Failed pragmatic sprawl fixes drove advocates toward radical property critique

Evidence

In the late 1950s, the can-do optimism of William Whyte was still common. Though Whyte often argued that the time for action was short, he never suggested that the issue called into question any fundamental aspect of American society. Instead, he argued that the nation could save enough open space if good people would just get to it. But the problem proved to be more intractable than Whyte expected. When the campaigns for open-space acquisition and cluster development did not work, many open-space advocates began to think more broadly and deeply about the roots of the problem. For some, the rethinking led to a call for a redefinition of the rights and responsibilities of property ownership. For others, the result was a new sense of the environmental irresponsibility of American culture. β€” Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside, 574

Categorization

  • XREF: Connects to Eco-Justice course threads on how failed incremental fixes radicalize movements, and to what β€˜reading’ earlier chapters established about cluster development and open-space acquisition campaigns failing. β€” connects to: Postwar land protection shifted from public acquisition toward restricting private property β€” Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside:…, 719; The property-rights movement predates Reagan and grew from suburban land-use fights β€” Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside:…, 47; Appeals to builder self-interest failed to reform subdivision design β€” Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside:…, 534 (+7 more)

Broader Connections