WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.560 Welcome to the debate. You know, if you look 00:00:02.560 --> 00:00:05.040 out your window for a second, everything you 00:00:05.040 --> 00:00:08.000 see, the width of the road, the height of the 00:00:08.000 --> 00:00:10.039 buildings, how far you have to drive just to 00:00:10.039 --> 00:00:12.839 get a gallon of milk, all of it was decided by 00:00:12.839 --> 00:00:16.239 a conflict that we rarely talk about. We are 00:00:16.239 --> 00:00:19.500 discussing the literal blueprint of our lives 00:00:19.500 --> 00:00:22.039 today. This is the tension between what's called 00:00:22.039 --> 00:00:24.500 smart growth, which is this planning philosophy 00:00:24.500 --> 00:00:27.539 all about density, transit, and sustainability, 00:00:27.559 --> 00:00:31.780 and the Well, the stubborn, chaotic market realities 00:00:31.780 --> 00:00:36.000 of what people want, housing costs, and individual 00:00:36.000 --> 00:00:38.640 liberty. It really is the ultimate battle, isn't 00:00:38.640 --> 00:00:41.380 it? It's the planned city versus the organic 00:00:41.380 --> 00:00:44.380 city. On one side, you've got this vision of 00:00:44.380 --> 00:00:47.539 a, let's call it a planned utopia. Walkable, 00:00:47.659 --> 00:00:49.820 green, efficient, you know, everything in its 00:00:49.820 --> 00:00:52.469 proper place. But on the other side... you have 00:00:52.469 --> 00:00:54.890 the accusation that these top -down plans are 00:00:54.890 --> 00:00:57.689 actually economic straitjackets. The critics, 00:00:57.810 --> 00:01:00.049 and I'm one of them, argue that they're just 00:01:00.049 --> 00:01:02.329 artificial constraints that restrict housing 00:01:02.329 --> 00:01:05.510 supply, drive up costs, and sort of force people 00:01:05.510 --> 00:01:07.609 into lifestyles they didn't actually choose. 00:01:08.090 --> 00:01:10.310 And the stakes couldn't be higher. We're not 00:01:10.310 --> 00:01:12.489 just talking about aesthetics here. The question 00:01:12.489 --> 00:01:15.390 we are really wrestling with today is this. Does 00:01:15.390 --> 00:01:18.069 smart growth actually create the sustainable, 00:01:18.189 --> 00:01:21.159 equitable communities it promises? Or does it, 00:01:21.180 --> 00:01:23.480 as you're suggesting, create this artificial 00:01:23.480 --> 00:01:26.439 scarcity and maybe even worsen congestion through 00:01:26.439 --> 00:01:28.659 what researchers call the paradox of intensification? 00:01:29.079 --> 00:01:31.659 And I'm here to argue the latter. I mean, while 00:01:31.659 --> 00:01:34.359 the goals of sustainability are obviously noble, 00:01:34.560 --> 00:01:36.980 I believe these top -down planning interventions, 00:01:37.260 --> 00:01:39.680 well, they often just ignore market realities. 00:01:40.079 --> 00:01:42.780 By drawing lines on a map and restricting where 00:01:42.780 --> 00:01:46.019 and how we can build, we inflate costs and we 00:01:46.019 --> 00:01:47.900 end up hurting the very people we claim we're 00:01:47.900 --> 00:01:51.109 trying to help. For me, the market, not the city 00:01:51.109 --> 00:01:53.569 planner, is the better arbiter of how land should 00:01:53.569 --> 00:01:56.469 be used. And I am here to argue that the market 00:01:56.469 --> 00:02:00.569 has been completely distorted for 70 years by 00:02:00.569 --> 00:02:03.609 subsidies for sprawl. My position is that we 00:02:03.609 --> 00:02:06.790 need intentional high -density planning and green 00:02:06.790 --> 00:02:09.629 building practices to combat the climate crisis 00:02:09.629 --> 00:02:13.110 and our massive