Video

this was just 50 minutes of leftist-themed narcissistic rambling

Capitalism can fix global diaster if they have time, like 200 years. But problem here is that we dont have time. We need fix it right now.

I allready live in 15min city and my life is aweseome. Most of the people dosent need cars

Excellent; thanks.

I think this was a very valuable video to watch. I think you broke down the reasons why we should be critical to the idea of third places well, and am a bit confused why ppl seem to think otherwise. I mean, saying that we need to be careful with what theory we use and should analyse what parts we like/dislike is a very baseline take imo! As a planning student this was a great video which I am likely to return to.

Definitely heard of the theory because of Andrewism. But you know what even without Oldenburg the "third places" or whatever these places are have been around and have probably already mutated outside of centrist and right wing perspectives.

Fantastic video! The YIMBYs in this comment section have gone hog wild, it seems. No, VoTiNg WoRkS No, YoUr ArGuMeNtS oNLy ApPLy To NeW YoRk No, We DoN't LiKe ThE fReE mArKeT, wE SuPpOrT iT uNqUeStiOniNgLy

I'm glad you called out New Urbanists (or the thought process itself) as being rightist. Some of them I follow on CZcams have literally been doing fash shit like saying "hail Azov" and joining NAFO.

F this utopian WEF BS! You really dumb if you think this is good

it is unsatisfying that this video doesn't articulate the reason why the centrist or right wing solutions aren't actually useful for the aim of making a liveable and pleasant city. the argument is that both for the people living inside of them, and for capitalists who want to develop, deregulation provides a benefit, but this video doesn't really tackle that and instead says we wont be "developed out of capitalism". well, that's not what anyone is claiming! the claim is that deregulation in the form of removing restrictive zoning laws, and lowering the barriers to development, directly corresponds to better building incentives. the conception of "right to the city" is also questionable as presented in here, because it doesn't really tackle the problem of nimbyism, a movement equally concerned with one's right to control what is developed in their area. nimbyism is associated with higher rents, single use areas, city segregation, &c. and it seems consistent with the concept that people should have a right to what is built in their city. how is this radical? maybe have missed it, if so point it out, but it doesn't feel like this video really tackles the problem of *who* gets a right to the city, and how to determine that. should a gentrified neighborhood who universally agrees that the construction of a high rise apartment and a grocery store in their backyard be overruled by the inner city progressive people who support it, just because they live in the same city? certainly the development is the best decision, but within the framework of right to the city, it's difficult to see that any justification should be made that people ought to control the developments of those far away from them. "right to the city" is an interesting concept, and it's not hard to see its place in certain areas, but when tackling certain problems it still has a long way to go. the interests of different people within the city is not always the same, and movements for greater civilian control can just lead to certain voices not being heard, and certain issues getting no attention. in the end you propose that if certain issues cropped up, they would be solved by democratisation. do we have any reason to believe that? when talking to the average person it becomes clear that cycling infrastructure and safety is not deemed an important part of the lives of most people. the lack of public-transit connections between places will be ignored in cities which are heavily car dependent and who would rather spend the money on renovating roads, building roundabouts, and expanding car safety. right to the city allows citizens to more effectively pursue their own ends, but for a large amount of citizens the ends are harmful to the health of the community. it's not really obvious what to do about this.

Not sure about the benefits of urban agriculture. Sure, as an opportunity for recreation on a small scale. But to make a proper dent in the food supply of a city so much space is needed that retaining a density high enough to operate commercial and communal services effectively, and have a diverse pool of jobs within a short distance will be even harder as it is. I am very sure about the idea of having cars at the side of streets, and pedestrians in the middle: that is wrong. people feel more comfortable within proximity of the edge of a space. Let's keep the more comfortable space for pedestrians and people actually being in the street, and leave the less comfortable part for people just going through the street.

conservatives are paid to conflate Smart surveillance cities with 15-minute cities

Leftists 18:45 actually call themselves “leftist”? Is this a joke?

I just found your channel and as someone who recently stumbled into Transportation Planning from Anthropology/Archaeology this is super interesting/useful. Thank you for making this video!

I can tell Ray Oldenburg has never interacted with the military.

