Brainstorm of what our critics would say

This free write is dedicated to thinking about the questions that critics will have about our research. Ellen and I already brainstormed this topic in my last post but I figure I'll do it one more time as an exercise.

The first thing that pops into mind is the critic saying that 1) Europe isn't any better than the US, they just have historically higher density. They have as much dysfunction as we do. 2) Europe 's success is derived from their past--the fact that those places were built pre-car. There isn't really any difference in thinking between Europe and North America.

Those are fearsome critiques because they require some strong research to contradict. But one nice thing I can do is compare the ambition of the city plans between European and North American cities. When you see that Heidelberg's plan in 2010 calls for connecting all neighborhoods with tram service, there is no way that a place like Boston would make that statement yet, or even Montréal. It demonstrates evidence of difference of opinion about modern planning. As far as actions themselves, not just statements, I think we can find a lot of evidence that places that were dominated by cars in Europe have been given back to pedestrians, without significant difference in density between there and North America. Thus the changes could happen in many places in North America if there were a political cliimate for it. Critics might also contend that these European public places lack greenery and wild areas that we have in North America. I'm not sure, though, that our cities and suburbs have more green space than theirs, respectively. Critics might also contend that Europe doesn't actually care more about its people but is simply being forced to make these changes earlier for lack of oil and other resources that otherwise enable a car culture. So I'm looking for some evidence that these European cities actually do care more about their people, history, and culture than American cities. Let's look at the business development critiques. U.S. critics might say that the efforts in urban space in Europe are actually damaging to free enterprise--that it represents government playing to great a roll in the shaping of public and private property. Since most of thiese projects are in public space, the bigger argument might be about govermnet meddling too much with transportation choices. I don't think any of these arguments hold any water though, since the streets are public and there is a long proven history throughout the world of both government and private industry working independently and together to establish improtant right of ways. The same thing can be said o roads for cars. Any other obvious critiques.

How about the density critique again? People in these places live in small cramped space without their own outdoor space. I'm not sure this is much difference than North American urban spaces. Nevertheless, I think we need to look at quailty of life to answer the question. It may be true that the Europeans have smalller spaces and spend less time in their homes, but if they are out in the public space for a significant period of time, it's hard to argue that they are enjoing themselves less than Aemricans that sit in their bigger homes.

Let me think of some of the critique from last night's writing class. One is that a lot of people like driving, they like the horsepower. Well a lot of people like a lot of bad things, like smoking and fist fights. That doesn't make them right, but they may be convenient ways to solve problems. Just as buying slave labor products is convenient but by no means moraly acceptable.

How about the child and elderly critiques? Again, I think we're making public space that is better for them and improved transit coverage is more valuale to theese demographics who are less likely to own cars. One good angle is to say that  we're not trying to make Europe in North America, but we're trying to make a better North America that may borrow some ideas from Europe.