infrastructure deficit. We simply 00:02:13.110 --> 00:02:15.669 can't sprawl our way to prosperity anymore. We 00:02:15.669 --> 00:02:17.990 have to plan our way out of it. Well, let's get 00:02:17.990 --> 00:02:20.110 into it. I want to start by, you know, properly 00:02:20.110 --> 00:02:23.110 defining what we even mean by smart growth, because 00:02:23.110 --> 00:02:25.289 it just gets thrown around as a buzzword. It's 00:02:25.289 --> 00:02:27.050 not just about putting up a bunch of high -rise 00:02:27.050 --> 00:02:29.469 apartment buildings. If you look at the EPA's 00:02:29.469 --> 00:02:32.430 own definition, it creates a very specific framework. 00:02:32.729 --> 00:02:35.250 It's about mixed land use, walkable neighborhoods, 00:02:35.629 --> 00:02:38.949 and, crucially, preserving open space. It is 00:02:38.949 --> 00:02:41.870 a necessary response to the, frankly, the financial 00:02:41.870 --> 00:02:45.169 and environmental disaster of urban sprawl. We 00:02:45.169 --> 00:02:47.330 are talking about basic resource management here. 00:02:47.719 --> 00:02:51.240 As of 2020, buildings accounted for 37 % of global 00:02:51.240 --> 00:02:53.400 energy use. I mean, that is a staggering number. 00:02:53.520 --> 00:02:55.879 If we don't embrace green building standards 00:02:55.879 --> 00:02:58.659 and certifications like LEED, that's leadership 00:02:58.659 --> 00:03:01.479 in energy and environmental design, we are effectively 00:03:01.479 --> 00:03:03.560 ignoring more than a third of the climate problem. 00:03:03.939 --> 00:03:06.599 Okay, I understand the environmental imperative. 00:03:06.800 --> 00:03:10.539 I do. But we have to look at the branding here. 00:03:11.180 --> 00:03:14.060 Smart growth. I mean, it's a brilliant bit of 00:03:14.060 --> 00:03:16.099 marketing, isn't it? Because it implies that 00:03:16.099 --> 00:03:18.800 the alternative, what millions of families actually 00:03:18.800 --> 00:03:21.539 prefer, which is a single family home with a 00:03:21.539 --> 00:03:25.520 yard, is dumb growth. But let's look at the social 00:03:25.520 --> 00:03:28.479 cost of all this intelligence. I'm looking at 00:03:28.479 --> 00:03:31.539 reports from the National Center for Public Policy 00:03:31.539 --> 00:03:35.439 Research going back to 2002, actually. And they 00:03:35.439 --> 00:03:37.860 argued that smart growth is effectively just 00:03:37.860 --> 00:03:40.639 restricted growth. When you draw a line around 00:03:40.639 --> 00:03:43.550 a city, an urban growth boundary, and you say 00:03:43.550 --> 00:03:46.349 you cannot build past this point, you create 00:03:46.349 --> 00:03:49.210 a pressure cooker. You drive up the price of 00:03:49.210 --> 00:03:52.449 every square foot of land inside that line. They 00:03:52.449 --> 00:03:55.469 called it the new segregation. New segregation 00:03:55.469 --> 00:03:58.830 is a heavy charge. Unpack that for me a little. 00:03:59.009 --> 00:04:01.949 Well, it's simple supply and demand. By restricting 00:04:01.949 --> 00:04:04.210 the supply of buildable land, you just jack up 00:04:04.210 --> 00:04:06.300 the price of entry. And this disproportionately 00:04:06.300 --> 00:04:09.120 harms minorities and the working poor by pricing 00:04:09.120 --> 00:04:11.300 them out of the housing market completely. So 00:04:11.300 --> 00:04:13.199 you end up with a smart city that's walkable 00:04:13.199 --> 00:04:15.680 and green and beautiful, but only wealthy people 00:04:15.680 --> 00:04:17.759 can afford to live there. It becomes a boutique 00:04:17.759 --> 00:04:19.720 lifestyle, not a real solution for the masses. 