Would-be residents of Ladera Ranch, in Orange County, CA were asked to fill out a questionnaire when they first visited the planned community (thanks, Sonia):
"Please check the box that comes closest to how you feel most of the time," it began, and asked people to rate how strongly they agreed with various statements.
"We need to treat the planet as a living system," read one. "Abortions should not be legal unless there's a threat to life," read another. And, "I have been born again in Jesus Christ." There were questions about corporate greed, divorce, the merits of foreign travel.
And over the next several years, the results materialized across thousands of acres: For the more conservative-minded "Traditionalists," Covenant Hills, where homes have classic architecture and big family rooms, was built. For the green and soul-searching "Cultural Creatives," developers built Terramor, where Craftsman-style houses are fitted with photovoltaic cells and bamboo flooring.
Lest you think developers are aiming for one monolithic culture of, say, "Soccer Moms":
It's not that the builders and marketers actually care whether buyers are right-wing Bible belters or left-wing tree-huggers as much as they care about selling houses. But large-scale developers are realizing that it's not enough to build a plain subdivision anymore. They must also manufacture community itself, which has become an amenity people crave, right along with tray ceilings.
Wow.
Doesn't this seem sort of "anti-urban"? I mean, it's not just suburban, but it goes against the very core of what makes a city a city: the mixing and agglomeration of people who are very different from each other. The gay couple moving in next door to the pro-lifers.
On the other hand, perhaps Ladera Ranch simply accepts the reality that people seek to live in places that reflect their own identity: chinatown, spanish harlem, student ghettos, NASCAR condos. Maybe it's not so bad. At least there aren't any gates to keep people out.
Posted by: Sonia | 04/18/2006 at 12:33
Reading the article, I became cynical about whether liking of mixing and agglomeration itself was just a construct--ie, I would like to be in a place of mixing and agglomeration with other like-minded people who also profess to like mixing and agglomeration.
I feel like the people buying the Hummers/plasma screens in the "progressive" subdivision evidences some sort of inner discomfort with labels that would inevitably undermine/diversify the character of the development, no?
Posted by: Chris | 04/20/2006 at 16:06
It seemed from the article that many of the buyers were unaware of the original target market of their neighborhood.
There seems to be a large population (majority?) of people out there who don't really care where they live or what their neighborhood is like. They are completely unaware of the "identity" that we planner-architect types project onto housing choice. All they want is an affordable apartment/house/condo, wherever they can get it. Hence, my biking-enthusiast friends live in sterile subdivisions. And my republican colleague lives in a cute refurbished bungalow in urban Milwaukee county. So perhaps the Hummer-owners in "Terramor" just wanted a new house, happened to like the house in Terramor, and bought it, without buying into the broader identity that Terramor is supposed to represent.
Anyway, in response to your question, I guess it undermines the character of the "tree-hugger" development if hummers and plasma tvs are moving in. BUT...isn't architecture and planning about Social Engineering through Design? I mean, new urbanism is based on the premise that DESIGN can force people out of their houses and make them bump into each other on the sidewalk, and then they will magically become socially active and ride their bicycles everywhere.
So, shouldn't we hope (for the sake of our chosen professions) that a neighborhood designed for tree-huggers will turn the Hummer-owners into tree-huggers?
Posted by: Sonia | 04/20/2006 at 18:33