Nice essay. I have long advocated for going broad, but the world often wants you to go “narrow and deep“. Often too much specificity leads to jargon, buzz words, and cliché.I don’t think people realize that it takes skill to go broad (without being superficial) and capturing the spirit of a place and/or an experience.
Thanks for the essay, and again, sorry for the initial omission. I am sure Ryan will update the list once he is back from vacation. I am happy, however, that it means I am now aware of your work.
As for the point here about urbanism, I have come to recognize that the term is totally imperfect, but that it can be useful as shorthand. I use it mostly because I have not come to find any other word that approximates the same set of concepts. If a more useful word comes into fashion, maybe I'll start using it.
I also sort of enjoy the fact that it's argued over and has different meanings for different people!
Thanks again, Diana. As I think I made clear the “omission“ was a great catalyst actually and it freed me to revisit some of the issues I discussed and tell a bit of my story. Another thing that happened while I was gone four or five years is that the landscape of the word changed in the United States partially in response to the sociopolitical atmosphere of the Trump era. Finally, I’m probably unlike most people in that these debates have chased me throughout my life given my dad’s background and impact. I’m also extremely familiar with the legal side of all of this having practiced and taught land use law for 34 years. I’m not sure that folks not around all this time realise how conscious we all were of zoning inadequacies and how the tool had been used for uneven ends— there is a bit too much revisionism at times…
Excellent post, Chuck. Thanks for putting into words something I’ve felt but not articulated for some time. As one of your other commentators said, “ I love cities —and I love nature. What I really love are places of history, places that hold our stories, and places of beauty. Places with their own history.” You’ve captured that broader form of urbanism (or whatever we call it) very well.
Thank you for your kind response to my earlier comment. I enjoyed this essay as well.
When I think of urban planning and Santa Fe, one of the things I’ve always loved about it is that in many ways there was no planning as such in the core city. Yes, the plaza was planned as such and I love the energy it contains —as well as its stories, which span centuries as well as my personal experiences. Much of SF seems to have grown organically over the years, which adds to its charm and magnetism. And then there is the urban sprawl that shocks me every time I go home.
I went to UVA to study urban planning—graduated in 1970. We studied new towns like Reston, VA, with their city centers. At the time, I thought about how ironic it was that while city centers were high on planning’s list then, the stores around the plaza, where I had always shopped, were being moved to malls, big and little. Downtowns were dying— luckily Santa Fe was able to convert it’s to the tourist trade. The portals around the plaza were added, which added to its personality, but also “Disneylanded” it to me. “Santa Fe style” had arrived.
I went to Colorado College, then later worked in the El Paso County Planning Department, with its office in Colorado Springs. I loved downtown and have grieved over the years as it died and couldn’t recoup like Santa Fe.
We Louis Mumford planners were taught to carefully zone areas, but when my son went to Rice to study architecture, I discovered I much preferred Houston with its lack of zoning and vibrant urban texture.
I love cities —and I love nature. What I really love are places of history, places that hold our stories, and places of beauty. Places with their own history, places like Santa Fe and Richmond.
Such places also need to adapt, to incorporate today’s needs, if they are to continue to thrive—otherwise they become museums or ghost towns. Needless to say I belong to the National Trust for Historic Preservation and local organizations as well.
I think the historic depth of places, incorporated with the new, keeps them vital. I lived in Norfolk, VA for almost 50 years—urban renewal meant the old was constantly razed—and to me, the city itself held little personality or energy.
I haven’t had a chance to read your other publications yet so look forward to them.
I also studied accounting. To me the word urbanism is more like an accounting term used to categorize something — it is dry—more like a general plan although of course it includes goals and policies. But what are the ineffable qualities that bring a place alive, give it a personality of its own, create its stories as an entity?
I appreciate your essay and have certainly felt sometimes like there's an "urbanist" script that is on repeat in some online communities. However, it may please you to know that the urban studies master's degree I finished last year did have a much broader scope and we did things like getting people to draw mental maps of their neighborhood to see what places they choose to highlight, discuss the food systems of cities, and generally accept the tensions and tradeoffs inherent to many of today's problems.
My partner and I started a weekly urbanism newsletter (https://urbanismnow.substack.com) that's a weekly roundup of links. It certainly feels like like there's an overemphasis on housing and transportation in the news but we try our best to bring inspiring stories from outside the us/euro perspective. Your post today has given a bit of extra inspiration to keep pushing on that front.
Nice essay. I have long advocated for going broad, but the world often wants you to go “narrow and deep“. Often too much specificity leads to jargon, buzz words, and cliché.I don’t think people realize that it takes skill to go broad (without being superficial) and capturing the spirit of a place and/or an experience.
