Development

A Levittown Development

I live in an urban environment. My street, a mixture of 19th and early 20th century residential buildings, flows into an area of random industrial growth of the mid-to-late 20th century. As one business owner down there exclaimed in a recent civic association meeting, "It's a war zone!" He exaggerated, of course. 

The reality of burgeoning population growth and the rising of Boston as a popular 21st-century city are making that "war zone" prime real estate for new development. Acres and acres of undeveloped and sparsely built-upon urban soil. A city-planner's ideal canvas. 

However, this post-Reagan business age is not much into urban planning, or any planning. It is into quick profit with little concern for community or quality of life. A recent apartment building proposal in the area has raised the hairs on the necks of the NIMBY contingent. The result is a scaling down from 26 units to 22 units on a lot which would have accommodated 9 units in three buildings back in the day. Well, we are obviously not back in the day.

I felt scolded indirectly after a comment I made at association meeting. I had simply supported the notion that buildings must be built in a capitalist system according to cost effectiveness. I certainly did not defend the system, but I wanted to inject a whiff of reality in the discussion which had been dominated by the NIMBY contingent. I wanted to suggest the paving of a middle path. After all, an attractive brick apartment building with contained parking trumps the trash, weeds and rodents of the current "war zone". 

The scolding came from, of all places, the local city councilor, who stated from one side of his mouth that his family were "involved in local development". He himself owns a local cafe and a local restaurant. "It is not the function of this group to even consider cost effectiveness," he began, as he looked in my direction. Hmm, I thought, Doth he protest too loudly?

Development is contested by at least three major groups, as I have seen it. The NIMBY contingent are boilerplate reactionaries. They do not want change, no matter how they decry the present condition of an area. They are looking for salvation ...hoping for a new messiah of urban planning to make it pretty without changing anything. A second group wants anything done as soon as possible as long as it is better than what exists now, as long as it  fits its ideals of the "perfect neighborhood". This often includes playgrounds on every corner and visions of a parade of baby strollers on tree-lined sidewalks. A third group are the builders themselves, usually in concert with politicians who are looking for campaign contributions. They are in the shadows behind lawyers and architects. They don't want to live "there". They just want profit. 

The random and unscientific approach of government in urban development has left us with car-congested cities, wind-tunnel streets, segregated neighborhoods for the haves and the have-nots. Robert Moses, perhaps one of the most destructive human beings who has graced the modern landscapes of America, destroyed historic neighborhoods with glee. Turned small residential streets into vast plazas between monolithic high-rises. Destroyed urban mobility by destroying the street trolley system in favor of the automobile and the bus. His legacy is slowly dissolving to the benefit of all urbanites.

Attending my civic association meetings is seldom enjoyable, but I do it as part of my practice of being a responsible citizen. I believe a humanist must be engaged on a grass roots level if positive change is to develop in society. The area of urban development illuminates the true nature of life in an overpopulated environment. It cries out for scientific rationality, which is seldom found within its process.