auto has reduced transportation costs to the individual subsequently providing a vast array of benefits. But this does not address whether the level of auto use is optimal. By its very nature, driving has an externality. My choice to drive is the result of some personal optimization of time, pecuniary cost, necessity, convenience, and so on. However, my choice to drive increases the amount of time it takes for others to complete their travel but does not factor in my decision-making process resulting in too much driving overall.

While I agree that we -- the U.S. and many developed countries -- appeared to have done well given the decisions made, it is not clear to me that from a transportation perspective that we performed optimally (or close to it for that matter). The suburban culture seems to have been created by individuals basing their decisions conditioned upon the choices of a small set of urban planners or the choices of others in society who only faced a subset of the true cost of their actions. These choices may or may not have been based on accurate assertions regarding how society best works or how to make people happy or with full information regarding a wide assortment of issues.

With regards to cycling advocacy, I agree that the best strategy would be to work within the present conditions of one's area and focus on some obtainable goals that improve the cycling environment. This doesn't mean that one can't advocate a "smart growth" strategy. Just that it is not necessarily cycling advocacy.

I recognize that because the availability of private motor transportation has enabled many people to do more of what they prefer, they will do it. As far as cycling and cyclists are concerned, it is up to us to best manage our policies so that we can best operate within the general suburban culture that the automobile has created.


I do not understand "I recognize that because the availability of private motor transportation has enabled many people to do more of what they prefer, they will do it."

... ? What? This isn't picking an argument with JF - but I don't see the logic here...

Is this a chicken / egg scenario? If the development and patterns developed by the auto never happened, would I somehow 'prefer' them?

How did I come to prefer long rides in the country vs. long drives? Or maybe that idyllic home in Cul-de-Sac Acres, next to 'Fawn Haven' and up the road from the elite 'The Timbers'? Or an SUV over taking the bus (assuming one exists?) How did people come to prefer strip mall shopping vs. downtown shopping? Or walking to driving? (or cycling?) Or even the first 'suburban' homes?

Putting the automobile-centric development patterns in this context somehow naturalizes this - as if it is some form of evolution that we cannot escape - and leaves out the industrial / government complex that created both the environment and the market for these things to happen - it leaves out the greed, the $$$, the disregard and the abandoning of our cities, the catering to the oil and auto lobbies, etc. etc.

Or maybe it is the innocent belief that the car enables people to 'escape', giving them personal 'freedom' (so long as payments are made, laws are followed, insurance is bought, licenses tested for, etc. etc.) to drive to the store or the woods or the trail...

Or perhaps the current environment we are living in is truely derived from innocence - there was some good in mechanized personal mobility, there were intentions to make people richer, smarter, healthier, and allow them to live wherever they chose etc. etc. and it has just gotten a bit out of control... Or perhaps our current environment is too closely linked to the 'market' - and if the car sells, we need to support it - in our planning, and paving, and products, and homes, and development patterns, and etc... and perhaps this all starts to feed on itself and grows into a cancer that cannot be cured without killing part of the patient - maybe the profit, or the homes in the country, or the private auto, or the business model that supports unlimited growth on a finite planet...




And I thoroughly disagree with the last part of the statement - call me semantic - but the automobile has not created anything. People with motives have... whether they are governments, corporations, or planners.

These motives may be innocent - bringing mobility or a 'better life' to the masses - or maybe they started innocently enough - and through all the forces acting on the systems they have turned into the world we have today - technology and ideas and planning so entrenched that it is painful to separate "what we prefer" from what we are told to prefer, and what we even know we can prefer.

I've found this Disney video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S18LCISRm4&eurl=http://www.pollsb.com/polls/poll/4702/disney-s-highways-of-the-future) a good watch... notice a problem with the future? There seems to be no congestion, no other cars fighting out for the same space... everyone zipping about blissfully in automobilic nirvanna. Innocent? Too bad it didn't depict bikes and walking and going to a lively market... no - just a sterile life moving from one conditioned space to the next - is this government inflicted on the masses? the free market? how does this get built?.

All Hail Machinekind! (as long as you are white, in this video)

The segment about our changing cities is scary - almost true in some cases. Have a car, or don't have a life - and it is amazing in this view of the future that everyone appears so fit and trim - but they never even walk around! even when mom and kids go to the mall while dad goes to work... or go on vacation in the mountains!



As to the poll - I wish we started thinking about people instead of things. And if we need 'things' due to our current situation - I'd prefer that solutions be designed to find ways to human size the 'things' we need to live, move, and communicate...

Cities and communities should put people first -
...because without people, there would be no one to drive all the cars around. ;)

I do not understand "I recognize that because the availability of private motor transportation has enabled many people to do more of what they prefer, they will do it."

... ? What? This isn't picking an argument with JF - but I don't see the logic here...



The availability of private motor transportation has enabled many people to do more of what they prefer.
Because of this, people use cars to do more of what they prefer to do.



Everyone has preferences in terms of activities, or things to do that they prefer. Those preferences may be based on need or desire, and may include working, shopping, gardening, laundry, reading, camping, watching TV, dining out, going to the movies, getting ice cream, playing tennis, bike riding, etc., etc. Each person has his own list of things they prefer to do.

All John is saying is because they can do more of what they prefer to do if they drive their cars, they will drive their cars. Using private motor transportation enables people to do more things on their list. They can go to the gym before work, go to work, shop for clothes at lunch, and shop for dinner on the way home, for example. If they didn't use their car, but walked, used a bus, or rode their bike to go to work, they wouldn't be able to get as much on their list done. Indeed, on days when I need to get more done, I drive instead of ride my bike to work. Almost everyone I know at work uses his or her car this way. Half the parking lot empties at lunch, for example.

