Re-reading Kunstler

[hauntedheadnc]

It's probably safe to say that more than a few of us here on SSP lit the urbanist fires in our bellies when we discovered the works of James Howard Kunstler -- particularly The Geography of Nowhere and Home from Nowhere.

At least I did. I remember reading these books for the first time and thinking that at last, here was someone who understood and who could articulate all these thoughts and feelings I had about the nature of communities, including my own. At last, here was someone who could explain not only that things were very wrong with modern American civilization, but why they were wrong.

And then I put the books away for a few years, read them again, put them away again. Here I am now slowly working my way through Geography of Nowhere for the third time.

However, I'm finding that Kunstler's observations don't necessarily age well. It's apparent in the books but more so on his website, www.kunstler.com, with its "Eyesore of the Month" section. What I find is that I'm tending to find Kunstler shrill, nostalgic for Victorian small-town life to the point of fetish, dismissive of the silliness that has always coursed through popular culture, and perhaps a bit too gleeful about the oncoming collapse of modern society should the oil supply run out before alternative energies are found.

I get the feeling, in fact, that Mr. Kunstler would be very upset if an energy source were found to supplant oil.

Needless to say, it's starting to irritate me when I'm reading along and find myself thinking that the fads and obsessions of the middle class have always tended toward the vapid and pointless -- that wasn't a trend that just started with the onset of postwar suburbia. If you don't believe me, just take a look at some of the truly idiotic song lyrics and plots of novels published in the 1800's or the 1910's, '20's, or 30's. Trust me -- they weren't all Dickens and Fitzgerald.

It's begun to bother me to visit "Eyesore of the Month" and see Kunstler working himself into a lather over someone's display of Easter decorations in a front window, or about the fact that there's a tattoo parlor on Main Street. It bothers me that it would seem that Mr. Kunstler takes a dim view of the invention of the elevator. He is quite critical of skyscrapers in general, and seems to think that the only good community is an 1890's farming town. For an urbanist, in fact, James Howard Kunstler now comes across as strikingly anti-urban in his mindset. That's not to say that small towns can't display good urbanity, but...

Come to think of it, that's something else that's really getting under my skin -- willful omission. If you scroll through the various eyesores of the month, you'll see diatribes against New York's High Line Park, innovative skyscrapers, tall buildings in general, modern art in general, modern architecture in general. What I'm seeing is that the author I once regarded as the arbiter of good urbanity has become a tantrum-throwing shrew deeply upset that the world won't fit into the box he wants to put it in.

Does he still have salient points? Of course. A lot of modern architecture is total shit, as is a lot of modern art. A lot of decisions are being made now that don't take the future into enough account. However, it's possible to take any philosophy too far, and as I reread these books, it's increasingly clear to me that James Howard Kunstler has done just that. There's a world beyond 1890's small-town Victoriana, but he doesn't want to see it. There is a place for cars in the bigger scheme of transportation, but he doesn't want to see that either. There is room for the new in art and architecture, so long as appreciation of the new isn't exalted into its own fetish, but there's no room for that knowledge in Kunstler's world view.

All in all, I think these books and their author have not aged well at all. What do you all say out there?

[vid]

I felt the same way the first time I saw him on TV in a documentary about peak oil. Before that I had only read Geography of Nowhere.

He has devolved into a bit of a nutjob. His ideas are too utopian to work.

[fflint]

I've never read Kunstler.

[Cirrus]

I think he takes a couple of things too far, including his anti-skyscraper and downfall-of-civilization rants. I think the reason we find him less influential these days is that the urbanist perspective has basically caught up with him, and then moved past him. Everybody in the planning field agrees that suburbs suck now, and central cities have largely become healthy again. So he's left with only his more outlandish ideas to still talk about (and also the suckiness of modern architecture), because the other stuff has become mainstream.

Regarding architecture, I suspect the thing that has changed in that equation is you, hauntedheadnc. I think Kunstler is still pretty much saying the same things he's always said. But modern architecture is weird. It's like modern art, in the sense that everybody who is outside the field of art hates it, while everyone who is inside the field loves it, and thinks the art that normal people like is cliché. The more and more you become involved with the field of planning and development, the harder it is to maintain that modern architecture stinks, because more and more of the people around you disagree. Unless you want to be a pariah, you have to compromise and evolve.

