The Shape of the Future

E M Risse

Deconstructing the Tower of Babel

The words "suburb," "urban," and "city" mean different things to everyone who hears them. Without a precise vocabulary, writers can't communicate clearly on the most pressing issues of the day.

The last Shape of the Future column, “The Foundation of Babble,” Nov. 28, 2005, opened an examination of vocabulary and highlighted the need for a robust, comprehensive lexicon. This resource is essential to discuss, understand and take intelligent action on eliminating dysfunctional human settlement patterns. A viable vocabulary is the sine qua non of creating functional patterns of settlement and evolving viable components of urban fabric.

At the conclusion of the “The Foundation of Babble” we suggested that as long as smug professionals, self-serving professors, mainstream media and pandering politicians can say that the confusion caused by inappropriate language is just a "difference of opinion" and that reports, news stories, columns, editorials and advertisements impacting citizen understanding of human settlement patterns can employ whatever words meet the authors fancy, civilization will continue to slide toward entropy.

The first column focused on use of the word “sprawl” and documented why this word should be avoided. In this column we open with a discussion of the words “suburban” and “city.” We then consider others of the “Core Confusing Words” and move to a review of techniques to improve communication concerning settlement patterns. These tools will help citizens understand the economic, social and physical impact of alternative patterns and densities of land use. They are essential to establish a sustainable future trajectory for contemporary civilization.

Explosive Growth of Confusion

After “sprawl” the words that cause the most confusion concerning settlement patterns are “suburban / suburb / suburbia” and “city.”

There are few useful applications of “suburban” beyond the original definition and the literal meaning of the term:  Less than urban. (See End Note One.)

“Suburb” is a catchall for lower density urban areas that are mislabeled “suburban.” Parts of what was once a “suburb” is now higher in density/ intensity of use than the core municipality.

 

“Suburbia” is an amorphous collection of “suburbs” that are more or less “suburban.”

Unlike “sprawl” and “suburban/suburb/ suburbia,” there is a good reason to use the word “city.” The problem with “city” is that the word is very often misused, especially in Mainstream Media.

The misuse of “suburban/suburb /suburbia” and “city” are linked. Let us start with “city.”

The proper use of “city” is as part of the official title of one form of municipal government. In times past, “city” had a broader meaning. Historically a “city” was a large, fairly well balanced urban agglomeration with clear boundaries. By “fairly well balanced” we mean that the urban activities within the “city” had relative a balance of jobs/housing/services recreation/amenity. In addition, there was a balance between the urban activity in the “city” and the nonurban activity in the surrounding (and supporting) Countryside. The Countryside supplied nonurban services (e.g. food, fuel, fiber, extensive recreation, etc.) for “city” residents. (See End Note Two.) 

The governance authority that granted the right (often in the form of a “charter”) to create urban fabric and maintain an urban place determined the boundaries of the “city.” As the urban agglomeration grew, the boundaries were expanded. There was almost always a Clear Edge to define the limit of the “city,” usually a wall for defense. An area just outside the wall might be called “a suburban area” because the residents were “suburban” that is "less than urban" as indicated by the definition in End Note One.

In the terms used in this column, the historic “city” was a Balanced Community. Perhaps Imperial Rome and other urban places that achieved populations exceeding a million were too big to be thought of as a single Balanced Community but most historic cities fit the meaning we employ. See “Balanced Communities,” Aug. 23, 2005.

The Industrial Revolution drove explosive growth of urban activity in what we now term the First World (aka, the Industrialized Nation-States). The Industrial Revolution also resulted in the need for far lower levels of human participation in nonurban activities – agriculture, forestry, mining, fishing, etc. In 200 years (1800 to 2000) the United States went from five percent urban and 95 percent nonurban to 95 percent urban and five percent nonurban.

To accommodate Fundamental Change in the balance of urban/nonurban human activity, expansion of the urbanized area was necessary. (See End Note Three.)

Unfortunately, the three-level structure of governance (nation-state, state, municipal) did not evolve to reflect the Fundamental Change in the amount and function of the urbanized area. The governance structure still has not evolved in any meaningful way. In addition, in most cases the jurisdictional borders of the “city” (aka, core municipalities) did not expand in area. In fact, border expansion has been essentially frozen in many states including Virginia over the last half century. The result has been mass confusion that is exacerbated by the misuse of the words “city” and “suburban” by those who do not yet understand the change that has taken place.

Much of what should be considered part of the “urban core” is labeled “suburban.” Much that is outside of any City is called is called “city.”

What is called “sprawl” primarily agglomerated during this same period. Details of the extent, causes and impact of the confusion are addressed in "The Shape of the Future," Prologue, Chapters 1, 2 and 3 and in Appendix One (Lexicon) and Appendix Two (Core Confusing Words).

Sorting Out the Confusion

The Phrase Substitution Technique was introduced to help understand the impact of the use of “sprawl” in “The Foundation of Babble,” Nov. 28, 2005. 

Prompted by the usefulness of this technique, we will suggest a simple way to address the misuse of “city” and an effective way to create an understanding of why to avoid use of “suburban/suburb/suburbia.” This technique was not clear until we started to apply the Phrase Substitution Technique to sort out “sprawl.” (See End Note Two.)

