Please speak to the need to diversify the urban design profession.

I have been a neighborhood activist and land-use observer for about 20 years, and naturally I have thought a lot about making better cities. One of the hosts asked, "How do I know if a city is good if I don't have anything to compare it with?" I have written a document entitled, "Cities Fit for People: The Urban Bill of Rights," which attempts to answer just that question by outlining the ideal rights of urban residents, to set a bar for judging the success of urban planning and design. This document was summarized and published in an urban planning journal, the only article they ever published by a non-professional (planner). The point is that my treatise represents a new approach to urban design--a rights-based rather than form-based approach. It goes over all the issues discussed in this Philosophy Talk, in detail. I highly recommend it for anyone interested in real-life planning. It can be found (and downloaded) at:
https://www.sharonhudson.com/urban_planning/urban_rights.html .

I had to laugh when I heard one of the hosts speculate that people should live in skyscrapers because they increased density. Has he ever raised a family in a skyscraper? Right now my elderly mother lives in a high-rise assisted living building; during the past 5 months, because of the pandemic, she has had no access to nature beyond a hot, glaring, noisy, windswept roof "garden" and another nice but small flower garden, which she can only access when staff is able to accompany her. Meanwhile, many elderly people living in ground-level buildings have been able to have continuous access to large garden spaces, with almost no interruption to their usual routines. Think about how YOU would like to live when you are 90. As for cars: most planners are fighting the last war: When cars no longer need gas, people will still want freedom of mobility, but there will be no parking if current planners have their way. And as for what I call ELK, the "efficiency of local knowledge": yes, that is critical, but usually disparaged as NIMBYism.

It IS critical that we design better and more equitable cities, but without a clear outline for what makes livable cities, the process will be about as fuzzy as today's show. I strongly recommend reading my Urban Bill of Rights.

Sharon Hudson, Oakland CA
https://www.sharonhudson.com/urban_planning/urban_rights.html

Cross-posting with the show...

https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/can-streets-discriminate#comment-6664

We are not going to design our way out of discrimination, especially in a conversation and blog post picture that seems to imply good design of a park bench is to serve as a bed for the homeless. This is the same mistaken premise that foists social work onto our police, and I might add anarchists at our police stations.

Social injustice needs fundamental justice that respects human rights, not design criteria. Great design helps, but we're polishing turds here not rewriting the constitution. Turd polishing has ever, will ever, be the duty of design.

Pig lipstick.

Yes, streets discriminate, or at least those people who plan them do. In Orlando, between the downtown neighborhoods of Paramour (majority Black) and College Park (majority white) the streets have been fenced and only on the College Park side are the streets kept up. I’ve included a link that illustrates just one of these fences.

https://goo.gl/maps/ko9FyZURoDxJGaTGA

Well, this is interesting. Streets are populated with citizens. And, citizens continue to discriminate, either lawfully or unlawfully. There is a distinction. If some citizen decides she does not wish to continue living in her neighborhood, for whatever reason(s), she may move. Whether her motive includes discrimination or not. This action on her part is not unlawful, though it may include a discriminatory animus. Certain functions of society are also discriminatory. Advertisements concerning eligibility for/ entitlement to some benefits advise persons to 'check their zip code'. Depending on who else lives therein, that zip code due to concentration(s) of individuals, may result in eligibility for/entitlement to available benefits. This was once referred to as screening people in, rather than screening them out. The language changes. This is also lawful discrimination. A once-used practice, known as red circling, was ruled as being unlawful discrimination because it negatively impacted minorities' access to fair housing. The streets themselves did not discriminate---the landlords and property owners did.

In order for your question(s) about this to be valid, the distinction between lawful and unlawful discrimination must be clear. Otherwise,, any assessments and/or conclusions will be meaningless at best.

I think there should be measures put in place to promote education and awareness in the community about the importance of diversity, inclusion and anti-discrimination Palworld Breeding Calculator measures.