I like your vids but i dont know if its my pc or your mic, your voice is too low so i cannot listen to it while working lol

Breaking News, leftist youtuber criticises theorist born in the 30's for his dismissal of third places for "fem people" when his theory was developed during a time when it was uncommon for women to have a "second place". No reason for modern leftists to waste energy explaining why they chose to forget or skip that part, because they don't get paid to waste air pointing out that theory developed in the 60's and 70's might not perfectly align with the realities of 2024.

Trap everyone into a little town with no transportation ?... Ha!! same as putting people into control camps ! I pray normal people can see through this

what a brilliant video

bring back opium dens,, no cap

I wrote my application to Cambridge for Land Econ based on the idea of third places and how i wanted to become an urban planner to get in the bureaucracy and take part in the slow and gradual shift to a better city design. If i knew better i would've pushed for something more radical. If this video came out while i was applying, i might've gotten in, lmao

Makes me really sad as I try to move more towards leftism out of my yearning to be a part of a social movement founded on compassion & so on, and so often encounter this "fuck you" (literal quotation, in this case) attitude in response to the profound grief I, and, it seems, Ray (presumably more unconsciously), feel at the lack of strong male-male friendships. That the "Straight man wants a close same-sex friend? HA gayyyyy" idea is so ubiquitous as to even be posed as you do in this very video is just so antithetical to the entire reason I am drawn towards leftism in the first place. That women don't have to deal with this culturally instituted shaming for desiring close, same-sex, PLATONIC intimacy is… well, idk. Halfway through your essay so far in any case. Really enjoying your intellectualism in general. You say you're not in the business of moving centrists left, but that won't stop me from engaging that way… just gonna have to wade through the other, shittier, aspects I guess. ii

omg who are you thank you??? subscribed

Thank you for this- I am a recent planning grad moving to a new city for a job in state government and hope to connect with other planners with Marxist ideology… Any advice for cultivating this beyond working with orgs outside of planning?

but I want a third space :/

Great video!

