Small City Urbanism

I sometimes get the sense that people think the urbanist agenda is all about trying to turn the entire United States into Manhattan, or else that there's no appreciation of the fact that there's a middle ground between never driving a car and driving many dozens of miles every day. But a place like Morgantown -- a small city with a cute historic downtown adjacent to a college campus -- is a great example of the applications of urbanist thinking to other kinds of places.

Basically, out here most grownup people are going to rely on cars for a lot of things. But still, the downtown area is very walkable. And it includes some apartment buildings with ground floor retail. So maybe we could turn some of the existing open-air parking facilities into additional apartment buildings with ground floor retail. That would mean more people would live downtown and at least some of their excursions would take place on foot. And then parking downtown would be somewhat costlier, so some proportion of trips that initiate close to downtown might become bike rides or long walks or car pool ventures rather than one person in a car.

Meanwhile, the Waterfront Place Hotel is a bit outside downtown, but it's very much within walking distance. Except the hotel's entrance has been constructed in a highly anti-urbanist manner that both obscures the fact that it's actually close to downtown and also makes it inconvenient to walk for non-distance reasons. Ideally, the whole project would have been undertaken with a different mentality, but something as simple as building a sidewalk that alongside the hotel's driveway would go a long way to improving things.

At any rate, to make a long story short, America is full of small cities that won't -- and shouldn't -- ever transform into giant metropolises where everyone gets around on subways. But these are the kind of places where better planning and land use policies would help the cities in question maximize their assets and increase the sustainability of the enterprise without radically altering the character of the place or the lifestyle of the people who live there. Small town America, after all, long predates the era of universal car ownership.

Photo by Flickr user Timmenzies used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

Nobody's attacking Jim Rome's car with a baseball bat and Jolly Ranchers?

Posted by 55 | April 4, 2008 12:49 PM

Jeeze, Matthew. Kirchick just laid waste to you. An utter, remorseless, relentless demolition.

I'm surprised that you dare show your face in public again.

I'm unsurprised that you're not linking to it.

Here, I'll help: http://www.city-journal.org/2008/bc0403jk.html

Posted by a | April 4, 2008 12:52 PM

But Matt, what about the PRT?

Posted by Tom | April 4, 2008 12:53 PM

Your ideas make sense, but the question is whether small city urbanism would have more than a very small effect on total gasoline consumption.

Posted by Peter | April 4, 2008 1:01 PM

Matt,

John Cole talked about your panel last night over at Balloon Juice.

"Jeeze, Matthew. Kirchick just laid waste to you. An utter, remorseless, relentless demolition."

Does anyone take anything that jackass (and Marty Peretz minime/lapdog) seriously?

Posted by Napoleon | April 4, 2008 1:11 PM

As appealing as this might all sound, the fact remains that Morgantown is essentially a college town. Small cities that aren't centered around colleges and/or universities could very well have a very different profile that makes them much, much less conducive towards policies that favor more pedestrian activity in and around their core.

Posted by Shawn | April 4, 2008 1:13 PM

damn 55, that was the first thing I noticed, too. and, if that is Jim Rome's car, where's the ladder he uses to get in it?

Posted by Tom in Raleigh | April 4, 2008 1:18 PM

"Kirchick just laid waste to you. An utter, remorseless, relentless demolition."

Ok Kirchick. Oh, I mean "a", excuse me.

Posted by Noodulz | April 4, 2008 1:21 PM

I live in Stockholm, Sweden and I haven't driven a car since I've moved here four months ago. It can be done, but it is hard to change the attitude of people in the U.S. I applaud you if you do.

Posted by Bajsa | April 4, 2008 1:25 PM

I live in Stockholm, Sweden and I haven't driven a car since I've moved here four months ago. It can be done, but it is hard to change the attitude of people in the U.S. I applaud you if you can do it, I had to leave to achieve what I wanted.

Posted by Bajsa | April 4, 2008 1:26 PM

"An utter, remorseless, relentless demolition."

Yeah, I guess so. As long you meant to write "clueless and ineffectual" in place of "utter".

Posted by jack lecou | April 4, 2008 1:27 PM

That was fun comedy, whoever thought that Kirchick laid as much as a finger on Matt. Yglesias is a terrorist sympathizer!!!! I'm sure he's crying and shaking in the corner. Like all the wimps who confuse opinions like Kirchick with actual thought.

