Market Urbanism

Liberalizing cities | From the bottom up

“Market Urbanism” refers to the synthesis of classical liberal economics and ethics (market), with an appreciation of the urban way of life and its benefits to society (urbanism). We advocate for the emergence of bottom up solutions to urban issues, as opposed to ones imposed from the top down.

Prince Charles on urbanism: the good and the bad

By

Prince Charles, perhaps the world’s most famous urbanist, on Dharavi, which he’s planning to replicate in either Calcutta or Bangalore:

Unlike the ‘fragmented, deconstructed housing estates’ built in the West, the slum has ‘order and harmony’ he claimed, adding: ‘We have a great deal to learn about how complex systems can self-organise to create a harmonious whole.’

Though he’s got good things to say about organic development, his critiques of modern architectural styles and his habit of injecting himself into planning decisions have not earned him fans in the UK, where two years ago a group of architects actually sent him a letter telling him to shut up:

Charles’s “private comments and behind-the-scenes lobbying” were anomalous in a modern, democratic system, said the letter writers, who also included Jacques Herzog and Pierre de Meuron, the Swiss duo whose practice turned the former Bankside power station into the Tate Modern, and Italy’s Renzo Piano, the co-designer with Rogers of the Pompidou Centre in Paris. […]

Rogers’ proposals for the Chelsea site had already been adapted following local objections and were now in the hands of Westminster council planners, they noted. “If the prince wants to comment on the design of this, or any other, project, we urge him to do so through the established planning consultation process. Rather than use his privileged position to intervene in one of the most significant residential projects likely to be built in London in the next five years, he should engage in an open and transparent debate.”

“This is not really about a style, or an argument about how buildings look, but how we go about things,” said Deyan Sudjic, the director of the Design Museum in London, who also signed the letter. “What’s slightly depressing is that this is kind of an old argument which began 25 years ago in quite a similar way, with the Prince of Wales’ no doubt quite well-intentioned attempt to interfere with a process which does have certain clearly laid-out legal steps. This is an unaccountable additional layer to that process.”

Comments

  1. Neighborhoods like Dharavi existed all over London and New York well into the industrial era. They got wiped because the government had to give someone the deed to the land, and English common law gives squatters very few rights – establishing adverse possession not only requires 20-40 years of residence (in contrast, Turkish law requires 5), but also an assortment of legal hoops, for example paying rent even once voids adverse possession. Both government and capitalism failed to protect the weak, and it’s only in a few rare accidents that they let the weak empower themselves.

  2. The prince’s heart seems to be in the right place – this is better than some of the other ideas I’ve heard him propound – but the problem is that you just can’t “plan” whole organic communities. Every attempt has either failed miserably (see: every public housing project constructed in the United States) or resulted in sterile mediocrity (Milton Keynes (England), Seaside (Florida)). The whole point behind “organic” is that such communities, over time, develop in response to the needs and desires of the people who live there – you can’t plan that, at least, not satisfactorily.

  3. “[A]nomalous in a modern, democratic system” is not really a very cogent criticism of Prince Charles, because everything about him, his existence, and his family is anomalous in a modern, democratic system. Until we abolish the monarchy, he’s entitled to stick his oar into things. That is, sad to say, our system.

  4. It would be nice to imagine that you could plan to support that, though, by not preventing them having services, and making certain things available, like sewers, or toilets.

  5. You’re wrong. Adverse possession of unregistered land takes a straight 12 years, and by definition is a root of title that does not depend on deeds. There was no legal reason it had to be that way.

  6. Back in the late 19th century, when there were a lot of squatters, it took 20 years on privately-owned land and 40 on publicly-owned land. And it had vague requirements for possessing the property adversely – at the most extreme, the squatter would have had to publicly announce his intention to occupy someone else’s land from the beginning. More commonly, it was voided just for paying rent once, which proved that the possession was not really adverse.

  7. The requirements for adverse possession are not vague, and have been well settled for a long time. I’m willing to believe that the limitation period changed, but what’s your source?

  8. If the community/society/nation is rich enough to afford to provide those niceties to everyone, sure, that’s great – and that’s as far as I would go.

  9. Yes, but having a monarchy means you’re free to treat all your politicians with the utter scorn they deserve… Here in America, there are way too many of us who are all too willing to treat their politicians like royals.

  10. Shadow Cities by Robert Neuwirth. The relevant chapter is the one about squatters in 19th century New York.

Trackbacks

Meta