Did you not understand that this is what he meant, or do you disagree? It seems totally logical to me, practically tautological in fact.

Is this a chicken / egg scenario? If the development and patterns developed by the auto never happened, would I somehow 'prefer' them?
Well, there may be something that the car enables you to do that you would not even dream of doing without the car, but in general each of us has an infinite list of things to do, and we have a natural tendency to want to get more than less of it done. The car enables this.



How did I come to prefer long rides in the country vs. long drives? Or maybe that idyllic home in Cul-de-Sac Acres, next to 'Fawn Haven' and up the road from the elite 'The Timbers'? Or an SUV over taking the bus (assuming one exists?) How did people come to prefer strip mall shopping vs. downtown shopping? Or walking to driving? (or cycling?) Or even the first 'suburban' homes?
I think the preference to live outside of the city was always there, at least in many people. And, of course, the desire to work in the city is there too, due to the availability of higher paying jobs there. The car enables people to have it both ways: work in the city, live outside of it. So they use it to do that. This is not rocket science.



Putting the automobile-centric development patterns in this context somehow naturalizes this - as if it is some form of evolution that we cannot escape - and leaves out the industrial / government complex that created both the environment and the market for these things to happen - it leaves out the greed, the $$$, the disregard and the abandoning of our cities, the catering to the oil and auto lobbies, etc. etc.
Wow. I'm going to take a fairly safe guess here and predict, based on this one angry paragraph alone, that you don't have a subscription to Road & Track magazine, nor are you a NASCAR fan. I'm also going to guess that you don't have much trust in human nature, nor do you have much regard for societies based largely on self-responsibility. The idea of a society with strong central planning, as long as it is done "correctly" (as determined by some ideal set of values you hold, and feel others should too), appeals to you. And I'll go out on a limb a bit and say that you're probably a fan of Marx and/or Chomsky. How did I do?

At any rate, yes, given human nature and a free society the evolution of car-centricity is inevitable once the cars becomes available and affordable. Prior to the invention of cars, where horses were available most advanced human societies were horse-centric, for largely the same reasons.



Or maybe it is the innocent belief that the car enables people to 'escape', giving them personal 'freedom' (so long as payments are made, laws are followed, insurance is bought, licenses tested for, etc. etc.) to drive to the store or the woods or the trail...
I don't know about enabling "escape", but cars definitely enable transportation.



Or perhaps the current environment we are living in is truely derived from innocence - there was some good in mechanized personal mobility, there were intentions to make people richer, smarter, healthier, and allow them to live wherever they chose etc. etc. and it has just gotten a bit out of control... Or perhaps our current environment is too closely linked to the 'market' - and if the car sells, we need to support it - in our planning, and paving, and products, and homes, and development patterns, and etc... and perhaps this all starts to feed on itself and grows into a cancer that cannot be cured without killing part of the patient - maybe the profit, or the homes in the country, or the private auto, or the business model that supports unlimited growth on a finite planet...
There's that Marxism again. Here's another guess... you've never read von Mises or Hayek.
Growth is limited by the finite resources on the planet, and the business models that plan accordingly are going to succeed.


And I thoroughly disagree with the last part of the statement - call me semantic - but the automobile has not created anything. People with motives have... whether they are governments, corporations, or planners.

The automobile has created what it has created in the way that the jet airplane has enabled cross-country travel in 5 hours, and the internet has created this ability for you and me to communicate in this manner. Objecting to this kind of language usage is silly.



These motives may be innocent - bringing mobility or a 'better life' to the masses - or maybe they started innocently enough - and through all the forces acting on the systems they have turned into the world we have today - technology and ideas and planning so entrenched that it is painful to separate "what we prefer" from what we are told to prefer, and what we even know we can prefer.
Are you speaking for yourself? You're certainly not speaking for me, or anyone I know. Are you happy?

This doesn't mean that one can't advocate a "smart growth" strategy. Just that it is not necessarily cycling advocacy.

On one hand I agree and on the other bike lanes and trails are not necessarily cycling advocacy as well. What is next to the road is as important as the road itself. Personally I think cycling advocates should be at least familiar with the smart principles that have the strongest bearing on cycling (4 out of the 10 principles.)
Create Walkable Neighborhoods (http://www.smartgrowth.org/about/principles/principles.asp?prin=4)
Mix Land Uses (http://www.smartgrowth.org/about/principles/principles.asp?prin=1)
Preserve Open Space, Farmland, Natural Beauty and Critical Environmental Areas (http://www.smartgrowth.org/about/principles/principles.asp?prin=6)
Provide a Variety of Transportation Choices (http://www.smartgrowth.org/about/principles/principles.asp?prin=8)

On one hand I agree and on the other bike lanes and trails are not necessarily cycling advocacy as well. What is next to the road is as important as the road itself. Personally I think cycling advocates should be at least familiar with the smart principles that have the strongest bearing on cycling (4 out of the 10 principles.)

It could be advantageous to combine forces with other goals for mutual benefit. And given the population overlap between the two -- anecdotally, I think that there are many people in both camps -- it would be wise to be familiar with the arguments.

I just love planing conceptual stuff like that Disney video. Lets make 6 lanes for just one car, ya right. They are trying to sell a downtown design and on a six lane road they showed 4 cars on a roadway that is normally bumper to bumper traffic. Somebody really needs to bring a truth in planning law suite or something.