Thanks for sharing the insight and experience. Good to know how you are navigating change and shaping new facets!
Well said.
Thanks for the essay, and again, sorry for the initial omission. I am sure Ryan will update the list once he is back from vacation. I am happy, however, that it means I am now aware of your work.
As for the point here about urbanism, I have come to recognize that the term is totally imperfect, but that it can be useful as shorthand. I use it mostly because I have not come to find any other word that approximates the same set of concepts. If a more useful word comes into fashion, maybe I'll start using it.
I also sort of enjoy the fact that it's argued over and has different meanings for different people!
Thanks again, Diana. As I think I made clear the “omission“ was a great catalyst actually and it freed me to revisit some of the issues I discussed and tell a bit of my story. Another thing that happened while I was gone four or five years is that the landscape of the word changed in the United States partially in response to the sociopolitical atmosphere of the Trump era. Finally, I’m probably unlike most people in that these debates have chased me throughout my life given my dad’s background and impact. I’m also extremely familiar with the legal side of all of this having practiced and taught land use law for 34 years. I’m not sure that folks not around all this time realise how conscious we all were of zoning inadequacies and how the tool had been used for uneven ends— there is a bit too much revisionism at times…
Excellent post, Chuck. Thanks for putting into words something I’ve felt but not articulated for some time. As one of your other commentators said, “ I love cities —and I love nature. What I really love are places of history, places that hold our stories, and places of beauty. Places with their own history.” You’ve captured that broader form of urbanism (or whatever we call it) very well.
Thank you, David. Sometimes I can still write. And with a kick sometimes I can still tell my own story which we all need to do.
I have considered that urbanism should be expanded to include settlements of all sizes.
Thank you for your kind response to my earlier comment. I enjoyed this essay as well.
When I think of urban planning and Santa Fe, one of the things I’ve always loved about it is that in many ways there was no planning as such in the core city. Yes, the plaza was planned as such and I love the energy it contains —as well as its stories, which span centuries as well as my personal experiences. Much of SF seems to have grown organically over the years, which adds to its charm and magnetism. And then there is the urban sprawl that shocks me every time I go home.
I went to UVA to study urban planning—graduated in 1970. We studied new towns like Reston, VA, with their city centers. At the time, I thought about how ironic it was that while city centers were high on planning’s list then, the stores around the plaza, where I had always shopped, were being moved to malls, big and little. Downtowns were dying— luckily Santa Fe was able to convert it’s to the tourist trade. The portals around the plaza were added, which added to its personality, but also “Disneylanded” it to me. “Santa Fe style” had arrived.
I went to Colorado College, then later worked in the El Paso County Planning Department, with its office in Colorado Springs. I loved downtown and have grieved over the years as it died and couldn’t recoup like Santa Fe.
We Louis Mumford planners were taught to carefully zone areas, but when my son went to Rice to study architecture, I discovered I much preferred Houston with its lack of zoning and vibrant urban texture.
I love cities —and I love nature. What I really love are places of history, places that hold our stories, and places of beauty. Places with their own history, places like Santa Fe and Richmond.
Such places also need to adapt, to incorporate today’s needs, if they are to continue to thrive—otherwise they become museums or ghost towns. Needless to say I belong to the National Trust for Historic Preservation and local organizations as well.
I think the historic depth of places, incorporated with the new, keeps them vital. I lived in Norfolk, VA for almost 50 years—urban renewal meant the old was constantly razed—and to me, the city itself held little personality or energy.
I haven’t had a chance to read your other publications yet so look forward to them.
I also studied accounting. To me the word urbanism is more like an accounting term used to categorize something — it is dry—more like a general plan although of course it includes goals and policies. But what are the ineffable qualities that bring a place alive, give it a personality of its own, create its stories as an entity?
Thank you for giving me food for thought!
I appreciate your essay and have certainly felt sometimes like there's an "urbanist" script that is on repeat in some online communities. However, it may please you to know that the urban studies master's degree I finished last year did have a much broader scope and we did things like getting people to draw mental maps of their neighborhood to see what places they choose to highlight, discuss the food systems of cities, and generally accept the tensions and tradeoffs inherent to many of today's problems.
My partner and I started a weekly urbanism newsletter (https://urbanismnow.substack.com) that's a weekly roundup of links. It certainly feels like like there's an overemphasis on housing and transportation in the news but we try our best to bring inspiring stories from outside the us/euro perspective. Your post today has given a bit of extra inspiration to keep pushing on that front.
Cheers!
Hi Ray, that's great. My piece makes it clear that I'm simpatico with your background and interests, and I will be checking out your newsletter.