To illustrate the level of confusion surrounding “suburban” and “city” we examine the work of Professor Joel Kotkin.  It turns out Kotkin provides a near perfect demonstration of inappropriate use of “city” and of “suburban” with “sprawl” thrown in for reinforcement.

Joel Kotkin is an astute observer of human settlement pattern trends and is often out in front of trends, giving them well remembered names like “White Flight.” On Feb. 6, 2005, Kotkin wrote the lead op ed in the Outlook section titled "Rule, Suburbia: The Verdict’s In. We Love It There." Five months later The Washington Post featured Kotkin’s work twice. He wrote a front-page Outlook op ed titled “City of the Future.” In addition, the newspaper reviewed his book, "The City: A Global History" in the “Book World” section in the same edition. Considered together these three items dramatically illustrate the scope of confusion caused by misuse of “suburban/ suburb/suburbia” and “city.”

First "Suburban/Suburb/Suburbia

Kotkin drew from his book, "The City: A Global History," in his Feb. 6, 2005, op ed in The Washington Post. The core idea he presented was “the dominance of suburbia." The theme was trumpeted by the headline, "Rule, Suburbia: The Verdict’s In. We Love It There." (See End Note Four.)

Without reading another word or understanding anything about what Kotkin is actually describing, thousands who saw the headline will smile to themselves knowingly. Even those who read the opinion piece, to say nothing of the millions who never heard of Joel Kotkin, will continue to assume that the human settlement pattern that has agglomerated over the past 80 years is just fine. Many concerned about the impact of dysfunctional human settlement patterns will think Kotkin’s "research" means that contemporary society did the best (or only) thing it could. Citizens and organizations will believe and act as if it is in their best interest to continue to make the same ill-advised location decisions they have been making for decades. (See End Note Five.)

Kotkin completely ignores the fact that there are almost as many interpretations of “suburban/suburb/suburbia” as there are readers.

The captions, headlines and graphics confound the confusion. What is most alarming is how little of what Kotkin has to say is related to what readers think he is talking about. Kotkin tries to describe in broad strokes and witty prose what many who have studied these issues with care would agree is happening within urban areas of the United States. The problem is that neither Kotkin nor his readers have a conceptual framework or vocabulary sufficiently robust to describe or understand the process much less help citizens or their organizations support a rational future course of action. Without this framework and vocabulary Kotkin distorts the relevance of important historical landmarks like Ebenezer Howard’s "Garden City" movement. He also misinterprets most of what he sees in the United States and in urban areas world-wide.

Aristotle, who was trained in medicine and natural science, noted over 2,330 years ago that human settlement patterns are organic systems. Since at least the Renaissance there has been no serious dispute about this fact. Yet there is not single source of data or observation cited by Kotkin that is not completely oblivious to the fact that “human settlement patterns are organic systems.”

A forest does not grow by the largest tree in the center of the forest getting bigger and bigger. The forest expands through the growth of organic subsystems. When nutrients (citizens and money) are fed into a regional settlement pattern it grows the same way. What has not changed over the past 80 years in the organic system we call the National Capital Subregion (or in the Greater Richmond New Urban Region or Hampton Roads New Urban Region) are the municipal boundaries. Areas that were at the fringe of the urban system 80 or even 30 years ago are now within the logical location of a Clear Edge. These areas are subject to enormous growth pressures in all prosperous New Urban Regions.

Due to the ossification of municipal boundaries, areas that were once confusingly labeled "suburban" are now very clearly "urban." The studies, sources and observations that Kotkin cites still call these places "suburban." That is like calling NFL players toddlers because 20 or 30 years ago they were toddlers.

This is not just Kotkin’s problem, it is endemic in most academic studies, especially those based on census data and especially census data aggregated by municipal jurisdiction borders. Professors William Lucy and David Phillips in "Confronting Suburban Decline: Strategic Planning for Metropolitan Renewal" -- yes, this 2000 book uses the word “suburban” in the title, contrary to our advice :> -- and the forthcoming "Metromorphosis" -- note use of unique terminology! -- address this problem by focusing on sub-jurisdictional aggregations of data. The authors come to important, counterintuitive conclusions concerning settlement pattern relationships.

The photographs used in The Post opinion piece to describe what is happening in "suburbia" are of the Bethesda METRO station area. Bethesda and Tysons Corner are not in Frederick or Fauquier Counties. They are within Radius = 10 miles of the centroid of the National Capital Subregion, just where you would expect urban growth to be taking place. This is true for vast majority of examples Kotkin cites.

Within 10 miles of the centroid of the National Capital Subregion (or any other urban settlement) there are 200,000 acres. Within 40 miles of the centroid that reaches places like Frederick and Fauquier there are 3,217,000 acres. That is a difference of over 16 times.  When the population doubles and the density was too low to create functional components of urban fabric in the first place, very little if any new land is “needed” to support the new jobs and population. (See “Five Realities That Shape the Future,” Dec. 15, 2003.)

