Incremental Planning Theory | Radical Planning 101
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 сен 2024
- Let's discuss the first major theory of urban planning to spin off of rational-comprehensive - incrementalism. Incrementalists believe small changes are best and that they are best made by the free market. Under an incrementalist framework, only the most powerful and well-connected can participate in the planning process.
Reading List/Sources:
Michael Brooks - Planning Theory for Practitioners.
Richard Behan - "Degenerate Democracy" scholarworks.u...
Charles Lindblom - "The Science of 'Muddling Through'" www.jstor.org/s...
Mäntysalo, Balducci, & Kangasoja - "Planning as Agonistic Communication in a Trading Zone: Re-examining Lindblom’s Partisan Mutual Adjustment" www.jstor.org/...
Check out the first part of this series here: • Rational-Comprehensive...
I'm stoked other people are starting to realize this. I thought I was the only one. Thank you for this highly informative content!
Damn I learned something new , didn't know strong towns is a right of center advocacy group. Loving this series so far
Fascinating, I never thought to question Strong Town's political leaning. I'd be really curious to hear more about this!
Strong Towns is a right libertarian, capitalist, non-partisan group (as in not Democrat or Republican) that organizes to recruit liberals including progressives to take a very particular approach to achieving urbanism.
People of all leanings should be critical of it, like with anything. But if you have any viewpoint to the left of progressive, you should be critical and organizing in a fundamentally different way to Strong Towns, even if you largely agree with them on what makes better urban form.
Even as a socialist you can get alot of value out of strong towns. And infact in a UBI world, Strong towns, and their incremental small town urbanism likely would be the future, if people really didn't need to work, and wages were not a concern most people would probably choose to live in a walkable small town. Mahron, Kuntzler, and Duany all take this stance, they aren't against the big city persay, just that most major metropolitan cities with their huge sprawlburbs are unsustainable, and that many cities have gotten much larger than they ever should have been allowed to be, and this was done at the expense of more human scaled communities across the US.
I live very close to the kentlands in maryland which is supposed to be this shining beacon of new urbanism. But like you pointed out in this video, the form of it alone doesnt make it automatically a win for urbanists.
Its not accessible from a financial perspective, homes frequently selling for 2 million or more, bougie restaurants with 15$ burgers, etc etc.
Despite having some of the highest density in the area there wasnt and still isnt any plans for a transit hub, bus/bike lanes. It was designed with the idea that people would still drive there.
I had seen these problems and now I know why they are that way and with a new community being planned "in the style of the kentlands" I now know how to spot these conservatives that hide behind an urbanist shield.
Awesome video as always, huge knowledge being dropped here. Keep em coming!
You can have walkable towns that are isolated, and not connected to the world by frequent transit at all, this has never been a problem. Walkable towns and cities existed long before transit ever did. Even today, remote islands, places in the arctic, and other communities exist in full walkable form with no transit.
Urbanism is one of those things that can be advocated for using multiple political viewpoints. If you're a conservative, the financial aspect and appeal to tradition might draw you in, but if you're a liberal the idea of making it easier for people of all incomes and disabilities to commute and the reduced dependence on gas might appeal to you. This isn't a bad thing.
Exactly!!! I’ve become a lot less attached to ideology as I’ve entered my thirties and if someone has a way to get more right leaning voters on board with crucial policy goals, like creating more dense, affordable housing in the places where people want to live, then I’m all for it. Unless there’s a non-negotiable asterisk involved like, “we’ll just have to cut the budget of several successful social spending programs to fund our new zoning initiative” or “…and that’s why [minority group] is the reason we can’t have nice things”, beyond that I don’t see why we shouldn’t be allying with other political groups on specific policies, especially with something like housing that contributes to almost every major problem our country is currently facing.
Woah! How did I not piece this together? I wish more of us knew this...thanks a bunch for this video!
I do completely agree that strong towns is a more conservative approach to new urbanism. However, I do think they are doing good, even if their approach isn't ideal.
Not making any long term plans does seem like an issue to incrementalism. Although, from the perspective of some one who doesn't have much power, Focusing on the positive changes that are easiest to implement seems to be good way to get started on making a positive difference. Although, I also have some left libertarian leanings so of course my perspective is effecting my views.
