The Silverware and the Tablecloth

A decade ago, I launched a blog called Battling Burnham. The name was a deliberate, slightly combative reaction to a disturbing trend I saw dominating American urbanism: an obsession with design at the absolute expense of functioning economics, ecology, and culture.

Back then, I used to tell people that the way we treat urban planning is like a food critic walking into a hot new restaurant, tasting absolutely none of the food, and writing a 2,000-word review entirely about the weight of the silverware and the pattern of the tablecloth.

Don’t misunderstand me—I don’t love bad design. I appreciate beautiful architecture, elegant public transit shelters, and well-crafted spaces as much as anyone, and I hope designers keep striving for excellence. But aesthetics are secondary to survival. A city can be breathtakingly beautiful and functionally dead.

Ten years ago, I thought my job was simply to convince people of this fact. I thought if I yelled loud enough that “the food matters more than the plates,” the profession would pivot.

But looking at the landscape today, keeping up with planning circles on social media, and watching how cities continue to struggle, I’ve realized something much deeper. The problem isn’t that we don’t know the food matters more than the silverware.

The problem is that we have tried to separate two things that cannot be divided: technical know-how and politics.

Subscribe now

The Spectrum: From the Bridge to the Ballot Box

There are realms of human achievement where a strict, clean wall between politics and technical expertise is not only possible, but necessary.

• The Purely Political: Deciding the philosophical right or wrong of a taxation policy. This is a values-driven debate. There is no mathematical “correct” answer to how much wealth should be redistributed; it is an expression of societal values. We use democracy to debate and vote on it.

• The Purely Technical: Building a suspension bridge. You do not want a public referendum or a politician’s opinion on the tension capacity of steel cables or the depth of concrete caissons. You want a structural engineer who has mastered the technical proficiency of their craft.

We have spent decades trying to force urban planning into the “purely technical” category. We treat the city planner as an appointed, neutral bureaucrat—a structural engineer for the neighborhood who merely applies objective zoning codes and transportation math.

But urban planning does not belong on either extreme end of this spectrum. It sits squarely, uncomfortably, right in the middle.

“The only way we have been able to maintain the delusion that planning is a purely neutral, technical job is by re-categorizing actual planning as design.”

Design feels safe. Design follows guidelines, setback rules, and architectural styles that can be taught in a university and executed at a computer terminal. Design doesn’t require a political philosophy.

But because we have reduced planning to mere design, we haven’t actually been doing any real planning.

The Illusion of the “Apolitical” Planner

Lately, this tension has been on my mind because of how often I see planners struggling to maintain this facade of objective neutrality.

A stark reminder of this collision happened recently when Nithya Raman threw their hat into the ring to run for Mayor of Los Angeles. It’s a fascinating development. For a planner to realize that they cannot actually fix the city from the safety of an appointed desk—that they have to run for executive office—proves the point.

If you want to do real planning, you have to wield political power.

When you plan a city, you aren’t just drawing shapes on a map. You are making deeply ideological decisions.

• You are deciding who has physical, economic access to the city and who is priced out or physically excluded.

• You are deciding which neighborhoods receive millions in tax dollars for infrastructure and which ones are left to slowly decay.

• You are deciding which corporate developers are subsidized by the public’s purse and which citizens bear the long-term financial debt.

These are not technical calculations. There is no formula in an engineering textbook that tells you whether it is “objectively correct” to prioritize a developer’s profit margin, a commuter’s driving speed, or a low-income family’s housing stability.

Your political philosophy doesn’t just influence these decisions—it dictates them.

When planners try to stay strictly apolitical, they are either deceiving themselves or shielding themselves from accountability. Planning is never automatic. If you don’t explicitly state your political and philosophical values, you are simply executing the default values of the existing power structure.

Share

The Utopian Guts of Planning

If you want to know just how politically charged this field truly is, you only have to look at its birth certificate.

Modern urban planning didn’t emerge from a municipal engineering laboratory. It came out of 19th-century utopian movements. It was born from radical, philosophical attempts to re-engineer human behavior, class equity, and labor conditions through the built environment. It was about as political as it could possibly get.

We need to stop pretending we can have our cake while we’re eating it. We cannot pretend that the person organizing the physical layout of our lives is just a neutral technician.

This doesn’t necessarily mean we should make city planners elected positions like county sheriffs. But it does mean we, the voting public, need to change how we view local elections.

When you vote for your mayor or your city council, you aren’t just voting for a political figurehead. You are voting for the person who will appoint and direct the planning department. And because real planning decisions have a massive, direct impact on the public, no politician is ever going to let a planner operate in a vacuum. If the public revolts over a bike lane, a density increase, or a transit route, the politician steps in.

In a very real sense, the politician is the one doing the actual planning. The planner is just providing the technical cover.

Why “Battling Burnham” Matters Today

As I begin reposting my older essays from the Battling Burnham archives here on Built and Human, I am looking at them through this evolved lens.

Ten years ago, I was fighting a battle of aesthetics and economics. Today, I realize the battlefield is governance.

We have to stop looking at our cities as design puzzles to be solved by neutral, certified experts who are “above” politics. We have to start looking at them for what they are: the physical, concrete manifestation of our political priorities.

If we want better, more human cities, we have to stop hiding behind the blueprints. We have to step out from behind the design standards and start having the messy, philosophical, and deeply political debates about who our cities are actually being built for.

Talk Back to the Hive:

• Do you think your local city planners are acting as neutral engineers or political agents?

• How much does the political philosophy of your local mayor actually dictate the physical layout of your neighborhood?

• Let’s discuss in the comments below.

Leave a comment

Alright, loyal readers of Battling Burnham! You've patiently (or perhaps impatiently, if you're stuck in traffic) followed our rants, raves, and deep dives into the glorious mess that is American urban planning. We've questioned why our cities look the way they do, why we pay for what we pay for, and why we collectively seem to prefer wide roads over walkable streets. We've talked about grand plans and small plans, about concrete castles and fleeting freedoms.

Well, buckle up, because we're about to take this show on the road – literally!

From Blog Post Ideas to Real-Life Exploration: The Genesis of "Built and Human"

A while back, I teased an idea for a future blog series: a grand tour of cities around the world, asking the simple but profound question: "How do they do it?" How do other cultures build, manage, and live in their urban spaces? And crucially, is it… better? Is there a different way to design transportation, manage housing, foster community, or deal with infrastructure that might make our American urban hearts swell with envy (or, perhaps, a healthy dose of inspiration)?

Turns out, that little thought experiment has been quietly brewing, stewing, and percolating into something much more ambitious. Thanks to some serious planning (the good kind, not the "bulldoze everything" kind) and the happy accident of life, that future blog series is now slated to become a YouTube channel!

That’s right, folks. You're getting the exclusive sneak peek. I’ve already started laying the groundwork, dabbling in the mysterious arts of video editing (spoiler: it's harder than it looks) and channel management (spoiler: it's a lot like herding cats, but with more algorithms).

What "Built and Human" Means (and Where We're Starting)

The channel, tentatively titled "Built and Human" (because, let's be honest, clarity is key when you're trying to demystify complex urban systems), will be my personal journey into the living laboratories of global urbanism. Since I now live in Vietnam, and have amazing friends in China, I have the incredible opportunity and access to start exploring cities in these fascinating, dynamic, and rapidly evolving parts of the world.

We'll be hitting the streets, the markets, the transit lines, and the quiet neighborhood nooks to literally show you how different cities function. We'll be asking:

• How do people move around without a car in [City X]?

• What does a truly vibrant, mixed-use neighborhood feel like in [City Y]?

• How do cities in other cultures deal with housing density, historic preservation, or public space maintenance?

• What does "economic vibrancy" look like when it's not dominated by chain stores and parking lots?

It’s all about putting our blog’s core philosophy into action: getting past the abstract, challenging assumptions, and seeking out practical, human-centric solutions from places that often do things… well, differently. And perhaps, just perhaps, better.

Your Mission, Should You Choose to Accept It: We Need Your Ideas!

Now, this is where you, the discerning reader, come in. This channel is for us – the urban curious, the city shapers, the exasperated commuters. So, I want to gauge your interest and, more importantly, get your input!

• Is this something you'd be genuinely interested in watching?

• What specific aspects of city life or urban planning would you be most curious to see covered in a global context? (Think beyond the obvious: drainage systems? recycling? street vending regulations? local governance structures? community organizing?)

• Are there particular cities or regions outside of Vietnam and China that you'd love to see explored if the channel takes off?

• What "problems" in American cities do you wish we could just... see a working alternative for?

This is a new adventure, and while it's a bit of an unusual post for our regular programming, your commentary would be incredibly helpful as I build this new platform. Let me know your thoughts in the comments!

Picture this: a new park, a repaired bridge, or a shiny library popping up in your city. We all enjoy these improvements, right? But have you ever wondered how exactly our cities fund these amenities? The answer might surprise you. Behind the scenes, two powerful mechanisms often go unnoticed—Municipal Bonds and Blight Seizure. These tools, while seemingly separate, are intricately linked, creating a "double dip" scenario where the wealthy profit, while taxpayers shoulder the load.

