That’s the truth. But maybe some of these concepts would fit well in places where: a) there is no Camp of the Saints and b) there is (or ought to be) a demand for more housing. These places could be resort destinations (ski villages, beaches, etc.) or gentrifying cities or cities with insufficient housing (Silicon Valley, Seattle, Brooklyn, DC, etc.). Maybe even bedroom communities for commuters outside nastier cities would work, but the trick would be to keep the disruptive elements away.

No shit. “True principles about physically designing cities to stop repelling normal middle class people” should have one entry above all:

1) Keep The Camp of the Saints away.

The rest is not insignificant, of course, but matters little if the first rule is not met. Avoiding looking like Kazakhstan never hurt anyone.

This is a case of voice vs. exit. There are some who want to punish suburbanites and force them into the cities. But others like Nathan Lewis want to provide a different type of urban environment in an effort to correct some of the perceived flaws of current cities and to attract suburbanites who might choose an urban lifestyle if it better met their needs.

The type of traditional city he advocates doesn’t exist in the US, so it is tough to tell whether such a design would attract taxpaying residents. But it does make an interesting thought experiment. Me, I don’t think it will work without finding a way to nullify the problems caused by diversity (e.g. crime, bad schools, etc.).

So what does this guy think of normal people, if he thinks they like living in “hell”? How much does he care about producing an environment they WILL enjoy, rather than one that punishes them until they enjoy what he thinks they ought to?

Of course, urban planning isn’t the only problem with our cities, and it isn’t the only reason families are discouraged from living in urban environments.

Neoreaction blogs would be a great place to discuss these concepts further, because they seem like the only place where urban pathologies are discussed openly, and where a better synthesis of traditional city design and social reform might be promoted.

It’s all well and good for your laudromat, dentist, florist, gym and some restaurants etc. to be within walking distance, but you’ve got to get to work, which means dealing with the outside world. (“the division of labor is limited by the extent of the market”)

I google-mapped “murray hill ny train station”. Why aren’t there taller apartment buildings within walking distance? I can only assume zoning, rent control and other regulation. Murray hill rents are high, by my standards anyway. You’d think there’d be more quantity supplied.