Of course not caring about the opinions of anyone who can't afford lobbyists is a bit meh. In some ways, Incremental planning seems to make more sense for smaller cities or larger towns, where it is actually feasible for normal people to get in touch with local politicians meaningfully simply by being politically active. In the ideal case, it seems like it could become "the consensus of those who care about politics in the community." Of course there can be issues, where part of the community can't afford to participate in politics. And the bigger a city is, the bigger that bar becomes.
Since conservatives already exist, getting their desire to reduce regulation pointed at things where that can actually make a positive difference is good. Ideally you want to have some more community-centered groups ready to take advantage of those new openings. Of course it can lose the long term or unified perspective if you are not careful. At least it is better than totalitarian approaches of a more traditional rational-comprohensive approach.
But thats the thing. It's NOT a positive difference and it completely trivializes the actual problem.
So what do you view as "the actual problem" in this case? Or are you talking more generally. And saying that trying to take easy steps first won't actually solve anything. (Or at least most issues.) @@uncouver
100% right on incrementalism's right wing origins which frankly ought to be clear to anyone who knows about Hayekian arguments against central planning. Strong Towns is basically just doing Hayek. But an interesting side conversation is why Strong Towns can appear to be liberal to much of the general public, and here we need to talk about how the right wing builds and keeps its electoral base.
Right wing politics ultimately has the goal of the hard domination of capital. This means tight control of the masses, especially minoritized and/or super exploited sections of the masses (women, LGBT folks, immigrants, racial minorities, low income people, etc). This contrasts with liberalism's preferred approach to the domination of capital, which is creating sufficient buy in through partial concessions to achieve a version of capitalism that avoids disruptive uprisings. But due to having been forced over the past 2-3 centuries to concede greater influence to the popular masses through voting and allowing mass organizations, the right needs a strategy to win a lot of votes and some grassroots support for their lobbying orgs. This cannot be done based on the economic program they have, since even the comfortable middle classes know that right wing policies could rapidly turn against them in the not-uncommon event in capitalism of a person or family falling on hard times. If the only appeal is for their economics then they're stuck with business owners and think tank fellows, not sufficient for a real electoral base. This is what the US libertarian party tries and right liberal parties in Europe try and they're generally stuck at between 1-10% vote shares (the Dutch being a notable exception in the past decade which while I don't think that's the only reason Strong Towns types salivate over Dutch cities, still might not hurt).
So the other option is to find issues that people's preferences will not be impacted by the inevitable economic crises of capitalism. That means what people generally call cultural issues. In a recession a person may drop from middle income to no income, but they won't lose their religion (probably) or change orientation/race. So finding wedge issues that divide people on these issues and siding with the side with more political power on average becomes a necessity. However, the dynamic of mass influence on party structures doesn't go away just because the party's underlying ideology hates mass influence. Therefore over time the mass base of the right forces its priorities and grievances to be more and more important in right party rhetoric, even when the result would cause inconveniences for capital. These inconveniences for capital should NOT be confused with socialist goals, cutting off immigration and demanding more car-centric design aren't ideal for current capitalists (though they were more useful in other periods), but they have nothing to do with socialist goals either. In the same way that feudalism was actively harmful to capital formation but also was bad for left goals. And as it turns out one of the cultural grievances that currently resonates with much of the right wing mass base is active hatred for cities. Not so much because cities are dens of socialism, but more because in cities in their current form tend to concentrate the many cultural groups that motivates the right wing base to vote. They look at maps of election results, see cities going for center-left to left candidates/parties and make it a goal to take the opposite stance of whatever people in those cities want.
Which all comes back to Strong Towns/Center for New Urbanism's awkward political position in the United States. As the right party in the US, the Republicans, have become more and more dominated by their culture focused base, the efficiency focused right urbanists have been pushed out. In a European multi-party context their natural home would instead be in a right-liberal party like the FDP in Germany or the VVD in the Netherlands. But in the US the only viable option is the big tent party defined mostly by being the guys who aren't Republicans, the Democrats. And since the Democrats are the "left" in US electoral politics in most people's minds, these incrementalists get wholly unearned reputation as being left-friendly. But push hard for rent control, public housing, publicly owned stores, or comprehensive regional transportation/land use plans and you wind up going against their incrementalism.
