Appeals to builder self-interest failed to reform subdivision design

Evidence

But there was a more fundamental problem with Whyte’s “conservative” approach. Though the loss of open space was a direct consequence of the ways postwar builders did business, Whyte was unwilling to challenge the basic premises of the industry. His argument for open-space acquisition did not touch the building industry at all: He simply called on citizens to act with foresight to promote the public good. Even his argument for cluster development was directed as much at public officials and homebuyers as builders. He urged cities and counties to give subdivision developers freedom from restrictive standards about lot size, minimum setbacks, and density in return for the inclusion of open space. He described for homebuyers the satisfactions of a cluster home. In both cases, he was more successful than not. But Whyte’s pitch to builders – a dollars-and-cents appeal to self-interest – fell flat. Though Whyte demon strated that cluster developments could be profitable, a majority of builders evidently concluded that conventional site planning offered more profit with less trouble. No doubt, they were right. As the ecologist Aldo Leopold argued in a different context, “a system of conservation based solely on economic self-interest is hopelessly lopsided.” — Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside, 534

Categorization

• XREF: Leopold’s line connects to the polyad’s land-use history thread and the recurring theme that economic self-interest alone cannot produce conservation. — connects to: Failed pragmatic sprawl fixes drove advocates toward radical property critique — Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside:…, 574; Residential preferences are culturally shaped, not rational givens — David Theo Goldberg, The Threat of Race: Reflections on…, 384

Broader Connections

• Failed pragmatic sprawl fixes drove advocates toward radical property critique #corroborates (0.85) — Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside, 574
• Residential preferences are culturally shaped, not rational givens #qualifies (0.75) — David Theo Goldberg, The Threat of Race, 384