Providence was a great venue and we’re really grateful for all your efforts that made it possible!
Your thoughts all resonate, and I also like the idea of an “institute” for us to drive investigation and testing of ideas ourselves more than we have in the past. It’s exciting to think we could actually do that — even five years ago that would have seemed so ambitious.
An outsider thought: you all may well not know this (why would you?) but there used to be two national planning organizations with distinctly different vibes. I won’t bore us all with the details. The point is that they merged (I voted no on that, but the nays lost decisively). The point is that without the internal dynamic, planning evolved into the relatively bland profession of which you all are pretty critical. The merger was not the only factor, but I think the YIMBY and Strong Towns folks ought to regard their differences as an asset.
If we learn from nature, we learn that diversity is the key to vitality. In human affairs, it requires learning how to navigate differences. Not easy for some people, but if you care about community its a skill you acquire.
Thanks for the recap Seth, sounds like a great time. I’d love to attend a StrongTowns conference in the future
Strong Towns might benefit from encourages spaces for the core ideas to evolve more outside the Strong Towns organization itself. YIMBYs have been incredibly successful in part because there isn’t a centralized source for their messaging: Different think tanks and publications and organizations riff on the core ideas. Some of the big statewide YIMBY orgs have in-house researchers, but even they primarily depend on academic think tanks like UC Berkeley’s Terner Center or unaffiliated think tanks like the Niskannen Center to seek answers to thorny questions. Identifying good questions often involves partnership and shared spaces between YIMBY orgs and professional researchers, but it also happens independently. Bottom up movements can benefit from bottom up organizing strategies 🙂
These are great thoughts Jeremy. One of the weaknesses of the New Urbanists was a lack of any allies in academia. An architect-lead movement, against which architecture professors and schools were very hostile. Strong Towns comes a bit out of the CNU movement, and has a similar heterodox, outsider orientation. We don't have many (any?) allies in think-tanks and academia to help grow the ideas beyond the core movement. It's a little more "pure" than the yimby's, who are kinda all over the place. The YIMBY's have really benefited from having allies in the think-tank and academic world for sure, but are a little weaker for missing this pieces that are core to CNU and Strong Towns. That's why I'm so ecumenical. :)
PS, I'll be giving a session at TIMBYtown entitled: "If you legalize it, will they build it: real estate development 101."
I am relatively new to the movements, but I have seen time and time again whenever one entity tries to be too many disparate things it typically does not result in optimal outcomes. Also, that diversity of thought - although often messy - gives the best long term outcomes. There is also strength in a broad movement with many entities and leaders, this will protect the broader movement from political attacks and "misteps" - one person or organization may falter but there are many right behind to keep the torch burning.
All that to say, many different organizations and leades advocating each in their own way with their own paths - but working together when objectives align, is an optimal path in my perspective.
I wonder if you think I'm the source of that tension? I acknowledge that my words and thoughts are often given too much weight in these things, but it's hard for that not to happen. I've been pushed to literally write the book on many of these ideas and, because I've been given so much time and space to do that, I sometimes don't leave enough room for others.
That being said, we do try to feature a lot of voices, many that may agree on a point or two but not be aligned in other ways, but they are obviously not given the same platform (even we present them as equal ideas to be considered). It's tough.
I do have a lot of negative vibes towards YIMBYs and I've spent a significant amount of mental energy trying to understand the root causes and if those cloud my analysis. If you would have asked me 12 months ago, I would have said "twitter" but I have not been on that platform in any meaningful way since last September, yet vibes are still there. I can admit -- in a Jonathan Haidt sense -- that my apprehension has to do with my elephant, not just my rider, but it's certainly not all elephant.
As a preservation focused urbanist I think I get stares from standard YIMBYs but in places like Buffalo… we have a housing crisis but it isn’t because we have extreme positive population growth.
There are many solutions and approaches to our problems.
Providence was a great venue and we’re really grateful for all your efforts that made it possible!