Take a look around. That new bike lane or community center didn’t just appear out of thin air. Ever curious about who’s picking up the tab? Today, we’re unraveling the mystery behind two urban finance mechanisms: Municipal Bonds and the acquisition of so-called "blighted" land. Get ready to discover who’s really cashing in on these public projects.

Bond-Age: The Not-So-Public Benefit of Municipal Bonds

Municipal Bonds are the financial lifeline for many public projects. The basic premise? Cities issue bonds to borrow money from investors, often those with substantial capital. But here's the kicker: cities repay these loans with interest, using taxpayer money. So, who truly benefits from this arrangement? The wealthy, who profit while the community ostensibly gains from new infrastructure.

Municipal Bonds: Lending a Hand (for a Fee)

Instead of directly using tax dollars for that new school, cities issue Municipal Bonds. The wealthy, with investment-ready cash, act as lenders. The city repays them with interest using taxpayer funds. This method not only ensures profits for the wealthy but also diverts attention from more egalitarian funding methods. Could it be that this complex system distracts us from demanding fairer taxation?

Blight Flight: Seizing Land and Handing Out Windfalls

"Blight" is the label often stuck on economically struggling areas, paving the way for land seizure. But who decides on this label, and what happens to those who called it home? Frequently, such land goes to private developers with enticing incentives, leading to shiny developments. Yet, couldn’t public funds be better spent supporting existing communities and businesses, to organically rejuvenate these areas?

"Blight Removal": Clearing the Way for Whose Benefit?

“Blight” sounds dire, doesn’t it? Cities seize “blighted” land, often gifting it to private developers with tax perks. But who lived there before? And why not use funds to support local businesses or services that might naturally improve these areas? Perhaps these community-driven investments could solve the problem without displacing communities for the profit of a few.

The Common Thread: Profiting from the Public Purse

Municipal Bonds and Blight Seizure share an underlying theme: public resources flowing into private hands. The wealthy enjoy the perks of lending capital and acquiring land, all courtesy of government intervention. It's like they have their spoons in the public pot twice over, reaping rewards while the broader tax base foots the bill.

The Not-So-Secret Sauce: Government-Guaranteed Profits

Notice a pattern? Whether it’s through Municipal Bonds or blight removal, both systems adeptly funnel public resources to private interests. The wealthy get to profit twice: from lending money and acquiring prime real estate. It’s a lucrative scheme funded by taxpayers.

Conclusion

While cities aim to improve, the mechanisms often in place can disproportionately benefit the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. It’s time to question how public projects are funded and who truly benefits from these arrangements. Perhaps, by demanding more transparency and equitable systems, we can ensure that our cities flourish without the constant "double dip" into the public purse. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to ponder the wonders of compound interest… and maybe pen a strongly worded letter to city hall.

Challenging the Assumption of Individual Ownership as the Only Way

In the grand tapestry of American life, individual ownership is a thread woven so tightly that it seems impossible to unravel. Whether it's the clothes we wear or the cars we drive, the notion of "mine" is a powerful force shaping our economic and social landscape. Yet, while there's certainly a place for personal property, we often overlook that this isn't the only way to organize our shared resources and spaces. The time has come to take a closer look at this dominant model and ask: Is our unwavering belief in individual ownership always the most logical or beneficial approach?

The Illusion of Ownership: Deconstructing the Condo Conundrum

Consider the curious case of the condominium. We readily accept the idea of "owning" a condo, but what does that actually entail? You possess a deed to a specific "section" within a larger building—a section inseparable from the whole. You don't own the land beneath it, nor do you individually own the roof above or the foundation below. The very concept of individual ownership stretched to this situation feels more like a legal fiction than a tangible reality. Wouldn't it make more sense for the residents of a building to collectively own the entire structure, essentially becoming their own landlords? This model of co-ownership aligns more intuitively with the reality of shared infrastructure and interdependent living, yet it often clashes with our ingrained notions of individual property rights.

Beyond the Private Vehicle: Rethinking Transportation Ownership

Transportation offers another compelling area to question our default to individual ownership. While owning a car, bicycle, or motorbike makes practical sense, what about public transit? In its early days in the United States, and still in many parts of the world, public transportation was, and is, viewed as a fundamental government service. However, the US diverged from this path, leading to the often frustrating reality of "quasi-governmental" transit agencies. These entities receive public funding but often lack true accountability to the voters they serve, nor do they always operate with the customer's needs as their primary focus. Perhaps the answer lies in a return to the model of public transit as a directly provided public service. Or, considering the regional nature of commuting and the limitations of city-centric systems, maybe we should explore the idea of transit user co-ownership, empowering riders to have a real say in how their transportation system operates, moving beyond the roles of mere customers or, too often, victims of inadequate service.

The Individualist Straitjacket: Why We Cling to This Model

Why this unwavering adherence to the individual ownership model, even in situations where it seems less than ideal? This preference reflects the deeply ingrained individualist ethos that permeates American society. The idea that we can achieve everything on our own, that we are solely responsible for our successes and failures, often overshadows the potential power of collective action. Exploring cooperative ownership models, where we work together to achieve common goals, can be perceived as a challenge to the existing power structures, a notion that might become "infectious" if applied to other areas like the workplace or education. This individualistic mindset, while seemingly empowering on the surface, can ultimately lead to a world where the average person has limited influence and remains largely beholden to the decisions of the wealthy and powerful.

Power in Numbers: Embracing Collective Ownership for a More Equitable Future

But what if we dared to think differently? What if we embraced the power of collective ownership in more aspects of our lives? Imagine the possibilities if residents co-owned their apartment buildings, if transit users had a real stake in their transportation systems, or if workers had greater ownership in the companies they help to build. By shifting our mindset from the singular focus on "mine" to the inclusive power of "ours," we can begin to reassert our collective power, make decisions that benefit the many rather than the few, and ultimately build a more equitable and empowered society.

Reclaiming Our Collective Power Through Shared Ownership

The concept of individual ownership certainly has its merits, but it's time we recognize its limitations and explore the potential of alternative models. From the logical co-ownership of a condo building to the empowering idea of transit users shaping their own systems, there are compelling reasons to question the absolute dominance of "mine." By embracing collective ownership in various forms, we might just unlock a more equitable, responsive, and ultimately, more human-centered way of organizing our shared lives and resources. Perhaps the future isn't just about individual achievement, but about the power we can unlock when we realize we're all in this together.

Defining and Identifying the Engineered Aspects of Culture

Ever get the feeling that some aspects of our culture feel… a little too perfect? Too on-trend? Too perfectly aligned with the latest marketing campaign? I've been pondering this idea of what I call "manufactured culture" – those elements of our shared way of life, from the slang we use to the foods we crave, that might appear organic but were actually developed and promoted with a specific agenda in mind. The goal? Often to boost patriotism, sell us something, or simply grab our attention in a crowded media landscape. While the line between genuine cultural evolution and deliberate creation can be blurry, I've identified some key indicators that might suggest a particular cultural element isn't quite as authentic as it seems. Let's pull back the curtain and take a look.

The Perpetual Upgrade: Perceived Obsolescence as a Cultural Driver

One of the telltale signs of manufactured culture is the relentless pursuit of the "new and improved," even when the "old" is perfectly functional. This is the magic of perceived obsolescence, a cornerstone of the public relations playbook. Think about your smartphone. Is the latest model truly revolutionary, or are its advantages mostly stylistic, designed to make your perfectly good phone feel… last season? Fashion operates on a similar principle, with trends shifting annually, sometimes even seasonally. While fashion is undoubtedly a part of real culture, the rapid, often superficial changes are often driven by manufactured desires. Consider the Ao Dai in Vietnam, a genuine cultural garment. If the Vietnamese fashion industry started drastically altering its look every year, the Ao Dai would still be authentic, but those annual, style-driven changes would likely fall under the umbrella of manufactured culture.

Divide and Conquer: The Engineered Generation Gap

Another key tactic in the manufactured culture toolkit is the generation gap. While there are natural demographic differences between age groups, the media often takes this to an extreme, assigning distinct personalities, behaviors, and preferences to "Baby Boomers," "Gen X," "Millennials," and so on. This constant categorization, often amplified for marketing purposes, can create a self-fulfilling prophecy. Suddenly, your clothing choices, your taste in music, even your recreational habits are dictated by your supposed generation. The result? Reduced interaction and understanding between these artificially constructed groups, leading to a siloing of knowledge and a breakdown in the natural flow of wisdom from one generation to the next. Feeling disconnected from your parents or baffled by your kids? That might just be the manufactured generation gap at work.

The Shiny Distraction: Tuning Out Real Life

One of the most insidious aspects of manufactured culture is its tendency to distract us from the things that truly matter. Real life – the health of ourselves, our families, and our communities – involves active engagement with complex issues, from healthcare decisions to debates about local infrastructure. But manufactured culture often offers a much more appealing alternative: the vicarious thrill of a city's sports team's success or the captivating storyline of a fictional character. While there's nothing inherently wrong with enjoying these things, when they become our primary focus, crowding out engagement with the issues that directly impact our lives and the well-being of our communities, we might be falling prey to the manufactured culture's carefully crafted diversions. Your favorite TV show might be entertaining, but it won't get your kids into college or ensure affordable housing in your neighborhood.

