Having followed the Sagebrush Rebel’s fantasies about taking over public lands for a long long time, I don’t think we should expect that energy to blend with Trump’s crony capitalism to produce anything innovative. One of the things you have to understand about these people is that whatever gets built is strictly a by-product. For them, it’s the rush of making the deal that counts. And to the extent they want to build, it will almost certainly be what they understand (and what’s easy): sprawl. I took a look at the site of one of the proposed freedom cities and will be saying something about that when I get back to my newsletter.
Suburbanization, I think, is Homesteading 2.0. The family farm was an economically isolated system, where distances between households and lack of ready cash made them commercially unappealing. If they were lucky, and ambitious peddler or itinerant artisan might visit occasionally. Mail order catalogues helped when farmers could pay the higher freight charges.
I believe urbanists typically exaggerate the social isolation of the suburbs. But urbanists could make the economic isolation of the suburbs into a sharper critique. Amazon and Etsy (who do not charge for freight) have replaced Sears and Spiegel, but suburbs remain isolated as actual homesteaders were in the late 19th-century. They have few prospects for selling their services and goods within their neighborhoods, in sharp contrast to urban neighborhoods, which are rich in opportunities for consumers and producers.
I think the question is who stands to profit off public land being turned into housing. Once you answer that question you will have a good idea of what will get built. My guess is it isn’t people doing innovative things with housing, but rather the large developers and production builders which will mean more of the same. Call me cynical, particularly where this administration is concerned…
Having followed the Sagebrush Rebel’s fantasies about taking over public lands for a long long time, I don’t think we should expect that energy to blend with Trump’s crony capitalism to produce anything innovative. One of the things you have to understand about these people is that whatever gets built is strictly a by-product. For them, it’s the rush of making the deal that counts. And to the extent they want to build, it will almost certainly be what they understand (and what’s easy): sprawl. I took a look at the site of one of the proposed freedom cities and will be saying something about that when I get back to my newsletter.
Totally fair and reasonable expectation. I look forward to reading what you write!
CoHousing is another development option to build highly functional neighborhoods.
Yep, and pocket neighborhoods are similar but retain a bit more independence.
Suburbanization, I think, is Homesteading 2.0. The family farm was an economically isolated system, where distances between households and lack of ready cash made them commercially unappealing. If they were lucky, and ambitious peddler or itinerant artisan might visit occasionally. Mail order catalogues helped when farmers could pay the higher freight charges.
I believe urbanists typically exaggerate the social isolation of the suburbs. But urbanists could make the economic isolation of the suburbs into a sharper critique. Amazon and Etsy (who do not charge for freight) have replaced Sears and Spiegel, but suburbs remain isolated as actual homesteaders were in the late 19th-century. They have few prospects for selling their services and goods within their neighborhoods, in sharp contrast to urban neighborhoods, which are rich in opportunities for consumers and producers.
I think the question is who stands to profit off public land being turned into housing. Once you answer that question you will have a good idea of what will get built. My guess is it isn’t people doing innovative things with housing, but rather the large developers and production builders which will mean more of the same. Call me cynical, particularly where this administration is concerned…