Ultimately the key take away for Americans in particular, and the numerous non-Americans who take WAY too many cues from US politics for their own political beliefs, is not to let the form of our party system disguise the underlying ideology. A group isn't left for hating Trump or his fans, it just means that for the time being there is a conflict between their goals and current Republican base grievances.
thanks for this thoughtful response- i fully agree
Fantastic comment and one that is pretty much exactly in line with my opinions on these matters. The Strong Towns guy is certainly better IMO than the explicitly anti-urban framework of the modern right-wing, in the sense that he has put forth arguments for walkable, transit-oriented neighborhoods that can appeal to the sensibilities of conservative Americans, but as you clearly know, he doesn’t support urbanism because of any commitment to the working class (which can benefit from walkable neighborhoods including in the sense that political organizing is easier when there are more people living near each other), and thus we should not look to him for advice as socialists on what the city should be and for whom.
I'm very glad you popped up in my feed. Something hadn't quite been sitting right with me when i dive into strong towns content.
central planning brought us isolated car dependent American sububurbs, French ban de lieus, demolished historic neighborhoods to make room for highways. These were all planned with the "we know what is good for you" arrogance of city planners and architects. At the same time lobbies can also have large influence on these large ambitious plans.
So a more cautious, incremental approach, would maybe not be such a bad idea. Ofcourse that does not resolve the issue who is to decide.
Love the citations in the video description.
I recently discovered your channel and I really need to say thank u for bringing this excellent quality content to the platform.
Oh hell yeah I love theoretical analysis. Subbed
Hell yes.Making moves. And sounding strong.
New Urbanists are already aware of issues regarding " the benefit or burden (of) people" and are incorporating those issues into their approaches. (examples from Jeff Speck: ruclips.net/video/flngSoURCvs/видео.html starting at 32:21, ruclips.net/video/daOoG1chvU0/видео.html starting at 13:30 [ Jeff actually mentions Chuck Marohn's conservatism in this one, but not as a bad thing, but as a way of emphasizing that there's really no reason to oppose these ideas from any side of the spectrum]). I think we have to be careful criticizing ideas just because they're not "as LEFT as they could be" or something. Good and bad ideas can come from both sides of the spectrum. I will say that Strong Towns/CNU do work from the assumption that solutions don't require the total overthrow of capitalism, but I'm not sure if that makes them/their ideas not worth supporting.
I have been waiting for so long for someone to point to the types of arguments strong towns makes as right wing. I don't think that makes them bad arguments, but, like I felt like I was going crazy.
i didn’t reference this because i want to keep these theory videos short but here’s an article you might be interested in: www.currentaffairs.org/2023/09/the-strong-towns-movement-is-simply-right-libertarianism-dressed-in-progressive-garb
I don’t think it’s fair to call Strong Towns “right-wing” just because its founder is a fiscal conservative. People from across the political spectrum are part of the organization. Strong Towns is not a group of outside consultants. It pushes for local ownership within the community, by the community. At its core, it opposes top-down rule of neighborhoods, whether from corporate conglomerates, cookie-cutter zoning, etc. Viewing ideas like what Strong Towns proposes through national partisan politics lenses doesn’t paint an accurate picture of what they’re trying to accomplish.
Jane Jacobs was a conservative in her time, and the politicians and lobbyists who created our car-dependent continent were progressives for their time. We wouldn’t think the same thing today.
More people owning a slice of and participating in the decision-making of their own community is a good thing. Strong Towns is pushing for that.
Point is, is it's not fundamentally based in any leftist theory even if, on the surface it's non-partisan, as in not explicitly Democrat or Republican.
It'd be incredibly naive as someone of any anti-capitalist ideology to simply look at Strong Towns with zero critique of it. It's obviously a right libertarian-liberal fusionist organization with a particular approach to achieving urbanism.
It's never gonna be critical of capitalism as a system. So anyone with anti-capitalist views pointing out that that that's what the Strong Towns project is is doing good.
And that's no different from how I'd view this channel. It's anti-capitalist but takes a very specific Marxist viewpoint. Nothing wrong with pointing that out. I'm far left and very much *not* a Marxist. So I'm always gonna be aware of that, critical, and I'll noticed I have stuff in common to maybe work together on, and I'll simultaneously vehemently oppose it when it's stuff we fundamentally disagree on.