Because of sloppy terminology, what is happening at Radius = 10 miles (R=10) is equated with and used to excuse what is happening from R=30 to R=100. (See "Scatteration," Sept. 22, 2003.

Kotkin blames technology, among other things, for the scatteration of urban activities. Of course technology has an impact on the patterns of settlement. But technology has not modified human genes. That is why the market for built space documents that, at the unit, dooryard, cluster, neighborhood and village scales, the areas with the highest values per square foot are remarkably similar whether originally built in 1705, 1905 or 2005. (See "Wild Abandonment," Sept. 8, 2003.

Geological Illiteracy and dysfunctional human settlement patterns are fostered and maintained, not just by the headlines and photos but by all the authors and agencies who refuse to understand the organic nature of human settlement patterns. The use of “suburban/suburb/ suburbia” contributes to and leverages this failure.

Kotkin’s “suburban” op ed also frequently uses the word “sprawl.” In some places it seems to imply that “suburban” is the same as “sprawl.” That causes confusion to the second power. The first paragraph punchline: "The Winner is, yes, sprawl" may sell books but it badly mangles reality. The Phrase Substitution Technique for “sprawl” can be used to good advantage in this op ed. Much of what Kotkin calls “sprawl” is not, just as much of what he calls “suburban” is not. (See End Note Six.)

The scatteration that Kotkin and others call "sprawl" represents a small percentage of the urban uses on a square-feet-of-built-space basis but a large percentage of the land area converted to urban from nonurban land uses. The urban uses are primarily scattered individual and small agglomerations of urban dwellings.  They are in these locations because of counterproductive subsidies (See “Solving the Shelter Crisis,” July 25, 2005) and the failure to equitably distribute location variable costs of goods and services. We will suggest a cure for the use of “suburban / suburb / and suburbia” following and examination of Kotkin’s use of “city."

And Next, "City"

Moving ahead five months, Professor Kotkin was featured in The Washington Post twice on Sunday July, 24, 2005.  He wrote an op ed on the front page of the Outlook section, “City of the Future.” His ’s book "The City: A Global History" was reviewed on page 9 in the “Book World” section of the same paper. (This book was the source for the “suburban confusion” op ed noted above.)

The theme of Kotkin's July op ed is that unless large urban agglomerations “keep its citizens safe, the modern metropolis may go the way of ancient Rome.” This is a very good point. But the op ed is titled “City of the Future” not “The Future of the Modern Metropolis.” As noted above Imperial Rome and other capitals of empires may have stretched the definition of the “city” but the contemporary New Urban Regions (aka, the “Modern Metropolis”) does not even come close to being a “city.”

Kotkin offers provocative and useful observations concerning safety in urban areas. Most who read the advice would conclude that Kotkin is taking about “the city” and those who live in “the city.” No one is sure exactly what “the city” is in this context but it is certainly is not Fairfax County, Chesterfield County or any of the other “not city” places where the majority of urban citizens now live. The problem is that Fairfax, Chesterfield, etc. are exactly the places that Kotkin is talking about needing to make safe.

Recall where the National Capital Subregion's 2002 "Washington Sniper" targeted victims and where they were captured. Check the home addresses of those arrested in the United States on terrorism charges since Sept. 11, 2001. Note the home locations of the Tube/bus bombers in Greater London earlier this year. Check out the "Death at the hands of a stranger" data compiled by Professor Bill Lucy. For the roots of this confusion, see “Where is Northern Virginia” (Aug. 11, 2003.)

Again turning to Aristotle, he noted that the function of urban settlements is to provide for the safety and happiness of citizens.

Citizens of the world’s great nation-states (e.g. the eight most industrialized nation-states) have the vast majority of their citizens living in urban areas. Recent polls and events suggest that they are not happy. Street crimes, crimes of passion and terrorism document that many are not safe. It is not just Amman, Baghdad, Kabul and Jerusalem that are not safe, it is the New Urban Regions of Madrid, London, Paris, New York. (See End Note Seven.)

Lack of security is a looming problem for all residents of urban areas.  The confusion caused by use of “city” leads to badly informed attempts to do something about security.

Kotkin calls on “metropolitan area leaders” to address the security issue. The problem is that there are no “metropolitan” leaders. That is because governance structure has not evolved to reflect existing economic, social and physical reality in New Urban Regions. That, in turn is due to the fact that discussions of these issues are mired in confusing terminology.

Western Europe has evolved to a commune/municipal/ regional/province /nation-state/EU structure over most of the territory but the United States is still stuck with the system used to govern settlement of the “old northwest” before the Louisiana Purchase.

In the review of Kotkin’s book "The City: A Global History," the reviewer (identified as an “urban novelist”) Gary Kirst makes a special point of Kotkin’s observation that in 2007 human beings will pass a demographic milestone as significant as any in our history. “The world’s burgeoning ranks of urban dwellers will for the first time constitute a majority of the planet’s human population.”

That means that one-half of the six billion plus population will be urban. That percentage is up dramatically in the last 60 years, and up from a tiny percentage of the population that was urban at the start of the Industrial Revolution about 300 years ago. The most advanced industrialized nation-states (aka, The First World) are already far beyond the 50/50 split. As noted above, in the United States the ratio is 95 percent urban to five percent nonurban and the other nation-states with the largest economies – Japan, Germany, Great Britain, France, Italy, Australia and Canada – are in the same range.

