| Joel Kotkin pops up seemingly everywhere — in the Portland Oregonian claiming that Portland has become an “ephemeral city,” in the San Francisco Chronicle arguing that the City by the Bay is “losing economic vitality,” in the Washington Post saying the future is in the suburbs, and in The Wall Street Journal warding off a supposed “War Against Suburbia.” His website gives the impression that Kotkin, an Irvine Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation, is an urban expert.
But if he is an expert, he uses his knowledge largely to fight whatever policies and designs are likely to make urban life better. This includes Smart Growth, which he claims is an attempt to “cram populations into ever denser, expensive housing by choking off new land to development.” It also includes New Urbanism, which he makes believe is trying to deprive people of backyards. Yes, you read that right: One of Kotkin’s most recent charges is that New Urbanism is trying to get rid of backyards. In the Jan. 14 Wall Street Journal he wrote, “Planners in Albuquerque have suggested banning backyards — despised as wasteful and ‘anti-social’ by new urbanists and environmentalists.”
The people I asked in Albuquerque knew nothing about the proposed ban. Former Albuquerque architect Bill Dennis asked Kotkin where this information came from, and in reply Kotkin said he had seen a transcript supplied by a developer. “The proposal was made by staff, but quickly shelved, as I understand,” Kotkin added weakly. In other words, a comment attributed to an unnamed planner and quickly abandoned is presented in the nation’s second-largest newspaper as a genuine example of a drive to eliminate backyards. What rankles, more than the shoddy attribution, is the falseness of Kotkin’s claim that new urbanists decry backyards as “wasteful” and “anti-social.” It is an article of faith among new urbanists that humans need good places for all aspects of life — including public life, neighborhood life, and private life. If Kotkin were to visit almost any of the hundreds of new urban communities across the country, he would find, at the rear of the houses — backyards!
He just might not be invited into them. Why? Because increasingly Kotkin misrepresents, and sneers at, anyone who is not a celebrator of sprawl. In the Oregonian he calls the defenders of traditional cities “sophistos” and portrays them as self-congratulating types who see themselves as “an enlightened elite.” He seems to have decided that if New Urbanism and Smart Growth cannot be defeated on honest grounds, there’s a better way: generate resentment against those who advocate compact development, mixed uses, and a less automobile-dependent way of life. For an individual like Kotkin, who has enjoyed academic appointments, presented himself as an analyst, and been taken seriously by press outlets ranging from the Los Angeles Times to National Public Radio, this is disingenuous behavior.
DEFINING CHUTZPAH
Compounding the offense is that Kotkin wants it both ways. He ridicules or misrepresents New Urbanism and then turns around and presents New Urbanism’s accomplishments as if they were his own. Last November, for The Planning Center (a southern California planning firm for which Kotkin is “senior advisor”), he produced a lengthy report titled “The New Suburbanism: A Realist’s Guide to the American Future.” It argues that challenges “cannot be met by returning to the urban past or by denying people the privacy, safety, and opportunity represented by suburbia.” After criticizing those who identified the placelessness of many suburban settings, he shows off many new urbanist places — Mashpee Commons, Orenco Station, Highlands Garden Village, Reston Town Center, Addison Circle, Santana Row, and others — as examples of how to develop properly.
It is hard to imagine a tactic more cynical: Take projects built through the enormous perseverance of new urbanists, rechristen them as examples of “New Suburbanism” (ironically, a term that previously was used only as a complaint against new urbanist greenfield development), and present yourself as an expert on this new phenomenon. Evidently it’s possible to be an expert without being weighed down by principles.
This article is available in the March 2006 issue of New Urban News, along with many more articles not available online. Subscribe or order the individual issue. |