You Can't Go Home Again, and Yet You Can

Having spent almost an entire month under my parents' roof, despite being a full-fledged adult- with my health (thank you God) intact, has been surreal at best.

With the exception of a short-term return to the nest after I graduated from undergrad with an oh-so-useful (not) but passionately prized degree in art history I have been living entirely on my own.

But with graduation from graduate school looming on the horizon I decided to take advantage of the opportunity to spend some "quality time," a phrase I've never really understood, with my parents before I plunge back into the work world.

It's been fantastic doing free laundry, not having to scrounge for meals or gas money, and all of the other cliche (but very much appreciated) perks one has staying at Mom and Dad's.

It's also been a time of reflection. Regardless of how famous or how smart or how anything you are today, your past makes up a part of who you are. Even the hypothetical self-made millionaire who went from rags to riches is keenly aware of where s/he is- or isn't- from time to time. The uber-hipster from Missouri who's living the bo-ho glam life in Silverlake may still feel a tug at the holidays as s/he isn't having a white Christmas. And the hard-bitten but non-native New Yorker from Kentucky, who fled the rural countryside, may wish, in fleeting moments, that one didn't have to visit Central Park to see green space.

I'm a self-confessed city snob. But I also love the countryside, especially down South. And every once in a while I feel the tug of the suburbs and its single family houses- the bane of planners' desire for utopia. It's a symbol of my childhood and of my concept of home. As I never lived in an apartment as a child, the Playskool/Fisher-Price house is a part of my memory make-up.

One of my primary interests in planning is seeing where my generation winds up living- even on a semi-permanent basis.

We all know that the cities have been usurped by the safe appeal of the suburbs yadda yadda- territory I've tread many times in my blog and won't rehash for you.

And there have been many attempts to try to "reinvent," "rebrand" the city- to highlight its cultural sophistication, to glamorize the bohemian appeal of it, even to try to turn it into a hipper version of the suburbs. Some attempts have worked in some parts of the country. Others are embarrassing attempts.

Joel Kotkin has an interesting take on this in his article for "the New Geography"-

http://www.newgeography.com/content/001657-the-myth-back-city-migration

And Christopher Leinberger has an equally provocative rebuttal-

http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/0709_walkable_spaces_leinberger.aspx?rssid=transportation&utm_source=feedburner&utm_mediu

Here are the Vimeo links-

http://vimeo.com/16431631

http://vimeo.com/16431824

http://vimeo.com/16432364

FYI- if you walk around the halls of my school, USC's School of Policy, Planning, and Development- you'll see the same thing physically. For the most part the urban planning people are the equivalent of the Steve Jobs computer geeks- not unattractive, but a little scruffy around the edges. While the real estate folks look so youthfully preserved you wonder if they bathe in the blood of virgin unicorns. Though if anyone asks, my school has the best looking faculty, period. :) (Except for UPenn's Witold Rybczynski, who I wish taught at my school. But I have Bill Fulton so ehhhhh)

One of the most interesting things about twenty-somethings that I've observed, especially those desperate to throw off the shackles of their bourgeois suburban upbringing, is that they move to a city either during or after college. But once they have kids, they move back to the suburbs. Understandably a child's education is much better in the suburbs where the tax base is higher so the quality of education is proportionate to taxpayer income, an unfortunate but nevertheless true real-life ratio. But it doesn't make it any less amusing for those of us who don't have to get in our SUVs to "return" to the city on the weekend. Cuz we're already there. Observing the hordes of yuppies drive in through our hipper-than-thou oversized sunglasses from the 80s with a barely concealed look of derision and scorn.

Even Arcade Fire wrote their latest (as of this writing) album about the suburbs. They even called it "the Suburbs." You can take a kid out of the suburbs, but you can't take the suburbs out of the kid?

I've noticed that a lot of people in my generation, who I personally count from 1983-1988, have gotten married young and some have even started families young. Many more so than our predecessors, Gen X, who bore more of the brunt of their parents' freedom from the stigma of divorce, but didn't escape the effects divorce has on the children. Some Gen X'ers have gotten married, but others have opted for live-in situations, sometimes proceeding with legal formalities later on.

If pressed, the general consensus between myself and my peers my age (27-28 years old, again, as of this writing) is that there is a new generation every year. iPods and cell phones have a different frame of reference for myself compared to my brother who is four years younger than me and bought both items well before me. Another, more historic example- I vaguely remember the Persian Gulf War, I don't think my brother does at all.

Beloit College puts out its yearly "mindset" list citing pop culture touchstones that the incoming class has always known or has no idea what you are talking about.

In the spirit of democracy, I am also including this link from the WSJ critiquing said list. Though points are subtracted for journalists showing off their smarts and citing "Hecuba" for no good reason at all.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704868604575433783887009678.html

I also thought that this was an interesting complement to the concept-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/17/beloit-college-mindset-li_0_n_684308.html

I officially feel old now, but my closing point is that people will go where they want to go. And I'm curious as to who goes where and for how long. Time will tell. Until then, wristwatch? What's that? ;)

The "Architect"

Merry Christmas everyone! I just received a copy of Makeshift Metropolis: Ideas About Cities by: Witold Rybczynski, his new work and my all-time favorite author. Yayyy!!! So super psyched.

Reading the dust jacket my dad was asking who was the (main) architect who designed the "White City," i.e. the Chicago's World Fair of 1893. Answer: Frederick Law Olmsted.

