How We Live Matters: City Design in the Modern Age, Part 1

-This is part one in a series about city design and the perception of modern-day communities-

It’s a sunny winter day as I maneuver my bicycle from Norman’s Boyd Street to Porter Avenue and finally onto Main Street, rolling toward my favorite coffee shop. The gears click harmoniously with my perpetual leg motions and – for now at least – everything seems at peace in the world. The weather is bliss, I’m riding on two wheels (a favorite pastime) and I’m not in a car. All tenets of the good life.

But why does simply riding a bike to the local coffee shop incite so much contentment? Is it just me, or is there more to the equation? I believe I can offer some answers.

Think about it for a moment. If you could live anywhere, or in any way, what would your life look like?

I am, of course, speaking of how you live in terms of community and city design.

So the question remains: how would you choose to live? Would your dream more resemble American society’s way of life, that is one largely characterized by car commutes and suburban neighborhoods? Or, would your ideal take on a more Manhattan-esque flair, with a fast-paced pedestrian life filling your idyllic dream-scape?

It’s different for everyone, but most of us would probably hit somewhere in the middle of these two paradigms. But, is there an ideal way to live? Or, at least one that is beneficial for the greatest number of people?

Whether we know it or not, we’ve all been subject to the persuasive forces of the Industrial Revolution, and the more recent car-dominated way of life.

The Revolution and pervasiveness of automobiles restructured the aim of city design. As University of Notre Dame Architecture professor Philip Bess writes:

“Today’s common wisdom is different. It views the city as governed by impersonal market forces, and devotes little thought to the good life or to the relation cities might have to the good life.”

In past times, Bess (among others) states, city design had two purposes: moral and aesthetic greatness. Cities strove for beauty while caring for their citizens (i.e., the “good life”, simply defined). These purposes shaped city design and trumped the notions of the individual. Indeed, the dominant interest was the benefit of society as a whole. This is an important distinction to make, as it can differ from a more modern view in which the parts often dictate the whole (e.g., what makes me happy is more important that what’s good for society).

In my own dreams, I would live somewhere in which I could walk or bike everywhere: To work, to church, to school, the grocery store, my friends’ houses. All manner of services and social functions would be easily accessible. Ideally this would put me in meaningful contact with my neighbors. It would allow me to know them deeply and to help them when in need (and vice versa).

Obviously, in 21st century America, this super pedestrianism is not a reality in the grand sense. I drive many if not most places, and my dream for society will likely remain just that, at least in the near future.

But others had a pedestrian dream far before I did. And certainly cities of old were ones populated by people on foot. As Bess writes in his essay Design Matters: The City and the Good Life:

“Systematic philosophical thinking about urbanism antedates Christianity, going back to Aristotle, who wrote some four centuries before Christ that the best life for human beings is lived in community with others, and most particularly in a polis. This “city-state” was typically small in scale, with flexible but definite physical and geographic characteristics. It happened also to approximate the size of subsequent historic towns and urban neighborhoods— and for an obvious reason: it is an area that can be comfortably
walked.”

So you can argue that the modern-day building practices of sprawling metropolises go against historic city designs that once dominated the landscape.

People, Aristotle believed, were meant to live in small, pedestrian communities of diverse patronage comprising multiple generations. It’s a lifestyle that is increasingly absent in modern times. Even if you actively wanted to live such a life, it would be difficult today for many Americans.

In terms of negative effects, I personally think modern neighborhood design is one of the largest enablers of prolonged racial and socio-economic inequality in the modern age. Granted, people can’t truly be forced to desegregate (as history has taught us), but think of your own experiences. If you grew up in the ‘burbs like me, your upbringing was largely homogeneous in terms of ethnicity and relative social class.

I think higher-density neighborhoods comprising multiple economic classes and age generations would do much for society. I realize the difficulties of such an endeavor, but am cognizant of the positive outcomes.

