Randolph Hester begins his Design for Ecological Democracy by writing that his book “is about building ecological democracy through design. It is about remaking American cities so that we can better work with our neighbours and others; solve intricate community problems that help us sustain our liberty, our way of life, and the ecological systems on which liberty and life depend” (1). I am not convinced Hester has adequately explored the problems that he identifies in his introduction. This book is filled with the worst sort of urban planning or architecture school platitudes imaginable. I am not impressed by the way it uses, participatory democracy, small town community idealism, a Small is Beautiful rhetoric in the form of snobbishly condemning status seeking, a defence of homoeopathy, an enigmatic wise old native “uncle” who speaks in riddles, and an inclination to dismiss science in favour of sentimentalism to characterize and resolve the problems of urban life. I am convinced that I hated this book because Hester offers conservative solutions to the problems he identifies. Too much of the writing purporting to be concerned with the environment is too conservative. This writing gets one thing correct; we are changing the landscapes and the ecology of the planet. Unfortunately, this writing offers solutions to this problem that are implausible. If the populations of our cities decrease to the point where they no longer strain the ecosystems within which they are located, it will not be because we arranged our cities in to smaller communities where we can know everyone more personally. I refuse to imagine that the sense of anomie possible in major cities is harmful. I loathe being told local economies are more sustainable than regional, national or global economies. For as long as is foreseeable our cities will participate in economies of every recognizable size; our cities will increase in population and size; and our cities will be empowering because they provide a sense of anomie. I read Randolph Hester’s Design for Ecological Democracy because it was the assigned reading for an introductory Urban Planning class that I took. It is the most frustrating book I’ve read in years. I hope can dissuade someone else form reading it. Please be suspicious of this book. It is filled with questionable sentimental condolences—such as, “Sacredness provides wisdom that reorients scientific knowledge and technology toward the organic, gentle, nonviolent, elegant, and beautiful. Sacredness monitors scientific progress, sorting the good and bad through moral filters. In the cases where the heart is more intelligent than the mind, sacredness also intervenes” (125). A less conservative writer would know that science should be explored not compromised. I cannot imagine the future being anything but frustrating to a reader smitten with Hester’s writing.
Upon re-reading Kerouac's On the Road, Walter Kirn wrote the following (in Slate, "One the Road Revisited, 9/5/07): "I mourn the idea that the geographical is personal and that rivers and plains and cityscapes—and even place names, in some mysterious way—aren't interchangeable backdrops to our lives but fundamental sources of our fates."
If you are moved by this, check out Hester's "Sacredness" chapter, which offers innovative strategies on how to protect our "places" even in the face of redevelopment.
There's a lot of information there, but the basic idea that a city is best designed with the twin principles of democracy and ecology is powerful. Hard to think how it best applies to architects (as opposed to urbanists and landscape architects) but its something to think about.
Couple good quotes
"Form follows the flow of everyday life. Even the form of a radical future follows the flow of everyday life." p299 "No landscape can be more beautiful than it is just." p95