4 ms·

> we need deurbanization not in the USA model of suburbs but in the "Riviera model" of the EU, meaning spread homes AND workspace intermixed, with a string push

> we need deurbanization not in the USA model of suburbs but in the "Riviera model" of the EU, meaning spread homes AND workspace intermixed, with a string push to the home office, meaning homes where most people work and live in the same place I think you have something here. I'm not sure I agree with the "deurbanization" idea, and I'm not sure what this "Riviera" style would be, but I do note that some of what you're describing is also possible in urban environments, for example in Asian cities (or European cities a few generations back, the ancestral knowledge of which has been forgotten), where sole proprietors and family businesses operated in the way you describe. Moreover, it's possible in second and third tier American cities, where prices have not forced out ordinary people. Indeed, there are many semi-abandoned towns with good urban cores, ready to be revitalized, a la Strongtowns. Individual ownership is entirely achievable in such places, but it does also hinge on a degree of coordination with others, because no one person can single-handedly bring a Main Street back to life and make it desirable again; a critical mass is required. It is this failure of individuals and small businesses to coordinate that makes them easy prey for the megacorps creating our dystopia. Possibly a new mechanism for social organization in the vein of the joint stock corporation, HOA, traditional Chamber of Commerce, or even city government could solve the problem. Maybe that's what we need: Small-town mayors with the attitude of CEOs (let us not be led down the path of messiahs/fuhrers, however). Something requiring more active civic participation. (Perhaps the multiplication of university administrators can also be seen as symptomatic of students' abandonment of self-government. Is this because they are too diverse to form a democratic collective with a collective will? Or are the muscles just unexercised?) This requires more thought, or, better, more active experimentation. I do see an objection to over-urbanization, which is that a too-large city becomes divorced from its agricultural surrounds, becomes food-insecure, dependent on outside sources of food -- at which point the giant agricorps enter. A more permaculture-type vision is appealing, but it doesn't seem compatible with cities over a certain size. Smallish cities and largish towns, however, can be totally compatible with this style, and nearly all European cities fall into this category (they are all small). Stepping back just a little, I do also think you're onto something with your emphasis on defining a future. That's why this kind of musing may have some thing value: Perhaps it helps in the imagining of such a future. It must lead to action and experimentation, however, to really be valuable.

kkfx 3y ago
Thanks and sorry for my poor English, re-reading my post well... makes me see the mess... Since "Riviera model" is not something "formally described" in literature I suggest looking at French Riviera (Mediterranean northern part of France costs) or old Riviera Ligure or Riviera Romagnola (Italy), you'll see a series of old villages that in the past was distinct with their own shops, activities, services, but being grown they have touched each other forming a kind of single spread area, still subdivided administratively, but you do not notice any division except for some road signs and you see a continuous mix of single family homes, a small shed witch is a small supermarket or a blacksmith or a furnishings/windows maker, carpenter, small construction company, ... in a valley a glass factory making both window glass, bottles, in another a solid waste company and so on, a sort of graph where nodes are are here residential, here business of any kind ad if you take no matter witch node you still see around in a near range essentially any service you might need and various kind of local jobs available. Some people are static, but most move, in the end an area or another looks like the same, following a relatively alive and kicking small scale real estate, moving means keeping change the local service/works mix, plans to avoid too much concrete in a natural landscape force such move avoiding concentration and the "spread" area is still dense enough to offer anything, but not to dense to stop evolution, so a shed of a supermarket today became a home tomorrow and an old home became a new shed for a blacksmith etc. A kind on unstable equilibrium that while it keep change at a higher zoom level it's pretty stable. I speak about it because as a former young ex globetrotter that have seen many big cities and some years ago having choose a different life in French Alps I see this model as the most effective I've seen all other the world. Around me I have essentially al services, still being in nature, having at a short range a little Silicon Valley (Sophia Antipolis), not too far a local nuclear research center, various touristic amenities, a gazillion of small companies with most people living a relaxed and still productive life, with very wealthy an somewhat poor people living not more distant than in a big city and no too much different living condition to fracture the still moderately dense society. Meanwhile on EU cities, well, they are simply too dense to been able to evolve. Most are old mess where any change is a nightmare, just digging the ground to repair a pipe it's a mess: nobody clearly knows whats under the ground to a point that's perfectly normal having here and there an HV electricity cable cut by a excavator hitting it (old lines have no warning signal above them), or a pipe cut while repairing the HV line and so on. Cities to spend big money just to change small areas even making here and there good results, but they are still unable to offer good quality of leaving and no path to really evolve. In the end despite all the advertisement about future cities the green new deal can't exists in them. The green new deal imply new different buildings and building them demand free space for the construction site, people relocation and so on. EU cities was designed to go by feet in work intensive jobs, now we have far less work intensive jobs and we need much more room for various stuff than the past, they are incompatible even more than large US zoned cities. It's not only a divorce from nature, all cities and most urban people do not know nature, try with some kids asking where milk came from and you'll find many saying "from the supermarket". It's the whole food industry than have to change. If you live in a spread area you go to a restaurant perhaps as frequent as in a big city but you also have food stock at home, so there is far less packing because being surrounded by nature means also being able to buy some locally made food, so it's normal for instance for me go buying olive oil at ~80km from my home in 10l can and bottle it at home, similarly for wine in demijohns, having less "quick service" it's normal to make some sausages at home so buying 30-60kg of pork, prepare and casing the meat at home, living it few days hanging in a fridge than freeze portioned the rest. This means less packing, bigger quantity, a different shopping model that perfectly match modern logistics and on-line retail, allowing still for efficient transport because once the online retail became glocal for real, so a neighborhood normally buy local product on line since they known them already local logistics and modern digital tools allow for a better efficiency than last-mile supermarkets. People move less for living while keep moving for pleasure, and economy keep turning at an efficient and not tied nor exaggerated peace. Only aspect: the big&powerful loose to the small and medium, and they do dislike it... While many fear being "independent", knowing they are not accustomed to manage themselves, having no discipline without someone who command and put them in assembly line. This mix is IMVHO damn nasty.