Severing Ties: Discontinuity and Atomization

Manufactured culture often thrives on discontinuity and atomization. Discontinuity can be both temporal and spatial. Temporally, manufactured culture often encourages a break from the past, presenting itself as entirely new and discarding previous iterations. Real culture, while it evolves, tends to build upon what came before. Spatially, while real culture can be influenced by other regions, it typically shares more common ground with its immediate neighbors. Think of food: Vietnamese noodle dishes share connections with those in neighboring countries, not with something entirely unrelated like Italian pasta. Atomization refers to the way manufactured culture can isolate individuals. While it might bring people together for a fleeting moment (like at a concert), it often encourages solitary consumption afterwards, perhaps listening to the music alone rather than engaging with friends in a social setting. Manufactured culture often directs our attention and engagement towards online "communities" centered around specific products or media, potentially at the expense of our real-world connections and our involvement in our physical communities.

Follow the Money: The Profit Motive

Finally, a crucial clue to identifying manufactured culture is the omnipresent profit motive. While real cultural elements will naturally involve some level of commerce (clothes need to be made, food needs to be grown), the primary driver isn't necessarily constant reinvention for the sake of sales. Consider the humble hamburger – arguably a genuine element of American culture. But the endless parade of "new and improved," limited-edition burgers at fast-food chains, each designed to generate buzz and drive sales, likely falls into the realm of manufactured culture. The core element exists, but the constant variations are often driven by the bottom line.

Reclaiming Authentic Culture in Our Cities

Distinguishing between genuine cultural evolution and manufactured culture isn't always easy. We all have our favorite shows and trendy foods, and acknowledging their potential manufactured origins can be uncomfortable. However, by being aware of these indicators – perceived obsolescence, the generation gap, distraction, discontinuity and atomization, and the profit motive – we can begin to critically examine the cultural landscape around us. As we'll explore further, much of what has eroded the authentic culture of our cities has relied on the techniques of manufactured culture. To truly revitalize our urban environments, we must shift our focus towards fostering and celebrating real, genuine culture, the kind that builds connections, transmits wisdom, and enriches our lives beyond the fleeting trends of the marketplace. Our struggling cities are a symptom, not the cause, of a society increasingly shaped by the manufactured.

In a world where convenience often trumps tradition, the disappearance of our beloved local food stores—those charming butchers, bakeries, and fishmongers—feels like the end of an era. They weren't just places to pick up groceries; they were vibrant threads weaving the fabric of our communities. So, what happened? Why do we now find ourselves wandering through endless aisles of supermarkets and big box retailers instead? The simple explanation often tossed around is "efficiency," but let's not be fooled—there's a more complex narrative at play.

The Efficiency Myth: Are Big Boxes Really Better for Everyone?

In the relentless pursuit of efficiency, supermarkets and big box stores have streamlined shopping into a one-stop experience. But is this convenience truly superior? Sure, you can grab laundry detergent, bananas, and a new toaster all under one roof, but at what cost? We lose the specialized knowledge and personal touch that small businesses provide, not to mention the economic ripple effect of supporting local economies. The so-called "efficiency" of big chains seems more about fattening corporate profits than enriching communities. Let's challenge the notion that bigger is always better and consider what we truly value in our food economy.

The Policy Pendulum: How We Tilted the Playing Field

The shift away from local food stores isn't merely a consumer-driven phenomenon. Policy decisions have played a pivotal role in shaping this landscape. Tax breaks, lenient regulations, and zoning laws often favor large retailers, making it easier for them to dominate. Meanwhile, small businesses struggle to survive under the weight of comparable regulatory burdens. This isn't just a natural market outcome; it’s a consequence of deliberate policy choices that have inadvertently stifled small enterprises. It's time to acknowledge and address these imbalances.

Reclaiming Main Street: Policy Shifts for a Vibrant Local Economy

The silver lining? If policies contributed to this shift, they can also lead the resurgence. Imagine a world where zoning laws encourage the establishment of small shops, or where big box stores shoulder their fair share of taxes. Communities could provide public spaces for local startups, fostering innovation and diversity. By realigning policies to support small businesses, we can revitalize our main streets and create a thriving local economy that benefits everyone.

Cultivating the Comeback: Education, Funding, and the Shift in Zeitgeist

Of course, policies are just one piece of the puzzle. We also need a cultural shift towards valuing local businesses. Government programs can educate and empower new entrepreneurs, while consumers can choose to support local stores. Together, these efforts can shift the zeitgeist back to a time when community-driven, real food stores were the norm. It's about rekindling the relationships and experiences that make shopping an enriching activity.

A Recipe for a Healthier Community

The dominance of supermarkets and big box stores wasn't inevitable; it was shaped by policy and our choices. But we hold the power to reshape our retail landscape. Through thoughtful policy changes and community support, we can revive a vibrant, diverse local economy that enriches our communities and nurtures our souls. Now, let's ask ourselves: what kind of "grocery aisle" do we want our community to be? It's time to roll up our sleeves and start building the retail world we wish to see.

Applying Supermarket Logic to Neighborhood Commerce

Imagine walking into your local supermarket, a place designed with the precision of a chessboard. Certain staples like milk or eggs are tucked away in less convenient aisles. These aren't the items that make the supermarket rich, but they serve a fundamental purpose: they draw you in, knowing full well you'll likely leave with more than you intended. Now, let’s pivot this supermarket strategy to our neighborhoods. What are the "loss leaders" in our community spaces? What businesses are the milk and eggs of our Main Streets?

The Milk and Eggs of Main Street: Identifying Community Anchors

When we peel back the layers of our communities, we uncover certain businesses that stand out as essential draws. Consider the fresh food market, equipped with a grocer and possibly a butcher. These establishments cater to our most basic need: nourishment. Similarly, the local pharmacy plays a critical role, providing health essentials that ensure our well-being. These aren't the places where you might splurge on the latest tech gadget, but they are the bedrock of daily life, the businesses people rely on regularly.

Beyond the Basics: Gauging Community Health

The presence—or absence—of these foundational businesses can reveal the economic pulse of a neighborhood. A thriving local grocer or a well-patronized pharmacy speaks to a community's stability and vibrancy. These businesses require a steady stream of customers to survive, so their existence can be a reassuring sign of economic health. Conversely, if these essential services are missing or faltering, it raises red flags. Are residents venturing out of their neighborhood for basic necessities? This could indicate underlying economic challenges.

The Follow-On Effect: From Essentials to Extras

Once these community anchors are set, they pave the way for other businesses to enter the scene. As residents visit their local grocer or pharmacy, they're more likely to stop by a coffee shop or a cozy restaurant nearby. These secondary businesses thrive on the foot traffic generated by the essential anchors. Remember, "Starbucks and wine bars do not a community make." While these venues add flair, they rely heavily on the steady stream of patrons attracted by the basics provided by the neighborhood's core businesses.

Strategic Investment: Should Communities Subsidize Their Anchors?

Here’s a thought-provoking question: should communities consider subsidizing their anchor businesses? In the retail world, "loss leaders" are items sold at a loss to entice customers to buy more profitable goods. While community anchors shouldn't necessarily operate at a loss, could there be value in offering them incentives? Perhaps the broader economic benefit of a bustling grocer or pharmacy, in terms of drawing shoppers to a commercial district, outweighs the cost of a subsidy. The profitability of these businesses might be secondary to their role in sustaining the local economy.

The Heart of Community Commerce

In essence, just as supermarkets lean on "loss leaders" to bring in customers, our community spaces rely on anchor businesses to attract residents and visitors. Identifying and potentially supporting these key services—the milk and eggs of Main Street—is vital for nurturing a robust local economy. By focusing on businesses that fulfill fundamental needs, we lay the groundwork for a diverse and dynamic community commercial space to thrive.

We used to tell ourselves a story about the American economy. A narrative where diligence paid off, where saving and investing led to security, and where contributing to your community built a better future for everyone. We envisioned a steady climb: renting a starter apartment, saving for a down payment on a home that would appreciate in value, diligently contributing to a retirement fund that would provide a comfortable later life, and actively participating in the civic life of our neighborhoods.

That might have been the script once, but somewhere along the way, the play changed. Today, for many, the American economy feels less like a ladder to climb and more like a lottery ticket – a game where a few win big, but most are left with little to show for their efforts. Let's break down the ways this "lottery economics" plays out in our lives.