Also: I don't think Strong Town or CMU claim that urban form along will solve ALL socio-economic issues, but they do claim that changes to the urban form can help address socio-economic issues... and is there actually something wrong with that? In such a polarized political system as we work in now, isn't it better to advocate for and work on small changes (like the smaller scale ST or CMU neighborhood plans that you disagree with ), rather than holding out until "big systemic change" happens on the larger scale? I feel like something that moves the needle in a positive direction, even if it's not perfect, is better than holding out until the whole system changes all at once....
u r the best, im loving this series
Hey Rad Planner! How about a video on Bike Lanes! For me, the more the better. However, I hate how the YIMBYs co-op the movement
*Pareto* optimum, after Vilfredo Federico Damaso Pareto. Sorry to be "that guy."
noooooooooooooooo mild dyslexia strikes again
Accessibility of comprehensive new urban neighbourhoods won't be solved while land is commodified and rents are more expensive than income support/social security can cover.
Working full time, I get a net of $1330.00 AUD each fortnight, my rent is $1080.00 each fortnight. Every month I pay $100 for phone/internet. The rent is split between myself and my flat mate, but I couldn't afford it on my own.
So you're saying that conservatives and liberals maintain hypocrisy about urban planning... According to you, they want to maintain laws to please the few with the best benefits
solid piece
woah
subscribed!
It's annoying because they mix what are good urbanist ideas with weird capitalistic undertones. But what I think might be interesting will be seeing what happens when a lot of young naive urbanists who are just looking to get involved end up joining them. I think there is going to end up being a real tension with that org and we'll see where it ends up. Just look at their video producer. He said in the beginning he is very new and was excited to get involved. We'll see where his values end up when he educates himself and has his own opinions
i have major beef with strong towns because of their support of community organizations/nonprofits getting into the landlord game as CDCs! and this video gave
me a fantastic reason to keep hating them.
I'm not too familiar with the American context. What do you think is wrong with CDCs? Although I know very litttle about them, they sound better than the completely private and corporate driven development that seems to usually occur
Considering his biggest argument for walkability and density is against fiscally inefficient transportation planning (ie: Sprawl), because you gotta maintain all that infrastructure.... I'm surprised folks are surprised Strong Towns has a republican background.
Rightists don't hate walkability at all, anyone who says that really is out of touch, IE City Nerd and a few others. The rightists may value other things more than walkability, but they are not inherently against it. It would be like me talking to an urbanist who lives in an unwalkable place in Suburbia and asking them, why they don't live in a walkable place. Maybe they cannot afford the walkable city they want, or are afraid they won't have a good enough job if they move to one of the affordable walkable small towns out there. I will say even though I am a Socialist, I am a huge fan of the CNU and Strong Towns, Probably because i have a georgist streak to me.
Pagoda
I can't talk for CNU, but I think the idea that "Strong Town isn't trying to resolve core issues, they just want to deregulate" is an uneducated stance. The central focus of all their books/content is improving financial solvency of cities. As in, increasing tax revenue. Giving more money to the government. And having municipalities turn down developers if the suburbs they want to build have higher infrastructure maintenance costs than tax revenue. This is hardly "hand over all control to the free market."
And I'd say that Strong Towns is only right of center among urban planning organizations - if you put them onto the actual political spectrum of the U.S., where a sizable minority of people think 15 minute cities are a conspiracy, I think it's pretty reasonable to take Strong Towns at their word as far as their a-politicality.
I'm a registered Democrat, but one thing that keeps pushing me further away from the left is their obsession with partisan loyalty and not working across the aisle. You'd think when people on the left and right find some overlap and a place to work together they'd be excited and see if as an opportunity, but I feel as though urbanists on the left always seem more intent on remaining ideologically pure than on actually solving problems. Always "exposing" people for being - GASP - Republicans - as if that means I should now discount every idea that person has.
Regarding your assertion that incrementalism would lead to pockets of development with no connections, I'd counter that incrementalism believes that bottom-up action should inform government investment, instead of trying to drive citizen's action _via_ investment. I.e., if you see a bunch of people traveling a certain path in a way that would be made more efficient by official roads or transit, build those roads or transit. But don't adopt the "if you build it they will come attitude, and build infrastructure in the hope of having people then start to use it. That's how you end up with wasteful roads to nowhere, and flattening existing neighborhoods for no good reason.
I do like your videography though. It's a very cool set.