WFH coincides with rapidly rising interest in urbanist views(the "Not Just Bikes" and "Strong Towns" crowd). The previous US era's low trust ceded all ground to private spaces: if you went out, it was to work, to buy something, or to participate in some structured activity like exercise. The "town squares" to idle in disappeared, hence workplaces became very central to people's lives as the only kind of commons. And the public roads defined themselves around automobile traffic, another way of making a private space, or at least the illusion of such. The previous generations accepted this as the terms of the good life; near-total control over the private domain, even where it came with negative externalities. This is the thing that is now being questioned, because for younger generations, there has been little opportunity to "get on the property ladder". They have been crowded into working from home with four roommates. When they go online, it is mediated by surveillance at every turn. And it costs too much now to go for long drives by car. Their private space sucks!
As I see it, the energy of the youth is gradually being sapped away from political movements made on private terms - blaming an other to justify further division of public space - towards the idea of revitalizing the commons, an idea which has a kind of inevitability behind it coming from this low point, since it satisfies a huge diversity of needs.
Remaking the public space is, in fact, stunningly easy: close a few roads in urban centers, near destinations, to auto traffic, and put out some seating. Times Square did this; JFK Drive as well. Both are transformed places. When the cars are cleared out and you have "eyes on the street", the perceptions of cities as fundamentally anonymous places disappear, as well. This only becomes more true as alternate modes of mobility are introduced; the huge uptake of ebikes nationwide has exceeded every expectation and has created a flywheel of demand for more urban bike infrastructure, and therefore more public space.
We are blessed with a lot of public spaces in Berlin. Not just squares but also parks, lakes and bike paths in nature.
This is where we met all summer. Grilling in the park, cycling around, swimming in lakes etc.
You meet your friends and their friends too. You bring your dates there. You have hard conversations there. You play sports together there.
It's not just about socialisation. It's a place where you can be not-home. You don't have to eat or drink alcohol or pay. You can just linger there and be left alone.
Public spaces are so incredibly important, but I don't imagine the political class as people who go to parks a lot.
>We are blessed with a lot of public spaces in Berlin.
And cursed with a terrible housing market, especially for newcomers.
>Public spaces are so incredibly important, but I don't imagine the political class as people who go to parks a lot.
So much this on both fronts. In many countries, like Austria and others I'm sure, the political class really has neglected public spaces that aren't for tourists, as they're not the users of it. Public parks have mostly been relegated as places for the "poor" and "working class" to hang out who can't afford a house in the green suburbs with a nice big garden surrounded by forests. Which is ironic since the rich kids are always driving their cars from their suburbs to the parks downtown to hang out as that's where the best parties are. :)
> And cursed with a terrible housing market, especially for newcomers.
I know! I help people settle in Berlin, and I don't know what to tell incoming students anymore. I'm not sure how they can find a place to live in a reasonable time frame.
I hear that it's worse elsewhere, but it's no consolation.
Out of curiosity where is it worse? What if it's like the "grass is greener" effect but in reverse, where people use the "it's worse elsewhere" argument to comfort themselves for their bad living conditions or other discomforts in life.
I mean, I'm sure there are cities where it's worse, but like you said, that doesn't improve the situation for those wishing to live in Berlin so it's kinda pointless to look at places that are worse instead of fighting to improve the location you live in.
I heard that it's the same or worse in other capitals. The message is not "it's not so bad", it's "housing is spiraling out of control in all major cities, what's the endgame?"
> And cursed with a terrible housing market, especially for newcomers.
That isn't exactly unique to Berlin you know. And IIRC at least the local government tried to do something about it (but was struck down in higher courts).
Yes but they get points for trying. At least they see what rampant price inflation has done to other cities and aren't cheering it on as a neo-con victory.
Contrast (any city in) Australia which is stuck in a nightmare loop of homelessness and political pressure to keep the house prices high (from homeowners) and affordable (from everyone else).
Or London, where house prices are now so high it is mostly owned by absent foreigners.
Sorry, but trying an obviously populist measure that further sinks housing availability and makes thing worse for everyone does not get you any points anywhere.
In Australia this would not be a populist move. The difference in housing situation/markets is really interesting.