The Housing Hustle: Playing Musical Chairs with Our Homes

Remember when young people rented as a stepping stone to homeownership? Rents were manageable, allowing for substantial savings towards a down payment. Then came the mortgage, a commitment to build equity over time, with the eventual reward of owning your own home outright. Fast forward to today, and "homeownership" often looks more like a frantic game of musical chairs. Aspiring homeowners often start with two mortgages, one for the bulk of the price and another, with less favorable terms, for the down payment. The goal isn't long-term ownership and community building, but rather a short-term strategy to capitalize on tax breaks. The logic? Pay primarily the interest in the early years (the tax-deductible part), then sell before the principal payments kick in and those sweet "homeownership" tax benefits wane. This creates a perpetual cycle of buying and selling, destroying any real sense of community and turning neighborhoods into transient zones. We all just cross our fingers, hoping we get a chair when the music stops and that our property value doesn't plummet while we're sitting in it. Some will hit the jackpot with rapid appreciation; many won't. It's housing as a high-stakes gamble.

Retirement Roulette: Betting on the Market for Your Golden Years

The promise of a comfortable retirement used to involve a reliable pension, a steady nest egg built through years of contributions. Today? Welcome to the world of the 401(k). Sold as a way to "save," it's actually an investment tool, meaning your retirement security is largely at the mercy of the unpredictable stock market. While some might see their investments flourish, others face the very real possibility of their savings being wiped out by market fluctuations. The stability of traditional pensions has largely vanished, replaced by a system where your retirement is essentially a bet on an ever-expanding market. It's retirement as a spin of the roulette wheel.

Community Gambles: Hoping the Development Dice Roll Your Way

And what about those communities we were supposed to be building? Our short-term, tax-break-driven model of homeownership hardly fosters deep roots or long-term investment in neighborhoods. Even when the opportunity for genuine community building exists, we often opt for a passive approach, hoping that the next zoning decision or development project will magically benefit us. Instead of engaging in the messy but vital work of civic action – of fighting for our neighborhoods, of shaping their future – we cross our fingers and hope the market gods smile upon our property values. We become spectators in our own communities, hoping we can sell high before the wrong kind of development tanks our property value. A select few might win big when developers come knocking, but the majority are left to deal with the consequences. It's community building as a roll of the dice.

The Cult of the Winner: Believing We're All One Lucky Break Away

Underpinning this "lottery economics" is a powerful cultural force: the cult of celebrity, the glorification of superstars and business moguls. We're bombarded with stories of the lucky few who strike it rich, who flip houses for massive profits, whose stock options explode, or whose businesses become billion-dollar empires. We see the one or two winners and think, "That could be me!" rarely stopping to consider the countless others who toil away, play by the "rules," and never hit the jackpot. This focus on the exceptional blinds us to the systemic flaws and the inherent risks of an economy where anyone can win big, but the vast majority, by definition, cannot. We're all holding our lottery tickets, hoping our numbers come up, while the foundations of a stable and equitable society crumble beneath us.

"Lottery economics" offers the tantalizing illusion of opportunity for all, but in reality, it breeds instability, undermines community, and replaces the promise of steady progress with the anxiety of constant risk. It's time we stopped hoping for a lucky break and started building an economy where hard work and genuine contribution lead to tangible and lasting rewards for everyone, not just the fortunate few.

 In the not-so-distant past, the American Dream was as solid as the white picket fences that framed suburban homes. Two cars in the garage, a stable job, and maybe a golden retriever trotting around a manicured lawn—this was the aspirational North Star. But fast forward to today, and that dream feels more like a gilded cage, trapping us in a cycle of debt and drudgery. It's high time we redefine success. Instead of focusing on accumulating property, what if we dared to ignite our passions, build our own ventures, and live lives driven by creativity? Welcome to the 21st-century reboot of the American Dream.

The Myth of the Maintenance-Free Metropolis (and Our Collective Peter Pan Syndrome)

Our consumption mindset hasn't just influenced our personal lives; it's seeped into our expectations of the cities we inhabit. We've somehow convinced ourselves that urban environments can sustain themselves without any effort or investment on our part. We enjoy the perks—smooth roads, lush parks, vibrant public spaces—but when it comes time to contribute to their upkeep, we collectively raise an eyebrow. Taxes for maintenance? "Hard pass," we seem to murmur, except maybe for fixing those pesky potholes. Yet, the truth is, maintenance-free cities are as mythical as Neverland. Sidewalks don't sweep themselves, and parks don't bloom out of thin air. Let's ditch our Peter Pan routine and accept that being part of a thriving city requires a grown-up approach: investing time and resources to maintain and enhance the places we call home.

Beyond the Mortgage: Rethinking the Homeownership Holy Grail

Let's take a moment to reconsider our national obsession with homeownership. While there's nothing wrong with owning a home, the pressure to achieve this "holy grail" of success has reached absurd levels. Young folks are diving headfirst into mortgages while juggling student loans—a debt cocktail that would give anyone indigestion. By stigmatizing renting, we've created a lopsided housing market where renters' rights are overshadowed by the relentless push to own property. If homeownership is the only "acceptable" path, there's little incentive for sellers to offer competitive prices or for banks to make attractive loan terms. This singular focus stifles competition and limits our options, benefiting sellers and financial institutions more than aspiring homeowners.

Empowering the Producers: A City Built on Passion, Not Just Property

Imagine a city where the American Dream isn't about property but about passion. Picture a landscape buzzing with entrepreneurs, artists, and innovators, all driven by the desire to create and contribute. A place where shared workspaces, community gardens, and collaborative projects thrive. Young people could invest in their skills and startups instead of locking themselves into decades of debt for a house. Homeownership wouldn't vanish, but it would become a choice, not a mandate. A city powered by passion could be more dynamic, resilient, and fulfilling—where value is measured in experiences and contributions, not just square footage.

Conclusion: Reimagining Success, Rebuilding Our Cities

It's time to toss out the outdated blueprint of the picket fence and dive into a life of passion-driven production. Realizing that vibrant cities require our active participation and investment, not just passive consumption, is key. Free yourself from the societal pressure to secure a mortgage before discovering what truly makes your soul sing. The "American Dream" can be about cultivating talents, forging your own path, and building a life rich in purpose and passion. In doing so, we'll not only enhance our lives but also create more vibrant, sustainable cities for everyone. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a passion project calling my name that doesn't involve mowing the lawn.

We love to buy things in America. It's practically our national pastime, right up there with arguing about sports and wondering if this is the year our favorite team will finally win. From the moment we're tiny humans, we're bombarded with the message that more stuff equals more happiness. And somewhere along the line, the 'American Dream' morphed from a quest for independence into an endless shopping spree. We're all chasing that bigger house, that fancier car, even if our wallets are screaming for mercy. It's ownership, baby, that's the ticket to the good life! Or is it?

You ever stop to think that maybe this obsession with owning everything is actually chaining us down? We're incentivized to take out massive home loans with tax breaks that only really pay off if we keep 'climbing the property ladder' – which, let's be honest, mostly means staying in debt . And instead of paving the way for folks to build their own businesses and create real independence, we dangle the carrot of more consumer debt. Public transport? Walkable cities? Nah, let's push those car loans! Remember when a ten-year mortgage was a thing? Now it feels like we're signing up for a financial marathon that never ends. Imagine if we treated small business loans with the same enthusiasm as home loans – could you picture a more vibrant, resilient society? I can.

Speaking of vibrant and resilient, let's take a little trip down to New Orleans. You see it on TV, in movies, and it's often painted as this poverty-stricken, dilapidated place. But if you've ever actually spent time there, you know that's a load of Louisiana hot sauce. It's a city bursting with life, with a culture so thick you could spread it on a beignet. And you know what might have something to do with that? Geography. New Orleans is hemmed in, geographically restricted from sprawling out into endless suburbs.¹ They can't just keep building outwards, so people tend to stay put, in their neighborhoods, for generations. And that longevity, that deep-rootedness, is what builds community, what creates that rich cultural capital you can feel in the air. It's like a slow-cooked gumbo of culture, where the flavors just keep getting better with time.

Now, think about the Baby Boomer generation. They were the pioneers of this constant churn, this endless moving from city to suburb to exurb, always chasing that next rung on the property ladder . But that generation is, shall we say, heading towards the exit ramp. So, here's the big question: can the rest of us pump the brakes on this madness? Can we, as individuals and as a society, make different choices? Can we prioritize building lives and communities over accumulating stuff and debt? Can we start rebuilding our cities with an eye towards the long haul, making choices that will last? Is it too late to hit the reset button on our culture of consumption?

Maybe it's not too late. Maybe the rising generations, facing a different economic landscape and a planet that's giving us the side-eye for our excessive consumption, will choose a different path. Maybe we'll start valuing community over square footage, stability over endless upgrades, and independence over a garage full of rarely used gadgets. Maybe we'll realize that the real American Dream isn't about owning everything, but about building something that lasts – a healthy city, a strong community, a life well-lived, not just well-bought. What do you think, Burnham Battlers? Can we rewrite the script for our cities, or are we destined to consume them until there's nothing left but the crumbs of our consumer culture?

Contrasting Perceptions and a Call for Deeper Analysis

When we think of successful ethnic enclaves in America, vibrant Chinatowns often come to mind. These communities are widely recognized for their economic vitality, their rich cultural traditions, and their strong social bonds. And while I agree that Chinatowns represent a significant success story, I believe it's crucial to examine the factors that contribute to this success and to contrast it with the experiences of other ethnic enclaves, particularly some African American communities, which are sometimes perceived as less successful. However, before drawing any quick conclusions, we must delve deeper into the historical and systemic forces that have shaped these communities. The story is far more complex than a simple comparison of current conditions.