It could be advantageous to combine forces with other goals for mutual benefit. And given the population overlap between the two -- anecdotally, I think that there are many people in both camps -- it would be wise to be familiar with the arguments.


Is road building considered 'automobile' advocating?

I agree on getting multiple users / uses involved. Working up a synergistic plan with multiple stakeholders starts to shackle people together with common or similar goals.

Looking for study / information that I read on property values increasing linked to MUPs and quieter streets. Will have to search for that.


Back to the poll -

Compare the West Village, East Village, Chelsea to some degree, and Tribeca with areas just down the street at WTC (pre-911). One is a neighborhoods and 'scale' based planning / design (or lack of planning - more organic, random? what do we call it?) philosophy, and the other is the hand of the market and development jumping in to create Battery Park City, WTC, the NYMeX, Winter Garden, etc. (or United Nations Plaza, or Lincoln Center). The difference in viability and 'feel' between the Corbu inspired towers in the park to the streetscape is stunning.

Also look at WDC and the malls and plazas at the heart of 'our' (smirk) government. Compare this to the WDC ring of office parks drive in plazas and mini marts and malls. Wide open spaces - nothing really 'human scaled' to relate to - and compare to DuPont circle or some of the more lively neighborhoods in DC full of multi-use - pubs, grocers, convenience, apartments, street vendors, piercing parlors, pizza places, ethnic food, etc. etc.

Having lived in Manhattan (studio in Tribeca, apartments near Wash Square park and then way up int the 100s on the West side) I can say I prefer what feels like the human sized neighborhoods to the giant hand of towers and 'development' style planning.

Compare the West Village, East Village, Chelsea to some degree, and Tribeca with areas just down the street at WTC (pre-911). One is a neighborhoods and 'scale' based planning / design (or lack of planning - more organic, random? what do we call it?) philosophy, and the other is the hand of the market and development jumping in to create Battery Park City, WTC, the NYMeX, Winter Garden, etc. (or United Nations Plaza, or Lincoln Center). The difference in viability and 'feel' between the Corbu inspired towers in the park to the streetscape is stunning.

I would call the lack-of-central-planning/organic/random area as the neighborhood designed by the invisible hand of the market, while the Battery Park City/WTC/NYMeX area is the result of centralized planning, naturally influenced by special interests (mostly developers, probably).



Also look at WDC and the malls and plazas at the heart of 'our' (smirk) government. Compare this to the WDC ring of office parks drive in plazas and mini marts and malls. Wide open spaces - nothing really 'human scaled' to relate to - and compare to DuPont circle or some of the more lively neighborhoods in DC full of multi-use - pubs, grocers, convenience, apartments, street vendors, piercing parlors, pizza places, ethnic food, etc. etc.

Again, I'll bet there was less urban planning in the DuPont circle areas - so it evolved naturally, in a free market.



Having lived in Manhattan (studio in Tribeca, apartments near Wash Square park and then way up int the 100s on the West side) I can say I prefer what feels like the human sized neighborhoods to the giant hand of towers and 'development' style planning.
Right. So get government centralized planning out of the way, and let nature take its course, including developers responding individually to the incremental demand present at any given time.

Having said that, from living in southern CA, I know what limiting building height causes: urban sprawl. The fact is, you can fit more people per square acre the higher the buildings are, and higher density means more efficient use of land.

I would call the lack-of-central-planning/organic/random area as the neighborhood designed by the invisible hand of the market,

... I know what limiting building height causes: urban sprawl. The fact is, you can fit more people per square acre the higher the buildings are, and higher density means more efficient use of land.


you're all over the place here HH.

What integrity is left of Greenwich Village, the East Village, Tribeca and Chelsea has been retained by it's residents, it's citizens, mobilizing together to keep developers from leveling the low rise buildings and small neighborhoods and putting up high rise, more "efficient" (profitable to capital interests as opposed to the people who live there) buildings. That's how good government is supposed to work- of the people, by the people, for the people. Left solely to market forces and you wouldn't have those neighborhoods- they are not as "random" as they seem.

Talk to the people that live there and hear how hard they've struggled to keep the market forces of the Donald Trumps of the world from turning their neighborhoods into a high-rise Disneyland.

you're all over the place here HH.

What integrity is left of Greenwich Village, the East Village, Tribeca and Chelsea has been retained by it's residents, it's citizens, mobilizing together to keep developers from leveling the low rise buildings and small neighborhoods and putting up high rise, more "efficient" (profitable to capital interests as opposed to the people who live there) buildings. That's how good government is supposed to work- of the people, by the people, for the people. Left solely to market forces and you wouldn't have those neighborhoods- they are not as "random" as they seem.

Talk to the people that live there and hear how hard they've struggled to keep the market forces of the Donald Trumps of the world from turning their neighborhoods into a high-rise Disneyland.
Do you know if they did it by not selling out to the developers, or did they do it by making it illegal for the developers to develop there?

Right. So get government centralized planning out of the way, and let nature take its course, including developers responding individually to the incremental demand present at any given time.




But it is not 'nature', and I'll call you on the reification of the free market capitalist system we currently live with. The free market is a construct of man - the capitalist free market of western styled government / business man to be slightly more exact.

Look at any 'market' and you should be able to see that it is not 'free' nor a force of nature. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of micro checks and balances or rules and regulations that work with or against local pressure or consent that allow certain things to happen - and most of these things are backed by $$ and profit motive. On a large scale - manufacturing, mining, telecommunications, transportation - there are vested interests all throughout the process - favoring some industries and making it difficult for others to 'play fair' (and often times these interests live nowhere near where the extraction, mining, or construction taking place - imposing remote tyranny and making local people impotent in the process of their land, energy, etc.).