I'm not saying this to start a debate about modern vs traditional architecture. I'm just saying that:
1) The debate still exists.
2) Kunstler's position on it has been pretty consistent.
3) People within the architecture field like modern architecture more than laypeople.
4) As any individual transitions from being a layperson to being immersed in the architecture field, the pressure to revise their views on modern architecture is tremendous.

I don't know what you do for a living, but you've been on this forum for a decade. That means you're an architecture fanboy (as are we all), which means you're immersed in the field, which in turn means you're surrounded by the modern architecture kool-aid way more than you probably were back when you read Kunstler for the first time.

[mthq]

^as someone involved with planning and such, are you saying that you're starting to change your views on modern architecture, Cirrus?

[hauntedheadnc]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

The more and more you become involved with the field of planning and development, the harder it is to maintain that modern architecture stinks, because more and more of the people around you disagree. Unless you want to be a pariah, you have to compromise and evolve.

Compromise is part of evolution, in my opinion and while I'm willing to compromise I still think that a lot of modern architecture is just plain awful. What I saw on Kunstler's site that bothered me was a total unwillingness to compromise in the matter of art or architecture. For him, unless it is traditional or evocative of a traditional style, it's horrible.

The example that I linked to in my original post was the Hunter Museum of American Art in Chattanooga. Naturally, Kunstler is aghast at the newest addition, just as I'm sure he would be aghast to see the older, 1970's Brutalist addition tacked on to the back of the original mansion. However, speaking as one who has been to that museum, I can say from personal experience that the contrast of old and new was stimulating and refreshing.

I can agree with you that the one thing in the equation that has definitely changed is me. When you're young and flocking to a cause, you're a zealot like everybody else. Age mellows and matures you. Would I like to see more neotraditionalist buildings and artworks? Absolutely, because as at least one thread on this site has shown, when done right, new buildings built in traditional styles are utterly lovely -- plus, I can always appreciate art that has a point. I still detest the meaningless corporate art that litters skyscraper plazas nationwide, whose main statement to the viewer is "Look! Here's some art!" And it goes without saying that I still think the cardinal sin of modern architecture is to elevate the geometry of the building to artform rather than to let the artforms be any actual art or decoration. However, I've gotten to the point that I can appreciate contrast, and especially juxtaposition. Perhaps that comes from living where I do, where downtown is an architectural cacophony of styles that go out of their way to clash with one another, and where downtown is so much more vibrant and vital for it.

I guess all in all, it comes down to the fact that Kunstler is still an uncompromising zealot, and there is nothing sadder or more irritating to someone who used to be an uncompromising zealot than one who still is.

[goat314]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

I think he takes a couple of things too far, including his anti-skyscraper and downfall-of-civilization rants. I think the reason we find him less influential these days is that the urbanist perspective has basically caught up with him, and then moved past him. Everybody in the planning field agrees that suburbs suck now, and central cities have largely become healthy again. So he's left with only his more outlandish ideas to still talk about (and also the suckiness of modern architecture), because the other stuff has become mainstream.

Regarding architecture, I suspect the thing that has changed in that equation is you, hauntedheadnc. I think Kunstler is still pretty much saying the same things he's always said. But modern architecture is weird. It's like modern art, in the sense that everybody who is outside the field of art hates it, while everyone who is inside the field loves it, and thinks the art that normal people like is cliché. The more and more you become involved with the field of planning and development, the harder it is to maintain that modern architecture stinks, because more and more of the people around you disagree. Unless you want to be a pariah, you have to compromise and evolve.

I'm not saying this to start a debate about modern vs traditional architecture. I'm just saying that:
1) The debate still exists.
2) Kunstler's position on it has been pretty consistent.
3) People within the architecture field like modern architecture more than laypeople.
4) As any individual transitions from being a layperson to being immersed in the architecture field, the pressure to revise their views on modern architecture is tremendous.