Why is the language used by Kotkin (and Mainstream Media in general) so confusing? Most citizens in many New Urban Regions do not live or work in any “city.” In large New Urban Regions where the core municipal jurisdiction(s) is (are) a City, most citizens do not identify with the “city.”

In the National Capital Subregion the Core (“Central City” in U.S. Census terms) is made up of a federal district, a City (Alexandria) and a County (Arlington). (See End Note Eight.)

Why is a change in the language used by Kotkin (and Mainsteam Media in general) so important? For the very reason Kotkin notes in his book: The First World has already urbanized, the rest of the world is close behind. However, citizens do not yet have a vocabulary to intelligently discuss the consequences of the most important change in the human condition in 13,000 years.

The Industrial Revolution urbanized half the human population and shows no sign of slowing. Urban society controls the economic, social and physical resources of the planet. While the Industrial Revolution created urban society, “Post Industrialism” will be possible only if citizens understand where they are living and how to survive on the planet.

The Industrial Revolution causes changes in the nonurban economic, social and physical life as well as creating urban civilization. This process has converted what were once correctly termed “rural” areas into Urban Support Regions in the First World. The territory outside New Urban Regions are a source not only of nonurban goods and services but of human capital.

It is not just op-ed writers and Mainstream Media who are caught in the trap of faulty language. Academic disciplines and research institutes are just as much to blame. Kotkin is emblematic of the problem for the very reason that what he has to say is important and that the language he and others use makes it impossible to understand or comprehend the importance of what he has to say.

Cures for Misuse of "City" and "Suburban/Suburb/ Suburbia

A cure for misuse of “city” is easy. Never use “city” unless you are talking about a specific municipal government or a group of municipal governments that are all Cities. A good rule of thumb is that if you do not capitalize it, do not use the word “city.”

When it comes to “suburban/suburb/ suburbia,” the prescription is similar to the one for “sprawl.” By avoiding the use of the word and putting in a generic phrase that describes just what you are talking about the confusion largely disappears. The use of quotation marks is also helpful in clarifying intent and meaning.

The word “exurban” is used to indicate an area beyond the area that is “suburban.” It is best to avoid the use of “exurban” as well as “suburban/suburb/suburbia.”

No Escape from Urban   

A root cause of the excessive and inappropriate use of “city” as well as widespread use of “suburban/suburb/ suburbia” is the aversion to use of the word “urban.” For this reason, it is important to understand the use and misuse of “urban.” Also see discussion of “urban” in "The Shape of the Future" Appendix One and Appendix Two.

The standard definition of “urban” is valid. Most of the ways that “urban” is used with respect to human settlement patterns are appropriate and fit the conditions to which they are applied.  “Urban” and “urbanized area” (a contiguous territory with a gross density of 10 persons per acre) are two words about which there is little confusion. (See End Note Nine.)

The problem is aversion to the use of the word “urban” because “urban” has been “framed” to be negative and synonymous with “crowded” and “congested” or worse as a stand in for “depressed” or even “slum.” It is where those “other people” live and so one seeks refuge in areas that are “suburban.” That is ironic since “suburban” literally means less than urban.

The Mainstream Media use the terms “city” and “urban” interchangeably, generating negative impressions of city-dwellers and of urban areas at the same time. Confusion re “city” and “urban” leads to and reinforces inappropriate and unfounded assumptions about safety in dispersion as noted in “Reality Based Regionalism, Part II – Deadly Dysfunction,” Oct. 17, 2005, and the “Death at the Hands of a Stranger” data. (See End Note Ten.)

The answer to security of urban citizens is not dispersal but the evolution of sustainable New Urban Regions that are comprised of Balanced Communities. Balanced Communities, in turn, are be made up of functional dooryard-, cluster-, neighborhood- and village-scale components. This prescription for security applies to terrorism as well as common criminal acts. As we have noted repeatedly, the only cure for terrorism is to remove causes of terrorism. The only way to do that is to create functional human settlement patterns.

The Industrial Revolution created “urban” society, Post Industrialism makes it imperative that citizens understand there is no escape from urban reality, not to a “rural” area or any other mythical place.

In "The Shape of the Future" we coined and defined the terms “Urbaphobia” and “Ruralaphilia” to reflect the common aversion to things “urban” and the fanciful attraction to things “rural.” We have found few places to apply these words over the past half decade. We tend to over use the word “urban” in ways that rub “suburban noses” in the fact they are really “urban” citizens in an urban society. As we note below that approach is not a useful one and perhaps a new, non-confrontational  phrase to replace “urban” is needed.

Get Off the Bus, Gus

There is another important note on the use of common words that can cause confusion. This highlights the importance of understanding that not all confusing words are on the short list examined in Appendix Two of "The Shape of the Future."