Look at road building vs. rail - Amtrak AFAIK now leases track from freight carriers - imagine if every car driver had to lease a piece of roadway to get where they were going? Take the highway money we have and dump it into any other form of transport (yaks, bikes, canoes, etc...) and I think we would quickly see the market shift to take advantage of it. Look at the airlines post 9-11. Huge bailouts and subsidies. If there were a free market, shouldn't these have just dried up - survival of the fittest and all, rules of nature (note there is very little bailout for a forest after an ice storm, or forest fire - aside from the forest itself re-growing over time, rebuilding to suit its environment, or in some cases, thankful for the fire so seed pods can open).

Or take the recent rise of oil to over $100 a barrel. Did you know that a transaction worth only about $6000+/- shifted the whole market? (more here (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-j-learsy/the-trade-that-brought-us_b_80147.html))



But then consider the following. By making that trade at some fifty cents above the going market Mr. Arens, by himself with an an investment of $6750, the margin required by the exchange for an oil futures contract, was able to move the market dramatically. At that moment of time and as long as the $100 marker was on the trading board, all oil produced, or shipped, bought or sold in the United States and given their close interrelationship, on markets throughout the world, that forty-seven cent jump was reflected in virtually all transactions. With some 85 million barrels of oil being produced and shipped each day, that trade alone increased the value of oil by over $40 million at that moment in time. All that based on one trade, requiring only $6750 as a margin deposit. An incredible and frightening degree of leverage. Thus we have been shown the clearest, most up to date, real time example of the risks inherent in basing the world price of oil on the vicissitudes of the commodity trading floor.



On a tiny scale I believe markets can be 'free' - but on a scale the size of the development of cities and countries, I just don't believe it. There needs to be consensus about where to spend the money and where to control it - and create and enforce regulations so we don't murder each other (too quickly) in pursuit of profits. This is 'natural' only in that man lives in a natural environment - but there really seems little natural to me about a system that rates its success on how quickly you turn your assets (trees, water, minerals, etc.) into throw away and disposable products.

I don't think the 'free market' can sort many of these things out - especially when money makes money faster than labor. This accelerates the power and control of the wealthy - or of groups that can can control and pool money - and forces their hand in many issues. We have a clash between 'democracy' (government for the people and by the people) and free market capitalism (government so business can do its thing). If we let 'nature' (your word) run its course, government will be (already is to some extent) controlled by the market and the people who have the $$. (It is again is the golden rule - people who have the gold rule...) This then translates to development - hi rise blocks or low level neighborhoods, highways or buses and trains, mountain top removal, private health care, etc. etc. etc.



On another note:
Here's a great video... (http://www.storyofstuff.com/) 'nature' certainly is taking its course - we're able to buy disposable items, ship them round the globe, then toss them... the market certainly lets us externalize many of these costs - no one really pays full price.

Also - I checked out Hayek and von Mise at the local library. Nothing. So I'll do some web homework and get back to you. From what little I know about these 2 folks, and what little I've read - I think I'll stick with EF Shumaker's view of economics.

I'll be out in my 'international commune of lefty pink communist thought center' (that's trademarked, BTW) studying up. ;)


And sorry - the 'planners' in Cali f'd up. Low density for miles and miles and miles on end. Sad, for sure. But I hear there are lots of roads and cars out there for the market to exploit. ;)

Do you know if they did it by not selling out to the developers, or did they do it by making it illegal for the developers to develop there?


Try this experiment: (assuming you have a family)

As the breadwinner (assumed, if you have a partner, team up for this), bring home dinner or the weekly food supply. (or $$ for supplies).

Throw it on the floor when you get home and let the 'natural market' decide who gets to eat.
If the strong prevail, congratulations - you'll soon weed out those pesky weak bodies and less able to contribute family members.

Keep this up for several months - and I think several things could happen.

1. You'll start hoarding food on the way home from work (you'll need to eat and be strong to keep your share...) or hiding $$ in external accounts (dictator style)
2. The weaker members of the family will ambush you on the way in the door. (a coup! how exciting!)
3. You'll develop a system of governance for distributing and sharing the food so you can live in relative peace.
4. Multiple homicides, and no one is left, or only you are left.
5. You'll realize the folly in this and work out a fair way to share the resources you have -where everyone gets a voice, and a chance to be heard and have their needs met.

Its odd, how we operate inside our homes, to how we operate outside our homes.

Do you know if they did it by not selling out to the developers, or did they do it by making it illegal for the developers to develop there?

As I have written earlier, I am no scholar of urban planning nor development. I just have a passing interest and happen to come across related technical articles discussing aspects of the topic.

However, I believe that both NYC and Washington DC have been highly regulated areas for quite some time. DuPont Circle is a close in neighborhood -- I can walk there from the White House -- and has many historical blocks. Historical in this sense means something like 100-year-old row homes.

I don't see urban development as one where the conditions for perfect markets are well satisfied. Then again, there is a literature that concludes that building codes and regulations are often used to preserve the interests/rights of the wealthy and drive up real estate costs by creating scarcity.

i think what a lot of people forget about Moses is that, in among all the poor decisions and myopia, he was an enormous advocate of and did much to make possible popular, working class access to recreation.

According to the wikipedia article he did exactly the opposite. By purposefully putting in bridges too low to allow public transportation he blocked access to the beach from those who would take the bus to get there.

