⌂ city (planning) conundrums

As a good urbanist, I know I’m supposed to put the physical city experience first: nothing substitutes for the sidewalk ballet, never bet against New York, touch grass, convert offices to housing, if you are tired of the city you are tired of life.

Yet Flushing grew and flourished as a working-class neighborhood despite being far from the urban core; without high-tech and high-skilled workers; without bike lanes; without green roofs; without meaningful community participation in the public process; without affordable housing either, really.

It’s unclear what urban planning theory has to offer a place built on thrift, austerity, and curated discomfort. How are you supposed to improve a neighborhood except by making it more comfortable, greener, prettier, more connected, more inviting, cooler?

Our experience of living in the city, our understanding of why things are the way they are, or why things might be different in the future, no longer track neatly onto land use patterns or zoning regulations. We still lead our everyday flesh-and-blood lives, interacting with a few people and places, constrained by the physical limits of time and... See more