Posted by Frank Carmelo | April 4, 2008 1:30 PM

Kirchick was extremely critical, but by no means was his argument persuasive. The point of that article was just to draw lines. MY argues X, Y and Z and thus we don't like him. It didn't hardly anything to actually demonstrate that those are poor arguments.

Posted by mpowell | April 4, 2008 1:32 PM

"Your ideas make sense, but the question is whether small city urbanism would have more than a very small effect on total gasoline consumption."

Does everything have to be in terms of gasoline consumption / global warming / the environment? How about the fact that small city urbanism (urbanism of any kind, really) raises the quality of life? For everyone who bashes this sort of thing, do they really enjoy having to drive every time they want to get a beer or a loaf of bread? People are always taking trips to small European towns, not because the art is spectacular (most of the time, it's very mediocre outside of the major cities), but because it's a pleasant way of living.

Doesn't matter that much, cheap oil is just about done and soon we'll have to be more sensible about these things.

Posted by jacobus | April 4, 2008 1:35 PM

"As appealing as this might all sound, the fact remains that Morgantown is essentially a college town. Small cities that aren't centered around colleges and/or universities could very well have a very different profile that makes them much, much less conducive towards policies that favor more pedestrian activity in and around their core."

Can you give some examples of that? I can certainly think of towns that have layouts that, after decades of automobile oriented development, have a fairly pedestrian unfriendly layout. Those sorts of places may need a different mix of policies than Morgantown, and more work all around, but "less conducive"?

Posted by jack lecou | April 4, 2008 1:43 PM

While Morgantown looks great, I wonder if the college town example can be a little misleading...

Many university communities are able to support dense, walkable retail b/c so much of the student body is housed in dormitories - in tiny spaces similar to Manhattan.

Posted by Jason A | April 4, 2008 1:45 PM

It is interesting that there is a high demand for these sorts of mixed-use downtown developments, but little of it being zoned and built. I think the trend is clear though, and supply will follow demand.

And thank you Matt, for trying to explain what I and others have been saying. Though I would further add that cities develop in an organic nature. They grow and change as the population grows. Cities that grow are vibrant cities, and they grow both up and out. But by zoning in a decentralized sprawlish manner, these cities will never grow up or out. They won't have the population to expand the cities borders and so will be surrounded by parasitic suburbs. They won't grow up because they aren't zoned for that sort of density.

Or, as I pointed out, there are single family residences within New York City.

Posted by freddiemac | April 4, 2008 1:49 PM

Kirchick shouldn't have complained about ignoring inconvenient arguments. It's unseemly.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 4, 2008 1:50 PM

I moved to Burlington, VT in July and it seems like a great example of the small-town urbanism Matt is talking about. It's not much bigger than Morgantown (though it does have suburbs -- one of my colleagues actually walks in from the suburbs, about 35-min walk), but it's got the cute historic downtown and the college campus, and the main downtown street is pedestrian-only. So a lot of people do walk around downtown, and I always walk to the downtown supermarket. Also, they've made the main bus that goes up the hill free, which may help (and Vermont is full of environmentalists which creates some social pressure not to drive). It's especially a big contrast the last place I lived, which was super spread out, had no sidewalks in most of the city, had six-lane streets cutting off the college campus from the rest of town, and actually had a huge highway across the campus that made it damn near impossible to walk across.

On the down side, it's snowing.

Posted by Matt Weiner | April 4, 2008 1:51 PM

That's the kind of place I'd like to retire to. Being a college town is a major part of the attraction. Yes, viable small-city urbanism may be harder to pull off in non-college towns. But the fact is, there are a LOT of college towns.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | April 4, 2008 1:51 PM

Dear a,

Just read Kirchick's article. If someone sees him, please tell him to go f--k himself as his remorsely pean to the supremacy of the Neo-con foreign policy puts him on the side of mass murders such as Saddam, and Hitler.

Kirchick says: "He {yglesias} believes that rogue states and peaceful states should be treated the same, and lambastes the neoconservatives for adhering to a “two-tiered system of sovereignty” that deals with a country like Luxembourg differently than, say, Sudan."
--without reading Matts book, it sounds like what he is talking about is a principle called the "rule of law". Its what seperates America from rogue nations. Or at least it used to.

