In a post blogger Eric Orozco called, ‘forerunner candidate for “most incisive blog post” of the year,’ Daniel Nairn of Discovering Urbanism discussed the seemingly conflicted camps of libertarianism when it comes to Urbanism. His observations are based upon the comments in the Volokh article on planning and walkability linked in the previous post.
Daniel (a non-libertarian) presents the opposing libertarian factions as The Wright Group, after Frank Lloyd Wright and his romanticism about individualistic prairie living and The Friedman Group, which “believes that the spatial distribution of development ought to be determined by a free market.”
The Wright group seems to favor optimizing individual autonomy through spatial living arrangements even if doing so requires centralizing economic and political authority to some extent. The Friedman group seems to favor optimizing individual autonomy through market decisions even if doing so results in more people living in situations where full control over private property is compromised in some way.
Daniel’s insightful choice of figureheads fascinates me from a philosophical point of view. Frank Lloyd Wright was hardly a libertarian, but had strong individualist tendencies, and is said to be the model for Howard Roark’s character in Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead
I think most would agree that The Friedman Group, as Daniel describes it, is more closely aligned with the thesis of Market Urbanism and the ideas of emergent order of the land marketplace. Hayek or even Rothbard may also be considered appropriate, although less famous substitutes as figurehead.
(note: I’m not sure what Daniel means by, “even if doing so results in more people living in situations where full control over private property is compromised in some way.” If he means more people choosing to live in multifamily dwellings and rentals, then I agree, and I’m perfectly fine with that outcome.)
In my opinion, The Wright Group is hardly libertarian. I would describe The Wright Group as either autonomists (as opposed to libertarians), or Free-Market impostors like Randal O’Toole who wave the free-market flag while turning a blind eye to the coercive distortions of road socialism and ubiquitous suburban zoning that prevent any deviation from segregated, single-family homes.
Above all, I appreciate Daniel’s intellectual exploration of libertarianism in relation to urbanism. Even if he doesn’t keep free-markets as his ideological worldview, his open-minded search for truth should give him an edge over thinkers who reject free-market concepts without any fair inquiry. Daniel’s post is a fantastic thought provoking piece, and I encourage all of you to read and coment for yourselves at Discovering Urbanism.
Benjamin Hemric says
May 22, 2009 at 2:58 amI haven’t had a chance to put together an in-depth comment on these various interesting threads, but here are some quick, tentative thoughts:
a) Although I’m intrigued by Daniel’s use of Frank Lloyd Wright and Milton Friedman as figureheads for the two camps, it seems to me that bringing Frank Lloyd Wright into the discussion is more likely to cloud the issues rather than clarify them (at least for me).
b) It seems to me that ONE BIG MISTAKE(of two) that’s being made by the so-called “anti-planning” group, let me call it the Randall O’Toole group, is that they’ve defined “planning” incorrectly — i.e., in a vague, inconsistent way. Having entire neighborhoods of detached single-family homes that are set apart from commercial and industrial districts, more or less permanently through government enforced zoning laws, is also “planning” — albeit in perhaps a more primitive, broad brush, and less stylistically detailed way than in the communities that have been planned by the New [Sub-]Urbanists. Same holds true for limited access highways (including toll roads) that are built via a government’s use of eminent domain (which seems to me to be the case — inevitably — for the vast majority of such roadways that are built). This is also “planning,” although of a more primitive, less au courant, kind.
c) By the way, if I recall correctly, the earliest “suburbs” of the type extolled by Randall O’Toole (detached, single family homes; winding roads, etc.), were indeed PLANNED communities (e.g., West (?) Orange in New Jersey; Roland Park in Baltimore; Forest Hills Gardens in Queens, NYC; and, later, Radburn, N.J.; etc.). Such communities don’t just spring up without planning.
d) In my opinion, the only full-fledged school of thought that is truly “anti-planning” (in a practical and meaningful way) as it relates to human settlements (and not just economics) is the urbanism and economics of Jane Jacobs, as expounded in her seven major books (including, but not limited to, “Death and Life of Great American Cities”).
e) I’m not sure about the other early planned communities, but Forest Hills Gardens (which also includes row houses and apartment houses, so it can also be seen as a forerunner of New [Sub-]Urbanism) was built before the local adoption of zoning-type laws. So the community was planned to be kept “pure” via market mechanisms (i.e., restrictive covenants) rather than through government action. In other words, the people who wanted to maintain such an environment were going to pay for it (indirectly) out of their own pockets (by purchasing the right to forbid neighboring property owners from building apartment houses and foregoing the right to sell to such developers themselves).
f) In this regard, it seems to me that THE OTHER BIG MISTAKE of the Randall O’Toole group, is that they ignore how much government “planning” and government coercion (sp?) is usually involved in keeping such communities of detached, single-family homes “pure.” Instead of relying on non-governmental market mechanisms, like restrictive covenants, etc., as Forest Hills Gardens does, they want the government to maintain (and also often to even indirectly subsidize) their, in fact, planned environments.
g) Although they seem to be against government encroaching on their own property rights, they seem to ignore the fact that their plans involve the government’s encroaching on the property rights of others.
h) If one wants to live in a detached single-family home separated from others by a certain distance, and if one is truly against planning, etc., one should buy into a privately owned community that is set up for such an environment — and don’t ask other tax payers to subsidize it either directly or indirectly.
