This is a continuation of Chris’ earlier Monk Discussion. Just a few scattered thoughts, since I haven’t had time to process a lot of this.
We need to consider the ‘Moscow Project’ in more detail. We all know Pastor Jim Wilson and the strategic / feasible story. But what were the overall goals of the second generation in Moscow?
There’s something very appealing about the new agrarianism (the books of Wendell Berry, specifically), but I think we all feel called to the cities. But in the country, you start your own small culture as the head of your family. In the city, many other forces come to bear. In the country, you’re closer to one another, and more interdependent. In the city you are spread apart, potentially anonymous and self-reliant.
Christians largely abandoned the cities for the suburbs, so it’s an uphill battle. What makes successful urban churches, like Seattle’s Mars Hill and New York’s Redeemer Pres., work? Closer to home, how is Christ Church Spokane doing?
Christ Church here in Moscow has recently grown such that there are now two services, and the elders are trying to divide the church into Parishes. Is it working? What makes a parish system succeed or fail?
Also, where do we all see ourselves?
For all the reasons outlined in my comment on Chris’s earlier post, I’ll probably be on the sidelines with the project Storm (“‘n stress”) is outlining. But in an effort to cut to the nub of my disagreement with some of the underlying philosophy of what you gents are talking about, let me ask this question: what’s the fundamental difference between “urban” and “suburban”?
Case in point: in the 18th century, the London neighborhood of Bloomsbury was little more than a pastoral new village — a suburb. Brand-new houses were being built on well-planned streets with planned green space, etc. It was a place to escape the hurly-burly of the inner city without moving to Shropshire. Today, of course, Bloomsbury continues to be its own jurisdiction, but it’s as “inner city” as Threadneedle Street (home to the Bank of England, in the City of London).
Take an even more extreme example, that of my adopted city of Washington. After World War Two, a lot of folks moved out into the ‘burbs, like Alexandria and Prince George’s County (MD). They got away from the dirt, crime, and high prices of downtown DC to enjoy the “American dream” a little more. A mere generation or so later, Alexandria is almost as expensive as Georgetown and Prince George’s County is a ghetto of crime and corruption.
These examples help illustrate my point, which is that in my opinion new urbanism is built on an arbitrary distinction and relies on a lot of socialist ideology.
Just my two cents.
Also, not to go over my ration of space on a blog that’s not mine, but I have to disagree with one of Mr Storm’s assertions: “Christians largely abandoned the cities for the suburbs.” Here in downtown DC (where I work, and sometimes that means it seems like I live here too) there are at least seven churches within an easy walk that seem to be thriving:
Foundry United Methodist
St. Peter’s Episcopalian
Grace Reformed (now a Church of Christ)
a Presbyterian church, the name of which escapes me
a Baptist church, the name of which escapes me
National City Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
St. Matthew’s Cathedral (Catholic)
And I’m talking about only a small area. Maybe some of these churches are struggling, but my impression is that most if not all are doing quite well. St Matt’s, in particular, seems abuzz with activity. The 5 pm Mass on Sunday evenings, for Pete’s sake, is always packed with people–trendy young things, people who seem like recent immigrants to this great land of ours, middle-aged blue collar types, little old ladies, a retired ambassador who teaches at my school, and sometimes even oddballs like me.
So don’t count out the possibility that one of my suggestions may be right: we don’t need to take back the city; it was never conquered in the first place.
Charles,
I will not rebut you in detail, except to point out that every example you have used as a foil against New Urbanism is in fact the point of New Urbanism.
Put shortly and bluntly, it’s not new at all. New Urbanism is shooting for San Fransisco or the cities of the East. Places built on a human scale, walkable, mixed in use and economic distribution.
The Urban / Suburban distinction itself is not as important as the lifestyle distinction. You are in a place with a history, a culture, and some sort of local identity. DC has a thing, something it does, something it is known for. There are civic monuments, churches with history, neighborhoods with a distinct and nearly palpable character. The scene you speak of, outside of the church, is not possible in suburbs. Similar houses within tracts lead to economic segregation; people must drive wherever they are going, and their destinations are often economically driven as well.
