The summary of school curriculums and their lack of integration with basic human desires for happiness and belonging is poignant. Also glaring is how these programs lack integration with each other.
What I am witnessing in my city and elsewhere is a corporate interpretation of the “transect” that obliterates sense of place as an essential ingredient of human happiness. In cities held hostage to “density” as an ideology, perfectly functional neighborhoods with lowrise architecture that could last for many decades are being stripped of existing zoning and torn down, house by house. In their place, a homogenized style of 3-story townhomes and monolithic apartment houses lacking harmonious scale, surface treatments or setbacks— with zero integration into the previous neighborhoods. We are legitimizing a faceless and uniform style of building that is what people hate most about the suburbs. And it is far more expensive per square foot than anything it replaces.
I think a lot of it is generational, as well. The environmentalists of the 1970s had very different priorities than today's environmentalists.
Since the problems of Global Warming weren't yet nailed down yet, 1970's environmentalism was really more focused on local pollution, meaning that solutions tended towards the idea of having lower density. In other words, they saw cities as part of the problem.
Today's environmentalists are more worried about global scale issues, for which well designed cities and towns provide a lot of the solution, as these tend to be much more efficient at lowering emissions.
To somebody on the outside, though, it looks like a massive shift in focus, which I think leads to folks dismissing it all outright. It's quite tragic.
Back to the core topic at hand, I'm actually a member of my city council and I'm very interested in Transect-based zoning. Specifically in regards to tying development levels with infrastructure (with higher density areas getting more intensive infrastructure, according to their financial productivity). As it stands today, we will often give massive lot development the same infrastructure as high density development, which is totally out of sync.
The summary of school curriculums and their lack of integration with basic human desires for happiness and belonging is poignant. Also glaring is how these programs lack integration with each other.
What I am witnessing in my city and elsewhere is a corporate interpretation of the “transect” that obliterates sense of place as an essential ingredient of human happiness. In cities held hostage to “density” as an ideology, perfectly functional neighborhoods with lowrise architecture that could last for many decades are being stripped of existing zoning and torn down, house by house. In their place, a homogenized style of 3-story townhomes and monolithic apartment houses lacking harmonious scale, surface treatments or setbacks— with zero integration into the previous neighborhoods. We are legitimizing a faceless and uniform style of building that is what people hate most about the suburbs. And it is far more expensive per square foot than anything it replaces.
I think a lot of it is generational, as well. The environmentalists of the 1970s had very different priorities than today's environmentalists.
Since the problems of Global Warming weren't yet nailed down yet, 1970's environmentalism was really more focused on local pollution, meaning that solutions tended towards the idea of having lower density. In other words, they saw cities as part of the problem.
Today's environmentalists are more worried about global scale issues, for which well designed cities and towns provide a lot of the solution, as these tend to be much more efficient at lowering emissions.
To somebody on the outside, though, it looks like a massive shift in focus, which I think leads to folks dismissing it all outright. It's quite tragic.
Back to the core topic at hand, I'm actually a member of my city council and I'm very interested in Transect-based zoning. Specifically in regards to tying development levels with infrastructure (with higher density areas getting more intensive infrastructure, according to their financial productivity). As it stands today, we will often give massive lot development the same infrastructure as high density development, which is totally out of sync.