> Partly, I think this is an issue of
> planning vs. spontaneous development.
> Like Jacobs, I fall more on the side
> that the best cities are largely
> spontaneous. Imagine a city where
> food had long been provided free
> from municipal cafeterias, and because
> of this, there were few other choices
> available. The wrong answer is:
> let's first plan where to put new
> restaurants and groceries, and what
> kind of food they should serve.
It reminds me of going to New orleans this weekend and hearing a man
come into a gas station and tell the clerk "Im gonna kill your
muthaf***** a@@", They going down MLK to St.Charles less than a mile
away to an estate sale near Tulane University where there were stools
selling for close to $1000.
I couldnt imagine anyone coming up with the city plan for New Orleans
from scratch. Noone would ever encourage music (jazz)which was
associated with drug use and thuggery, poor people living in the
proximity of well-to-do people, noone would ever promote Mardi Gras's
nudity and public intoxication, but its what gave New Orleans it
Also much of the food in South Louisiana never existed until people
created it. If you head down Highway 61 between Baton Rouge and New
Orleans you will still find people fishing on the bayou so they can
cook their own food from scratch eventhough there are Mcdonalds and
When do people draw the line of when they can no longer tolerate
developments in society?
I ask this because of gentrification and the attempt to plan entire
cities (master plans) based on what one group likes while eliminating
everything we dont like (.ie this 3 parts arts, 2 parts mass transit,
4 parts organic food, 1 part parks and recreation formula). My point
is that even "negative" things can bring about positive change.
Maybe people are giving things too much thought.