IMHO if we'd ignore him, maybe he'd go away.
Seabishop said:Kunstler indirectly made my 3 year old daughter cry. I was telling my wife how on his website he wrote that as a college student he suffered from anxiety attacks and was actually fearful of the moon falling on him. My daughter said "no the moon isn't going to fall!" and cried. What a meanie.
I get a kick out of him, although a lot of it is just entertainment.
Habanero said:I cannt fathom reading an entire book of his, although I could see buring it for heat.
BKM said:I don't know if this should be on another thread, but this little screed about "New Urbanism" and its pretentions is hilarious.
mendelman said:At least Jacob's gave positive alternatives to the MO of the products of planning when Death and Life was written.
MaineMan said:I find the guy amusing, especially his architectural blunders of the month.
He is a bit on the angry side, and tends to insult things people love, but I think he DOES really spell out a lot of planning issues to the non-planner brain.... gets good ideas out to the public in a way they can understand, free of most planning jargon and with a good narrative style that people can follow.
I do think it would be better if he used some tact, though, because I think nowadays he's estranging more people from "good planning" by making them defensive of their little 1950's shack. He'd be a good spokesperson if he'd just lose some of his anger. And pretentiousness.
Budgie said:JHK provides positive alternatives and techniques in "Home From Nowhere" (see Chapter 5), but it was largely a reformating of some of the highlights from Duany, Plater-Zyberk, Speck's "Suburban Nation".
Does anyone recall Jacob's analysis of park use. It is common-sense, which was obvious in the 18th century, but has been lost due to the "parkland for parkland's sake" mentality of today. This topic needs a new thread.
Rumpy Tuna said:I remember Jacobs said that if a park is only used by a certian population during the day and not used most of the time, it becomes a wasteland. I'll have to pull out her book to better explain her notions.
BKM said:Plus, to play Devil's Advocate, humanity loves its antisocial behavior. Better the heroin addicts shooting up in the bushes of a park (or copulating) than in the alley or my yard. We have to have some place for the more "feral" activities to occur.
I think it's very easy. Don't install facilities for humans in areas intended for habitat protection and properly size parks to match the active and passive recreation needs of the area. The intent, function and design of green infrastructure is very different from the intent, function and design of neighborhood and community parks. In fusing them together you can impare the effectiveness of their functions. For instance, a riparian buffer may be intended to protect habitat and filter stormwater run off. The minute you put a biking trail through it, you reduce the effectiveness of the green infrastructure to serve it's purpose. The question then becomes to what extent are we willing to compromise effectiveness for duel use.BKM said:QUOTE]. I'm not sure that in a dense city with high land values you will be able to neatly separate recreational and habitat/environmental preservation land uses so easily.
jordanb said:People have thier back yards and parks are hard to get to in sprawl, so they're only used for organised sports, etc. In an urban neighborhood, people use parks as a "back yard," a place to go and relax, so they're not just about athletics.