The Bulldozer and the Broken Foundation - The Impact of Urban Renewal

The trajectory of many African American ethnic enclaves took a drastically different turn in the mid-20th century with the rise of urban renewal initiatives. Under the guise of progress and modernization, large sections of established and vibrant Black neighborhoods were systematically bulldozed to make way for various public projects. These projects included sprawling highway systems that often sliced directly through the heart of these communities, and perhaps even more tragically, the construction of large-scale public housing projects. While ostensibly intended to house the displaced residents, these housing projects often offered no pathway to ownership. This lack of ownership was a critical blow, as it prevented residents from building the kind of intergenerational wealth – through both home and business ownership – that is a cornerstone of stability and prosperity in many other ethnic enclaves. The very foundation for long-term community building was often deliberately undermined.

Large Plans vs. Small Plans - The Power of Organic Growth

This history of forced displacement and the imposition of large-scale, impersonal housing solutions stands in stark contrast to the more organic development often seen in other ethnic enclaves. The famous quote attributed to Daniel Burnham, "Make no small plans, they have no power to stir men's souls," reflects a belief in grand, sweeping visions. However, the wisdom of Jane Jacobs offers a powerful counterpoint, perhaps best summarized as: "Make small plans. They build the communities we live our lives in." It was precisely these small plans – the incremental investments of residents, the opening of small businesses, the fostering of local social networks – that were often denied to many African American communities in 20th century America. The power of individuals to shape their own neighborhoods, to build wealth through small-scale ownership, was often curtailed or outright eliminated by large-scale public projects. And without this crucial element of organic, community-driven growth, many Black communities struggled to flourish in the same way as other ethnic enclaves.

When Small Plans Were Allowed - The Success of Sweet Auburn

However, the narrative isn't one of universal struggle. When and where African American communities were afforded the space and opportunity for this kind of organic development, the results could be just as vibrant and successful. Consider Sweet Auburn in Atlanta, Georgia. Despite facing systemic racism and segregation, this historic district became a thriving center of Black-owned businesses, cultural institutions, and social life. The ability for Black residents to own homes and businesses, to build their own community infrastructure, fostered a strong and resilient enclave that mirrored the success of immigrant communities. Sweet Auburn stands as a powerful example of what was possible when the "small plans" of a community were allowed to take root and flourish.

Respecting the City and Its Inhabitants - The Path Forward

Jane Jacobs implores us to understand the city as the product of its inhabitants and calls on us to learn respect for the city and its people. The varying experiences of ethnic enclaves in America underscore this profound wisdom. The success of communities isn't solely determined by ethnicity or culture, but also by the opportunities afforded to their residents to shape their own environments through countless "small plans." By understanding the historical forces and planning decisions that have either supported or undermined these organic processes, we can begin to foster a more equitable and respectful approach to community development, allowing all neighborhoods to build the strong social, cultural, and economic foundations necessary for lasting success.

But if you look at it through the lens of biology and the Extended Phenotype, a different, darker story emerges.

The Peak Oil Pivot

In 1971, US oil production peaked. This wasn’t just a stat on a ledger; it was a biological wall. Modern industrial capitalism is, at its core, a heat engine fueled by cheap energy. When the “cheap” part vanished, we had two choices: live within our means or find a way to cheat.

We chose to cheat. We chose Financialization.

Subscribe now

Credit as a Claim on the Unborn

When we couldn’t grow the economy through physical production anymore, we started growing it through the leveraging of time. Credit is nothing more than a claim on future labor. We decided that if we couldn’t make money today, we would simply sell the work of our children and grandchildren to maintain the “boon” for current investors.

This is where the cannibalism starts. When a factory—the “muscle” of the economic body—becomes a shopping center or a high-end condo, we are watching the system digest its own functional organs to keep the “Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate” (FIRE) sectors alive.

We aren’t creating value; we are measuring the rate at which we are consuming our own potential.

Share

The City as a Financial Product

How does this affect our cities? This is where the Built Legacy gets ugly.

When a city is built on manufacturing, its layout is determined by the needs of people and production. When a city is built on Finance, its layout is determined by the needs of Asset Classes.

1. The Rise of the “Ghost City”: We build luxury high-rises not because people need homes, but because investors need a place to park “leveraged” cash. These buildings aren’t habitats; they are safety deposit boxes made of glass and steel.

2. The Retail Mismatch: We see “dead malls” and sterile shopping centers replace local markets. Why? Because these larger, corporate entities are easier for the finance industry to “leverage” and “package” into securities.

3. The Fragility of the Hive: By filtering every home, business, and grocery trip through the finance industry, we’ve added a layer of extreme risk to our biological niche. In a producer economy, if the bank fails, you still have the factory. In a financialized economy, if the bank fails, the entire “hive” collapses because nobody actually owns the ground they stand on.

   Share Built and Human

   ---

How far can it go?

A body can only digest so much of its own muscle before it can no longer move. We are reaching the point where the cost of “servicing the debt” (the labor of the future) is higher than the energy we can extract from the earth.

We were told the service industry replaced manufacturing. It didn’t. It just moved the manufacturing to places where labor is cheaper, and then borrowed money from the future to buy the goods back

.

The Battling Burnham Take

Burnham and the Master Planners loved the “Grand Vision.” But their vision was always funded by the belief in infinite growth. Now that we’ve hit the wall, our cities are becoming “zombie phenotypes”—structures that look like habitats but are actually just debt-extraction machines.

Is this capitalism cannibalizing itself?

What do you think? In your own city, where do you see the “muscles” being digested? Have you seen a local landmark or a productive space turned into a “leveraged” asset?

Leave a comment

Challenging the "No One Rides" Narrative

"Why don't Americans ride transit?" It's a question urbanists and policymakers have debated for decades. The common response often boils down to a shrug and a statement like, "Well, nobody rides transit in [insert American city]." While ridership numbers in many US cities lag behind their global counterparts, the first truth we must acknowledge is simple: you can't choose what isn't there. In numerous American cities and vast swathes of their surrounding areas, usable public transit is simply not an option. Beyond the basic lack of availability, two other reasons are frequently cited for America's low transit ridership: coverage and density. And while both factors certainly play a role, the crucial element often missed in this discussion is something far more fundamental: frequency.

Coverage - It's Not Just About the Map, It's About the Wait

Coverage is indeed important. If there is no bus or train service in your area, naturally, no one will be riding it. In many American cities, the network of bus lines is sparse, with significant distances between routes and limited service areas that leave many homes and job centers underserved. However, while more comprehensive coverage is always a desirable goal, the real bottleneck for many potential transit riders isn't the ten-minute walk to the bus stop. It's the agonizing half-hour, or often longer, spent waiting for that bus to arrive. That kind of time commitment is a significant barrier, especially in a society that prioritizes speed and efficiency. Faced with the prospect of a potentially unpredictable and lengthy wait, it's no wonder that many potential transit users, even those living within a reasonable distance of a bus stop, will opt for the perceived convenience and reliability of a car.

Density - Frequency Matters More Than Just People Per Square Mile

The other common refrain is that density is the magic bullet. "If only our cities had higher densities," the argument goes, "then transit would work, and everyone would ride it." While higher density certainly makes transit more efficient and cost-effective, this explanation alone doesn't hold water. Even in American cities with relatively high overall densities, we don't necessarily see correspondingly high transit ridership across the board. In fact, even in our densest cities, the truly super-high densities often cited as necessary are typically only found in a small central core. Yet, in those few American cities where transit ridership is higher across a wider area – think New York City, Washington, D.C., or San Francisco – the common thread isn't just density; it's frequency. In these cities, while the central areas are undoubtedly dense, higher transit ridership extends well beyond those core areas, suggesting that something else is at play. That something else is the fact that where transit is taken seriously, transit agencies invest in providing higher frequencies on their routes.

The Missing Link - Frequency is King

The missing link in America's transit puzzle, the often-overlooked ingredient that can truly unlock higher ridership, is frequency. When buses and trains arrive frequently – say, every 10-15 minutes, or even more often during peak hours – it fundamentally changes the calculus for potential riders. Suddenly, taking the bus or train isn't a major time commitment with an unpredictable wait; it becomes a convenient and reliable way to get around. Shorter wait times mean less wasted time, less anxiety about missing connections, and a greater sense of control over your journey. When people know they can walk to a stop and expect a bus or train to arrive in a reasonable timeframe, transit becomes a genuinely viable alternative to driving, even for trips that might involve a transfer or two. Frequency transforms public transit from a last resort into a first choice.