The key point that Berlin seems to realise, but Australia definitely doesn't, is that the purpose of houses is for people to live in them, not make money investing in them.
Have you ever considered that public space, urbanisation are a proto form of nudging.
If not, consider that the best minds in the 50 and 60 were considering subtle form of propaganda and manipalution by intelligent and adapted design of environment.
Outside conscious detection, the human herd in urban envIronment are manipulated, nudged, and controlled the same way cattle are milked in modern factories.
Those parks you seems to worship are just existing in your environment cause someone decided that you should worship those parks in your environment.
The remaining question is: for what ?
I would guess, happy and voluntary self alienation.
Nobody question the paradoxal stupidity of feeling lonely in the most dense areas existing on the surface of earth.
How can you feel lonely when you have more than a thousand peoples surrounding you in a range smaller than 100m away from you.
It's really quite impressive to equate access to nice parks to factory farming as a bad thing while also claiming that people must be socially sated because they live in densely packed areas.
There's a lot of chatter in certain internet circles about those ideas...
But in practice, the leave-it-at-the-door delivery-or-no-touch-pickup world is not one I'd describe as higher trust and more social. Times Square? Other similar "close a few roads and have a mall" places? There's nothing there revitalizing socialization compared to the previous generation of indoor malls.
> But in practice, the leave-it-at-the-door delivery-or-no-touch-pickup world is not one I'd describe as higher trust and more social.
You’re making the point for them. Interaction with service providers shouldn’t be a primary social outlet for people (as much for the sake of the service provider as the customer); previous generations’ choices just made it one of the most important outlets since it’s one of the most convenient, especially if you’re willing to pay for it (they major driver of almost all 20th century social trends).
Even happenstance “excuse me, pardon me” type small talk to peers is worlds better than a forced corporate smile from a waiter who relies on tips to survive, because at least then, you’re forced to have some amount of empathy/introspection (since the other party isn’t being paid to be nice).
The rub of this, though, is then plenty of people only like to interact with service providers (especially as they get older) and this new world can feel isolating to them, but I don’t think that’s a measure of Gen Z or whatever’s commitment to civic socialization.
If Times Square is the only public space you can think of, you're either unimaginative or arguing in bad faith. Try Central Park maybe?
I have an axe to grind about interaction-free delivery services, but it's a different debate. Public spaces are for when you intend to see other people.
Public spaces as I've experienced them are much better than malls. For one thing they're outside. It's not easy to be outside for many city dwellers. They're also a place where you're not expected to spend money. You can bring your own food, drinks and entertainment. You can do nothing at all and not be perceived as a threat. You aren't screaming over the noise of car traffic. The silence is a revelation when you experience it for the first time.
I spent my summer in public spaces. I miss them dearly when I travel to concrete jungles and sleepy suburbias.
That only works if you're willing to be ruthless is cracking down on unapproved behaviors and activities. Most public spaces weren't destroyed by automobiles, they were destroyed by humans produced by contemporary society. A drunk masturbating in front of children in the park isn't caused by a lack of ebikes.
We must live in very different places. I patronise the public spaces everywhere I go, and what you describe is highly atypical.
Unless of course you treat public spaces like Americans treat buses. If it becomes a miserable experience only the destitute would use, those who can will avoid it, and those who can't will perpetuate it.
But where I live everyone uses public spaces. The wealthy don't retreat to private backyards.
Our public parks went downhill. People park cars on the grass, do donuts in the grass, race through the park. People drink alcohol and smoke marijuana in the park, leave their trash all over, play obnoxiously loud music...
As I see it, the energy of the youth is gradually being sapped away from political movements made on private terms - blaming an other to justify further division of public space - towards the idea of revitalizing the commons, an idea which has a kind of inevitability behind it coming from this low point, since it satisfies a huge diversity of needs.
Remaking the public space is, in fact, stunningly easy: close a few roads in urban centers, near destinations, to auto traffic, and put out some seating. Times Square did this; JFK Drive as well. Both are transformed places. When the cars are cleared out and you have "eyes on the street", the perceptions of cities as fundamentally anonymous places disappear, as well. This only becomes more true as alternate modes of mobility are introduced; the huge uptake of ebikes nationwide has exceeded every expectation and has created a flywheel of demand for more urban bike infrastructure, and therefore more public space.