I’m not saying suburban sprawl is inherently evil, but we should be conscious about how it shapes our culture. We should also be mindful about how modern city design encourages the liberal consumption of natural resources and increases utility infrastructure costs (which, in turn costs tax payers more money).

As one indicator, consider that in 1970, Americans drove an average of 4,000 miles per year per person. Today that average rests at about 8,000 per person per year. A stark reminder of a burgeoning problem.

But the winds of change are upon us, friends. Not necessarily in the form of a city design revolution, but the proof is in the markets: commercial and residential properties are increasingly more valuable if they have pedestrian access to life’s essentials.

There’s a reason why, in college towns, homes are valued more if they’re near the university (as is the case in my own home town of Norman, Okla.). In a simple way, people want to be close to cultural and social hubs.

And with the Green movement spreading its wings in myriad ways, more people are desiring a throwback to our city design roots for environmental reasons. And land developers are listening.

In the end, I believe people want to be close to their neighbors, their friends and their work places. And they want to use their own power — as much as possible — to get there. I realize this paradigm isn’t a possibility for everyone or all situations, but it’s a worthwhile pursuit nevertheless.

I’m pumped because maybe, just maybe, there’s hope for my dream becoming a reality after all.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
My next installment will focus on what’s being done locally (Oklahoma City area) and nationally to change the face of modern neighborhoods and communities. There are a number of organizations, city governments and you, the people, who are actively at work to transform the future and with it our cultural landscape. Please stay tuned for part two!

Sex Robots versus Real Women

If I were a woman, I would be troubled by the situation. But, as a man it still bothers me quite a bit.

If you’ve seen the clips coming out of Las Vegas in the past week about Roxxxy, the “world’s first sex robot”, which was debuted in the Adult Entertainment Expo, then perhaps you were taken aback, too.

And certainly this is nothing entirely new, in terms of what the adult film and entertainment industry has produced up to this point.

But, the idea that an inanimate, robot doll could replace real women strikes me as offensive on two counts: as fortifying the construction of women as mere objects for men’s desires, and in coloring men as shallow, single-minded sex addicts.

The $7,000 rubber doll comes in five personality types and is said to be able to, in simple terms, talk to its partners and even snore when asleep. Douglas Hines, the doll’s inventor, says the doll is primarily for companionship and notes the doll is able to say things like “I love holding hands with you.”

While Roxxy will likely remain an obscure adult market item, I wonder about the broader impacts it, as well as the industry at large, has on our culture. It’s true that most will never encounter the 120-pound doll in our everyday lives, but what are the collateral effects?

Is “her” presence in our society merely neutral? What does the presence of such female-objectifying products teach us about respecting women? And now, as pornography tops the internet charts as 25 percent of all search engine queries, the situation is getting noticeably harder to ignore and demands consideration like an awkward, shadowy elephant in our cultural room.

And, as that porn-industry elephant grows with time, it is getting harder to even talk about it as a potentially bad idea, much less shoo it away entirely as a cultural liberation movement gone wrong.

Author and political consultant Naomi Wolf argues that pornography and the objectification of women actually turns men off to the real world and to real women.  Wolf has written several books about such issues, and also makes her case in her New York Magazine article “The Porn Myth”:

“For most of human history, erotic images have been reflections of, or celebrations of, or substitutes for, real naked women. For the first time in human history, the images’ power and allure have supplanted that of real naked women. Today, real naked women are just bad porn.”

She also opines that women are at a marked disadvantage in the modern age and must compete with what the pornography industry purports is true femininity. To be real is to be undesirable, or so the logic goes. We would likely disagree with this notion on principle, but have there been more subversive subliminal effects? If so, what are they?

As many people would classify romantic relationships as something beautifully complex and sacred, the effects of a simplistic, robot counterfeit shouldn’t go unmeasured. Certainly this is one cultural elephant that is worth our consideration.

