Heard of it. Have not read it. Should. There was an article in Scientific American about 10 years ago that talked about urban planning and how everything we know is wrong. Wish I could find it again.
Ya should. I haven't read all of it (an urban planner's sin, I know, but I've put it on the top of my reading list) but basically she explains why most theories and policies up to that point completely forget why they exist: to create better urban life for people. She brought planning back to a human scale, based on interaction between people and the safety of the crowds instead of individualistic safety-bubble enlarging movements. Here's the intro which is a clear indication of what the book's about. Also, tell me when you find that SA article, I'd like to read it too.
I found the entire Scientific American issue on some Russian site. Article is on page 84. veen just going to tag you in case you miss this.
Yup. That's the one. sigh. 'member back when Scientific American didn't suck? Back when James Burke was still writing the "Connections" columns (digital pp. 81)? Back when the Morrisons still had a column (digital pp.79)? Back when it didn't suck bilgewater? yeah, I had a subscription back then. Badged 'cuz that urban growth article is totally worth reading. Nice job.
Great article indeed! For some reason I didn't receive a tag notification though. The article promotes New Urbanism but fails to mention criticisms. I've discussed it before here.
Hey veen and kleinbl00: I picked up The New Urban Landscape this past weekend for a few bucks. Have either of you read it?
Have not. Interesting. I may have to add it to my list; this one makes the argument that the modern middle class is due to the invention of the Star Fort. I suspect they've got some similar things to say. Me? I'm slogging through Piketty. That's some dry ass shit.
Haven't read it either, ButterflyEffect. Based on what I could find about it, it seems to be based on Frederik Law Olmstead's work, which was a surprisingly modern view for his time. I do wonder if this book adds much to the "parks are good for y'all yo" statement by Olmstead, which is not so new anymore in 1986. I think it can be a nice book on the American planning history. Added to reading list. Why are you reading Piketty? Thought you didn't want to get bit again.
Yeah but it's well documented now what a load of bullshit that FT article is. Was reasonable to assume that they woudl do their homework, but apparently could be bothered. According to Krugman, many of their critiques were based on assumptions that had been debunked as long as 20 years ago.
True, I forgot about that. But still, I didn't expect kb to pick it up since it's a gigantic work and undergoing hype which it may not deserve. Good critique of such a work takes quite some time. Personally, I think I'm gonna read it next year or a similar timeframe.
When FT launched their witch hunt it ended up looking awfully insubstantial. When the dust settled everyone was left going "...so?" And since everyone is still talking about it, I figured I oughtta give it a read. It's dry as dust though. I think I'm a third of the way through it on Audible and it's been like listening to the Farm Report for nine hours straight.
I'll let you know. The first part is "Hi, I'm an economist who hates economists because they don't like data or math. I'm going to drown you in data and try really hard not to drown you in math, so we're not going to get into anything beyond algebra. That said, kindly indulge me as I summarize four hundred years of economic data interspersed briefly with anecdotes from the popular literature of the period." Of the 27 hours of the audiobook, there's nine hours of that shit. Necessary? Yes. Interesting? Not remotely. The second part, so far is "Now that I've beaten you over the head with my data, allow me to walk you through my findings. Hey, check it out: we've gotten progressively more fucked since 1970." So in all honesty, I'm at the spot where it should get more interesting. It's maybe kind of starting to. Put it this way: I've stuck with it, despite the fact that it's a less-than-engaging read. I do feel like I'm eating giant plates of spinach, though.
Thanks for the input both of you, I'll have to post an update once I get through the book. It seems interesting at the least. Piketty sounds like...not a lot of fun.