Availability and Frequency - The Foundation of Transit Ridership

So, why don't Americans ride transit? In many cases, the answer isn't a lack of desire, but a lack of availability and, even more critically, a lack of frequency. While coverage and density certainly play a role in the overall success of a transit system, without frequent and reliable service, even a well-covered and moderately dense city will struggle to attract significant ridership. If we truly want to see more Americans choosing public transit, we need to move beyond simply drawing more lines on a map and start investing in the frequency that makes those lines a practical and attractive option for everyday travel. Building a sustainable and equitable transportation future for our cities depends on it.

The word "traffic" tends to elicit a collective groan, a mental image of brake lights stretching into the horizon, the soundtrack of honking horns. We think of wasted hours on the highway, the daily grind of commuting. It's no wonder we've come to view "traffic" as inherently bad.

But let's consider another context for that very same word: foot traffic. Suddenly, the connotation shifts entirely. Ask any small business owner how their weekend went, and they might reply with, "Great! We had fantastic foot traffic." In this instance, "traffic" isn't a source of frustration; it's a measure of success, of exposure to potential customers.

We're using the same word with fundamentally the same meaning – the movement of people through a space. So, what's the crucial difference between the "bad" traffic of cars and the "good" traffic of pedestrians? The answer, quite simply, is speed.

As the old adage goes, "speed kills." And in the context of businesses, that statement rings surprisingly true. Every shop owner, every restaurateur, dreams of being located in an area with high foot traffic. For any business that caters to the general public, maximizing the number of people who pass by their storefront is paramount. And here's the kicker: the slower that movement, the better it is for business.

Think about it. Cars whizzing by on a highway are essentially useless to the vast majority of roadside businesses. They're moving too fast, focused on their destination, and unlikely to stop on a whim. Cars driving slowly down a side street in a commercial district? Better. They're moving at a pace where drivers and passengers can actually notice the shops and restaurants lining the road. But the real sweet spot? Cyclists riding slowly in front of your shop – good. Even better? Cyclists dismounting and locking their bikes right outside your door so they can stroll down the street. Now you've got prime potential customers lingering, browsing, and ready to spend.

We see this principle in action all around us. Consider the appeal of quiet, low-speed commercial districts designed for strolling and window shopping. Think of the vibrant boardwalks by the sea in countless American cities, where the entire point is to encourage leisurely movement past shops, arcades, and food vendors. Even the very concept of the suburban shopping mall is predicated on getting people out of their cars and into a pedestrian-friendly environment where they can wander from store to store.

The reality remains: for businesses that rely on public interaction, the slower someone moves by their establishment, the greater the opportunity for a sale. So, perhaps it's time we reframe our thinking about "traffic." Maybe it's not the movement itself that's the problem, but the speed at which that movement occurs. And maybe, just maybe, a little less speed could lead to a lot more prosperity for our local businesses and a more vibrant, walkable urban landscape for everyone.

Yogi Berra’s timeless quip, "Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded," perfectly encapsulates a strange kind of thinking that seems to dominate our approach to urban planning, particularly when it comes to transportation. It’s a logic that, upon closer inspection, reveals itself to be utterly self-defeating.

Take parking minimums, for example. Driven by the fear that there won't be enough parking in our downtown areas (or, frankly, anywhere), cities mandate the creation of vast seas of asphalt. We demolish existing buildings or prevent the construction of new ones – shops, factories, offices, the very things that might draw people to the city in the first place – all in the name of accommodating cars that might or might not arrive. Every space dedicated to parking is a space not used for something that actually generates economic activity or cultural vibrancy. It's the urban equivalent of saying, "Nobody comes to my restaurant because there's no seating… so I'll just replace the kitchen with more chairs."

The reverse, and equally baffling, logic seems to apply to public transit. American cities often boast some of the most skeletal transit systems in the developed world. Rail systems are relics, bus service is infrequent to the point of being unusable, with a bizarre aversion to any bus line operating more than a couple of times an hour. Yet, when the question of improving transit arises, the common refrain is, "Well, nobody rides transit in [insert city name]." It’s a classic chicken-and-egg scenario. How can anyone ride transit if it’s unreliable, infrequent, or simply doesn't exist where they need it? I’ve personally experienced the absurdity of waiting an hour for a bus, only to have it arrive so packed that boarding was impossible. "Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded," indeed.

And this brings us to the fascinating, and often counterintuitive, ideas presented by transportation thinkers like Anthony Downs. For decades, traffic planners have built their careers on the premise that traffic congestion is the enemy, something to be eradicated at all costs. But what if we’ve been looking at it wrong all along? What if the real issue isn't congestion itself, but traffic volume?

Downs, in his insightful work, argues that any attempt to alleviate congestion through conventional means is ultimately doomed to fail due to the phenomenon of triple convergence. Build more lanes, and drivers who previously took different routes, different modes of transport, or traveled at different times will all converge onto the newly "freed-up" road, quickly filling the new capacity and bringing congestion levels right back to where they started.

But let’s flip this on its head. If the fundamental issue is traffic volume, then congestion isn't the problem; it's the automatic solution. And instead of "triple convergence," we get triple divergence. High traffic volume leads to congestion. This congestion, in turn:

• Drives people to seek alternative modes of transportation, creating a built-in ridership for robust public transit systems. Suddenly, that bus that was once empty becomes a viable and attractive option.

• Creates traffic flow down corridors that might otherwise be overlooked, making those areas more visible and potentially fostering the development of new commercial districts along those less-congested routes.

• Incentivizes individuals and institutions to operate at different start and end times, breaking the rigid 9-to-5, Monday-to-Friday schedule. This can lead to more vibrant and active communities at times outside of traditional peak hours, spreading out demand and creating a more dynamic urban fabric.

So, perhaps the Yogi Berra joke isn't just a humorous anecdote. Maybe it holds a key to understanding our urban transportation woes. By obsessively trying to eliminate congestion through more parking and highway expansions, we are inadvertently destroying the very reasons people want to be in our cities and undermining the potential for robust transit systems.

Instead of fearing congestion, perhaps we should embrace it as a natural consequence of a healthy volume of people wanting to be in the same place. Our focus should shift to providing viable, attractive alternatives – frequent, reliable public transit, safe and accessible pedestrian and cycling infrastructure – that allow people to opt out of that congestion if they choose.

Maybe then, we can finally create cities where people actually want to go, even if it means occasionally encountering a bit of… well, you know.

We’ve all seen it: the seemingly endless march of new housing developments pushing further and further out from our urban cores. Freshly paved roads, gleaming new houses, the promise of affordable living… or is it? What if this outward expansion isn't driven by genuine demand as much as it is by a system designed for a quick buck and a hasty exit?

Think about the lifecycle of your typical exurban development. It's often made possible by significant subsidies, the most obvious being the massive public funding poured into the highways that connect these far-flung communities to jobs and amenities. But here's the catch: these subsidies overwhelmingly favor new construction. The ribbon is cut, the houses are built, and the initial infrastructure is in place. Cue the "honeymoon" period.

Early buyers, often enticed by lower prices in an "up-and-coming" area, move in. Property taxes are relatively low because the area isn't yet fully "established" and the true costs of maintaining that brand-new infrastructure haven't yet materialized in the tax base. This period often coincides with the early years of homeownership, where major maintenance like roof replacement might still be a decade or more away.

Our tax laws further incentivize this short-term perspective. Homeowners can deduct the interest they pay on their mortgages, and guess what? That's the bulk of their payments in the early years of the loan. By the time they start paying down more principal (the capital payments), and the inevitable realities of home maintenance and rising infrastructure taxes loom, what happens? They sell.

This creates what I call the nomadic exurbanite. They swoop in, capitalize on the subsidized initial phase, enjoy the lower initial costs and tax breaks, and then bail before the bill for long-term maintenance – both of their individual homes and the surrounding infrastructure – comes due. They ride the wave of new construction and loan subsidies, then cash out, often at a significant profit as the area gains perceived value in its "honeymoon" phase.

But who gets left holding the bag? The next wave of residents, often families hoping to build long-term lives in these communities. They move in just as the infrastructure starts to age, the need for repairs becomes apparent, and the tax burden to fund that upkeep begins to increase. They inherit the aging roads, the potentially strained utilities, and the looming costs of their own home maintenance, but they missed out on the initial, subsidy-fueled value increase.

Now, I know this isn't a popular opinion, but I genuinely believe the solution is to stop subsidizing new construction altogether. The interstate highway system is largely complete. We aren't facing a shortage of housing; in many ways, we have an overabundance of low-density neighborhoods, particularly for those just starting out. Much of the new construction we see is aimed at those already in the housing market, looking to "move up," which, while a personal aspiration, isn't necessarily a matter of national urgency requiring taxpayer subsidies.

If subsidies are still deemed necessary, shouldn't they be redirected? Instead of fueling endless outward sprawl, let's focus on the maintenance and improvement of our existing neighborhoods. Let's invest in making our current communities more vibrant, resilient, and sustainable. This would not only address existing infrastructure needs but also potentially create more stable and equitable housing markets for everyone, rather than incentivizing a cycle of subsidized flight and deferred costs. The era of the nomadic exurbanite, fueled by short-sighted subsidies, needs to come to an end.