Posted by Aaron | April 4, 2008 2:01 PM

Yeah, I think there has been a failure to communicate the fact that it's really about creating a community. Do skeptics really think the idea of a community built around a commuter rail stop miles and miles from The Big City is really a bad/undesirable thing? Is there something about mixed use zoning that makes everything walkable for people who choose to live in that community somehow offensive? I've not really seen objections to New Urbanism/Transit Oriented Development really articulated before, except in the sense that some people don't want to live in cities... which would seem to illustrate that the idea has not been adequately communicated.

Posted by J.W. Hamner | April 4, 2008 2:06 PM

I'm surprised that you dare show your face in public again.

Really, Yglesias, especially after you've "echoed Osama bin Laden."

An utter, remorseless, relentless demolition.

Well, it does take "liberals hate America and Israel and love them some terrorists" and add some important-sounding words to it...

Posted by Jen | April 4, 2008 2:06 PM

J.W. Hamner,

I think that there are some people that really don't want to live in a city. They want a decentralized collection of cul-de-sacs. I like to point out that most housing is that sort, so an increase in urbanism won't threaten the suburban way of life. But increasing consumer choice is good, especially one that isn't so car dependent - for a variety of reasons.

Posted by freddiemac | April 4, 2008 2:20 PM

Is the group onto college towns and state capitals again? Those tend to be the small cities with cute downtowns. Some small* cities that depended on rust belt industries were nice once, but most haven't been nice in a while.

The trouble with setting up small cities where they don't exist already is what to do about jobs. Colleges and state governments are good sources of jobs and can sustain a community. They can be exlusionary, though. Many more graduates want to stay in the nice towns where they went to school than can possibly find work there. Also, it can be hard to induce two-career couples to move to a small community, unless the institution that wants to hire one of the pair agrees to take the other as well. Jobs can be a tremendous obstacle.

For flexibility and employability, a lot of us really do like the big city/suburbs model. There's a lot going on, and a lot of different options about how to live. It's nice if some of the suburbs have cute downtowns, just like it's nice if there are lots of cute going-out neighborhoods in the city itself, but this doesn't mean people want to live in apartment buildings near the college bar zone once they hit middle age.

* My first draft said "mall cities." A downtown pedestrian zone can be considered a mall without a roof, especially when it has all the same chain stores as a mall. And outdoor, roofless malls seem to be the main anchoring feature of a lot of the "new urbanism." But driving to restaurants and malls is a small part of the driving most people do. The big issue is getting to work.

Posted by M.C. | April 4, 2008 2:23 PM

It is interesting that there is a high demand for these sorts of mixed-use downtown developments, but little of it being zoned and built.

You should move to Worcester, MA, where I live. We have the opposite problem.

Posted by mark f | April 4, 2008 2:26 PM

Charles Town, WV has a small downtown, as well. As far as I can tell, there's no "anchor" university or state capital there. It also as a lot of outlying exurban housing developments for people who are into that sort of thing.

this doesn't mean people want to live in apartment buildings near the college bar zone

That was, uh, exactly what MattY was trying to say.

Posted by Tyro | April 4, 2008 2:36 PM

i think they're both weak on foreign policy. kirchick makes a few good criticisms of yglesias's proposed (baldly partisan and shallow) alternatives to bushism, such as advocating a return to ineffective 90's-era policy or always opposing american power projection even though sometimes it's useful and moral, but kirchick's own views are basically unreconstructed bushism itself, the underlying assumptions of which have mostly been shown to be unsound, if not immoral.

Posted by sv | April 4, 2008 2:43 PM

"outdoor, roofless malls"

Oh, you mean...streets? :)

I'm lucky to live in a medium-sized city by US standards (Montreal, population 3 millionish), that, like Boston, was originally platted during the horse and buggy era, so the grid is dense and eminently walkable. That older core is surrounded by a ring of early-20th-century "streetcar suburbs" which, while a tad farther to get to, are easily accessible by public transit. These are highly desirable places to live, with mixed-income populations, young families, singles, townhouses, condos, apts, the works. Most of these neighborhoods consequently support vibrant retail streets; in turn, downtown isn't dead after 5pm.

