Late last night I just finished reading J. H. Kunstler’s book The City in Mind. The premise of the book was in Kunstler’s travels to eight different cities that he belived represented in some way the future of American cities. In the preface, Kunstler explains that he is trying to redirect debate on urban life and how we live. The actual debate that Kunstler is trying to redirect is not explained until the last chapter, London. I won’t spoil the book here by explaining what the debate is here.

Among the cities, Kunstler has a chapter on Atlanta. He hates Atlanta. There is nothing good about Atlanta. Some other Atlanta-based reviewers of the book noticed this little detail as well. Overall, Kunstler believes that Atlanta has become so suburbanized and unlivable that it will never recover. When I saw him lecture at my school Kunstler proclaimed a bleak future for the sunbelt cities. Atlanta and the other sunbelt cities have a dark future once oil prices rise and it becomes too expensive to live in suburban and exurban areas.

If you have not read The City in Mind, I wouldn’t recommend it unless you fit into one of a few very neat categories. Kunstler’s primary source of inspiration comes from Jane Jacobs’ revolutionary book The Death and Life of Great American Cities. If you have not read that book, then The City in Mind may leave you lost in a few places. While Kunstler makes no direct reference to the book, his perspective is mostly derived from that offered by Jacobs. Even if you have not read Jane Jacobs, it helps to read some other material first. Both Jacobs and Kunstler make references to some of the early to mid 20th century urban visions. Overall, they both hate modernism and post-modernism for things like lack of coherence and proclivity toward life-draining architecture and planning. They both hate the Radient Garden City vision because it is a vision that does not celebrate city life, but drains life from the city.

In my own mind, I think that Jacobs’ book is one of the best I’ve read, and I plan on eventually reading it again. I think there is a great value in celebrating the civic culture advocated by Jacobs. Kunstler, however, does not do such a good job at inspiration. He’s too “honest” for my taste, whatever “honest” may mean. It’s like what you would get if you combine the ideology of Jane Jacobs with the style of Rush Limbaugh or Neil Boortz. Is this really what we need in order to advance our civilization towards a new reality of living? For crying out loud, Kunstler has never even received any formal training in architecture or policy. He’s like — no, he IS — an armchair sociologist trying to predict the future of our economy. I don’t think this is his intention, but in his hubris, it is what he becomes with his writing.

Having said all that, there is some merit to Kunstler. There is merit to his argument that the 20th century brought about reversals in our civic culture. I would not be suprised if these reversals could be correlated with sprawl, radient garden city, modernism, and other related products of 20th century philosophy. On the other hand, we should also consider the merits of each of these things. Kunstler makes no attempt to do so, with the exception of his placing Olmstead within the context of early industrialization.

You may not be sure what I’m referring to, but that’s okay. I would recommend The City in Mind to anyone with an interest in the future of America’s cities and our civic life. Kunstler is a big fan of New Urbanism, and for anyone who has heard of New Urbanism and is interested in finding out some of the reasoning behind the movement should check out The City in Mind. There may be other (or maybe I should say better) books and authors out there who would provide a more inspiring text on the subject, however Kunstler’s book is a noteworthy addition to the debate.