Every once in awhile, I like to take some of the ideas I’ve expressed and drawn out in longer pieces and put them in one place for you to consider and comment on. I write a lot about this question of what “urbanism” is, what it means, the extent to which we can recapture it today, etc. Here are four arguments I’ve made about the nature of urbanism. Leave a comment agreeing, disagreeing, or adding your own angle!

This is a brief piece, because you’re the writers today. I’m just leaving these four here.

…Commerce at a small scale

…Doing density well

…Restoring continuity with pre-car American urban land use

…Separable from the classic or traditional urban form

I could explain further or quote myself or link to pieces where I’ve thrown these ideas around, but instead, I invite you to comment on what these lines mean to you (if, hopefully, anything).

One aspect I’m curious about is how “normal” people hear or read my work and that of other urbanists—what our ideas mean or how they sound without the full context. (Most of you, however, probably do have at least some of that context.) But, in any case, take it away!

Related Reading:

Discussion Statements

Discussion Statements #2

I’m From Walmart, New Jersey

Thank you for reading! Please consider upgrading to a paid subscription to help support this newsletter. You’ll get a weekly subscribers-only piece, plus full access to the archive: over 800 pieces and growing. And you’ll help ensure more like this!

Share