Benjamin Hemric says
May 22, 2009 at 2:58 amI haven’t had a chance to put together an in-depth comment on these various interesting threads, but here are some quick, tentative thoughts:
a) Although I’m intrigued by Daniel’s use of Frank Lloyd Wright and Milton Friedman as figureheads for the two camps, it seems to me that bringing Frank Lloyd Wright into the discussion is more likely to cloud the issues rather than clarify them (at least for me).
b) It seems to me that ONE BIG MISTAKE(of two) that’s being made by the so-called “anti-planning” group, let me call it the Randall O’Toole group, is that they’ve defined “planning” incorrectly — i.e., in a vague, inconsistent way. Having entire neighborhoods of detached single-family homes that are set apart from commercial and industrial districts, more or less permanently through government enforced zoning laws, is also “planning” — albeit in perhaps a more primitive, broad brush, and less stylistically detailed way than in the communities that have been planned by the New [Sub-]Urbanists. Same holds true for limited access highways (including toll roads) that are built via a government’s use of eminent domain (which seems to me to be the case — inevitably — for the vast majority of such roadways that are built). This is also “planning,” although of a more primitive, less au courant, kind.
c) By the way, if I recall correctly, the earliest “suburbs” of the type extolled by Randall O’Toole (detached, single family homes; winding roads, etc.), were indeed PLANNED communities (e.g., West (?) Orange in New Jersey; Roland Park in Baltimore; Forest Hills Gardens in Queens, NYC; and, later, Radburn, N.J.; etc.). Such communities don’t just spring up without planning.
d) In my opinion, the only full-fledged school of thought that is truly “anti-planning” (in a practical and meaningful way) as it relates to human settlements (and not just economics) is the urbanism and economics of Jane Jacobs, as expounded in her seven major books (including, but not limited to, “Death and Life of Great American Cities”).
e) I’m not sure about the other early planned communities, but Forest Hills Gardens (which also includes row houses and apartment houses, so it can also be seen as a forerunner of New [Sub-]Urbanism) was built before the local adoption of zoning-type laws. So the community was planned to be kept “pure” via market mechanisms (i.e., restrictive covenants) rather than through government action. In other words, the people who wanted to maintain such an environment were going to pay for it (indirectly) out of their own pockets (by purchasing the right to forbid neighboring property owners from building apartment houses and foregoing the right to sell to such developers themselves).
f) In this regard, it seems to me that THE OTHER BIG MISTAKE of the Randall O’Toole group, is that they ignore how much government “planning” and government coercion (sp?) is usually involved in keeping such communities of detached, single-family homes “pure.” Instead of relying on non-governmental market mechanisms, like restrictive covenants, etc., as Forest Hills Gardens does, they want the government to maintain (and also often to even indirectly subsidize) their, in fact, planned environments.
g) Although they seem to be against government encroaching on their own property rights, they seem to ignore the fact that their plans involve the government’s encroaching on the property rights of others.
h) If one wants to live in a detached single-family home separated from others by a certain distance, and if one is truly against planning, etc., one should buy into a privately owned community that is set up for such an environment — and don’t ask other tax payers to subsidize it either directly or indirectly.
Benjamin Hemric says
May 22, 2009 at 3:11 amP.S. — Although there are, I believe, two public streets that go through Forest Hills Gardens, most of the community’s streets (and parks) are privately owned.
Benjamin Hemric says
May 22, 2009 at 3:11 amP.S. — Although there are, I believe, two public streets that go through Forest Hills Gardens, most of the community’s streets (and parks) are privately owned.
Daniel says
May 22, 2009 at 12:23 pmThanks for weighing in on this. I think it’s a fair point that Wright might be considered more of an individualist than a libertarian. There does seem to be plenty of overlap between the two camps, but it’s probably going too far to identify them under the same word. I remember reading somewhere Charles Murray say that this is a common misconception. Libertarians are often all for community, in the form of volunteer associations, they are just not in favor of coerced action, which would seem to logically swing both ways – coercing community or coercing separation.
I guess I’m just hoping these groups can be teased apart a little more. That’s why I really appreciate this blog. It really shines some clarity on how the market and cities really interact.
By the way, have you checked out George Will’s column on Ray Lahood in Newsweek? Lahood was making some since, but Will just breezed right past the obvious questions and cut-and-pasted some typical anti-urbanism.
Daniel says
May 22, 2009 at 12:23 pmThanks for weighing in on this. I think it’s a fair point that Wright might be considered more of an individualist than a libertarian. There does seem to be plenty of overlap between the two camps, but it’s probably going too far to identify them under the same word. I remember reading somewhere Charles Murray say that this is a common misconception. Libertarians are often all for community, in the form of volunteer associations, they are just not in favor of coerced action, which would seem to logically swing both ways – coercing community or coercing separation.
I guess I’m just hoping these groups can be teased apart a little more. That’s why I really appreciate this blog. It really shines some clarity on how the market and cities really interact.
By the way, have you checked out George Will’s column on Ray Lahood in Newsweek? Lahood was making some since, but Will just breezed right past the obvious questions and cut-and-pasted some typical anti-urbanism.