In response to my post asking questions about the socio-economic diversity of the New Urbanism, my student Ray Denecke (OU ’09) writes:
“I am not an expert on New Urbanism, however, I did live in Rosemary Beach, which is a New Urban type community in the panhandle of Florida and I also worked for and worked in Seaside, another (and probably the first in the country to spark the trend) New Urban development. Many people think of Seaside and Rosemary Beach as resort communities, and essentially, they are. However, the concept was to create a new urbanism where people could work, live, and play all within a very close proximity to their residences - Seaside is approx. 80 acres and maintains a very vibrant retail/services central hub of town. Oddly though, I would guess that 95 percent of the people who work in Seaside or for Seaside do not live there because the market is astronomical . . . I haven't checked recently, but a 1200 square foot home (not on the beach) goes for about one million dollars. So while the concept of new urbanism is grand, the practicality of it is not, especially when one of the purposes, if you will, of creating such communities is to foster diversty (see New Urbanism website). My experience has been that most of these communities cater to the very wealthy considering the lots on which homes are built (some are often no bigger than 40' by 80') cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, some even reaching above a million dollars. Duany Plater Zyberk (Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk - she is now the Dean of the School of Architecture at the University of Miami) has had a hand in creating dozens of these types of communities. They have created the mold from which many others have followed. Unfortunately, most, if not all, of their developments are very expensive and located in resort areas, especially in Florida and other coastal states or mountainous states. Another unfortunate result has been that those who follow DPZ's lead, tend to create their communities for more affluent people. Thus, I think these communities that exist now and are currently under construction are quite insulated from the diversity they claim to desire. Not only on a socio-economic scale, but on other planes as well. When I lived in and worked in those developments I very rarely saw any persons who represented another race other than whites. These types of developments displace less affluent people in a number of ways. My experience was that when new homes were built in these developments, the homes immediately surrounding the development increased in value. Perhaps this prices-out those who would otherwise afford to live in the area sans the development. And who knows, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that developers are paying top dollar for existing structures in order to renovate them to create these developments or to tear them down to build up the development - I think this is referred to as Urban Infill in the industry. Anyway, I hope this was helpful.”
Are there examples of successful socio-economic integration in New Urbanism projects?
Monday, December 31, 2007
I just returned from a wedding in Austin. While there, I ventured over to the Apple Store in a new development called the Domain, which was written up in the Wall Street Journal a few months ago. Although I was attracted to this mixed used urban environment, I left with a certain discomfort. In his excellent essay in yesterday's Post, Eduardo says: "We may discover that it's not so bad living closer to work, in transit- and pedestrian-friendly, diverse neighborhoods where we run into friends and neighbors as we walk to the store, school or the office."
Although the Domain is a mixed use (office, retail, and housing), pedestrian-friendly place where one could run into friends and neighbors on the street it was strikingly not diverse, at least from a socio-economic standpoint. And, my sense is that many of New Urbanism projects are not socio-economically diverse. An article in USA Today on upscale urban living in Texas said: "As baby boomers became empty nesters, their desire for convenience and fun suddenly merged with those of young professionals. Both groups are flocking to urban settings."
This raises several questions in my mind. Will affluent people want to live in proximity with less affluent people? If not, will the New Urbanism create new types of economic segregation, in some cases even displacing the less affluent to make way for new or refurbished development? Or, will market realities force a socio-economic mixing? Any thoughts?
Monday, December 24, 2007
"Heaven does not belong to the geography of space, but to the geography of the heart. And the heart of God, during the Holy Night, stooped down to the stable: the humility of God is Heaven. And if we approach this humility, then we touch Heaven. Then the Earth too is made new. With the humility of the shepherds, let us set out, during this Holy Night, towards the Child in the stable! Let us touch God's humility, God's heart! Then his joy will touch us and will make the world more radiant. Amen."
This is the end of the Pope's homily tonight. The rest of the homily can be found at Zenit.
Rather than quote Hollenbach or anyone else on Farley's book "Just Love," why don't we get into it ourselves. I offered a little of my own thought on the matter the other day, and Fr. Araujo has done the same. Michael P., why do you find her "dissenting" views compelling? What has the Church missed that she offers? In what way does she offer a more convincing view of sexual ethics than Wojtyla? Why? In other words lets get into the substance of her arguments and compare them with Wojtyla/JPII as set forth in "Love and Responsibility" and the "Theology of the Body." In addition to Michael P., I invite others who have read the book - both bloggers and readers - to weigh in.