Do you know if they did it by not selling out to the developers, or did they do it by making it illegal for the developers to develop there?

many of the residents are tenants of existing landlords and not owners of buildings so most efforts have historically been made in a block by block, neighborhood by neighborhood effort. By voting in local legislators who were truly representative of the residents they were able to pass some legislation to protect their rights. But the power of the vast capital of developers is a constant pressure and many of NY's neighborhoods are slowly being eroded by for profit developments, which out price many of it's current residents and obliterate any character the neighborhood might once have had.

bmike's posts regarding oil price increases present other new realities about private automobile use and it's impact not only on the world economy but how people will live on all parts of the globe. The recent increase to over $100/barrel has now made wheat, corn and other bio products competitive fuel sources. What this means is that driving an automobile is now impinging on the world's food supply. This is a landmark tipping point and will, like it or not, impact how much private automobiles will continue to dominate the urban landscape.

<text deleted>

The recent increase to over $100/barrel has now made wheat, corn and other bio products competitive fuel sources. What this means is that driving an automobile is now impinging on the world's food supply. This is a landmark tipping point and will, like it or not, impact how much private automobiles will continue to dominate the urban landscape.

I used to be more verse on alternative fuels and their relative costs. So there may be some technological advances reducing the cost of alternatives; but I recall that alternative fuels are much more expensive to process and the $100/barrel is not a historic high with respect to real prices. Consequently, I am skeptical that market pressures for energy are going to do much to market prices for for food in the mechanism you describe.

I can imagine that higher fuel costs increase the cost of food production, consequently resulting in higher prices. Moreover, we have been directly subsidizing alternative bio-fuels even though its potential is pretty limited -- thank the structure of the Senate. So perhaps that has resulted in some market effect on corn production allocated for human consumption; but I would be surprised that the effect is meaningful.

The literature on food production also makes me think that the scenario is doubtful. As a planet, we have the capacity to produce A LOT of food. If you ask the people that study famines and such, the general conclusion is that they are the result of interference of markets (armed conflict for instance) and poverty. For instance, I recall that there is a good deal of evidence that in almost all instances of major famines, that the areas had a net outflow of food.

Anyway, the literature on alternative fuels, energy production, food production, famine, and poverty are all well researched and fairly complicated. I imagine that their interactions are even more complicated.

many of the residents are tenants of existing landlords and not owners of buildings so most efforts have historically been made in a block by block, neighborhood by neighborhood effort. By voting in local legislators who were truly representative of the residents they were able to pass some legislation to protect their rights. But the power of the vast capital of developers is a constant pressure and many of NY's neighborhoods are slowly being eroded by for profit developments, which out price many of it's current residents and obliterate any character the neighborhood might once have had.

Notice that by protecting their "rights," often these residents prevented high density development resulting in new arrivals necessarily living further away from the city center increasing the likelihood that people use cars. Moreover, disenfranchised residents generally don't have the same political power to have legislation passed in their favor. There have been arguments that much of this legislation has been in passed for fairly well-to-do residents to the detriment of the poor and society in general.

"Rights" are in quotes since it often is unclear who has the legal right to do something. Typically, in a dense area of a city, it is pretty difficult to give one group a right without taking a reasonable right from another.

Mind you, I am not saying that one choice is morally better or worse than another. But in my opinion, there is rarely a decision without some negative consequences.

Notice that by protecting their "rights," often these residents prevented high density development resulting in new arrivals necessarily living further away from the city center increasing the likelihood that people use cars. Moreover, disenfranchised residents generally don't have the same political power to have legislation passed in their favor. There have been arguments that much of this legislation has been in passed for fairly well-to-do residents to the detriment of the poor and society in general.

"Rights" are in quotes since it often is unclear who has the legal right to do something. Typically, in a dense area of a city, it is pretty difficult to give one group a right without taking a reasonable right from another.

Mind you, I am not saying that one choice is morally better or worse than another. But in my opinion, there is rarely a decision without some negative consequences.

given that the residents of these neighborhoods- like Chelsea and the East Village were primarily lower economic immigrant populations or simply working class, who did not want to relinquish their places of residence to make room for more buildings like the mid-town Trump Towers I think you may have it a bit backwards. Most "working poor" who live outside of Manhattan wouldn't dream of driving into the city they would more than likely take the train. Those who drive into the city from outlying areas like Greenwich CT tend to be the more well-to-do and yes, many of them also purchase small apartments in the village or Chelsea or Soho to save the travel time in and out of the city. Often displacing residents that would have been tenants. Granted areas like Chelsea have a lower crime rate than they once did, have more commerce, nicer cafes and restaurants but many of the urban poor have been displaced and priced out of those areas.

There are some high rises going up in Chelsea and lower mid-town but they would hardly be accommodating price wise for the residents that have been displaced.

I'm not saying that one choice is morally better or worse than another either. But there have definitely been some negative consequences but not of the type implied in your post.

Just as a side note "This American Life" had an excellent program today about the tenant strikes and actions of the 1980's. For an entertaining perspective give a listen-http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=323

given that the residents of these neighborhoods- like Chelsea and the East Village were primarily lower economic immigrant populations or simply working class, who did not want to relinquish their places of residence to make room for more buildings like the mid-town Trump Towers I think you may have it a bit backwards. Most "working poor" who live outside of Manhattan wouldn't dream of driving into the city they would more than likely take the train. Those who drive into the city from outlying areas like Greenwich CT tend to be the more well-to-do and yes, many of them also purchase small apartments in the village or Chelsea or Soho to save the travel time in and out of the city. Often displacing residents that would have been tenants. Granted areas like Chelsea have a lower crime rate than they once did, have more commerce, nicer cafes and restaurants but many of the urban poor have been displaced and priced out of those areas.

