How Dare These People Try to Set Up a Nice Life!
You don’t think the writer of this piece, which made its first appearance in The Wall Street Journal around the first of June, has any bias, do you?
Fake Towns Rise, Offering Urban Life Without Grit
By Thaddeus Herrick, The Wall Street Journal
Until a few years ago, Bishop Road was a grassy field in the midst of a gargantuan office park. Today, it’s the main drag of Legacy Town Center, a 75-acre development 20 miles north of Dallas that’s home to 4,000 people. The project has been such a hit that developers are building on an additional 75 acres across the street.Legacy Town Center is one of dozens of faux downtowns popping up across the country, from Kansas City to Washington, D.C., spurred by a demand for urban living scrubbed of the reality of city life. A careful mix of retail, residential and office space built with traditional materials such as stone and brick, Legacy looks like a city but has neither panhandlers nor potholes. Many residents rarely venture even to downtown Dallas, which has been trying to turn itself into place to live for almost a decade.
“There’s too much riffraff down there,” says Ron Pettit, a 36-year-old contractor, as he snacks on brie and grapes at a table outside Bishop Road’s Main Street Bakery and Bistro.
….. Even though these faux downtowns contain tinges of suburbia, they’re taking advantage of a growing backlash against the sprawl that rings Dallas and other U.S. cities. The reaction began in the 1980s with the rise of New Urbanism, a movement of architects and planners calling for a return to traditional towns where people work, shop, live and play.
Calling these set-ups “fake” or “faux” is an insult to the people who built them and to the people who live there. The builders, as noted late in the article, are taking extraordinary risks to build these developments (not all of them work out). More importantly, individuals and families are in some cases choosing these arrangements because they think it’s best for them (it’s amazing how people frely exercising “choice” so often seems to be a bad thing if the topic isn’t reproductve rights).
Parents don’t sign waivers on their birth certificates promising that they would expose their children to some required amount of crime and grit before the hospital releases the family, do they? (Don’t give them any ideas. — Ed.) If we’re going to go after people for setting up “artifical lives,” how about college dorms? Retirement communities? Planned urban developments (PUDs) controlled by homeowners’ associations? Manhattan co-ops? Shoot, even convents and monasteries? Every one of these set-ups could fairly be accused of not allowing their residents exposure to all of the vicissitudes and grit of life. Since when did such exposure became anyone’s moral obligation?
Also note how many of the same planners who deplore “sprawl” don’t like these new communities, even though they directly address many of the complaints they have about “sprawl.” This shows that their issue isn’t as much about “sprawl” as it’s about those darned people choosing not to live in existing urban areas.
I can see why existing urban areas might be having difficulty competing against these new (NOT fake) downtown-centered communities. But why is that? Three answers: Crime, high taxes, lousy schools. Sometimes a fourth: Skyrocketing core-area home prices. My suggestions: Stop whining, fix those problems, and make your cities places people want to choose.