Third place and right to the city don't contradict each other. They sound similar to how you describe it. 0:23 I haven't really seen urbanists or libs say third places are lib but I've seen it from conservatives. In fact, urbanists lament that urbanism has been made political and polarizing when they wanted it to be for everyone and facts. And they wanted it as a good idea to improve human life, the environment, poverty, and community instead of loneliness. Conservatives think public spaces means higher taxes and government and they dislike that. They often dislike what's different or "new" and associate that with lib or anti-tradition. Even tho walkability is tradition. But since it's so car centric now, they associate that with "tradition". Yeah, conservative logic often doesn't make much sense. There's urbanist channels who talk about history and places like Europe to show denser and walkable cities are traditional. Such as from City Beautiful on how cars stole the roads. Conservatives associate third places with urbanism which includes reducing cars and more trains, walkability, bike paths, and denser cities. Which they dislike and think it's "communism", crowded, or crime ridden. They say "cars are freedom". Conservatives also dislike things if they see libs happen to promote it. Even if it's not lib. Conservatives tend to lean towards being nimbys. Conservatives prefer privatization and capitalism. They tend to say if you want something then "work hard and buy your own". Rather then publicly try to change things or make government changes or use government funding. Some conservatives lean towards suburbs, the rural, and strict zoning. When indeed, a lot of third places, like parks and libraries, tend to come from the government. Why would a business really just let there be free space that they don't profit off? Unfortunately, capitalism does destroy third places. Because they, such as corporations, want to hoard spaces and buildings for profits. Watch Cash Jordan on anti-homeless/hostile architecture. Some businesses even want to put up things like spikes around to chase off loiterers and non-customers. There's also the "no loitering" signs on businesses. I think there was a comment on Not Just Bikes' video on third places that said a mall banned teens. 4:09 Definitions can evolve. Especially when Ray couldn't forsee every kind of new place to exist. I think parks fit what third places are. It's not that people say parks are third places cause it makes the feel good but cause it a public space and where people can socialize. 5:00 I understand that you said third places should have conversation, but since third places are so lacking in some places people have to scrap the bottom in the form of libraries or even parks. 9:22 I disagree. We can make third places with policies or government projects or funding. Like parks. We probably need too cause look at how capitalists tend to just want things for profits. Third places has to be a place where people of all financial classes can just be for as long as they want. Not be pressured to have to keep buying things to be there. Strict zoning does destroy a lot of good things and community. Watch channels like Not Just Bikes or Oh the Urbanity on it. One reason is strict zoning causes city designs with too much car dependency, highways, and danger for nondrivers. It's hard to drop by third places or go at all much if you're forced to drive. Not everyone can and it's costly. Also, too much space is hoarded and separated for roads. Watch Not Just Bikes on big box stores which strict zoning also causes. And often it's just rich or chain corporations who can afford those box stores or they are often left vacant cause they're unaffordable to most people. Urban dense cities and mixed zoning help small businesses. Calling for more third places doesn't have to be building or government involvement btw. But a call to the community. Just because Ray or conservatives lay claim on democracy doesn't mean it is. With them it's not. Watch Second Thought on how America does not have democracy. 16:34 Just because bad or prejudice people made or coined a idea for something doesn't mean that idea is bad or can't be applied for all people. Now women can and need to enjoy third places too. Just because people like third places doesn't mean they agree with everything from Ray. Third places are often inclusive. I supported more urbanism before I knew of Ray. So how can you say all urbanists agree with everything Ray said? What's wrong with giving people more diverse city choices? Like walkability. Especially when it's lacking in North America. Idk why you want to put down third places or the term when it's good and needed. 24:59 I want communities where there isn't objectifying or s3xual harassment. There's too much of that and people are silenced about that. I'm aroace too. For example there's videos of women preferring to choose a bear over a man cause of things like harassment. Ray was saying the lgbt are a minority which is true. 31:43 Urbanism does help. Watch Not Just Bikes. Urbanism helps activism for other things too. Like a place for them to conjugate and spread their activism. Idk how you think third places help corporations. Third places even take space from those greedy businesses. People and exploited workers need a place of solace. What's wrong with that? Third places are giving power to the people to have a say in it. Not corporations. 33:25 Urbanists don't idolize past cities or are not nostalgic for past cities. They state lots of data on how urban cities are beneficial and can increase safety. It seems you were slandering or putting words in urbanists' mouths just cause you didn't like some things Ray said. 39:37 I agree that gentrification is a problem and need fixing. 40:35 I haven't heard urbanism mean to include the suburbs. Most people do not mean that when they use the term urbanism. So try to understand the context of most people. Extremism on suburbs often prevent urbanization actually. 41:09 Watch City Beautiful on racism. Suburbs and bulldozing urban neighborhoods for highways, especially of poor African Americans, displaced those poor people. Past suburbs excluded African Americans or tried to price them out of it. 41:29 There's gentrification in suburbs too. 41:53 There's people who are both urbanists and socialists too. Don't the major cities tend to lean more democrat or socialist? I think I heard Not Just Bikes was socialist. I'm not sure. It makes sense urbanists tend to be more socialist because they need and advocate for government changes to improve human wellbeing and/or the environment. The things urbanists push for like city redesign are expensive. 48:29 No, it's hard work fighting for third places.

"White"... "Male"... "Heteronormative"... Blah, Blah. You say your channel is a place for Leftists, rather than as a place to move Centrists to the Left. That sounds to me like an echo chamber. But anyway, congratulations, you're succeeding!

So this is more of an argument against the failures of central planning. Parochial conservatism and top down central planning leftism really do shake hands often

This video is very informative. I hope everyone can share it!

I think you should take a look at the works of Christopher Alexander next, particularly the first three books in his Center for Environmental Structure series (Timeless Way of Building, Pattern Language, Oregon Experiment). He has much the same things to say on top-down and centralized planning as Friedmann, but his theory on what a truly liveable society looks like goes a step further in that it eliminates the power structures that take control of a person's environment away from them (which necessitates planners and experts who "have the right knowledge"). The way that a community develops as a result looks somewhat like an embryo developing, with details shaped by their users themselves coming together to form a coherent whole. He argues that 95% of historical vernacular architecture was built this way and if you give it a chance I think it's pretty convincing. In my opinion it's the logical next step after Friedmann's theory and a more radical look at what a utopian society may look like. It's also the only theory I've seen that's truly clicked for me, and in some ways it feels less like a new way forward and more like deep ancient wisdom being revealed to you. Interestingly enough Alexander was a pretty prolific architect himself, and one of his largest-scale works (his designing of the University of Oregon campus, talked about in The Oregon Experiment) looked much like the Transactive Theory, with mutual learning between processed knowledge (Alexander and other professional architects) and personal knowledge (students and faculty). Later in life he considered this project to only partially be a success because it ended up being bogged down by bureaucracy as a result of the power structures already in place at the University, namely private ownership of the facilities. That just goes to show I think that a truly equitable society and human-oriented communities would work best under an anarchist organization. Anyways great video! This is pretty much the only channel I've seen going beyond critiquing existing structures and actually into offering solutions.