...snip...


I agree - as far as I understand the history of the areas. I'll have to dig back to some conversations I had with friends on how they came to own their place on Bleeker street...

Similar type arguments are happening now over the congestion pricing plans that are circulating. There has been a concerted effort to argue that a congestion 'tax' on a large chunk of working Manhattan would be regressive and hurt the 'poor' and 'middle class'. This is simply not the case (http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/02/fact-check-congestion-pricing-is-not-a-regressive-tax/), as most 'working folks' in Manhattan don't drive to work - if they own a car at all! What is odd is that a large number of the folks driving around Manhattan are from the Upper East Side - one of the areas of the most concentrated wealth on the planet! And the vast majority of folks (by %) are coming in from typically wealthier, suburban areas. (more here (http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/12/08/where-do-manhattan-auto-commuters-come-from/))

The idea now as playing out in Manhattan is that the car is a burden to many working stiffs... (and would have been for me when I lived there) and the people fighting pricing schemes that would help fund public transportation tend to be wealthier. In NYC's case there is a disproportionate amount of landscape given over to the car - and when we weigh in free and super cheap on street parking (on street - on that 'public right of way) is seems entirely backwards in terms of serving the people of the city. Here is an example (I think) where the 'free market' needs govt guidance to direct and nudge. The government (by the people) should decide how to use the streets (public asset) and what percentage should be given over to autos - many of them parked, many of them circling blocks to avoid paying for a garage and taking over valuable public space.

It is pretty difficult for me to talk about NYC in detail. I have not lived there since high school and college. Given the enormity of the question/topic and how evidence can be interpreted in many ways, I expect that there will be anecdotal examples in either direction. Here in DC, however, I can point to a series of neighborhoods stretching up the NW corridor starting with Georgetown and Dupont Circle that are counter-examples.

It turns out that a particular author/researcher on the topic of urban real estate happens to have a Wilkepedia site. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Glaeser

Try this experiment: (assuming you have a family)

As the breadwinner (assumed, if you have a partner, team up for this), bring home dinner or the weekly food supply. (or $$ for supplies).

Throw it on the floor when you get home and let the 'natural market' decide who gets to eat.
If the strong prevail, congratulations - you'll soon weed out those pesky weak bodies and less able to contribute family members.

Keep this up for several months - and I think several things could happen.

1. You'll start hoarding food on the way home from work (you'll need to eat and be strong to keep your share...) or hiding $$ in external accounts (dictator style)
2. The weaker members of the family will ambush you on the way in the door. (a coup! how exciting!)
3. You'll develop a system of governance for distributing and sharing the food so you can live in relative peace.
4. Multiple homicides, and no one is left, or only you are left.
5. You'll realize the folly in this and work out a fair way to share the resources you have -where everyone gets a voice, and a chance to be heard and have their needs met.

Its odd, how we operate inside our homes, to how we operate outside our homes.
It's interesting that this is your analogy of a "free market" within a home, it's very revealing of how you see it.

Try this experiment: (assuming you have a family)

As the breadwinner (assumed, if you have a partner, team up for this), bring home dinner or the weekly food supply. (or $$ for supplies).

Put prices on all the items when you get home and let the 'natural market' decide who gets to eat.
When members complain that they have no way to pay for the items, offer them currency that you will accept in exchange for services that they may provide. Ask for bids to:
Set the table
Serve the food
Clear the table
Wash the dishes
Take out the garbage
Clean the bathroom
wash the windows
wash your car
Etc., you get the ideaMake sure the requirements for each job are clear, and award the lowest bid (Johnny, you may set the table for $1, since everyone else won't do it for less than $2) for each contract.

Keep awarding contracts for jobs until everyone has enough money to pay for their meals. Soon they will be buying rides to the movies from you, while your garage will be clean, all the windows washed, etc. If you and your spouse are adventurous and understand this is in fun, you can allow, shall we say, adult services into the mix.



If the strong prevail, congratulations - you'll soon weed out those pesky weak bodies and less able to contribute family members.

I am fascinated that you see the market as people grabbing from a big pile, as opposed to orderly/voluntary exchanges of mutual benefit. That reveals much.

It's interesting that this is your analogy of a "free market" within a home, it's very revealing of how you see it.

Try this experiment: (assuming you have a family)

As the breadwinner (assumed, if you have a partner, team up for this), bring home dinner or the weekly food supply. (or $$ for supplies).

Put prices on all the items when you get home and let the 'natural market' decide who gets to eat.
When members complain that they have no way to pay for the items, offer them currency that you will accept in exchange for services that they may provide. Ask for bids to:
Set the table
Serve the food
Clear the table
Wash the dishes
Take out the garbage
Clean the bathroom
wash the windows
wash your car
Etc., you get the ideaMake sure the requirements for each job are clear, and award the lowest bid (Johnny, you may set the table for $1, since everyone else won't do it for less than $2) for each contract.

Keep awarding contracts for jobs until everyone has enough money to pay for their meals. Soon they will be buying rides to the movies from you, while your garage will be clean, all the windows washed, etc. If you and your spouse are adventurous and understand this is in fun, you can allow, shall we say, adult services into the mix.


I am fascinated that you see the market as people grabbing from a big pile, as opposed to orderly/voluntary exchanges of mutual benefit. That reveals much.