‘Camp Happy’ a difficult one to find

It’s a hard truth to swallow, but in reality nothing stays the same for long.

It’s a natural inclination in life to grasp those moments and respites when things are good. When friends are near, family is placid…when there’s a chilled beverage in your hand and your team is up by three touchdowns with BCS scenarios on the line.

And we like to march into those moments and set up camp. We like to pitch our tents and say this…(this!) harmony is the new normal. I’m happy with my life and I’m never setting foot out of Camp Happy again. It’s farewell to the rest of the world, because by gum, I’m happy. And that’s all that matters.

But gee willikers, Batman! That’s just not reality.

Not that I’m coming off a particular loss of my own or stomaching an unwonted disturbance in The Force. But life has, over the past year, impressed on me the need to realize those moments of respite are not the norm. Indeed, those moments are the exception. They are beautiful moments of special grace and are to be cherished to the fullest. But normal? Hardly. A quick glance at the news reel over the past year will tell you that.

For about the past year I’ve had a blithe interest in the psychology of survival. Not really like Bear Grylls does it (although what he does is certainly along the same lines).

But why do some live and others don’t? Why do some cope and thrive and others implode into a fractionated existence of despair?

But more than knowing how to survive in the Amazon jungle by drinking your own urine (which, they say isn’t advisable, btw) and killing swamp rats for food, survival is an everyday commodity with everyday implications.

When the car doesn’t start. When you lose your job. When people fail you. When major life plans get messed up. When you’re lonely. When your life expectations are mercilessly trampled.

What do you do? How do you cope?
How do I cope?

Good questions, certainly. And ones we would all do well to vanquish with some meaty answers.

I’m reading the book “The Survivor’s Club: The Secrets and Science That Could Save Your Life.” I recommend it.

It says: “The best survivors understand that normal is just a fleeting state of mind. Indeed normalcy may seem steady and constant, but it’s really just the intermission between the chaos and messiness of life.

“Survivors accept that life probably won’t ever return to the way it used to be. So they let go, adapt, and embrace the ‘new normal.’”

Some pretty heavy words that can be quite anxiety-inducing just by reading them. To be certain these words bring much chaos to our tranquil, American Dream-laden Camp. But more and more I’m realizing that survival is a choice of sorts. We can’t choose our circumstances, but we can choose our responses.

And really, how in control of our lives are we anyway? Seriously. Think about the 1 million variables we have zero power over…

*Pause for antacid tablets.*

And now, with our nation and world at a unique point of tension with job loss, wars, roiling debt and self-serving politics on all sides, we have myriad real-life applications for survival. The stage is ours, in a sense. How will we perform? Like our own Discovery Channel docu-drama, will we make it out of the Amazon? And once we get out, will we ever find Camp Happy again, if only a remnant of its former glory?

The good news is that we all possess some tools to battle our perils. Affluence and stubbornness, among other factors, have merely blunted our survival A-game. But we can reclaim some of it with time and effort. If we realize that it’s sometimes good to struggle and that we can grow through it, then we don’t have to despair when life gives us an unexpected TKO. Indeed, the knock out reality becomes the new plan. The new normal.

It’s interesting, though, that we have to release our expectations and change in order to arrive at a new place of stability.

Do you let go of expectations? Do you change for the better?
Do I?

And are we truly confident of everything in our lives, to the point that change is bad? Even change for the better?

Gee willikers, Batman. Gee willikers, indeed.

But it’s not just about being a superhero and boot-strapping your way through the muck.It’s okay to be human. It’s okay to struggle. Okay to fail. And actually, it’s normal.

As the book says: “Survivors aren’t superheroes who vanquish adversity every time and live happily ever after…They’re regular people who win some and lose some.

“They overcome adversity but they don’t necessarily accomplish it in the same way. They aren’t always adaptable and optimistic; they feel stuck and gloomy, too.

“Ultimately what defines a survivor is the talent for making the most of life, however much remains.”