Over the years it seems like sensible zoning practices have
helped maintain this, although we had our flirtations with mid-century Urban Renewal that was, on the whole, fairly disastrous (huge chunks of the city demolished for freeways that cut one part of town off from another).

It's when you get into the post-WWII suburbs that things look less rosy. As someone else mentioned, they are highly parasitic and drain the main city of tax revenues that could be used to maintain infrastructure. It becomes a chicken-and-the-egg cycle of arguing for better public transit for the distant suburbs, but since they are so automobile-centric to begin with, it's hard to encourage ridership.

As Matt mentions, and as many of the New Urbanist crowd agree, traditional cul-de-sac suburbs can be "re-urbanized" -- with sensible zoning to create new Main Streets, and to encourage moderate re-densification with things like townhouses, granny flats, outbuildings, etc. It doesn't turn Levittown into Manhattan, but it might make it more like Madison, WI.

Worth viewing for those who think traditional post-WWII suburbs are just another consumer choice: James Kunstler at the TED conference.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/121

Posted by aj kandy | April 4, 2008 2:44 PM

aj kandy,

Ironically, Madison WI is both a state capital and a college town, two factors that critics in this thread have stated make it an anomoly.

Also, Madison has no mass transit besides an unreliable bus system, but it is working diligently on getting a commuter rail system in by 2020, in a plan called "transit 2020".

By US, standards, Montreal is a big city. American big cities are 1 million plus residents, and last time I checked Montreal had over 1 million in the city proper. What people typically think of as big cities like Atlanta aren't that large. Atlanta is at about a half million in the city proper. That is about double Madison's population, not terribly huge. However, it is surrounded by large suburban areas that create a car congested nightmare. I suggest the car utopianists to check the average commute times in metro Atlanta. I wouldn't live there for that reason alone.

BTW, Montreal is a nice city.

Posted by freddiemac | April 4, 2008 2:59 PM

Hey, doesn't Morgantown have the automated small monorail (built by Boeing!) running between downtown and campus? That small town is WAY ahead of most others.

And all your points are well-taken. If we thought of walking one or two miles -- for errands, work, school, house parties -- as something normal, pedestrian-oriented planning and architecture would flourish.

Posted by Tom Robinson | April 4, 2008 3:02 PM

Is Madison's bus system really unreliable, freddie? I never had trouble with it. And the only person in the city that seems to want trolleys is the mayor. I don't think that plan's going anywhere.

The geography of Madison is also anomalous. The lakes make sprawl difficult.

Posted by Matt B | April 4, 2008 3:11 PM

I think I'd settle for just seeing existing cities become less hostile towards pedestrians and bicycles. I live in Atlanta -- and as soon as you get away from the core of the city, something as simple as sidewalks becomes hit or miss.

I also see examples of horrible new development every day. In my neighborhood a new gated townhome development went up that is right next to a bus stop for a major route that takes people straight to the MARTA station for the light rail -- and in their wisdom (?) the morons who designed the complex oriented the whole works backwards. The only way in and out of there is through a gated entrance on the opposite side of the block. Ergo, anyone living there who would like to use public transit instead of taking the bus gets to walk the equivalent of three city blocks to get to a bus stop they can see from their windows. Either that, or scale two six-foot high fences. (The security on that place is so over the top you'd think it was a detention facility rather than a place people are living voluntarily.)

Of course, it is hard to break out of that mindset that everyone on the planet wants to drive everywhere. I used to work in a building touted for meeting a gold LEED standard -- and there was no provision made for pedestrians to walk from the public sidewalk along the street to the building's front entrance. Apparently it never occured to the architects that anyone might want to actually walk to the building.

Posted by Nan | April 4, 2008 3:11 PM

Sorry, meant to say anyone who wants to use public transit and take the bus gets to walk three blocks. It's been a long day.

Posted by Nan | April 4, 2008 3:14 PM

freddiemac,

Good point. That said, even smaller towns in relatively agrarian communities (say, Richland Center, WI) benefit from having a compact, walkable main street.

I've been to so many places in the US where these areas were just demolished to build miles of strip malls along a freeway, and knowing that the price of oil is never going to go down again in our lifetimes, I have to agree with Kunstler and others that this mode of urbanism, commerce, civic structure (basically, an outpost of distant chain franchises vs. local businesses) just isn't economically sustainable.