His question got me thinking. I haven't had a chance to read Rybczynski's work. But the dust jacket says ". . . the movements that defined the twentieth century, such as City Beautiful, the Garden City, and the seminal ideas of Frank Lloyd Wright and Jane Jacobs. If the twentieth century was the age of planning, we now find ourselves in the age of the market. . ."

Going back even farther in time, (which Rybczynski may do), I would argue that if the 21st century is the age of the market (or the developer) and the 20th century was the age of the planner, then the 19th century (going as far back as the Renaissance, and technically even farther) was the age of the architect.

I haven't taken any history of architecture classes so my timeframe is definitely up for revision or modification. It could have been shorter, or could it have been from the beginning. Afterall, some cave person or Druid had to conceptualize what Stonehenge would look like.

Watching Inception the concept of the power of the "architect"- in the literal sense of the word, not in Nolan's sense of the word, weighs heavily in my mind. Especially as in the movie the "architect" is given ultimate control over the design and execution of not only a building, but an entire world. (Maybe architect isn't the right word. Maybe urban planner is a better term ;) We are the ultimate latent control-freaks. But "architect" sounds sexier- images of schmancy eyewear, all-black clothes, and spiky, artsy, hyper-stylized hair. Or maybe I'm the only one who hears the word architect and thinks of Daniel Liebskind).

source: http://www.wilde-spieth.de/english/bilder/daniel_libeskind.jpg

Planning school has broken down many of my pre-conceived notions, including the sovereign power of an architect.

I used to think that the architect had the same role as he (or now she) had centuries ago. He possessed a vision and the client paid. This was true well through Olmsted's time. But not anymore. Now I know it's no longer true. Architects are hemmed in by their clients' budgets, legal and construction restrictions, the laws of physics, developers, lawyers, and bureaucracy in 31 other flavors.

I don't know what the role was of different parties in, say, the Renaissance, other than the architect and the patron. There were obviously sub-contractors, such as the carpenters, the masons, the other craftsmen. In their time they would have been called gilds.

But who said how big one's mansion/villa could be? Obviously, property lines were determined by law. But setbacks? Roof lines? That may not have been legally mandated except by whoever was richest. Or if your second story impinged on your richer-than-tho neighbor. Maybe a cute architectural historian knows and would like to enlighten me. ;)

I'll let you know if I do determine an answer. Until then, power to the people! Er, the market.

Recommended Reading: Last Harvest

I confess that this post is filled with gushing praise, but once you have read the author's work, I am sure that his writing will elicit at least a murmur of approval.

I wasn't sure where to start learning about urban planning other than what I found on wikipedia.org. But one day I was poking around Borders and I came across the book, Last Harvest: How a Cornfield Became New Daleville by Witold Rybczynski. The concept intrigued me. Mr. Rybczynski followed the process of a residential subdivision in rural Pennsylvania (he teaches at UPenn School of Design) and what can happen from the time a developer sets his or her sights on a piece of land to the sign that says "coming soon" until people move into the new houses and beyond.

Mr. Rybczynski's writing is both well-informed and accessible. He paints well-fleshed out (pun intended) portraits of the different people involved in this process, but spares no fools gladly. When one person begins to nitpick decisions and design schemes to the point of simply being obstinate, there is an air of Mr. Rybczynski wryly thinking said person doth protest too much without condemning or humiliating said person. He also shows the human side of the developers, conveying both their desire for a profit and their fear that their unique business vision may not materialize the way that they hoped.

The development in question tries to apply new urbanist principles, with mixed results.

The writing is not plagued with academic jargon nor does it feel like it is dumbed down for non-planning professionals. Mr. Rybczynski writes to inform and his style is descriptive but succinct.

I honestly had no idea about suburban development before I read this book. I had a vague idea that somebody or some nameless corporation bought land, from who, unknown, and then started building houses. Often times I would be driving by an empty field and then a few months later, it felt like, there were houses erected and I thought where did they come from? I was also unclear what roles an architect, a developer, and a contractor played in residential development. Sometimes I thought they were all the same people. This is what you get when you study da Vinci and Damien Hirst instead of something vaguely more practical. I can spot a Corbusier or a Mies van der Rohe at twenty paces. Architects, I know. Construction processes, sometimes fuzzy.

Suburban development shows no signs of stopping (a summary of why so many people live in the suburbs vs. the cities is forthcoming on this blog). But it doesn't mean that we are doomed to a world of cookie-cutter suburbs. New urbanism offers a viable alternative to a Stepford-like community. The question remains though, who is willing to literally buy into the concept?

I would highly recommend this book to anyone who is even remotely interested in how residential development decisions are made. Or for anyone who is interested in new urbanism. (I would also recommend checking out wikipedia's site on new urbanism for more on that subject.)

In addition, Mr. Rybczynski is a brilliant critic. I told you there would be gushing. He also writes for slate.com and his work there is equally excellent. I would highly recommend his piece on the suggestion that the rehabiliation of New Orleans follow in the footsteps of Denver's Stapleton development, which is a community that has adopted some new urbanist principles. http://www.slate.com/id/2148311/

Or frankly any of his other pieces on their site or elsewhere. His eulogy for Jane Jacobs is touching. He has also written several other books and for many other publications including the NY Times, Time, the Atlantic, and the New Yorker. Unlike some professors whose work you have to read with a can of Red Bull in order to stay awake, Professor Rybczynski's work is enlightening without being demanding.

As I don't want to oversell this, you can also read reviews of this book on amazon.com