What reveals much to me is that under the established system you describe the "breadwinner", or the one that holds the pursestrings (regardless of of how they might have gained the motherlode), keeps getting richer in your paradigm. The breadwinner controls the wages, the prices, the amounts of food and distribution of all the resources. In fact, a fairly accurate portrayal of how the current economic system operates.

But let's extend the analogy and see this as a big extended family in a great big house:

The "breadwinner" and their most immediate family members occupy the nicest rooms of the house. Their rooms are well appointed they get the lion's share of the food and resources. They even operate on roughly the principles set out in your "freemarket" experiment. These rooms are well heated in the winter and cooled in the summer. Other family members live in the basement or the attic, some even live outside- exposed to the environment, it's more crowded in those places, sometimes a little too cold or a little too hot- but they've always lived there- it's fine. They come up or in once in a while to do the cooking or the cleaning because no one in the immediate family wants to do those jobs and the breadwinner gets to set the wages.

If the "breadwinner's" immediate family starts to run low on anything the stocks or resources of the other family members are looted or bought for as little as possible. In fact it's best to keep the numbers of extended family fairly high and their needs fairly desperate because they are then most easily exploited. And not a bad idea to jettison any immediate family unable to pull their own weight- if they get too old to continue to contribute to the pot, if they get physically or better yet mentally disabled, drop them from the immediate family and put them outside or in the basement. It's best to keep this precarious balance well tended to or the other family members will ultimately rebel but if they are managed properly by subduing them with occasional rewards and constant threats of punishment this system can function effectively for centuries. And all the while the "breadwinner's" immediate family is convinced of their entitlements and moral and ethical superiority to those less well endowed. They live under the illusion that their life is "free" that their possessions are the result of "market forces" and that they are not connected in anyway to a larger interconnect of the rest of the world and that by simply continuing to operate on the status quo of a "freemarket" that all is right with the world.:rolleyes:

I am fascinated that you see the market as people grabbing from a big pile, as opposed to orderly/voluntary exchanges of mutual benefit. That reveals much.


The big pile is the Earth - its people, animals, minerals, and living systems.

Some people control the pile (where and how it gets grabbed - guns or $$ or regulations), some people try to grab as much as they can (so they can turn it into 'profit'), some people do both (government that is heavily lobbied - corporate fascism?), some play by the rules of those who control the resources - much like your example points out, accepting their fate to bid as low as they can so the almighty will give them some work, $$, or food - happy to just get by, or check out that new car or HD TV, or make enough for that vacation (so someone else can clean my room and cook my food), etc. etc., and some are simply seen as 'resources' themselves - slave labor, the indigenous, the 3rd world, etc. (when you stop consuming and playing the game - you cease to exist).


buzzman has done a much better reply than I.

I think that large numbers of you do not understand the situation that you have been discussing. As long as a location has great advantages, many people want to get there. Since many people want to get there, the price of that location rises to suit the demand. That is correct for places in which the advantages are aesthetic, as in Malibu, Hilton Head, and Aspen. The rise in land prices is driven even more strongly when the advantage of the place is that of making lots of money. The price of commercial land is set by the ability of the location to generate very profitable economic activity. The price of the residential land around it is set partly by the possibility of it being used by an expanded commerce, and partly by the balance between the convenience (and other advantages) of living close by versus the difficulty of commuting from cheaper land outside the urban center. As the result of the economic activity of midtown Manhattan, Manhattan land is high priced. Those people who are living in nearby low density areas are using a lot of very-high-value land per person. Long ago, I knew a lady poet who lived in Greenwich Village; a poet, for Pete's sake, on Manhattan Island. True, she was a secretary for NYU, but that didn't pay a lot, either, I presume. Well, she was living in a rent-controlled apartment, as were most of her neighbors. I also knew a custom bike framebuilder who lived, and died, in even crummier surroundings not far away, in the back part of his dirt-floored workshop. And I knew a chemist who was engaged in the semi-chemical preparation of a dictionary of chemical terms; when he lived in Manhattan, during most weeks, he lived in a closet-sized room.

It is no wonder that the landowners of rent-controlled property have great desire to get out of that status, and do the best they can to fail to maintain its buildings. Is rent control right or wrong? Is George's policy of taxing land profits good or bad? All that I can say is that if the rewards for being in the thick of economic activities are sufficiently great in any small area, there will be high land prices, traffic congestion, and intensive development.

I think that large numbers of you do not understand the situation that you have been discussing. As long as a location has great advantages, many people want to get there. Since many people want to get there, the price of that location rises to suit the demand. That is correct for places in which the advantages are aesthetic, as in Malibu, Hilton Head, and Aspen. The rise in land prices is driven even more strongly when the advantage of the place is that of making lots of money. The price of commercial land is set by the ability of the location to generate very profitable economic activity. The price of the residential land around it is set partly by the possibility of it being used by an expanded commerce, and partly by the balance between the convenience (and other advantages) of living close by versus the difficulty of commuting from cheaper land outside the urban center. As the result of the economic activity of midtown Manhattan, Manhattan land is high priced. Those people who are living in nearby low density areas are using a lot of very-high-value land per person. Long ago, I knew a lady poet who lived in Greenwich Village; a poet, for Pete's sake, on Manhattan Island. True, she was a secretary for NYU, but that didn't pay a lot, either, I presume. Well, she was living in a rent-controlled apartment, as were most of her neighbors. I also knew a custom bike framebuilder who lived, and died, in even crummier surroundings not far away, in the back part of his dirt-floored workshop. And I knew a chemist who was engaged in the semi-chemical preparation of a dictionary of chemical terms; when he lived in Manhattan, during most weeks, he lived in a closet-sized room.

