The urbanism debate

Liberal commentary on what the cities of the future should look like, from blogger Matt Yglesias:

[W]hat they have in Arlington is a long high-density, highly-walkable corridor stretched out along a metro line. That then creates lots of more traditionally “suburban” space that’s still within walking distance of the corridor. A metro area should, ideally, have a whole bunch of corridors like that which then converge to create a downtown. Then the wedges between the corridors serve the way traditional suburbs do today. The result is a real mix of housing options and neighborhood types.

Conservative commentary on what the cities of the future should look like, from Minnesota representative Michelle Bachman:

"They want Americans to take transit and move to the inner cities. They want Americans to move to the urban core, live in tenements, [and] take light rail to their government jobs. That's their vision for America."

But this really isn't a fair comparison. Bloggers are respected public officials, after all, while Congresswomen are just a bunch of bums in pajamas who rant their heads off on the internet. Did I get that right?

What should be apparent from the tenor and tone of this debate is that conservatives have an intensely emotional loathing for walkable cities. As Daniel Gross reports, that loathing is spilling over into the stimulus debate:

Sen. Kit Bond of Missouri concedes that some government spending—such as spending on highways—can create jobs but thinks that spending on mass transit or alternative-transit infrastructure isn't stimulative...

These claims are so peculiar that it's hard to know where to begin...For an example of how a little spending on mass transit might save jobs, Bond could look a little closer to home. The New York Times reported Wednesday on how St. Louis' inability to fund its bus system means hundreds of employees will find it impossible to get to work.

Why do conservatives hate transit with a passion bordering on rabies? I'm guessing there are two basic reasons.

First of all, concentrating population means that white people have to come into contact with black and Hispanic people on a regular basis; people can no longer self-segregate. Cheap gasoline and dogged opposition to mass transit have been Republicans' way of giving white Americans - particularly Southerners - the tools they need to avoid black people (and vice versa).

A second reason, I'm guessing, is...well...sex. Dense cities, at least in the minds of many, make it easier to find sex partners, potentially encouraging promiscuity among the young and adultery among the old. Suburbanization may have helped support America's "moral backbone" - our falling rates of divorce and teen pregnancy over the past two decades. Or maybe not. But either way, I believe this is a valid concern - people deserve to have the choice to live in a family-friendly environment.

But back to the first issue: suburbanism as segregation is just flat-out unacceptable. 27% of this country is black or Hispanic, so whites and minorities are going to have to learn to see each other on the street and in the train and in the store. Republicans are not doing the nation any favors with their screeching, squawking crusade to delay that integration.