The nuance of this “WILL” is more of a command versus describing a level of future emotions to come. Sustainable Communities Initiative – the Federal Government’s way (e.g. HUD, EPA, DOT) to federalize local zoning ordinances to result in their idea for a more “efficient” society (remember, Progressives are all about “efficient” societies – planned from the top down, it is their version of a Utopia that never mentions “Freedom” or Liberty”). Once again, my favorite pincushion Treehugger has a post on how to make cities “better”. All they have to do is to have “Smart People” design it for us using a set of new principles called “Transit Oriented Development” (TOD):
-
WALK | Develop neighborhoods that promote walking
-
CYCLE | Prioritize non-motorized transport networks
-
CONNECT | Create dense networks of streets and paths
-
TRANSIT | Locate development near high-quality public transport
-
MIX | Plan for mixed use
-
DENSIFY | Optimize density and transit capacity
-
COMPACT | Create regions with short commutes
-
SHIFT | Increase mobility by regulating parking and road use
Once again, I dryly note: not designed around the idea of “people”? Or are they merely chess pieces that have no minds, attributes, or needs of their own? Now the author, Lloyd Alter and I have had some tiffs in the past (probably why I’m still banned from commenting) and he certainly is one that believes that we MUST live with less and we MUST live “urbanely” (he certainly loves the urban setting and doesn’t understand why the rest of us don’t – and I lived in one of the most walkable cities in the Nation: Boston). He keeps sneering at those of us who believe there is a “conspiracy” around Agenda 21. Yet, in this post he certainly lets the cat out of the bag with part of this post (emphasis mine):
DENSITY
Transit-oriented density results in well-populated streets, ensuring that station areas are lively, active, vibrant and safe places where people want to live. Density delivers the customer base that supports a wide range of services and amenities and makes local commerce thrive.
Translation: Incoherent dichotomy. Here’s Lloyd both advocating for policies that would reduce “consumerism” yet promoting design and laws that would enhance the exact opposite. Or, is this a thinly veiled “from behind the Progressive curtain” in that we are just cogs in their machine. After all, Progressive education is all about developing “working citizens” that know their place in Society.
COMPACT
The basic organizational principle of dense urban development is compact development. In a compact city, or a compact district, the various activities and uses are conveniently located close together, minimizing the time and energy required to reach them and maximizing the potential for interaction.
That image tells it all – what if we WANT to live in small communities (or in my case, in a rural area on the side of a mountain)? Not so much, it seems. This lays out the end game – complete urbanization. My co-worker out West is seeing this happen where the onesies and twosies homesteaders get zoned out and off their land and then the roads get ripped out – and forced to get “more urban”.
Even though we keep getting told via Granite State Future (the “local” version of Sustainable Communities Intiative that was spawned into the 9 NH Regional Planning Commission by the injection of millions of Federal dollars) that everything is “voluntary”, I’ve watched the professional planners “nudge” the elected officials who rely on “professionals” – and those elected officials have a VERY difficult time with the “free Federal cocaine money” if they just do what the Feds say to do.
And finally, probably most controversially, SHIFT
When cities are shaped by the above seven principles, personal motor vehicles become largely unnecessary in day-to-day life. Walking, cycling and the use of high-capacity transit are easy and convenient, and can be supplemented by a variety of intermediary transit modes and rented vehicles that are much less space-intensive. Scarce and valuable urban space resources can be reclaimed from unnecessary roads and parking, and can be reallocated to more socially and economically productive uses.
This is a really powerful idea, a new way of analyzing development to promote walkable cities where you don’t need or even want a car. Read it online or download a copy from the ITDP here.
Really? So we see that others are making the decision of how we are to live, ask yourself: who will be making the decision of what “more socially” is and should be? Or what “economically productive uses” really will mean in our real world to be? It’s not a stretch (me who never seemed to be all the conspiracy minded, but given what Government has done the last decade, especially the last 5 years, who can really tell what is conspiracy and not?) to think that for the “Progressive efficient Society”, we won’t have a heck of a lot of input if we aren’t part of the apparatchik-to-come.
Ah yes, if you watch long enough, even the best of actors fall out of character – thanks TreeHugger!