I don't know what you do for a living, but you've been on this forum for a decade. That means you're an architecture fanboy (as are we all), which means you're immersed in the field, which in turn means you're surrounded by the modern architecture kool-aid way more than you probably were back when you read Kunstler for the first time.

No Washington DC, NYC, SF etc. have largely become healthy most cities are still hellholes as far as quality of life issues.

[hauntedheadnc]

Originally Posted by goat314

No Washington DC, NYC, SF etc. have largely become healthy most cities are still hellholes as far as quality of life issues.

That's news to me. I was under the impression that the rising tide of urban appreciation we've been seeing over the past couple of decades had lifted most of America's cities' ships. I know that all the cities in my part of the world are doing exponentially better than they were back in the 80's.

[goat314]

Originally Posted by hauntedheadnc

That's news to me. I was under the impression that the rising tide of urban appreciation we've been seeing over the past couple of decades had lifted most of America's cities' ships. I know that all the cities in my part of the world are doing exponentially better than they were back in the 80's.

Certain regions of the country and cities with a particular demographic, but for the most part NO!
Take for example my hometown of St. Louis. There have been thousands of rehabs and a dozen or so rapidly gentrifying neighborhoods, but most of the city is still emptying out and is just as bad as ever. The reality of city revitalization is a lot different than Richard Florida fluff pieces. DC, NYC, SF, BOS, SEA, PDX etc. are the exception not that norm be any means. Most cities still have a lower quality of life for the average citizen than their suburban hinterlands.
Not everybody benefits from the "new, creative, hi-tech economy" When manufacturing died, so did much of urban America.

[mhays]

I'd say it's the majority that are doing substantially better. Add Atlanta, Houston, San Diego, Miami, Denver, Minneapolis.... Probably Pittsburgh despite population loss in past decades.

Further, St. Louis is a good example of the trend of a much better downtown and core districts providing something that didn't exist a few decades ago, which might be the basis for a larger revival.

[CGII]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

But modern architecture is weird. It's like modern art, in the sense that everybody who is outside the field of art hates it, while everyone who is inside the field loves it, and thinks the art that normal people like is cliché. The more and more you become involved with the field of planning and development, the harder it is to maintain that modern architecture stinks, because more and more of the people around you disagree....
....
I don't know what you do for a living, but you've been on this forum for a decade. That means you're an architecture fanboy (as are we all), which means you're immersed in the field, which in turn means you're surrounded by the modern architecture kool-aid way more than you probably were back when you read Kunstler for the first time.

So being on an internet forum qualifies you as 'being involved in the field' and removes your credibility as a layperson? People outside of the field of architecture like modern architecture, too, you know.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by CGII

So being on an internet forum qualifies you as 'being involved in the field' and removes your credibility as a layperson? People outside of the field of architecture like modern architecture, too, you know.

Not many. Not in this country, at least.

Modern architecture is horrid. Fortunately, my role in the industry still allows me to think that most architects are overpriced windbags with little vision. But that's just me... Budgets rule, and architects are just another consultant working with not-enough money and few good ideas for how to do the most with little.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by hauntedheadnc

That's news to me. I was under the impression that the rising tide of urban appreciation we've been seeing over the past couple of decades had lifted most of America's cities' ships. I know that all the cities in my part of the world are doing exponentially better than they were back in the 80's.

Yeah, the only cities still doing really poorly, I think, are the ones in parts of the country that are doing poorly. There will be islands of prosperity in any large agglomeration, and I suppose in a place like St. Louis, maybe there isn't enough prosperity for the city to capture much back. But I would think that's the exception, not the rule. (Not to say there aren't still pockets of bad in every city. But the general assumption that all urban cores are hellholes is no longer there.)

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Yeah, the only cities still doing really poorly, I think, are the ones in parts of the country that are doing poorly.

Baltimore, Maryland.

