Marginal Revolutions points to a very interesting blog: Peter Gordon's Blog which, among other things, takes a free market look at urban design and development.
One of the principles to which I adhere is the primacy of the voluntary nature of social interaction. This is why, for example, I cannot share John's view that individuals must be forced to sacrifice their own interests for the greater good of society. It is also why I think any kind of central planning is wrong. This raises a potential conundrum for large scale urban planning: Received wisdom is in favour of central government control of infrastructure and urban development and a planning oversight. The thinking goes, without planning controls, chaotic shantytowns would replace ordered development. Peter Gordon links to a fascinating book which seeks to demonstrate that this view is fallacious: The Voluntary City
The case for civil society is stronger than most of its enthusiasts realize. As the authors of The Voluntary City show, history is replete with enough examples of well-functioning voluntary institutions to merit a radical reconsideration of the presumed need for government involvement in many areas of civic and commercial life. Roads and bridges, education, housing, social welfare, land-use planning, commercial law, even policing and criminal prosecutions have been provided effectively by the non-governmental sector at various times and places in the past.
For the most part I, too, support what you call 'the voluntary nature of social interaction'. It's probably wise, however, to take into consideration the practical limitations of this ideology when applied on a mass scale, as in cities. When talking about real public goods, like transport infrastructure, which we all use and/or benefit from, government (ideally) becomes an instrument for collective action that would otherwise be impossible on an individual basis. Sure, the aggregate choices of millions of people ultimately will yield, say, the best price to quality ratio for consumables, but I have a hard time believing that the same process will be able to not only figure out the best place to run a subway line, but how to fund, build and maintain it.
Luckily, we aren't limited to speculating about this. Compare the chaotic outcome of Dublin's individualistic 'planning' to the elegance and ease of centrally planned Barcelona or Cologne (to name a similar-sized city). Or compare getting around New York to getting around LA. I lived in Philadelphia for a couple of years and can report that William Penn's urban development plan from over 300 years ago has made for a very liveable city, which is a lot more than I can say for the laissez-faire madness of its suburbs.
Posted by: Jon Ihle | February 19, 2004 at 04:09 PM
I think the point of the book is to try and address some of these concerns. Despite your assertion, Dublin is planned, it's just planned badly in a lot of cases. LUAS is a fiasco that could only arise as a result of cackhanded bureacratic central planning. It's by no means certain that the market couldn't provide something more responsive and efficient despite the scale.
I don't wish to denigrate such excellent examples of town planning as Barcelona's Cerda plan, Manhattan, or Philadelphia. The problem is more to do with the planning mentality, and certainly as it has evolved, presuming to foresee every need, far beyond simple urban design layouts.
Posted by: Frank McGahon | February 19, 2004 at 05:04 PM
Hi Frank. I'm entering an RIBA ideas competition 'Future House London', and proposing to 're-urbanise' one of the estates where I live. I'm looking at as many 'anti-socialist' sources as I can (Theodore Dalrymple's 'Life at the Bottom' is great). This book (TVC) sounds quite relevant. Any suggestions for others?
Adam
Posted by: Adam | February 19, 2004 at 08:28 PM
Nothing springs to mind straightaway but I'll have a think about it...
Posted by: Frank McGahon | February 20, 2004 at 02:37 PM