I get it. There is a deep comfort in a place for everything and everyone in their place. But as I walk the streets of Hanoi, I’m reminded of the fatal flaw in that “orderly” Western mindset: We are very good at designing for “everything,” but we are terrible at designing for “everyone.

”

The 90/10 Fallacy

In the Western urban planning tradition, we have decided—somewhat arbitrarily—that the street is “for cars.” We’ve fenced off the humans with railings, shoved them onto narrow concrete strips, and told them to be grateful for the “pedestrian infrastructure.”

But let’s look at the math of a typical busy boulevard. It’s a masterclass in spatial gaslighting.

In many cities, 90% of the public space (the asphalt) is reserved for roughly 10% of the people (those in private automobiles). When that 90% of space inevitably clogs up—because cars are essentially large, inefficient metal boxes—the overflow doesn’t go back into the ether. It spills over.

The Squeeze

In Hanoi, you see the reality of this spatial war every day. When the street becomes a parking lot for two dozen cars, the hundreds of motorbikes and bicycles are pushed onto the sidewalk. The “pedestrian” space—already a fraction of the street’s width—is suddenly hosting a chaotic mix of commerce, transit, and foot traffic.

The result? 90% of the actual human beings using the street are squeezed into 10–20% of the space.

While two dozen people sit in climate-controlled isolation, the rest of the city is left to fight over the crumbs of the sidewalk. We call it “traffic,” but we should call it what it is: The Geometry of Exclusion.

Beyond the Blueprint

What happens to the person in the wheelchair when the “orderly” railing prevents them from crossing? What happens to the street vendor or the cyclist when the asphalt is reclaimed by the gridlock of the elite?

We’ve been conditioned to think this is the only way a city can function. We’ve been told that “order” means cars in the middle and people on the edges. But if the street is truly public space—the most important public space we have—why have we surrendered 90% of it to the least efficient way of moving?

It’s time to stop asking how we can make more room for cars and start asking why the people who actually make the city breathe are being pushed into the shadows of their own streets.

The "Us vs. Them" Dynamic and the Importance of Downtown

Let’s get one thing straight: downtowns carry the city. They’re the economic engines, the cultural hubs, the beating hearts of metropolitan areas. And yet, we often see this profoundly misguided “us vs. them” mentality pitting the central city against its surrounding suburbs. It’s a bizarre, self-defeating dynamic, like a limb trying to sabotage the very body it’s attached to. The suburbs and exurbs should be thrilled to have vibrant, healthy downtowns, because, frankly, they make the entire region more viable. But instead, we see a constant barrage of… well, let’s call it urban hostility. Spending issues become battlegrounds, transportation projects are designed to serve commuters, not residents, and when money is invested downtown, it’s often for things like stadiums, primarily used by… suburbanites. It’s a head-scratchingly counterproductive approach, a refusal to recognize the fundamental truth: a healthy downtown benefits everyone, regardless of where they live.

The Spending Wars - Central City vs. Suburbia

The battle lines are often drawn around spending. Budget debates become a bitter tug-of-war, with suburban representatives viewing any investment in the central city as a direct threat to their own constituents. It’s a zero-sum game mentality, a refusal to acknowledge that a rising tide lifts all boats. Transportation projects become prime examples of this misguided approach. Billions are poured into sprawling highway expansions and commuter rail lines that ferry suburbanites to their downtown offices, while the core neighborhoods of the city, the very places that generate the economic activity that fuels the region, are left with crumbling infrastructure and woefully inadequate metro systems. And when spending does happen in the central city, it often takes the form of stadiums, arenas, and other large-scale entertainment venues, projects that primarily serve… suburbanites. They drive in, park, watch the game, and drive back out, leaving behind the traffic and the tax burden. It’s a curious form of urban parasitism, a draining of resources from the very heart of the region, all in the name of… well, it’s hard to say exactly what. Short-sighted self-interest, perhaps? A fundamental misunderstanding of how cities work?

The Heart of the Metro - Why a Healthy Downtown Benefits Everyone

Here’s the thing: a healthy downtown is not just a nice-to-have; it’s a necessity for the entire metropolitan region. Downtowns are the economic engines that drive growth, attract businesses, and create jobs. They’re the cultural hubs that offer arts, entertainment, and a vibrant public life. They’re the magnets that attract talent, drawing skilled workers and young professionals who want to live in dynamic, walkable, and amenity-rich environments. And yes, a healthy downtown can even increase property values in surrounding suburban areas, creating a ripple effect of economic prosperity. It’s not just about “downtown” versus “suburbs”; it’s about building a strong, competitive, and thriving region that benefits everyone.

The Long-Term View - Supporting Downtown for Regional Prosperity

We need to shift our focus from short-term political gains to long-term regional prosperity. Investing in downtown is not just about helping the central city; it’s about building a sustainable, competitive, and thriving metropolitan area for decades to come. It’s about recognizing that a strong downtown is an asset, not a liability, a source of regional strength, not a drain on resources. Neglecting downtown, starving it of investment, allowing it to decay, is a recipe for regional decline. It’s a shortsighted, self-defeating strategy that ultimately hurts everyone, regardless of where they live. Supporting downtown is not about charity; it’s about enlightened self-interest. It’s about recognizing that we’re all in this together, that our fates are intertwined, that a rising tide truly does lift all boats. It’s about building a region where prosperity is shared, not hoarded, where opportunity is accessible, not restricted, where the heart of the city beats strong, not weak.

One Region, One Future - Building a Unified and Thriving Metro Area

It’s time to abandon this outdated and destructive “us vs. them” mentality and embrace a unified vision of metropolitan development. Let’s invest in our downtowns, not just as a matter of civic pride, but as a matter of regional prosperity. Let’s recognize that a strong downtown is not a drain on resources, but a catalyst for growth, a magnet for talent, a source of cultural vitality, and a key to building a competitive and thriving region. Let’s build a future where the heart of our cities beats strong, and where everyone, regardless of where they live, shares in the benefits of a vibrant, equitable, and prosperous metropolitan area. Downtowns are not the enemy; they're the lifeblood of our regions. Let's stop the petty squabbles and start investing in our shared future.

Let’s be clear, right from the outset: democracy matters. In urban planning, as in all aspects of public life, the will of the people, as expressed through their elected representatives, must be respected. We’ve hammered this point home before: planners aren’t rogue agents, imposing their personal visions on unwilling communities. We work within political realities, and that’s as it should be. But… and there’s always a “but,” isn’t there? … but, I want to push back, just a little, on the idea of planner “neutrality.” Because while respecting democratic process is paramount, the notion that planners should somehow be politically neutral, in the sense of being detached, disengaged, or withholding their professional expertise, feels… well, a bit hollow, and perhaps even irresponsible. Planners aren't just passive technocrats, mindlessly executing political directives. We have a profession, a body of knowledge, a set of ethical obligations. And sometimes, that requires us to be… well, not exactly “neutral,” but something far more valuable: unbiased, informed, and frankly, willing to offer expert advice, even when it’s politically… inconvenient.

Think of the urban planner as a kind of “doctor” for cities. A medical professional’s role isn’t to dictate to patients what they should want or to make choices for them. That’s fundamentally unethical. But it is their role to provide legitimate and accurate advice, based on established science and good medical practice. A doctor doesn’t say to a patient, “Well, it’s all just personal opinion, so whether you get chemotherapy or try crystal healing is really just a matter of your subjective preference.” No! They offer unbiased, expert advice based on their professional knowledge and the best available evidence, even if that advice is… well, let’s just say, not always what the patient wants to hear. Similarly, the urban planner’s role isn’t to dictate community desires or impose their personal political agenda. That’s undemocratic and inappropriate. But it is our role to provide unbiased, expert analysis grounded in the principles of sound urban planning, data-driven projections, and a deep understanding of how cities function, even when that analysis might… ruffle some political feathers. We’re not just traffic cone shufflers; we’re professionals with specialized knowledge, and we have an ethical obligation to deploy that knowledge in the service of the communities we advise. A doctor isn't "neutral" on the concept of health; they advocate for it based on their professional understanding. And planners shouldn't be "neutral" on the concept of urban well-being, on the principles of sustainable, equitable, and thriving communities. We can be politically unbiased in our professional analysis and advice, but we can’t, and shouldn’t, be neutral on the very goals of our profession: creating better cities for everyone.

Let’s look at some concrete examples to see how this “unbiased but not neutral” approach works in practice. Take the hypothetical example of unionization at a local factory. A community might be deeply divided on this issue, with strong political passions on both sides. Is it the planner’s job to weigh in on whether unionization is “good” or “bad”? No. That’s a political question for the community to decide. But it is the planner’s job to provide unbiased projections based on economic data and best practices. To say, “Here’s what we project the impact on jobs might be with unionization, here’s what it might be without. Here’s what we know about the likely impact on job quality, wages, and benefits in both scenarios. And here are some potential tertiary economic and social effects to consider.” The planner isn’t taking a side in the political debate; they’re providing objective, professional analysis to inform that debate. Similarly, consider the arrival of a big box store in a community. Again, deeply political, often contentious. Should the planner come out swinging for or against the big box behemoth? No. But they should generate unbiased projections on the likely effects on local businesses, on local jobs (both created and potentially displaced), on tax revenues, and on the overall economic contribution or drain on the local economy. “Here’s what the data suggests about the potential impact on existing small businesses. Here are projections for job creation and potential job displacement. Here’s our analysis of the likely net fiscal impact.” Again, the planner isn’t dictating whether the community should welcome the big box store; they’re providing crucial, unbiased information to help the community and its elected leaders make a more informed political decision. The planner’s role is to illuminate, not to dictate. To provide the best available professional expertise, without partisan spin, so that democratic decision-making can be grounded in sound information, not just political rhetoric.

