No pretty picture today, instead some things to ponder. I invite my Facebook followers to click the link and read the full post, to click the links in the post to learn more.
Is it impossible to consider that some places which have been built within my lifetime may – should – go to seed or be abandoned altogether?
Once upon a time we thought it impossible, unthinkable, that people would willingly live in a place where they could not reasonably walk or ride a bike to go get a bag of milk. That major cities would declare bankruptcy, that a state would teeter on the edge. Well, here we are.
If Strong Towns has it right The Growth Ponzi Scheme, a land ‘development’ mode largely dependent on debt- and growth-fueled development, may have passed its prime. I find their message very persuasive. Their nonpartisan, nonpolitical approach contends that making places less car-oriented than is often the case now makes them more human-oriented, more profitable, more sustainable. Strong Towns maintains that in the long term, the inability of the suburbs to afford to maintain their infrastructure without subsidies or debt financing may dictate that some places will prosper, some will hang on, and some will drift into a state of neglect, disrepair, and abandonment.
Although Strong Towns focuses on the United States its message is relevant to Canada and Canadians.
I’m happy to be a Strong Towns member. I’m also happy living in a small rural town where I can choose to walk, bike – or drive – to accomplish many of lifes’ chores. Is it a Strong Town? It could be stronger, it could be much less strong.
It’s said that there are problems and there are dilemmas. It’s also said that problems have solutions and dilemmas have outcomes. Unwinding The Suburban Experiment in the least painful way for everyone invested in it is probably a dilemma.
Back on Thursday.
previouslytexan 