Posted by aj kandy | April 4, 2008 3:22 PM

To state a somewhat obvious point that has been made by many others, a shift to a economy with far lower agricultural employment naturally means small towns are going to be a lot less prevalent than they once were. Sure, some will still be supported by universities and government offices, others as bedroom communities, others as tourist attractions, and so on. But fewer people out working in the farms ultimately means fewer small towns.

But none of that has much to do with transit policy. To whatever extent there are small towns, you can still plan them to be walkable. And to whatever extent there are small towns, you can still think about smart ways to link them into intercity public transit networks, with rapid bus service often being the most flexible and efficient approach (as in fact many countries in Europe and elsewhere have demonstrated).

And yes, just as with most communities outside urban centers, cars and public transit will likely be complementary modes of transportation in small towns, as opposed to public transit completely substituting for cars. But interestingly, in addition to urbanized areas with good public transit, the other place that the rapidly growing carsharing industry has started to take off is college towns. So, small towns in general might well be a good fit for that model as well, provided they are served by public transit for intercity travel.

Posted by DTM | April 4, 2008 3:25 PM

Matt B,

When it snows, sometimes the buses skip their routes to make up time. That has happened several times this year.

The mayor's trolley idea is not transit 2020. That was a silly downtown project. Transit 2020 is a plan to put a commuter rail line on the existing freight rail lines that go through downtown. The line would either go from the airport, through downtown, by the hospital, and off to Greenway station in Middleton or start from near downtown Sun Prairie. I'm not sure which plan was picked, the airport or Sun Prairie plan (though whateve line was not picked is supposed to be built in a future expansion). The plan was submitted and is waiting for the government to decide if they approve and how much federal funding is available. Basically the wheels are in motion, but the plans are on hold.

While the geography of Madison, being an isthmus, retards sprawl, there are a lot of decentralized zoning in and around Madison. Recently the city passed a mixed zoning ordinance for infill as well as a mixed income rule. While I don't favor the mixed income rule, the mixed use zoning was a good idea as we can expect all the future development outside the city proper to be typical decentralized unwalkable sprawl (see Fitchburg). Plus there is enough of that in the city limits, on the far west side.

Posted by freddiemac | April 4, 2008 3:26 PM

I think Saratoga Springs, NY is a good example that does not fall into State Capital/Big College town examples. It's a great, vibrant town that is very walkable and packed with great shops, restaurants and bars. A lot of this is supported by the race track and accompanying explosion boom in August but it really has a lot to offer year round.

Chamber of Commerce website with some pictures and business listing

Posted by lakema | April 4, 2008 3:38 PM

We'll rise up early, with the sun
To ride the bus while everyone is yawning
And the day is young
In morning, Morgantown

Morning Morgantown
Buy your dreams a dollar down
Morning any town you name
Morning's just the same

We'll find a table in the shade
And sip our tea and lemonade
And watch the morning on parade
In morning, Morgantown

Ladies in their rainbow fashions
Colored stop and go lights flashing
We'll wink at total strangers passing in
Morning, Morgantown-J. Mitchell

Posted by rea | April 4, 2008 3:41 PM

lakema,

Saratoga would be your classic tourist town. Of course there is nothing wrong with that, and it is indeed another viable small town model for some places, but it can't be used as a model to save all of America's small towns.

Posted by DTM | April 4, 2008 4:27 PM

hi matt,

I just moved to Burlington this summer, too (for an academic job, as well). I find it similarly easy to get around without driving, and most destinations are relatively close to each other. I generally rely on a bike, which can get a bit dicey in the winter, but it is not as bad as I would have thought. For such a small town, it actually does sustain a bit of vibrancy unknown in the last place i lived, one with an equally sized population.

I actually work in a small town about 30 miles away, but there is a bus that runs there everyday, so no need to drive to work, and I can prep for classes while someone else drives. Which is nice, especially for someone who waits until the las minute to prepare.

Posted by lynn | April 4, 2008 4:35 PM

Freddiemac: Madison had how much more snow than usual this year? I certainly think that was a big factor. A big part of the problem can be traced to plowing deficiencies. They used to be able to attach snow plows to garbage trucks during and after a big snowfall. However, I understand they can't do that with the new garbage trucks (it screws up the fancy new garbage system). Hopefully they'll do some adjusting in future years.

