The City and the Limiting Virtues

(that said, Aristotle, who definitely fell on the Guardian side of Jacobs' duality, has limiting* virtues in his system as well: prudence is limited by justice, and courage by temperance)

* of course if one speaks of covirtues, the arrows reverse: justice is limited by prudence, and temperance by courage.

I fully agree, the spaces we visit have to be opinionated and we can self-select on if we want to visit, physical or otherwise.

I'd wager anything meaningful involves some subconscious design biases, there's no reason why it wouldn't make more sense to make them explicit - You're never going to capture the portion of audience who would be offended by the rules by not having them, as they're already self-selecting the spaces that have rules tailored for them!

It's one thing to point out the virtue in constraint. I don't even disagree. If the article were merely an architectural critique, I would be mostly on board. But the article doesn't stop there. It proffers a hip cafe in Harvard Square, the Cambridge library, and "one of the only choir schools in the United States!" as virtuous... while simultaneously mounting a larger critique of elite excess(?!)

So let's discuss this virtuous neighborhood.

Cambridge currently has six housing units with 2+ beds for sale on Zillow with listing prices below $800,000. None of these are single family homes, one of these listings is an error, and another is ~600 sqft. At least some of the others, I would wager, are intentionally under-priced and will go over asking. Perhaps all of them!

How is this relevant to the social/architectural thesis of the piece? Simple: what Cambridge needs is not elaborate architectural programming of constrained spaces designed by $X00+/hr architects. What Cambridge needs is a bunch of affordable boxes with programs that minimize cost of design, materials, and labor.

Leave the rarefied air of hangouts for the Actually Elite, such as the article's Faro Cafe -- a no-laptops coffee shop located in Harvard Square serving fancy cappuccinos and premium pastries to the city's tenured faculty. What you'll find beyond those cloistered enclaves is that the societal critique of this piece has a deeply flawed premise.

I suppose, if you're the personal beneficiary of a trust fund or the professional beneficiary of an institution's endowment, then the cheap "everything box" apartment seems gouache. You can have better! But the "rectangle with minimal interior subdivisions" is not primarily the architectural manifestation of Elite Liberal Individual Narcissism or whatever. It's just the cheapest way to build out an interior space that feels big enough for a family to spend time in together. Walls are expensive, and artisanally placed walls even more so!

And I suppose if you have a private office in Harvard Square or Boston's Back Bay then the coffeeshop/office combo seems like a terrible symptom of a hyper-individualized Screen Obsessed Society. But to approximately everyone else living in a place where a family of 4 will pay $4,000/mo for not enough living space, that coffeeshop/office combo is as close as you'll likely get to a private workspace.

None of this is an argument against no-laptop policies or quiet ares in libraries. But then -- the article also isn't primarily an argument for those places! If the piece didn't come with a larger thesis decrying Elite Cultural Decay while singing the praises of one of the most culturally elite and least economically affordable neighborhoods in the world, then I would've had a very different reaction.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar