[Why Good Urbanism Should be Bipartisan]

[Urbanism can be hard to define; it is both a political ideology and a characteristic of towns and cities. It is a term that can be adopted by any party or person that wishes to lay claim to it; however, the idea of urbanism does hold up several key tenets and assumptions.

Broadly speaking, “Urbanism” a political and urban planning force that openly advocates for walkable, small mixed-use communities within larger cities (see 15-minuite cities, minus the conspiracy theories), advocates strongly for better active transport and public transport options within cities with the overall goal of reducing car dependency and car centrism, ideally to the point where active and public transport makes up the great majority of daily commutes and trips within a city. They advocate for safer street design, incorporating modal filtering, bollards, raised curbs, and protected bike and pedestrian pavements, fully pedestrianised streets or areas, infill and brownfield mixed-use development, a relaxation of zoning laws, and the abolishment of car-centric suburban sprawl. This is the Urbanism of the mainstream, the policy wonk, and the typically left wing political activist. It is an “ideology” based mainly in the realm of statistics, public opinion, and sensible urban planning, and its main priority is to increase quality of life overall, reduce health and wealth disparities between areas, all while keeping the urban area affordable and dynamic. 

However, to conservatives, Urbanism has taken on a different - although adjacent - meaning. It is not a concrete “ideology” or “movement” like the Urbanism of the left is. What makes a good and pleasant city to conservatives is far more emotional, visual, and intuitive, often based on history and nostalgia. Many traditional conservatives see good urban fabric and form as essential to nurturing a positive personal and social character. To them, a shared sense of living local history, beautiful architecture, organic communities and neighborhoods, and plentiful green space is key. Urban forms are considered like organisms, with their own wills, directions, and life-cycles. Many traditional conservatives, such as Roger Scruton, would point to old classical European villages, towns, and cities as good examples, from Gothenburg to Paris. When asked what makes a “beautiful” city in their eyes (‘beautiful’ is often found to be the conservative rhetorical equivalent to ‘good urbanism’ on the left), they often point to seemingly arbitrary and specific things, such as the design of that cathedral, or the crookedness of this street. 

In our modern times of fairly unprecedented political polarisation, many on the left and right would assume that the other side is generally opposed to the urban ideologies on their side; to the right, the left must be in favour of soulless, modern, and history-less urban forms, and to the left, the right must be in favour of car-centric urban sprawl, large wealth disparities, and stubborn NIMBYism. I argue, however, that good urban design is desired by - and in the political interests of - both sides. In most areas, progressive and conservative people can agree that a certain city or neighborhood is pleasant to be in for generally the same reasons, though they might point to specific differences as to why. What to a progressive Urbanist is a good example of a dense, transit-oriented, walkable, mixed-use, green neighborhood can also be to a conservative a good example of traditional urban fabric inhabited with an organic community, still in touch with their local identities and sharing a sense of living history. Both can be true - and often are - for good and sensible progressive urbanist policies can often beget the kind of love of history, identity, and aesthetics that the conservative craves. In other words, both attitudes are needed when thinking about cities; cities are places where people live, and a good city requires just as much policy wonkery as misty eyed nostalgia. If we can combine both progressive and conservative fantasies about what makes a city a nice place to live in and overcome toxic culture war politics, we might find that there’s a lot more common ground between the two than previously thought.]