I lived in the Madison area for 19 years (I just moved to Toronto), so let me say that Madison does not have a great track record with this king of thing. I hope it does, but 2020 may be optimistic. It took nearly 60 years to get Monona Terrace built, for example (first proposed in 1938, finished in 1997).

Posted by mwg | April 4, 2008 4:45 PM

re: waterfront place

Matt - like your post, but wanted to clarify something about that hotel. I have stayed there a few times (my brother is a student). The garage serves the conference and office center too. The sidewalk to get to the hotel is not along the street side driveway to the garage entrance, it is on the river side of the building. Or for a more direct route, during business hours you can walk straight through the business center and come directly in front of the main entrance to the hotel.

I thought this was strange too and only figured it out on my second stay there.

Posted by Brian Smith | April 4, 2008 4:56 PM

Now this is an utter, remorseless, relentless demolition.

Posted by Thlayli | April 4, 2008 5:06 PM

Jacobus-
It is hardly a "fact" that urbanism, small town or otherwise, raises the quality of life. That may be your opinion, and you're certainly entitled to it. Not everyone shares your opinion. I've lived in the city most of my life; and I'm pretty much done with it: the filth, the homeless, the crime, the decay. Thanks, but I'm headed to the suburbs. Yeah, there are trade-offs: I can't walk to a grocery store, and commuting is a bear. But the roads are better, the parks are cleaner and safer, and I am more likely to find a neighborhood with architectural controls (like not allowing your next door neighbor to consider his blue tarp a permanent roof repair).
There are plenty of folks in America who think that increased density is "the" answer. But without an accompanying support for higher taxes to provide the necessarily increased level of government services, increased restrictions of individual rights, and a cultural shift toward community responsibilities, increased density is surefire path to eventual slums.

Posted by doggril | April 4, 2008 5:56 PM

doggril,

You make a false correlation between density and slums because in much of America in the post-war era the dense regions have seen declining equity. That trend is reversing, so I think your predictions on what is needed to sustain quality of life with dense zoning is off base.

Posted by freddiemac | April 4, 2008 6:02 PM

doggril, well, quite clearly other people do think that it would be an improvement in their quality of life, because they're willing to pay dearly for the privilege. If more people felt like you, doggril, I wouldn't be struggling to compete with all of the people willing to shell out big bucks. If the quality of life is so poor, why are they paying so much for it? Maybe they're just a lot dumber than you are, but that stupidity is pricing me out of the neighborhood.

Posted by Tyro | April 4, 2008 6:22 PM

Doggril,

I beg to differ. I think your view of cities (or denser urbanism) as being problematic stems from the way that many American cities have become dysfunctional post-WWII; a mix of mismanaged growth, poor planning policy, and a seeming willingness to completely forget what makes great cities work.

The desperation seen in some US cities -- the level of violence and crime -- isn't caused by urban planning (though poor planning can exacerbate problems). I would argue that it results from an overlapping set of social issues -- poverty, lack of education, unemployment, lack of a proper social safety net i.e. universal healthcare.

If I can point to the one major difference between our two countries, it is that while it's no fun to be poor in either place, on our side of the border getting sick doesn't mean potential bankruptcy, or arguing with an HMO over whether you can actually get the treatment you are supposedly covered for.

The other issue is of community. For a city our size, we have an incredible amount of civic involvement and activism. Moderate density promotes a sense of community -- yes, even in the big city, you can know your neighbors -- and a certain amount of density creates the market for all the good things that come with cities -- parks, shopping, dining, museums, arts scene, music, meeting likeminded individuals for almost any activity or hobby you care to name...

whereas I have found the opposite to be true in the suburbs. I never felt more atomized, alone, anonymous, exposed even, than when I lived there. The sheer amount of time it takes to do anything -- especially if you don't drive -- makes you a virtual prisoner in your own McMansion.

The suburban equation you speak of only works because of two things: lower property taxes, and cheap energy. The price of oil quadrupled since 2001 after years of stability, and it is never likely to go down again. Even without "running out," changes in the price or supply of oil play havoc with the globalized supply chain behind suburbia; This means that everything becomes more expensive, or rarer, and businesses that thrive on marginal profits get squeezed out of the game.

