Theory can always get better, and that will of course only help with storytelling, but I don’t think the current lack of great storytelling is a byproduct of bad urban theory.
The current ideas in urbanism are more than sufficient raw material for great storytelling! It’s about being strategic and intentional in telling the kinds of stories that consider and empathize with the perspectives of those who resist urbanism so the stories we tell can directly wrestle with their points of contention.
But as the saying goes, “don’t hear what I’m not saying” - better theory is never a bad thing!
My initial thought/sense is that most narratives are formed by at least as much personal conjecture/experience as they are by theory ("people are going to think what they're going to think") so I'm just not sure how much better theory (though important) shifts that.
But maybe there's something specific in the flaws of the current narratives that better theory tackles and that translates to stories that solve those flaws.
Everyone applies theories, even when they are not intending to theorize.
We don’t have a satisfactory definition of either “urban” or “sprawl.”
We overlearned on road design as a determinant of traffic safety.
We don’t even have a clear definition of “road design.”
I don’t know that this falls into the realm of theory and I don’t see it in scholarly literature, but in online urbanism, it’s common to claim that nobody has friends in the suburbs and we need cities to make friends. But I agree with Jane Jacobs, who theorizes that functional cities are more of a consequence of how we relate to strangers:
We *do* need better urban theory. Making urban theory more coherent would facilitate coherent and compelling story telling.
Theory can always get better, and that will of course only help with storytelling, but I don’t think the current lack of great storytelling is a byproduct of bad urban theory.
The current ideas in urbanism are more than sufficient raw material for great storytelling! It’s about being strategic and intentional in telling the kinds of stories that consider and empathize with the perspectives of those who resist urbanism so the stories we tell can directly wrestle with their points of contention.
But as the saying goes, “don’t hear what I’m not saying” - better theory is never a bad thing!
Some of our story-telling is even counterfactual, so I disagree. Some of the bicycle narratives are the hardest to swallow.
Say more on this!
My initial thought/sense is that most narratives are formed by at least as much personal conjecture/experience as they are by theory ("people are going to think what they're going to think") so I'm just not sure how much better theory (though important) shifts that.
But maybe there's something specific in the flaws of the current narratives that better theory tackles and that translates to stories that solve those flaws.
Interested to hear how you're thinking about it.
Everyone applies theories, even when they are not intending to theorize.
We don’t have a satisfactory definition of either “urban” or “sprawl.”
We overlearned on road design as a determinant of traffic safety.
We don’t even have a clear definition of “road design.”
I don’t know that this falls into the realm of theory and I don’t see it in scholarly literature, but in online urbanism, it’s common to claim that nobody has friends in the suburbs and we need cities to make friends. But I agree with Jane Jacobs, who theorizes that functional cities are more of a consequence of how we relate to strangers:
https://bnjd.substack.com/p/jane-jacobs-on-urban-socialization?r=2jjed