[bunt_q]

Is Baltimore not doing well? I have no idea. To me, purely on reputation, Baltimore is basically a suburb of Washington...the historical, post-industrial, has-been of a city with the terrible misfortune of being a short distance from the doing-phenomenally-well DC. There's only so much success to go around in any given region. Sort of like I would have different expectations of poor Oakland due to its proximity to multiple other areas where folks want to be. I wouldn't necessarily say that has anything to do with traditional city-specific problems. Poverty isn't an urban-only phenomenon anymore. But that isn't to say there won't still be cities that are poor.

[Crawford]

I think it's a reasonable debate re. whether U.S. cities have, on the whole, improved over the last few years. I think they probably haven't, with a few exceptions, though I know this sentiment probably runs counter to SSP sentiments.

If you took all major U.S. urban centers, and compared the central city population/job/economic growth rates relative to those of their respective suburbs, I think you'll find that most urban areas are still losing ground to their hinterlands. Yes, there are exceptions.

On the positive side, the overall population/job/economic gap seems to have improved quite a bit. In other words, a generation ago, suburbs were absolutely killing most urban areas. Nowadays, the relative rate of decline has slowed down quite a bit, and even turned around in a few case.

[Uptowngirl]

I listen to the Kunstlercast on occasion and read his books (and I've met him once, where he gently chastised me for getting a BA in political science).

Kunstler IMHO is wrong on a lot, but he is still an important force in traditional urbanist populism. You cannot count on some technological fantasy to fix the problem of cheap energy...and he's spot on with his criticism of much of the American populace, corrupt bankers and modern architecture.

He was my introduction to Andres Duany and Leon Krier.

But he is a fetishist for economic collapse and small town living. And he's almost a luddite. (See his rant against the space program...)

He talks about continuation of civilization and preparing for change (which IMHO is important!) but if everything fit his idea of civilization we would become a stagnant unchanging dead civilization.

And I still LIKE Kunstler. I think he contributes a valid viewpoint on world affairs and urbanism!

[CGII]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

But that's just me...

Precisely. Just because you have an opinion (and a concernedly strong one, did an architect touch you as a child?) does not mean the rest of the world shares it.

As a professional architect, my experience has taught me that people are more concerned about status and expensive materials than style, or more that expensive stuff decides what style somebody likes. From what I've handled, class issues decide what people like and those veins run far beyond the differences between described 'modernism' and 'not modernism.'

So please, spare us your manufactured outrage, we architects hate ourselves enough, thank you.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Uptowngirl

I listen to the Kunstlercast on occasion and read his books (and I've met him once, where he gently chastised me for getting a BA in political science).

Hey, you're alive!

It's funny that the OP posted this, because I've been thinking along the same lines re:Kunstler. His flamboyant outrage with issues of the suburbs helped propel me into a permanent fascination with urban planning and the built environment, but now I realize that he foams at the mouth just like Hannity and Limbaugh, with a dash of Glenn Beck even.

I do think it's important to have partisans on the side of TOD and Smart Growth... From a Chicago perspective, New Urbanism has failed to present a meaningful impact on the suburbs beyond a handful of mixed-use buildings in historic commuter towns where mixed-use already existed. With the exception of Evanston, these developments contain very little employment and relatively low residential density.

There are certainly no new town centers and no new walkable areas - just lip service paid to walkability in the form of bike paths linking new, low-density subdivisions, one more amenity for developers to boast about. Actually, though, has New Urbanism created substantial, dense new town centers anywhere outside the DC area? I guess Uptown Dallas sorta qualifies.

[Teshadoh]

The Geography of Nowhere inspired me as well, though I wish it was Jane Jacobs that influenced me and not Kunstler. I am also of the opinion that Kunstler's books haven't aged well and his rants have gotten so loud & incoherent, I find it easier to just ignore him.

What turned me off was the realization that though Geography of Nowhere seemed positive & optimistic - it was written by a bitter pissed off man whose diatribe against modernism (which happens to include suburbanism) has a lot more to do with him being bitter & pissed off than any real revolutionary. At least that was my conclusion after sharing notes between my own email conversations & another person's experience providing a tour of Atlanta to him.

But lastly, I concur with some other comments made here - many of his prophecies didn't turn into what he must have thought they would turn into.