You did not grow up in the West, but it is not like that here. We have built suburbs in all but a few places. We are forced to drive in cars, we are forced to store them in parking lots and shop at strip malls. The solitude of the automobile and the loneliness of the commute have led many – Austin and Davey and I are among them – to question the wisdom of living out of our cars instead of in a community.
I will of course grant that not all suburbs are bad, because they aren’t. And I will even more hastily grant that cities are full of crime and other unpleasant things.
The point is that nobody sits back and says “Phoenix… ah, that’s a town.” But how many times have you heard that about Seattle, Portland, Vancouver, MSP, Chicago, Austin, LA, San Fransisco, New York, Alexandria, Boston, Philadelphia, and the other great American cities? London, Cambridge, Oxford, Paris, Versailles, Prague, Berlin, and all the rest?
All were built with humans in mind. The west was paved with cars as the greatest civic patron. That needs to be reversed.
This all, of course, is moot, because the thing that A, D, and I care about most right now is determining, if we want to do something ministry-related with our lives (and some of us do), where that ministry might be. We may disagree over whether cities need be taken back or whether they were first taken; the question at issue here is whether or not people in Cities need Christ, and whether or not we may want to go do our Kingdom-building in such a place.
Thanks for the input, by the way.
Chris, last paragraph: Obviously, no problem here. Go with God.
Earlier, though, you said, “The scene you speak of, outside of the church, is not possible in suburbs. Similar houses within tracts lead to economic segregation; people must drive wherever they are going, and their destinations are often economically driven as well.”
Well, sure it’s possible in the suburbs, given a little time. Look at Bloomsbury or Alexandria. It might take a while, but there’s every reason to think that in the natural order of things the raw concrete of the parking lots and “lifestyle center” malls you hate will mellow with time.
Basically put, I think you need to read more James Lileks.
Here, James gets choked up about the closing of his Target:
http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/07/0107/010807.html
And even more to the point, Old Man Lileks discusses New Urbanism:
http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/07/0307/030507.html
@Charles:
Alexandria and Bloomsbury are not suburbs in the strict sense that I am discussing them. They prove my point, really: we want great places like these, but modern zoning laws and the automobile-centric scale of current building practices make it all but impossible.
Allow me to be lazy and quote from Wikipedia re:Alexandria, VA. This is not a hotly debated topic, so I assume most facts I’m putting here are close to accurate:
Cultural Identity:
“Like the rest of Northern Virginia, as well as central Maryland, modern Alexandria has been shaped by its proximity to the nation’s capital. It is largely populated by professionals working in the federal civil service, the U.S. military, or for one of the many private companies which contract to provide services to the federal government.”
“The historic center of Alexandria is known as Old Town. With its concentration of high-end boutiques, fine restaurants, antique shops and theaters, it is a major draw for tourists and those seeking nightlife.”
(Phoenix, from Wikipedia: “Phoenix and the surrounding area is home to a broad range of cultural activities including the performing arts, museums, and events.” Oooh. Stimulating.)
Human Scale: “The addressing system in Alexandria is not uniform and reflects the consolidation of several originally separate communities into a single city.” See also the “neighborhoods” section. Alexandria proper is about 15 square miles, with 5 distinct neighorhoods, making each amenable to the human scale (3 miles in diameter maximum).
Housing density, another factor, is 4,233.2 units per square mile, compared to Phoenix’s 1,044 per square mile. Housing unit density is one of the greatest indicators of the degree of “sprawl” in any urban environment.
Alexandria was founded in 1749, which likely (due to zoning and civic use customs at the time) qualifies it as the type of city that New Urbanism tries to recreate. We’re battling Phoenix and the dilapidated urban cores of the West, not the cities you speak of.
Fine, re-creation of the 18th century is dandy and all. But what if Phoenix works better for Phoenixians, or whatever they’re called?