A couple other comments: One of the most interesting things Sharon Zukin talked about in her book, albeit briefly, was the notion of providing commercial rent controls. Whenever new housing is built in a city, setting aside units for affordable housing is part of the conversation – “income diversity,” if not always realized, is seen as generally good. But what about commercial tenants? What about the small businesses that can’t afford to pay higher rents in new developments, or don’t have the resources to fill the huge units set aside for anchor retailers? Isn’t having big and small businesses in a community as important as having rich and poor people live in some proximity?

Second, I would recommend two books to you. The first, Doug Rae’s “City,” chronicles the history of New Haven as a telling example of a small city. His conclusions are, I think, humbling and enlightening – no amount of government investment, or city planning, or new urbanist utopianism was going to save New Haven, but paying attention to the small things, like fixing sidwalks and supporting civil society, makes it a better place to live. My knowledge of New Haven’s experience has made me just as wary of people like James Kunstler as LeCorbousier.

Second, Thomas Sugrue’s “Sweet Land of Liberty,” which is about the civil rights movement in the north. I thought of this book as soon as I saw that documentary series you mentioned. These suburbs do pose an interesting dilemma, they also have a dark history – the level of exclusion of blacks from post-war suburban developments in astonishing. Until the late 1960’s, do you know how many black registered realtors there were in America? Zero. Anyway, when we look back at the so-called idyll of 1950’s suburban America, we should also think about the people excluded from those pictures.

Just a word of warning, both of these books are about 300 pages too long, so they can skimmed.

Now I’m off to my urban geography reading group, which is one of my few outlets to discuss these topics, so I’m really glad we’ve been able to have this dialogue.

I have an internal list of what makes a good neighborhood to me. And while I think that a bike shop or record store might be indicative of a cool neighborhood, I’m not sure there are many people who are looking to move around the corner from the pawn shop/ check cashing place.

I saw the film The New Metropolis last night: http://thenewmetropolis.com/
and I think the realization I’m coming to is that it’s more important (and sustainable) to live in a diverse neighborhood (which doesn’t need to mean driving african americans out by gentrifying a neighborhood)

Any neighborhood that was abandoned by white flight will eventually run into the same problem of richer people wanting affordable housing. I actually quoted you today about being “stewards of whatever community we are a member.”

Isn’t the important part to feel like you are contributing something to your community rather than focusing on moving someplace else because that is better?

This is an insanely frustrating part about people from Columbus complaining that there aren’t enough cool people here or cool things going on, then moving to Chicago or New York. When that was the reason they moved here from rural Ohio, or Dayton or Toledo.

Fuck you, if you aren’t making your city/ neighborhood/ country or planet better, you are making it worse.

I’d be interested to hear your thoughts about the history and influence of immigrant gheto-ization vs. diversity and integration of neighborhoods in terms of the long-term health of neighborhoods.

I have to assume that you really do understand the difference. That along the way, we (society) have realized that tangible and intellectual property are valued differently and as a result, sold differently. But that doesn’t mean it has to be that way.

Paintings, sculpture and other works of “real” art can be bought and sold like tangible property, even if they’re protected by intellectual property laws. And, in fact, they can be “improved” so long as whatever government’s laws protecting that work don’t also protect so-called “moral rights” – or the protection of the integrity of the work as presented by the original artist/author.

But as a developer, you are 100% free to create a software sales agreement – to develop code that you actually sell, lock-stock-and-barrel. To do so, however, would require a little bit of license language wrangling, though, to get over the reverse hump – that you would now be prevented from “re-inventing” your prior work. So you’d still not really be selling the code lock-stock-and-barrel. Rather, you’d be selling it with a hold-back perpetual license for yourself to do with as you pleased. (Or, put another way, you could retain ownership, grant a perpetual license to your buyer to do with it as THEY pleased.)

In the end, it’s possible. See me for details if you’re really interested in doing it.

None the less, I wonder if any newspaper sales department ever tried or considered this. I wonder, too, if any employer has ever considered reading an employee perk. Don’t get me wrong, bosses love a well-informed workforce, but I wonder how many of them have ever associated newspaper reading as a part of that.

It might be that circulation for many newspapers is down so far now that it may be too late.