Take the work “bus” for example. During a recent interview concerning shared-vehicle systems for lower density (aka, Countryside) areas, we suggested that "bus" would not be a good word to describe the shared vehicle that might provide this service. The word “bus” means many things to many people – most are negative. To serve lower density areas one may rely on a jitney service that uses standard passenger cars, ten-passenger vans, twenty-passenger “shuttle buses” or some other vehicle.  In lower density areas the vehicle would not be a standard 52-passenger bus, much less an articulated 200 passenger vehicle that runs on a “Bus Rapid Transit” system. The key item is that it is a vehicle where several people share the service.

Mainstream Media

In a recent Washington Post column (“No Easy fixes for The Heart,” 25 November 2005) E. J. Dionne Jr. offered the following:

“One of my pet peeves is that journalists and politicians alike have more compassion for those who struggle with problems they are familiar with than those whose problems they don’t understand.”

Dionne was taking about complex medical issues. But what about problems caused by journalists and politicians using inappropriate and/or confusing words that generate the lack of understanding in the first place?

Many of the problems that citizens face in trying to address the consequences of dysfunctional human settlement patterns are caused by the media. As noted in “The Foundation of Babble,” Nov. 28, 2005, and throughout this column, much of the difficulty caused by the use of confusing words like “sprawl” and “suburban/suburb/suburbia” and the misuse of words like “city” is found in Mainstream Media. For example, “city” is inserted for variety as if it were synonymous with “community” and “urban area.”

Another common trick is to substitute “transit” for “transportation,” especially in headlines. That is apparently because the word “transit” has half as many letters and so takes up about half as much space in a headline as would “transportation.” For most “transit” means “mass transit.” Headlines about the passage of legislation to support “transit” that really deal with road funding is misleading. The use of “transport” would save five letters and not generate the confusion.

One often hears that the use of more precise words and phrases is too “technical” and too complicated.  “Complex words will only confuse people.” Yes, but simplistic words leave them misguided without knowing they are being misled.

We are told citizens do not have the time and will not bother to explore issues if one uses words with which they are not familiar. This leads to the dumbing down of print and electronic media to “the fourth grade level.”

The issue here is one of deception. If one used a robust vocabulary and some did not understand it, they would know they did not understand. That is what happens when one reads a medical journal or tries to follow a complex mathematical formula. Using simplistic words gives the false impression that they do understand what is being said.

As those who have followed the early development of PROPERTY DYNAMICS know, there is not enough time for “Running as Hard as They Cans” (RHTCs) to become effectively involved in governance processes that determine the future of their families. The challenge for PROPERTY DYNAMICS is to help them understand that the future depends on their sorting out priorities and making time for settlement pattern issues. The answer is not to feed them fourth grade pap that confounds their misunderstandings. (See End Note Eleven.)

Economic Competition's Impact on Language and the Mainstream Media

The most obvious culprits in the problems created by Mainstream Media are editors and publishers. “News” (electronic or print) is driven by competition for revenue – ad revenue and publication subscription/sales revenue.  Ad revenue is indirectly driven by the number of readers/ viewers/page views.  Subscription/sales revenue is directly driven by the volume of purchases.

This drives journalism schools and creative writing programs that teach writers and talking heads to put out material people “like.” Citizens like fun things to read, they like fairy tales, they like “can you believe this” and they like “tut-tut” and there-but-for-the-grace-of-god-go-I dirt. Readers like to be entertained. News stories now have named and pictured characters who are experiencing the event. To be a “good writer” one must write things that readers enjoy reading.

Competition for advertising and space in papers, books, magazines, network and cable television, terrestrial and satellite radio and all the web resources is based on how many want to read or view  it. No one is paid to write what citizens do not want to hear or see. Even with technical manuals readers like to have their preconceived notions reinforced, not challenged. Citizens will not buy or read that which they do not “enjoy/like” unless they understand why it is important to understand the material.

There needs to be a way to be a good writer and convey the information citizens need to understand before democracy can create a sustainable future trajectory.

One sees in small print the notice that full-page spreads touting nation-states, defense contractors, oil and energy companies and economic development agencies are “advertisements.” No less are the stories, “analysis,” editorials and columns. We will revisit this issue in future columns that will focus on consumption in general and energy consumption in particular.

The Problem Is Not the Classic Tower of Babel Confusion

In Chapter 11 of the Book of Genesis (verse 1 thru 9) the Bible outlines the story of the Tower of Babel. In this story God prevents humans from effectively organizing an effort to build a tower to Heaven by “confounding their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.” Those who have traveled in a “foreign” country and are not fluent in the region's language or dialect know there is merit in this strategy to cause confusion. Even when you think you know what is being said, you may not. Electronic translators that provide word-for-word substitution may help find the WC or avoid ordering a pizza topped with three raw eggs but the problem facing those concerned with understanding human settlement pattern is different.

When everyone is supposedly speaking the same language, one is not put on notice that they may not be able to understand what is being said. Citizens listening to governance practitioners and those who profit from Business as Usual may think they know what is being said but they do not because of different interpretations of what the words mean. This is especially true when the objective is obfuscation.

When one uses terms such as “sprawl,” "city," "suburban," “rural,” etc., they may or may not have a clear vision of what they mean to the user. It is very clear they have no idea what the reader/listener may understand. Each of the readers/listeners may well have a different view.