Merry Christmas!
“When Might Becomes Human Right: Essays on Democracy and the Crisis of Rationality.” It is probably too late to put this book under the tree for Christmas but perhaps visitors from the East could bring it on January 6.
Mary Ann Glendon describes both the author and the book: “Janne Haaland Mátlary has devoted her life to questions of ethics and politics. This preoccupation has become extraordinarily relevant to many of the issues that dominate the contemporary political agenda; particularly in Europe where the debate over relativism, human rights and majority tyranny has become a vital concern to very many of its citizens. Combining academic research with an active political life as a diplomat serving both her native Norway and the Holy See, Janne Haaland Mátlary is able to offer us profound insights into the importance of human dignity and human rights in current politics. This book is essential reading for all who are concerned with issues of rationality, law, human rights, politics and religious freedom in European democracy today. As an academic, studying political science, her work has concentrated on security and foreign policy. She makes a strong case that foundations for human rights can be found through human reason, specifically, through retrieving and reanimating the classical tradition of rationalism that was once the pride of western civilization . She builds her analysis of politics with far more promising materials than the instrumental rationality and the radically individualistic concept of the person that have prevented the human rights movement thus far from reaching its full potential.”
Janne Haaland Matláry is Professor of International Politics in the Department of Political Science of the University of Oslo, Norway, and Senior Adjunct Researcher in Security Policy at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs. She was State Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Deputy Foreign Minister) of Norway 1997-2000, representing the Christian Democratic Party in the Bondevik government. Her main academic fields are the European Union and international security policy. She has published very widely and played significant roles in a number of international and consultative bodies. In April 2007 she was awarded Il Premio San Benedetto. Her biographical narrative of conversion to the Catholic Church, Faith Through Reason, is also published by Gracewing.
HT: Zenit
Sunday, December 23, 2007
At Michael P.'s suggestion, I read Margaret Farley's book "Just Love." As you might expect, he and I have a different assessment of her work. Here is my Amazon review of her book:
Much of this book is devoted to the history of sexual and marital practices in the West and to a cross-cultural comparison in an attempt to develop a framework for a contemporary Christian sexual ethic. Although the picture she paints is far from complete (she does not, for example, cite or engage John Witte's important work on the development of marriage in Christianity), Farley does provide enough of a picture to draw three conclusions: Throughout history and across cultures, societies have regulated the sexual passions, channeling them mostly into heterosexual marriage involving either monogamy or polygyny; in both patrilineal and matrilineal socities, women were often subordinated to men; and polygyny presents special dangers to women's equality.
Against this backdrop, Farley provides a framework for "just sex" centering it around seven criteria: do no unjust harm, free consent, mutuality, equality, commitment, fruitfulness, and social justice.
But, how to apply this framework in the concrete reality of people's lives? It is here that Farley sounds like a broken record from the 1960's or 1970's. For her, "commitment" is conditional and contingent because life is often too hard and full of unexpected surprises to live a permanent and unconditional commitment. Instead of offering an ethic that provides tools and understanding so that we can strengthen our commitment, she prefers to dilute the whole idea of commitment. She sees the pain of young girls who "hook up" in uncommitted sex "because they want relationships, though they seek them in vain in the practices that make relationships unnecessary." (p. 234) And, she sees young men ("who appear to enjoy these practices more than girls") taking advantage of "sexual partners almost without limit" with no need for commitment. (Ibid.). Yet, the most she can offer them is that we try to teach them the principles of sex that is just.
Today's young people who have suffered through their parents' broken commitments and who know the alienation and loneliness of the "hook up" culture, want more, need more, and should demand more from those who propose to guide them into adulthood. Those who believe that "just sex" and "just relationships" are possible, should read Karol Wojtyla's groundbreaking work "Love and Responsibility" with, or better yet, instead of, Farley's book. My college age children asked me to read "Love and Responsibility" earlier in the year. Since reading it, I have come to believe that it will provide the foundation for Christian sexual ethics in the 21st century.
