One of the main ideas regarding "Smart Growth" is the implimentation of 'multi-use' buildings. Where they build retail (usually) at street level and build apartments and/or condos above these 'shops' with the idea that folks can 'live and work in the same area, without having to rely on cars to get around. Ignoring the fact that many folks (especially those with children) don't really want to raise their kids in high rises, or have to use parks as their main source of outdoor entertainment. Ignoring the fact that getting a kid to a soccer game or swim practice (which usually ISN'T on the light rail line) the city planners have encouraged with various tax breaks the implimentation of these ... places to live.
So how does that equate to communism, you might ask? Well, it's not entirely the old Soviet Union, as I realize there is more to communism than merely the place(s) that you have people live in. However, I recently ran across a rather interesting piece of information - it seems that back in 1959, President Eisenhowser invited the Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev to come to the United States for a visit. Eisenhower arranged for Khrushchev to be transported by helicopter from the White House to Camp David during the busy, afternoon rush hour. Eisenhower believed this aerial view of bustling mobility and vast tracts of home ownership would impress his Soviet counterpart and help prove the superiority of the capitalist system.
Far from being impressed, the Premier ridiculed what he viewed as a tremendous waste of fuel, land and resources.
"In the Soviet Union," Khrushchev explained, "the workers live in apartment buildings near the factories so they can walk to work. If they have to leave their districts they take the train or the subway".
An examination of planner's maps for the greater Portland metropolitan region prove the prophetic nature of Khruschev's words. Although most apartments have been replaced by condominiums and factories by office buildings, the intention is clear. We are intended to live where we work. If we have to leave our districts, we are intended to ride light rail.
So is it a case of "Back to the Future"? I've rallied against light rail, the "urban growth boundary", the various tax breaks and abatements given to people to try to get them to embrace this "New Future" only to find that this new future is part of the old Soviet Union; and it didn't work too well back there either.
So, is this indeed a throw back to the old Soviet Union, just in a different guise? Was this one of the 'good' points that the Soviet Union had and we are just cherry picking some of their better ideas? Are the folks who are embracing these ideas in Oregon (and those around the country who TRY to encourage them) unaware, uncaring or merely doing one of those "those who don't read history are bound to repeat it" things? Don't get me wrong, I believe in zoning, I agree that some things like garbage dumps and mining operations need to be regulated to certain areas - but the level that our 'leaders' have implimented it feels very ... communistic.
Your turn - am I all wet? Have the "Smart Growth" people come to you area? If so how successful are they? Has your city/town swallowed the ideas? Comments welcome!!
6 comments:
I'd have to research this further, but coming from a big East Coast city (Philly) that's destroyed its old trolley infrastructure and turned every highway into a parking lot, I have to say spend more on public transportation.
At the present, most plans for expansion in the Philly region are being killed because of the huge costs involved. It wouldn't be so expensive if people hadn't ripped up a lot of the rails in the first place.
Can I make an observation here? It strikes me as perhaps a little paranoid to make a connection with this style of housing option with communism. The amount of travel we do in this day and age is a relatively recent phenom. In the earlier part of the centery, most people did live within their neighborhood, driving longer distances only when neccesary. Even today, in larger cities many people still get along primarily with taxi or bus or other form of public transport as the cost of parking is prohibitive. I think it is simply another option for people who would like to live that way. I agree it may not be the best for kids unless the housing is developed with kids in mind, and there are places like that. Is it communism with a capital K, or is it simply another way of being a community, and one not that far removed from our grandparents and great grandparents way of living?
Portland Oregon has the busiest car wash chain west of the Mississippi in Kaady Car Wash, so no matter how much you lobby against light rail, there is a long way to go in stopping people from not driving.
As far as communism and these high raise urban apartments of grocery stores and what not, Sacramento is getting the same type of planning in the urban downtown area. Unfortunately, there now isn't any parking. The parking business is growing and spreading. The people that are buying these apartment condos are young professionals (and often gay, not there is anything wrong with it). It's just this wave of liberal attitude that is creating this mess. Let's all pack things in small places and call it conservation. It doesn't look healthy to me. What scares me now are the 64 acres near my house that are about to be developed in the middle of my suburb. The developer that is building all these apartment/grocery store monstrocities owns that property.
I don't necessarily agree that it is communistic, although it does seem out of place for government to be so involved with development to the point of assigning where housing should or should not go and who gets to live in it.
Out here in the peoples republic of Los Angeles, San fernando valley to be exact, I actually do live where I work. I'm only 10 minutes tops from work and my kids school is about 15 minutes or so from home as well. The only thing that isn't close is church, I commute on Sundays into L.A. city to attend my church. It wasn't always this nice though, it took me several years to find local employment that paid a reasonable salary. I had to work as a local freelancer for over 3 years before obtaining my current position. Now that I have, I love it. Not having to fight traffick there and back, getting home before the sun goes down, and not feeling so drained from driving is a wonderful feeling. Not to mention the money saved in gas and auto maintanance alone.
Point being, living where you work used to be a good thing and I think it still is. People ought to make greater efforts to achieve such an arrangement, in the end I think it would benefit and strengthen the family ten fold, allowing parents to be more readily available to their children.
Whether government should be the ones who regulate such a thing is where I have problems though.
That's a great and insightful piece. I posted it last July, and think it deserves to be republished annually.
I would seriously consider attending your city hall meetings...and check for certain buzzwords such as "concensus", "dialogue" "synergy" and
"facilitate"...all of these are Hegelian dialect words...which is communist.
Post a Comment