“Living in truth” is Vaclav Havel’s admonition and it has strong vocabulary implications. It is one thing to be speaking of words like “freedom” and phrases like “fair election” that can be understood in any language. But that does not work for words like “sprawl” and “suburban” that conger up a different image and different meanings for every person who uses them.

Neural Linguistic Frameworks

From time to time in these columns we use the terms “frame,” “framed” and “framing.” The Science of Linguistics provides a possible pathway out of the vocabulary jungle that obscures an understanding of human settlement patterns. This brief introduction is presented to offer hope, not to provide definitive answers.

Radial Analysis is far more widely used in the private sector to further competitive economic advantage than it is in the public sector to ensure efficient, equitable distribution of public services. The same is true for Linguistics. An understanding of Linguistic Science is widely used in advertising and image management by the private sector.

It turns out that Linguistic Science has been used to promote “conservative” causes by “framing” issues like “family values” and “tax relief.”  Closely related arguments are use to discredit and distort discussions of settlement patterns and the imperative of balancing private rights and public responsibilities. 

We have only scratched the surface of “framing” as a way to address the vocabulary of human settlement patterns. However, there seems to be a potential “fit” between linguistic research and the types of problems outlined in these columns.

Before we recommend that everyone pursue this topic, especially via two books by Professor George Lakoff ("Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think and Don’t think of an Elephant"), we offer three caveats:

1. Lakoff’s Don’t think of an Elephant is wildly partisan. It will turn off 1/3 to 2/3 of the readers who are active in party politics. Lakoff states that "Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think" (Second Edition) and the Rockridge Institute which sponsors research in “framing” are non-partisan. It is hard to see how he can write a non-partisan Moral Politics and a polemic like Don’t Think of an Elephant which is billed as a handbook that “liberal and progressive activists” can understand.

2. Lakoff’s analysis of contemporary politics and the language/semantics associated with “family values” and “tax relief” seems to be well founded and well documented. However, Lakoff jumps from the “family” (unit scale) level of values to nation-state scale governance policy. Lakoff jumps over, as if they do not exist, all the other levels of organization/governance where various applications of the two family orientations (“strict father” and “nurturant parent”) may apply. Going from unit scale to nation-state scale, Lakoff skips the “extended family” (dooryard), “sub clan” (neighborhood), “clan” (village), “tribe” (community), “nation” (New Urban Region, Urban Support Region).

At each of these scales the two models of “family values” may have relevance. Lakoff points out that most individual’s value system embrace both “strict father” and “nurturant parent” models and that they apply both to different extents in different contexts. Jumping from family (unit) to nation-state makes his arguments far less useful.

3. Third and most important Lakoff uses the simple and easily misunderstood words “frame,” “frames” and “framing” to try to convey a complex theory of language.

When thinking about thinking (and thinking about talking) one must be sure critical words have meanings that are instantly clear and distinct. This takes one back to the “sprawl” v. “dysfunctional human settlement pattern” conflict addressed by the Phrase Substitution Technique.  This is why we substitute “neural linguistic framework” for “frame.” (See End Note Twelve.)

Using simplistic words that bring up different images is symptomatic of fundamental problem with the vocabulary of human settlement pattern discussed in this and the prior column. One must employ words or phrases that are compatible with the context.

In spite of these three significant issues, the application of Linguistics Science research and the examination of neural linguistic frameworks may be a useful way to support development of a robust human settlement pattern vocabulary. As will be noted below, a much earlier encounter with the work of linguists led to the development of new phrases such as “dysfunctional human settlement pattern” and “New Urban Region.”

The Creation of New Phrases with Help from Amazon

During part of the ten years it took to write "The Shape of the Future," E. J. Dionne, Jr. was writing a column focused on issues of language called “Chattering Class” in The Washington Post Magazine. In a column titled “Under Observation,” which ran on Sept. 14, 1997,  Dionne interviewed Father Mark Ambrose who was at the time “Executive Director of Global Fulfillment Strategy and Security” for Citibank.

The column outlined how Citibank and others were using linguistics to expand business communications and improve market share. The quote that caught our attention and changed the way we prepared "The Shape of the Future" was:

“If you’re trying to get a new idea across, you either have to invent new words or use old words in a completely different context. You have to jolt someone.”

Prior to our work there had been one major attempt of which we were aware to outline a comprehensive conceptual framework (a unified field theory) of human settlement pattern. That was "Ekistics" by Constantinos A. Doxiadis. "Ekistics" is subtitled “An Introduction to the Science of Human Settlements.” Much of Doxiadis’s work is of great value and insight. Doxiadis's contributions are reviewed in Chapter 15 of "The Shape of the Future." We agreed on the need for a robust vocabulary. To meet this need, Doxiadis generated a lexicon of Greek words (literally). They did not fly. Almost no one paid any attention to Dioxiadis' vocabulary.

When we read the Dionne column it provided inspiration to develop a set of phrases that made clear what we were talking about. (The other option under consideration at the time was to do as is done in “scientific German” and create long words from common shorter words that take on a specific meaning.)