This was an excellent and enlightening video. The right to the city genuinely feels like the movement and philosophy I’ve been unknowingly seeking out for years now, and I will absolutely be reading more from David Harvey. Trying to work within the unique landscape and history of a town to encourage more pedestrian friendly development with social spaces has always been what I’ve wanted, and it seems fairly obvious that those kinds of things will never happen when the main motive in the design of our cities is maximizing profit. There’s a lot of other points I’ll be reflecting on, but I don’t really want to type a paper in the comments of a CZcams video right now.

not defending the guy himself, but don’t think reading that quote you show at 17:43 that he is just putting the blame on ‘wife guys’. or saying that marriages are doomed if the couple spends too much time together. i feel like this underscores the genuine reality of what he’s saying, a reality apparent especially in recent years where i’ve seen this rise in objections towards particularly men using (intentionally or not) their partner (almost always a woman in the complaint) as a sort of stand in therapist, or singular means of emotional connection and support. and thus requiring the woman, on top of possibly a job and the usually gendered task of housework, to have to preform this emotional labor as well in caring for their partner.

“I am going to say SO MUCH about this topic that there will be nothing left to say” …an academic *SWOONS*

I love these woke morons who believe in the end of the world to justify their failed lifestyle. should and have to... you want easy, free stuff and that's never happened and will never happen. the demographic timebomb only promosses poverty and a lot more working.

thanks for this

I'm really baffled by the "I'm going to annihilate you" thing. Like is that a pun in German that doesn't translate, or what? I don't get it.

just found your channel, fucking yes, I love it. My collection of leftist content of this ilk is expanding! Not just Bikes, Well there's your Problem, Climate town, and now this. Any additional suggestions please people, put em below! (I dunno if stuff like trash future fits into this area or not, but I am lookin for stuff specific to like ya know, engineering, design, planning etc)

“I don’t want to be rewarded, I want to be right.” 🤣🤣🤣

Voosh?

15 minute cities are an Orwellian nightmare. They cloak their totalitarian actions into a "save the planet" b.s. What has ever happened to the good by bureaucrats and politicians?

This is a very eloquent and thought out video, although the argument that a pro market approach does not work because "developers will not flood the market and reduce their own profits" stems from a misunderstanding of how pricing is determined. Developers require large sums of capital to fund projects and obtain these funds from banks, insurance companies, pension funds and private investors. Each of these sources demand a certain trade-off between willingness to bear risk and the expected return on their investment. Developers forecast the costs of a project and calculate the rental rates required to meet this cost of capital. If these rents are in line with the market, the project can go forward, if the required rents are too high, then the project cannot go forward. Developers are paid by their investors through contractual development fees during the construction of their projects, the profits from a project belong to the investors, not the developer. It is therefore in the incentive of developers to price the units at the price that leads to the fastest absorption while still meeting the minimum return requirements. Pricing above this level in a competitive market is counter productive because it encourages tenants to go to competitors. Only in a supply-constrained or monopolistic market can new units be priced above the cost of capital requirement. After direct construction costs, the most expensive component of a new development is the cost of land. As there is no labour or equipment required to produce land, the cost is driven by scarcity, specifically the scarcity of buildable density. Restrictive zoning bylaws that prohibit the development of medium and high density housing in all but certain areas create artificial scarcity that increases the price of land, which inevitably results in higher costs for new developments. Increasing density across the board by allowing medium density in all jurisdictions would dramatically reduce land prices and allow many more projects to meet their required cost of capital with lower rents. Additionally, making it easier to develop small medium density projects allows many smaller groups to develop projects, as opposed to only the largest and most well connected developers.

"There are no temples to friendship" - *looks over at the Quaker Meeting house*

this was so boring i fella asleep

Let's build some cool new, walkable towns.

fantastic video, only complaint is that you called it a city wide instead of a special, gotta put respect on Bob and Barbara's! (jk)