Your thoughts all resonate, and I also like the idea of an “institute” for us to drive investigation and testing of ideas ourselves more than we have in the past. It’s exciting to think we could actually do that — even five years ago that would have seemed so ambitious.
Thanks Seth!
Thanks Andrew! Was great to get to hang out a little in person as well. Good things are happening, I can tell it.
An outsider thought: you all may well not know this (why would you?) but there used to be two national planning organizations with distinctly different vibes. I won’t bore us all with the details. The point is that they merged (I voted no on that, but the nays lost decisively). The point is that without the internal dynamic, planning evolved into the relatively bland profession of which you all are pretty critical. The merger was not the only factor, but I think the YIMBY and Strong Towns folks ought to regard their differences as an asset.
That’s a really good point Lee. In diversity, conflict, and vitality.
If we learn from nature, we learn that diversity is the key to vitality. In human affairs, it requires learning how to navigate differences. Not easy for some people, but if you care about community its a skill you acquire.
Thanks for the recap Seth, sounds like a great time. I’d love to attend a StrongTowns conference in the future
Strong Towns might benefit from encourages spaces for the core ideas to evolve more outside the Strong Towns organization itself. YIMBYs have been incredibly successful in part because there isn’t a centralized source for their messaging: Different think tanks and publications and organizations riff on the core ideas. Some of the big statewide YIMBY orgs have in-house researchers, but even they primarily depend on academic think tanks like UC Berkeley’s Terner Center or unaffiliated think tanks like the Niskannen Center to seek answers to thorny questions. Identifying good questions often involves partnership and shared spaces between YIMBY orgs and professional researchers, but it also happens independently. Bottom up movements can benefit from bottom up organizing strategies 🙂
These are great thoughts Jeremy. One of the weaknesses of the New Urbanists was a lack of any allies in academia. An architect-lead movement, against which architecture professors and schools were very hostile. Strong Towns comes a bit out of the CNU movement, and has a similar heterodox, outsider orientation. We don't have many (any?) allies in think-tanks and academia to help grow the ideas beyond the core movement. It's a little more "pure" than the yimby's, who are kinda all over the place. The YIMBY's have really benefited from having allies in the think-tank and academic world for sure, but are a little weaker for missing this pieces that are core to CNU and Strong Towns. That's why I'm so ecumenical. :)
PS, I'll be giving a session at TIMBYtown entitled: "If you legalize it, will they build it: real estate development 101."
I am relatively new to the movements, but I have seen time and time again whenever one entity tries to be too many disparate things it typically does not result in optimal outcomes. Also, that diversity of thought - although often messy - gives the best long term outcomes. There is also strength in a broad movement with many entities and leaders, this will protect the broader movement from political attacks and "misteps" - one person or organization may falter but there are many right behind to keep the torch burning.
All that to say, many different organizations and leades advocating each in their own way with their own paths - but working together when objectives align, is an optimal path in my perspective.
Great to meet you in Providence, Seth!
I wonder if you think I'm the source of that tension? I acknowledge that my words and thoughts are often given too much weight in these things, but it's hard for that not to happen. I've been pushed to literally write the book on many of these ideas and, because I've been given so much time and space to do that, I sometimes don't leave enough room for others.
That being said, we do try to feature a lot of voices, many that may agree on a point or two but not be aligned in other ways, but they are obviously not given the same platform (even we present them as equal ideas to be considered). It's tough.
I do have a lot of negative vibes towards YIMBYs and I've spent a significant amount of mental energy trying to understand the root causes and if those cloud my analysis. If you would have asked me 12 months ago, I would have said "twitter" but I have not been on that platform in any meaningful way since last September, yet vibes are still there. I can admit -- in a Jonathan Haidt sense -- that my apprehension has to do with my elephant, not just my rider, but it's certainly not all elephant.
As a preservation focused urbanist I think I get stares from standard YIMBYs but in places like Buffalo… we have a housing crisis but it isn’t because we have extreme positive population growth.
There are many solutions and approaches to our problems.