Very informative channel. City planning is extremely important for human life and only recently in the U.S. have we started to rethink how it should be done.
I've watched many of the videos on this channel, and the stroad video was the one that really hit home. It perfectly put into words why I felt uneasy when visiting Dallas, Phoenix, or Las Vegas (other than the strip), and why walking/biking around there isn't just time consuming but also dangerous.
For those that are curious, he defines a "stroad" as the compromise between a street (designed to give access to homes and businesses) and a road (designed to move cars around quickly), but it takes the worst qualities of both.
My theory is that the uglier the word sounds, the less it will be used, the less popular the concept will be, which in this case is probably a good thing.
Good here because the concept is, imo, ambiguous at best, but probably just plain confusing.
Ditto the phrase 'road diet' -- sounds pleasant enough, but an extremely negative connotation for most people, and leads to tremendous and tremendously unhelpful misunderstanding of what road reconfigurations are, do, can do.
But the channel itself generally seems to mean well.
> My theory is that the uglier the word sounds, the less it will be used, the less popular the concept will be, which in this case is probably a good thing.
But the word brings attention to an issue. "Stroads" are already commonplace but people don't have a word to identify the problem. Since the word isn't popular people don't have a framework with which to understand and communicate the problem.
That we need _something_, some word or phrase, to discuss and describe what is the problem
But in this case and in many others
I feel like the word is counterproductive
This is, imo, coming from the Jane Jacobs school
Where she was very (extremely?) particular about the words and phrases we use to describe things
Think
Frank Luntz meets urban planning
Which is exactly what every 'good urban planning advocate' should be overly concerned about, imo.
...and I think this is the kicker, as a general lesson -- if you actually care about the cause you are ostensibly promoting -- say, 'good urban planning' -- then the language you use to describe the problem and proposed possible solution is actually crucial to _actually_ solving the problem.
So if you want to just win a political argument, then do whatever will win, do whatever frank luntz says you should do, etc.
But if you are interested in the right answer as in the best possible outcome -- maybe for your kids or humanity or rich people or however you define that -- then the language you use is crucial because it will shape both how to think about a problem and its possible solutions.
And, just to spell out a simple example, if you think of the problem of roads having 'too much traffic', you're probably not conceptualizing the issue appropriately, imo.
The actual problem, imo, is an inability of normal people to walk or bike or train or bus to where they need to go -- relatively easily and with dignity intact.
At that point, the solutions completely change -- and if you do not understand how or why, then you are going to end up where we are today (in America).
Its an ugly word for an ugly thing. I think the person who came up with it knew full well they were creating an ugly word and that was their intention from the beginning. Also, we need a word to describe this thing to effectively communicate what it is without having to be descriptive. We already have highway, freeway, street, and boulevard. Choosing a new word shows that this type of road is different than the others, and for me the term "stroad" sticks in my head because it perfectly describes the horribleness that I have experienced on them that is not present with highway, freeway, or street.
6 comments
[ 0.18 ms ] story [ 33.8 ms ] threadFor those that are curious, he defines a "stroad" as the compromise between a street (designed to give access to homes and businesses) and a road (designed to move cars around quickly), but it takes the worst qualities of both.
My theory is that the uglier the word sounds, the less it will be used, the less popular the concept will be, which in this case is probably a good thing.
Good here because the concept is, imo, ambiguous at best, but probably just plain confusing.
Ditto the phrase 'road diet' -- sounds pleasant enough, but an extremely negative connotation for most people, and leads to tremendous and tremendously unhelpful misunderstanding of what road reconfigurations are, do, can do.
But the channel itself generally seems to mean well.
But the word brings attention to an issue. "Stroads" are already commonplace but people don't have a word to identify the problem. Since the word isn't popular people don't have a framework with which to understand and communicate the problem.
That we need _something_, some word or phrase, to discuss and describe what is the problem
But in this case and in many others
I feel like the word is counterproductive
This is, imo, coming from the Jane Jacobs school
Where she was very (extremely?) particular about the words and phrases we use to describe things
Think
Frank Luntz meets urban planning
Which is exactly what every 'good urban planning advocate' should be overly concerned about, imo.
...and I think this is the kicker, as a general lesson -- if you actually care about the cause you are ostensibly promoting -- say, 'good urban planning' -- then the language you use to describe the problem and proposed possible solution is actually crucial to _actually_ solving the problem.
So if you want to just win a political argument, then do whatever will win, do whatever frank luntz says you should do, etc.
But if you are interested in the right answer as in the best possible outcome -- maybe for your kids or humanity or rich people or however you define that -- then the language you use is crucial because it will shape both how to think about a problem and its possible solutions.
And, just to spell out a simple example, if you think of the problem of roads having 'too much traffic', you're probably not conceptualizing the issue appropriately, imo.
The actual problem, imo, is an inability of normal people to walk or bike or train or bus to where they need to go -- relatively easily and with dignity intact.
At that point, the solutions completely change -- and if you do not understand how or why, then you are going to end up where we are today (in America).