Among the phrases were ones we had evolved in our work and teaching. They included "New Urban Region," "Regional Metrics," "Clear Edge," "Balanced Community" and "Geographic Illiteracy" as well as "Alpha Neighborhood," "Alpha Village," etc.  We also coined a few words such as "Urbaphobia" and "Ruralaphilia" but most of the new language was in phrases.

"The Shape of the Future" has been available from Amazon.Com since September 2000. After  several years Amazon.Com provided an unexpected boost for the phrase innovation strategy. The Amazon.Com staff started scanning books and providing information via the “Look inside the Book” feature. One of the additions on "The Shape of the Future’s" web page is a listing of SIPs or Statistically Improbable Phrases  They also list CAPs (Capitalized Phrases). Between the two, most of the new phrases developed by S/PI are listed. This innovation by Amazon.com indicates there is a "market" for new phrases. Googling one of these phrases leads one to the source. (See End Note Thirteen.)

Vocabulary Tools You Can Use Today

Without exploring new avenues of research, what tools are available to make the vocabulary of human settlement pattern more accessible and understandable?

Refinement of the Phrase Substitution Technique. We demonstrated the Phrase Substitution Technique for the word “sprawl” in “The Foundation of Babble,” Nov. 18, 2005. Earlier in this column we suggested this approach for dealing with the misuse of “suburban/suburb/suburbia.”

Similar techniques can be used for "exurb" and "local" in other words all the “Core Confusing Words” – with generic descriptions. (See End Note Fourteen.)

When words are replaced by words or phrases that reflect the probable meaning intended by the author -- e.g. replace “sprawl” with “dysfunctional human settlement patterns” and "city" with "intensively urbanized area" – one can communicate much more clearly.

Sometimes Capitalization and/or Punctuation Is Enough   As we have seen with the word “City,” capitalization may be all that is needed to make the meaning clear. “I am talking about all the Cities that lie within Los Angeles County.” A new entry in standard style book(s): "Do not use the word City unless it is Capitalized" may be sufficient to stop the inappropriate use of the word.

The CAP feature at Amazon.Com noted above makes the use of capitalization a powerful tool. The use of double quotation marks (“”) and well as single ones (‘’) can be effective. In "The Shape of the Future," there is an extensive use of single quotation marks to indicate the use of vernacular terms.

The Use of Modifiers. A number of words are important but overused and thus can cause confusion. It is best to never use “village,” “community,” “subregion” or “region” without modifier that identifies exactly what geographic area you are referring to. Again the capitalization can be important. (See End Note Fourteen.)

New Terms. From time to time creation of new words is effective. As noted above we coined “urbaphobia” and “ruralaphilia” for use in "The Shape of the Future." They were useful in the context of the book, but we have found little applicability in our work since.

We are not the only ones to come up with new terms.  Professors Lucy and Phillips have named their forthcoming book “Metromorphosis” which hopefully will come to be recognized as a way to view the transition of metropolitan areas.

The U.S. Census Bureau generates new terms on a regular basis. One of the latest is “Micropolitan Areas.” It turns out “Micropolitan”  is counterproductive if one is trying to understanding the extent and function of New Urban Regions but it got the Bureau out of a significant political problem. The Metropolitan Institute of Virginia Tech recently coined “Megapolitan Areas” as a substitute of “Megalopolis.” Some new words like “boomburgs” might best join “sprawl,” “suburban,” and “metrosexuals.” (See End Note Fifteen.)

Of course, Mainstream Media introduces new terms at the margins. For example See “Going Phrasy With Scandal Buzzwords;" Copeland, Libby; The Washington Post; Oct. 31, 2005, page C1.

These new words deal with “new” and otherwise news worth topics, not old topics that are overlaid with confusion. This compounds the problem raised by the E.J. Dionne Jr. quote above.

New Phrases. Finally the creation of new phrases discussed above in detail is the most powerful tool for creating clear, if sometimes cumbersome vocabulary.

Conclusion

First one needs to step down from the soap box  We have found in recent field work that one need not jump on the podium and rail against using confusing words or the need for new words and phrases. Just stop using them and substitute a phrase that clearly defines exactly what you mean. You will be surprised how fast others pick up new phrases if in fact the word describes the condition in question.

Next one must understand that this topic is not “just semantics.” This is not just a peripheral concern, it is a root cause of citizen befuddlement and Geographic Illiteracy. Failure to understand is a profound and fundamental cause of dysfunctional human settlement pattern. If Professor Kotkin is even somewhat correct in his suggestion that urban areas must become more safe to support the advancement of civilization, the current use of language is a threat to contemporary civilization.

As noted at the outset, so long as language is just a matter of "opinion" and information impacting citizen understanding of human settlement patterns is fair game "in the market place of ideas where there is no right and wrong," civilization will continue to slide toward entropy.  (See End Note Fourteen.)