kkfx 3y ago

Thanks and sorry for my poor English, re-reading my post well... makes me see the mess... Since "Riviera model" is not something "formally described" in literature I suggest looking at French Riviera (Mediterranean northern part of France costs) or old Riviera Ligure or Riviera Romagnola (Italy), you'll see a series of old villages that in the past was distinct with their own shops, activities, services, but being grown they have touched each other forming a kind of single spread area, still subdivided administratively, but you do not notice any division except for some road signs and you see a continuous mix of single family homes, a small shed witch is a small supermarket or a blacksmith or a furnishings/windows maker, carpenter, small construction company, ... in a valley a glass factory making both window glass, bottles, in another a solid waste company and so on, a sort of graph where nodes are are here residential, here business of any kind ad if you take no matter witch node you still see around in a near range essentially any service you might need and various kind of local jobs available. Some people are static, but most move, in the end an area or another looks like the same, following a relatively alive and kicking small scale real estate, moving means keeping change the local service/works mix, plans to avoid too much concrete in a natural landscape force such move avoiding concentration and the "spread" area is still dense enough to offer anything, but not to dense to stop evolution, so a shed of a supermarket today became a home tomorrow and an old home became a new shed for a blacksmith etc. A kind on unstable equilibrium that while it keep change at a higher zoom level it's pretty stable. I speak about it because as a former young ex globetrotter that have seen many big cities and some years ago having choose a different life in French Alps I see this model as the most effective I've seen all other the world. Around me I have essentially al services, still being in nature, having at a short range a little Silicon Valley (Sophia Antipolis), not too far a local nuclear research center, various touristic amenities, a gazillion of small companies with most people living a relaxed and still productive life, with very wealthy an somewhat poor people living not more distant than in a big city and no too much different living condition to fracture the still moderately dense society. Meanwhile on EU cities, well, they are simply too dense to been able to evolve. Most are old mess where any change is a nightmare, just digging the ground to repair a pipe it's a mess: nobody clearly knows whats under the ground to a point that's perfectly normal having here and there an HV electricity cable cut by a excavator hitting it (old lines have no warning signal above them), or a pipe cut while repairing the HV line and so on. Cities to spend big money just to change small areas even making here and there good results, but they are still unable to offer good quality of leaving and no path to really evolve. In the end despite all the advertisement about future cities the green new deal can't exists in them. The green new deal imply new different buildings and building them demand free space for the construction site, people relocation and so on. EU cities was designed to go by feet in work intensive jobs, now we have far less work intensive jobs and we need much more room for various stuff than the past, they are incompatible even more than large US zoned cities. It's not only a divorce from nature, all cities and most urban people do not know nature, try with some kids asking where milk came from and you'll find many saying "from the supermarket". It's the whole food industry than have to change. If you live in a spread area you go to a restaurant perhaps as frequent as in a big city but you also have food stock at home, so there is far less packing because being surrounded by nature means also being able to buy some locally made food, so it's normal for instance for me go buying olive oil at ~80km from my home in 10l can and bottle it at home, similarly for wine in demijohns, having less "quick service" it's normal to make some sausages at home so buying 30-60kg of pork, prepare and casing the meat at home, living it few days hanging in a fridge than freeze portioned the rest. This means less packing, bigger quantity, a different shopping model that perfectly match modern logistics and on-line retail, allowing still for efficient transport because once the online retail became glocal for real, so a neighborhood normally buy local product on line since they known them already local logistics and modern digital tools allow for a better efficiency than last-mile supermarkets. People move less for living while keep moving for pleasure, and economy keep turning at an efficient and not tied nor exaggerated peace. Only aspect: the big&powerful loose to the small and medium, and they do dislike it... While many fear being "independent", knowing they are not accustomed to manage themselves, having no discipline without someone who command and put them in assembly line. This mix is IMVHO damn nasty.