Comment 39169

By thompsmr (registered) | Posted March 26, 2010 at 14:06:16

I think Borrelli's comments raise some very valid questions. As of March 2010, the big abstract boost that LRT was going to delivery has been delayed for a fear years atleast (until Ontario has money again). Now is the time to look to the "urbanist" assumptions that worked from 2004-2010.

Isn't there an assumption that those "unenlightened" folks just need the right articles, "fails", facts and figures, studies and reports to be brought on side. Rational minds will come to understand the presented version of the truth, right? Shouldn't reason enough be alone to change this city? Straight up Enlightenment Rationality will change the city, right? We've all read Jane Jacobs, right? So, why dont things change?

It's not just about building bridges now, it's about understanding the metaphors and frames we work in. It's about understanding those assumed pieces as limits, and that they limit our ability to work / reach out to other folks who are unlike us, because politics is about working with people who are often unlike you.

If real change will require us to have honest discussions with those who greatly differ in their values from ourselves than we must sit down with our city-enemies, and find out what they value (why do people move to suburbs anyways? why do people value their cars so much?, why do people show compassion for and even value "the poor" downtown?). Realize that one version of the well-researched, blogged and enlightened rational truth might not always be enough to bring out change in the city.

edited for grammar

Comment edited by thompsmr on 2010-03-26 13:08:30

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds