John Muir and Livable Cities

113791028_8b3ff55c04_1.jpgTeddy Roosevelt and John Muir in Yosemite.

Over the holiday I read a new biography of John Muir, the iconic Victorian-era environmentalist and tireless advocate for wilderness conservation who helped establish the Sierra Club.  Written by environmental historian Donald Worster, the book narrates Muir’s well-known struggle and political machinations over the damming of Hetch Hetchy.  Less widely known was that as a pacifist Muir was a draft dodger during the Civil War (he did abhor slavery), and although he believed America was immoral for allowing the 19th century killing-off of animals, he had to subsume his values to court Teddy Roosevelt, an avid sports hunter, in order to advocate for protecting wilderness.  The storylines about Muir included a critical deconstruction of the politics of the early American conservation movement and this led me to reflect on the similarities between that movement and San Francisco’s contemporary livable city movement.

Muir never articulated an urban environmental agenda but a significant parallel involves the moral and ethical discourses that were invoked by Muir and by today’s livable city movement.  Both Muir and the livable city movement frame their cause in moral terms and as benefiting society through a kind of civilizing process.  Muir believed that a love and understanding of nature would elevate humanity and help alleviate tension and conflict. Nature was a type of social therapy. Similarly many livable city advocates believe that "how we get there matters" and have a moral discourse that links things like bicycling and walkable streets to good health, less pollution, and less dependency on corporate-controlled oil.  In this framework, urban configurations are connected to wider moral-social problems of over-consumption and excessive materialism.  To address pressing problems like global warming, resource depletion, and alienation, the city of today must be reorganized and made more humane and connected to nature.  This reorganization, like wilderness preservation for Muir, is guided by ethics and not money.

AAA_9981.jpg"1905 SP Train Harrison at 21st Mission." Photo: San Francisco History Center, San Francisco Public Library.

Yet both Muir and today’s progressive livable cities movement align with capital to get things done. Muir had Edward Harriman of the Southern Pacific Railway as a patron, and in his later years was more prone to cozy-up with the ruling class rather than tramping around the Sierra like a vagabond. Today, there is a political alignment between environmentalists, urbanists and real estate developers who were once deeply at odds over land use policies.   “Smart Growth” movements like the recently established coalition advocating for more federal funding for transit (Transportation for America) are joined by the National Real Estate Association.  In San Francisco, the local manifestation of this is the work of San Francisco Planning and Urban Research (SPUR) and the Housing Action Coalition (HAC).   A notable outcome of this loose alliance is the way in which political progressives in San Francisco have embraced neoliberal theories of pricing as a strategy to transform transportation.  Progressive advocacy of strategies like congestion and parking pricing reflects the parallel trend in contemporary conservation efforts, whereby private capital is frequently used to conserve open space rather than the traditional method of direct state intervention and regulation. Today, some livable city advocates have shifted from a discourse of explicitly banning or limiting cars to one of pricing the car and commodifying street space.  

But a conundrum arises with this alliance between progressives in the livable city movement and capital. At times the livable city movement appears to have lost some of its populist edge. Again, the story of Muir has parallels worth considering.  Swirling around Muir during the late 19th and early 20th centuries were blunt populist and socialist challenges to gilded age capitalism.  Muir was sympathetic to concepts of economic redistribution and loathed the massive ecological destruction of big capital, but was somewhat detached from the day-to-day political struggle between capital and labor.  Muir even sided with capital for pragmatic reasons having to do with financing the conservation movement. For example, he preferred William McKinley over the populist William Jennings Bryan in the 1896 Presidential election because he thought McKinley was more prone to protect wilderness.  His friendship with railroad baron Edward Harriman led Muir to look the other way as Southern Pacific battled California progressives over labor and other issues. A revolutionary Muir was not. 

2626026001_e9f13de0ac.jpgThe O’Shaughnessy Dam at Hetch Hetchy.

In many ways Muir was similar to the reformist New Urbanists who are part of the livable city movement – seeking a pragmatic balance between populist causes (affordable housing) with bourgeois interests (private property, quality of life).  Muir’s conservation ethos was that love of nature would balance the labor-capital divide. New Urbanists have parallel beliefs about good urbanism.  Good city form, mixing land uses and housing types, and providing walkable urbanism, helps resolve some (but by no means all) social ills.  This reformist approach reflects Muir’s and the New Urbanist tendency towards a secular-scientific based pragmatism in politics that hold skepticism towards rigidly defined ideologies such as socialism or libertarianism.  Muir, like livable city advocates, held progressive/liberal values of freedom of thought, encouraging individuality, openness and experience and an “enlightened utilitarianism” centered on the use of resources in a careful and rational way.  But as a pacifist who abhorred hunting, he tempered his values to support hunting for food, and endorsed the militant and imperialist McKinley and Roosevelt.  Many livable city advocates acknowledge that in today’s economic framework there must be for-profit housing built to cross-subsidize affordable housing.

One last point worth considering is that Muir’s sense of social justice was more a worry about future generations rather than the contemporary class struggle waged around him.  As livable city advocates promote urban densification and reduced automobility, it is worth taking heed of that. A populist working class appeal should be part of the livable city discourse.   For example, as livable city advocates grapple with improving Muni they should not always reduce Muni’s operating deficits to one of obstinate labor unions – as San Francisco’s capitalist class is so apt at doing.  And as pricing is pursued as transportation policy, it should be assured that the revenue go towards improving the non-automobility of San Francisco’s working class and not simply beautification of streetscapes in neighborhoods already endowed with wealth, or towards mega-infrastructure that enhances real estate values but does nothing for making the working class journey to work affordable in both money and time.

Flickr Photos: Sierra Club and Brandon Sutler

  • “…pragmatic balance between populist causes (affordable housing) with bourgeois interests (private property, quality of life).”

    Very interesting essay, but let me quibble about one thing. I don’t think quality of life is a bourgeois interest. On the contrary, I think it is essential to shift our goal from the old bourgeois focus on higher income and higher Gross Domestic Product to a new focus on higher quality of life.

  • Brian

    Yeah, sure, but what did Madame Curie think about fixies?

  • I’d thought that all of the bourgeoisie had died out at the end of the 19th century or at least by 1917. That word only has comic connotations nowadays–boozhwahzee.

    And the application of stale Marxian class dialectic is particularly faulty because the blue green alliance does not come naturally, and there is more to bringing a social justice perspective to the environmental movement than simply having environmentalists work with labor. Environmentalists of all stripes should be deemed ignorant of social justice issues until proven otherwise by their actions. There is just so little evidence to the contrary.

    I’d be happy if there had been a pragmatic balance between the singular interests of the developers and the interests of the City and various interests in the impacted communities as the most recent land use plans were drawn up.

    But the balances are invariably tilted towards unsustainable development because of lack of affordability or (especially transit) infrastructure to support the lack of autos. There aren’t even shovel ready plans in place for most any of the infrastructure that is required to service the massive levels of new development entitled. But those height bumps are sure in place.

    Even the urban design is not livable, as it seeks to replicate the high streetwall that we see on the south side of Market between 8th and SVN, one of the densest, least walkable, most hostile, cold and windy parts of the City or in the North Mission tries the same scam on Mission around 16th BART.

    We’ve been had, more accurately, we’ve been sold out by people who sing “smart growth” but end up folding like chairs before developers, and I believe that the “livable city movement” will come to realize that what it views as wins are really losses.

    Think of Muir’s and Hetch Hetchy. The question will be, once the fallacy of hostile urban design TOD without the T and affordability is realized, will our leaders follow David Brower’s lead and cut a deal like the Glen Canyon dam that leads to even more damage as they try to are allowed to the table to “negotiate” with the capitalists?

    Any good environmentalist must be aware of the precautionary principle. I’d suggest that those who have not learned from past errors like The O’Shaughnessy or Glen Canyon dams or Market/Octavia or Eastern Neighborhoods are bound to repeat them and before so doing, these bold urban pioneers should consider taking a hippocratic oath to their communities–do no harm.



Noah Budnick Named SF Bicycle Coalition’s New Executive Director

Noah Budnick, an accomplished advocate for safe streets and effective transit in New York City, has been named the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition’s new executive director and will succeed Leah Shahum, who will step down after 12 years leading the organization. Budnick has built a strong national reputation among livable streets advocates in his 14 […]

This Week: Spare the Air, Motivating Movement, Haight Plan

Here are this week’s highlights from the Streetsblog calendar: Tuesday A New Plan to Spare the Air. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has a new report on climate change. It looks at the expected effects on the Bay Area and lays the groundwork for building a post-carbon economy. It also prescribes air quality […]

More Mayoral Results: Minneapolis, Houston, Boston

This week’s mayoral elections yielded good news for transit and safe streets in both Houston and Minneapolis. In Boston, meanwhile, the results are less straightforward. Transportation reformers in Minneapolis are generally pleased about the election of City Council member Betsy Hodges (runoff votes are still being counted, but the second-place contender has conceded). Hodges is […]