-- December 12, 2005

End Notes

(1). It is appropriate to use the term "suburban" as defined by The Oxford Dictionary of the English Language: Suburban residents were those who lived outside the walls of a city or other urban enclaves. They were not trusted to be inside the walls at night or when there was the potential of an attack. “Suburban” individuals included pickpockets and other thieves, pimps and prostitutes, suspect foreigners and other undesirables. “Suburban” as now used has been “reframed” and converted from an adjective to a noun. In addition, the words “suburb” and “suburbia” have been generated. The “framing” and “reframing” of words will be examined later in this column.   

(2). The Countryside was home to the vast majority of the citizens of the principality, kingdom or empire. While the “city” was supported by the surrounding Countryside, many in a kingdom’s nonurban area (aka, Countryside) had little to no contact or connection with a “city.” These “rural” residents were supported by hamlets and “trading villages.”     

(3). Urban activities have average minimum gross densities at the community scale of 100 times those of the maximum gross densities for most nonurban land uses such as agriculture in the Countryside. However, more urbanized area was required due to growth of urban population. See “Industrialization, Urbanization and the Human Settlement Pattern” Box 2 Chapter 1 of "The Shape of the Future."

(4). This material is a revision of a Bacons Rebellion Blog posting “Oblivious to the Obvious” 8 Feb 2005.  A comparison of the original Blog posting and the current revision reflects the importance of the applying the Phrase Substitution Technique to help sort out vocabulary dysfunction.

(5). Kotkin’s writing is a perfect example of one of the key points Professor Joseph  Freeman made in the talk in Lynchburg in late October: Those who claim to be concerned with the shape of the future do not have (or refuse to use) language that is robust enough to communicate the reality of functional and dysfunctional human settlement patterns. As long as half of what is printed about human settlement pattern in publications intended to inform those who govern is false, PROPERTY DYNAMICS has a big job.   

(6). A banner headline on the jump page of the 6 February op ed reads “It is a Sprawl World After All” Was this the inspiration for the title to Douglas E.  Morris’s book of the same title?  This book is discussed in “Reality-Based Regionalism: Part Two – Deadly Dysfunction,” Oct. 17, 2005, and in “The Foundation of Babble,” Nov. 28, 2005.   

(7). Mainstream Media reports that the recent riots in France are taking place in “suburban” areas. If you have been to these areas or carefully review the images, you know how silly it is to call these areas “suburban” and at the same time call the riots in Watts or 14th Street “urban.” This brings up the issue of the use of “urban” which is explored below. It also documents the counter-productiveness of using the term “suburban.”   

(8). This paragraph raises the important issue of capitalization which is dealt with below.   

(9). It does not help that the first name of one of the hottest young college football coaches in the United States (until he encountered the “Ole Ball Coach” earlier this year) is “Urban” and the last name of an award winning country and western singer is also “Urban.”   

(10). “Urban” citizens are not just “city” residents. As noted above 95 percent of the population of the Untied States is urban. Unlike the majority of citizens 100 years ago, today’s “urban” citizens do not know how to survive outside urban context.  If one takes them out of urban context almost, all who were given a knife, match and a live chicken would go hungry. Many would go hungry even if the chicken were dead.

(11). In the Summing Up section of “Regional Rigor Mortis,” June 6, 2005, we explore the middle 45 percent of the economic spectrum whom we term those who are “running as hard as they can to keep their heads above water” or the RHTCs. The RHTC’s plus the 50 percent of the population that is losing economic ground year by year make up the vast majority of the population.   

(12). Here is why the words “frame,” “frames” and “framing” are difficult for us to use:

• In our professional photography work, a “frame” is something one puts around a picture so it will not fall off the wall.

• Because we wear glasses “frames” are something to hold the lenses in the right place.

• Because we helped build our first house at 13 and have been involved in the building industry directly and indirectly for 47 years, “framing” is something you do with 2x4s, 2x6s and 2x8s before you put on the roofing and the siding.

When words are heard and seen, and these are the first images/ideas that register, they are not useful for discussing the nuts and bolts of linguistics.

(13). The introduction of this feature by Amazon negates the reason to go to the trouble of registering a service mark or trademark. One registers a trademark or a service mark not to prevent third parties from using it but to prevent someone from keeping the originator from using a phrase or from intentionally misusing it and claiming ownership. Phrases such as “Regional Metrics” and “New Urban Region” were registered by S/PI to encourage use of the terms not to prevent others from using them. SIPs and CAPs establish prior use and prevent limitations on the use.

(14). In alpha order the Core Confusing Words addressed in Appendix Two are: “city,” “community,” “exurban,” “local,” “neighborhood,” “organic,” “rural,” “sprawl” and “urban.”  The topic of vocabulary and the need to employ new terminology can be found in "The Shape of the Future" in the following places Prologue, Chapters 3, 15 to 22 and in Appendix One (Lexicon) and Appendix Two (Core Confusing Words).

(15). Micropolitan Area and Megapolitian Area both suffer from the need for a more comprehensive conceptual framework to provide context.

Ed Risse and his wife Linda live inside the "Clear Edge" of the "urban enclave" known as Warrenton, a municipality in the Countryside near the edge of the Washington-Baltimore "New Urban Region."

Mr. Risse, the principal of

SYNERGY/Planning, Inc., can be contacted at spirisse@aol.com.

Read his profile here.