It is no wonder that the landowners of rent-controlled property have great desire to get out of that status, and do the best they can to fail to maintain its buildings. Is rent control right or wrong? Is George's policy of taxing land profits good or bad? All that I can say is that if the rewards for being in the thick of economic activities are sufficiently great in any small area, there will be high land prices, traffic congestion, and intensive development.


there's not a lot to disagree with what you write here- they're simply observations- but as you point out some of those posting do not seem to understand the situation that is being discussed. So let's not suffer under any illusions- there is nothing "free" about the "free market economy". Everything has a price. Let's get real. Painting unrealistic pretty pictures of how market forces will naturally take care of everything on their own is the most pathetic kind of wishful thinking. It masquerades the competitive, cutthroat reality of that structure. It inevitably leaves a sizable and suffering lower class and it's hell on natural resources. Not that I see any other economic systems that are any better- certainly communism doesn't work, socialism collapses under it's own weight so maybe it's all we've got- but to categorize it as one big happy well functioning Ozzie and Harriet-like family is ridiculous.

Well ... figuring out what one is trying to optimize is the first step of the problem. Is it efficiency? Is it some measure of fairness? Is it good/evil? Who determines good/evil? How do we discount the future?

Given the heterogenous nature of society, the "optimum" entails some sort of compromise which makes the process even more complicated since there is obviously a lot of uncertainty with respect to the data -- observations about the past and today -- and the effect of various forms of intervention. In other words, we are unsure of where we want to be, where we are, and how to get there.

Personally, I am willing to trade off some efficiency for notions of fairness and a more "civilized" society. Moreover, if you believe that most people are risk-adverse, then a society that is willing to insure certain situations might encourage individuals to make decisions in a more risk-neutral way resulting in a bigger global "pie."

Regarding the "free" market -- as I suspect Buzzman is already aware -- that is not quite the right context that the adjective was historically applied. Free really refers to a more libertarian concept; free from government intervention and free to do as one wishes. But Buzzman is correct that theoretically, there is nothing that says that the free market results in a "good" distribution of wealth. Although as he alludes to, historically, the more free market economies have done relatively well in this dimension.

I also wonder how cutthroat most productive environments really are within developed free-market economies. That is, writing anecdotally, that many workers find such an environment unappealing and will take less pecuniary compensation for a more enjoyable atmosphere. Moreover, as opposed to everyone acting in their own self-interest, I recall that there is a lot of evidence that suggests that people have a strong tendency to consider other's satisfaction/utility during their own decision-making. That is, left to their own devices, people tend to care about other people within their social networks and groups. Note that this is not some dichotomous state; caring for others is a continuous variable. From what I recall, there is a lot of fuzziness in the field and that most of the science is still pretty soft.

Anyway, at least to my observations, there are few people that advocate for a true uninhibited free market nor a tightly regulated socially controlled economy. Probably because most people recognize the limitations of each and that the world is governed by complicated interactions.

With regards to cycling advocacy, our discussion is one reason why I am pretty skeptical of any high-resource strategy without a lot more evidence.

... whoops time for me to run.

What reveals much to me is that under the established system you describe the "breadwinner", or the one that holds the pursestrings (regardless of of how they might have gained the motherlode), keeps getting richer in your paradigm. The breadwinner controls the wages, the prices, the amounts of food and distribution of all the resources. In fact, a fairly accurate portrayal of how the current economic system operates.
Note that I change some of bmike's words around, and "breadwinner" is his. Also, all prices are open to negotiation, and not set by anyone, just as in the real market: All exchanges are voluntary. If no one will buy dinner for $5, the "breadwinner" will have to lower his price. I even specified that everyone is to bid services - they "set" the prices for that, using your parlance.



But let's extend the analogy and see this as a big extended family in a great big house:

The "breadwinner" and their most immediate family members occupy the nicest rooms of the house. Their rooms are well appointed they get the lion's share of the food and resources. They even operate on roughly the principles set out in your "freemarket" experiment. These rooms are well heated in the winter and cooled in the summer. Other family members live in the basement or the attic, some even live outside- exposed to the environment, it's more crowded in those places, sometimes a little too cold or a little too hot- but they've always lived there- it's fine. They come up or in once in a while to do the cooking or the cleaning because no one in the immediate family wants to do those jobs and the breadwinner gets to set the wages.

If the "breadwinner's" immediate family starts to run low on anything the stocks or resources of the other family members are looted or bought for as little as possible. In fact it's best to keep the numbers of extended family fairly high and their needs fairly desperate because they are then most easily exploited. And not a bad idea to jettison any immediate family unable to pull their own weight- if they get too old to continue to contribute to the pot, if they get physically or better yet mentally disabled, drop them from the immediate family and put them outside or in the basement. It's best to keep this precarious balance well tended to or the other family members will ultimately rebel but if they are managed properly by subduing them with occasional rewards and constant threats of punishment this system can function effectively for centuries. And all the while the "breadwinner's" immediate family is convinced of their entitlements and moral and ethical superiority to those less well endowed. They live under the illusion that their life is "free" that their possessions are the result of "market forces" and that they are not connected in anyway to a larger interconnect of the rest of the world and that by simply continuing to operate on the status quo of a "freemarket" that all is right with the world.:rolleyes:
You're very cynical and unappreciative of how the real world works.