As for the tax issue, where we have parasitic suburbs leaching away the tax base of the city which provides the central economic engine for the region, forced amalgamations (megacity mergers) have been the rather unwelcome answer. Surely, a voluntary regional approach to cost-sharing for things such as infrastructure and essential services is better.

Increased density isn't "the" answer, but I think a clearer definition between town and country is. If, as many predict, the post-oil economy means a great downscaling of everything we currently take for granted, then the immediate value of the suburbs, given their proximity to the city proper, is as agricultural land.

So the choice is not between two fictional choices - Pleasantville or Gotham City -- or between some grim 1984-style state as you suggest, or (following your logic) towards a libertarian Mad Max future of survivalists in armed compounds....

it'll be about living in a real, working, living town or city, or living and working on a farm, dairy, winemaking, etc.

If you want to live in the country, then live *in the country* and be prepared to take up a vocation related to that. Because suburbs will not continue to exist as we know them today -- they simply can't.

Posted by aj kandy | April 4, 2008 6:33 PM

I really wish people would stop using the term "suburbs" to refer solely to low-density residential-only communities. Suburbs were originally walkable, multi-use, and designed to use public transit for commuting. And now many suburbs are being planned in that way again.

Posted by DTM | April 4, 2008 6:52 PM

Hi Lynn! I've been really happy with how easy it is to walk around here (though I wind up driving into Winooski). And I was especially surprised at how painless it was to walk even in the winter, as long as I bundled up a lot and blew my nose frequently. It's definitely nice that it makes a positive effort to maintain an urban center.

Posted by Matt Weiner | April 4, 2008 10:25 PM

Re: Madison WI is both a state capital and a college town, two factors that critics in this thread have stated make it an anomoly.

An anomaly implies something very rare. State capital plus university is not. Quite a few state capitals also have state universities of note next door (Lansing, Columbus, Tallahassee, Salt Lake City, Boston, Austin...)

Posted by JonF | April 4, 2008 11:33 PM

Great Idea, Matt. Every thriving downtown in smalltown America needs to reduce parking facilities to make it harder for people who don't live in the downtown area to shop there. I'm sure the retail stores such downtowns depend on would love having their customer based limited to those who live within walking distance. It's a perfect way to encourage them to move out of these old downtowns and into convenient strip malls located on the outskirts of said towns. Then even the downtowners will have to drive to shop there. Brilliant, positively brilliant.

Posted by conradg | April 5, 2008 1:17 AM

Btw, Kirchick's review of Matt's books really sucks. Takedown my ass. It's a purely defensive review by someone covering his own ass, pure and simple.

Posted by conradg | April 5, 2008 1:25 AM

One of my buddies bought a 50cc moped/scooter as a weekend fun vehicle. I borrowed for a week - and for a 10-mile commute. Topped out at about 32 mph and gets 100 mpg. I would love to live in a place where only those were allowed.

Posted by Mike | April 5, 2008 3:02 AM

Ur, JonF, you're kind of missing the point. Madison isn't unique, but it's not an easily reproducible model. Three of your examples, Columbus, Boston and Austin, are also among the 25 largest cities in the US already (populations all well over 500,000), and the thread is about small city urbanism.

I guess we could start breaking up some of the larger states to make more college towns with state capitals. Let's start with Texas!

Posted by mwg | April 5, 2008 11:47 AM

Move to Europe.

Posted by euro | April 5, 2008 12:20 PM

JonF,

The flagship state university in MA is in Amherst, not Boston. (Boston also has a UMass but it's a lower tier one.) Boston is also a large city in its own right: the universities are a significant basis of its economy, true, but not the sole basis, and its being the state capital is really pretty tangential to its economy. It isn't really comparable to, say, Lansing or Tallahassee.

Posted by Hector | April 6, 2008 9:18 AM

I couldn't agree more with this post. Small-city smart growth is catching on because people want it and because it works. The result is less pressure to sprawl outward, helping watersheds and the rural landscape, while providing walkable neighborhoods and shorter driving trips to the growing sector of the market that wants them. I've been writing about the same subject in my own blog and am happy to link back to this one.

Keep up the great work.

Posted by Kaid Benfield | April 6, 2008 5:52 PM