Because let’s be honest, the idea of complete planner “neutrality” is not only unrealistic, it can be downright irresponsible. To claim absolute political neutrality in the face of complex urban challenges is to abdicate our professional responsibility. We are not simply neutral conduits of data; we are trained professionals with a deep understanding of how cities work, what makes them thrive, and what can undermine them. In politically charged debates, factual information and expert analysis are often precisely what’s most lacking. If planners, in the name of “neutrality,” withhold their professional expertise, we risk allowing misinformation, biased arguments, and short-sighted political agendas to dominate the decision-making process. “Neutrality,” in this context, can become a mask for inaction, for complicity, for a failure to serve the very public interest we are meant to uphold. Furthermore, the pursuit of absolute neutrality can create a false equivalence, suggesting that all political positions are equally valid, even when some are demonstrably harmful from a sound planning perspective. Is it “neutral” to treat expert consensus on climate change as equivalent to climate denialism? Is it “neutral” to equate sound urban design principles with car-dependent sprawl? Sometimes, true neutrality becomes a form of intellectual dishonesty, a refusal to acknowledge that some approaches are simply… better, more sustainable, more equitable, more aligned with the long-term well-being of the community, than others.

Let’s embrace the role of the politically engaged, unbiased planner – professionals who respect democracy, reject neutrality, and offer their expert knowledge in service of building better, more informed, and more equitable cities. We are guides, not dictators, and our expertise is a valuable, indeed essential, resource in the complex and often politically charged world of urban decision-making. Planners should not be partisan pawns, blindly following political agendas, but neither should we be passive, “neutral” observers, withholding our professional insights in the name of some misguided notion of apolitical purity. The call for planner “neutrality” is a well-intentioned but ultimately misguided one. Planners must be politically aware, engaged, and willing to offer their expert, unbiased advice, even when it challenges political orthodoxies. Let's embrace our role as informed guides in the democratic process, not as passive, “neutral” observers. Our expertise is needed now more than ever to build truly thriving and equitable urban futures. Let’s be politically savvy, let’s be ethically grounded, and let’s be unapologetically vocal in advocating for sound urban planning principles, even when it means gently, but firmly, nudging the political conversation in a more… well, informed direction. Because in the complex and often messy world of urban politics, sometimes, the most responsible position is not neutrality, but unbiased expertise, courageously offered.

Defining the Commodity and Exurban Uniformity

What is a commodity? The textbook definition goes something like this: “A product is a commodity when all units of production are identical, regardless of who produces them.” Think oil, wheat, gold… interchangeable, fungible, indistinguishable. Now, apply that definition to… housing. Sounds absurd, right? Houses are supposed to be homes, unique reflections of individual needs, tastes, and lives. But consider the exurbs, those sprawling fringes of American cities, mile after mile of… sameness. House after house, practically carbon copies of each other. Identical designs, often chosen from a limited catalog of pre-approved models. Identical lot sizes, meticulously subdivided to ensure maximum… uniformity. Even the street layouts are often interchangeable, looping cul-de-sacs and grid-like patterns designed for maximum… efficiency of identical house placement. They even share the same genericized outlet onto the nearest highway, the umbilical cord connecting this manufactured homogeneity to the wider world. Every effort, in exurban development, seems deliberately engineered to commodify housing, to strip away any semblance of uniqueness, to create units that are as interchangeable and predictable as… well, commodities. But is housing really just a commodity? Should it be treated as such? And what happens to the very idea of home, of place, of value, when we churn out “houses” like widgets on a suburban assembly line?

The Value Proposition - Beyond Location, Is There Any Design Value in Commodified Exurbs?

Traditionally, the value of a building (and especially a home) has resided in two primary pillars: design and location. Design, in the architectural sense, the thoughtful arrangement of space, the aesthetic appeal, the unique character, the craftsmanship, the… art, if you will, of building. And location, meaning not just proximity to amenities, but the inherent character of a place, the neighborhood, the street, the connection to a wider urban fabric or a natural landscape. But in the commodified world of exurban housing, both of these pillars seem… curiously diminished. Design, in most exurban developments, is reduced to a marketing brochure of vaguely “Tuscan” or “Craftsman” facades slapped onto fundamentally identical boxes. Mass-produced, generic, and utterly interchangeable, these designs lack any real architectural distinction, any sense of place, any… soul. Quantity over quality, predictability over personality, homogeneity over… well, anything interesting. And location, in the exurbs, often boils down to… highway access. Proximity to the nearest on-ramp, the ease of commuting to some distant office park, becomes the primary determinant of “location value.” The actual place, the immediate surroundings, the lack of walkability, the isolation from genuine urban life, these are often… secondary considerations, or even marketed as benefits (“escape the city!”). So, if design value is deliberately minimized in the pursuit of commodification, and location value is reduced to highway proximity, what exactly is the value proposition of these exurban homes? Is it simply… square footage? Granite countertops? The promise of a slightly larger, slightly newer, but ultimately interchangeable box in a sea of identical boxes? It’s a curiously… vacuous value proposition, isn’t it?

Will the Cardboard Castles Crumble? Questioning Long-Term Value and Sustainability

And this brings us to the looming question: will these cardboard castles of the exurbs actually… hold their value? Is this commodified housing model a sound long-term investment, or a potentially… fragile bubble waiting to burst? Consider the shifting sands of consumer preferences. More and more people, especially younger generations, are expressing a preference for urban living, for walkable neighborhoods, for diverse communities, for… authenticity, something decidedly lacking in the manufactured homogeneity of the exurbs. Demographic trends are also shifting. Smaller households, a growing aging population, and a decline in the traditional nuclear family model are all eroding the demographic base that traditionally fueled exurban growth – the family with 2.5 kids and two cars craving a large, detached house. The costs of maintaining sprawling exurban infrastructure – endless miles of roads, sprawling utility networks, car-dependent public services – are only going to increase in the coming decades, potentially leading to rising property taxes and fiscal strain in exurban municipalities. And perhaps most fundamentally, the exurban model itself may simply become… obsolete. In a future increasingly focused on urban density, sustainability, and resilience, the car-dependent, resource-intensive, and socially isolating exurbs might start to look less like the suburban dream and more like… a planning relic, a vestige of a bygone era. When value is stripped down to mere commodification, when design is sacrificed for uniformity, and when location is defined by highway access, is there really any enduring, intrinsic value left? Or are these exurban homes, in the long run, just… cardboard castles, destined to crumble under the weight of changing times and shifting values?

Beyond Commodities - Reclaiming Value in Housing and Urbanism

The alternative, of course, is to reclaim value in housing beyond mere commodification. To prioritize design, not just square footage. To celebrate uniqueness, not uniformity. To value place-making, not just highway access. To build urban neighborhoods, not just exurban subdivisions. Think of truly valuable housing: historic brownstones in walkable city centers, architecturally distinctive mid-century modern homes nestled in vibrant urban neighborhoods, thoughtfully designed mixed-use developments that foster community and connection. These are not commodities; they are unique, irreplaceable, and enduring. Their value lies not just in their physical structures, but in their character, their location within a thriving urban fabric, their contribution to the social and cultural life of a place. True housing value is not just about financial appreciation; it’s about experiential richness, about the quality of life, about the sense of belonging, about the feeling of home in the deepest, most meaningful sense. It’s about building places that are not just commodities, but communities, not just houses, but… homes.

Decommodifying Home - Toward a More Meaningful Vision of Housing and Value

The cardboard castles of the exurbs, for all their initial allure of affordability and newness, ultimately reveal the hollowness of commodified housing. Stripped of meaningful design, divorced from authentic place, and driven by a relentless pursuit of uniformity and interchangeability, they offer a vacuous vision of home, and a questionable long-term value proposition. It’s time to reject the commodification of housing and embrace a more human-centered vision of home, place, and value. Let’s prioritize design quality, celebrate urban character, foster walkable communities, and build housing that is not just a commodity to be bought and sold, but a cornerstone of vibrant, sustainable, and meaningful urban life. Let’s build communities, not just subdivisions, and let’s rediscover the true meaning of home, beyond the cardboard castles of the exurbs. The exurban experiment in commodified housing may be reaching its limits. It's time to decommodify home, to rediscover the value of design, place, and community, and to build housing that is not just a commodity, but a cornerstone of vibrant, sustainable, and meaningful urban life. Let’s build homes, not just houses, and let’s build value that lasts, beyond the fleeting fashions of suburban sprawl.