00:04:20.000 --> 00:04:22.779 See, that argument relies on the assumption that 00:04:22.779 --> 00:04:26.379 the current model sprawl is somehow affordable. 00:04:26.500 --> 00:04:29.839 And it just isn't. It just hides the cost. Sproul 00:04:29.839 --> 00:04:31.980 creates a dependency on automobiles that acts 00:04:31.980 --> 00:04:35.180 as this massive hidden tax on working families. 00:04:35.399 --> 00:04:37.740 Sure, you might pay less for the mortgage on 00:04:37.740 --> 00:04:40.139 the edge of town, but you are paying with your 00:04:40.139 --> 00:04:43.180 time and with your gas tank. But I want to stick 00:04:43.180 --> 00:04:44.899 to the building economics for a moment because 00:04:44.899 --> 00:04:47.339 there is this huge misconception that building 00:04:47.339 --> 00:04:51.019 green is just burning money. Studies like the 00:04:51.019 --> 00:04:53.800 ones by Katz and his colleagues in 2003 have 00:04:53.800 --> 00:04:56.579 analyzed this deeply. They found that while green 00:04:56.579 --> 00:04:59.399 buildings, so ones built to high efficiency standards, 00:04:59.720 --> 00:05:03.000 might cost a premium of, say, about 2 % up front, 00:05:03.139 --> 00:05:06.139 they yield 10 times as much in savings over the 00:05:06.139 --> 00:05:08.839 life of the building. That's just fiscal responsibility. 00:05:09.139 --> 00:05:11.519 We're talking about lowering the operational 00:05:11.519 --> 00:05:14.600 overhead of our entire civilization. That is 00:05:14.600 --> 00:05:17.079 a very compelling spreadsheet argument, but it 00:05:17.079 --> 00:05:19.899 ignores the reality of the transaction. I mean, 00:05:19.899 --> 00:05:23.050 who pays which line item? The developer and the 00:05:23.050 --> 00:05:25.389 home buyer, they're the ones paying that 2 % 00:05:25.389 --> 00:05:28.910 upfront premium. The savings over 20 years, that 00:05:28.910 --> 00:05:30.970 might go to the utility company or some future 00:05:30.970 --> 00:05:33.769 owner. It's a classic split incentive problem. 00:05:34.029 --> 00:05:36.649 And regarding the social aspect, I really worry 00:05:36.649 --> 00:05:38.689 about this transit village concept you advocate 00:05:38.689 --> 00:05:41.250 for. You look at places like Arlington, Virginia, 00:05:41.449 --> 00:05:44.910 or Curitiba in Brazil, and yes, they are efficient 00:05:44.910 --> 00:05:47.629 models, but often the reality of that density 00:05:47.629 --> 00:05:50.579 is just gentrification. You build a shiny new 00:05:50.579 --> 00:05:53.639 transit hub, the land values spike, and the very 00:05:53.639 --> 00:05:56.399 people who actually rely on public transit, the 00:05:56.399 --> 00:05:58.779 service workers, the cleaners, they get displaced 00:05:58.779 --> 00:06:00.879 to the suburbs where the transit doesn't even 00:06:00.879 --> 00:06:04.139 go. Gentrification is a failure of policy, sure, 00:06:04.240 --> 00:06:07.699 but displacement is often a result of not building 00:06:07.699 --> 00:06:10.680 enough density to meet the demands that the transit 00:06:10.680 --> 00:06:12.899 creates. We sort of freeze the neighborhood in 00:06:12.899 --> 00:06:15.399 amber, prices skyrocket, and people get pushed 00:06:15.399 --> 00:06:17.860 out. But let's pivot to the environmental reality 00:06:17.860 --> 00:06:20.240 because this is where the physics of the situation 00:06:20.240 --> 00:06:24.040 becomes, well, undeniable. I firmly believe that 00:06:24.040 --> 00:06:27.500 compact neighborhoods and bioclimatic design 00:06:27.500 --> 00:06:31.199 are the only way to significantly lower our carbon 00:06:31.199 --> 00:06:34.399 footprints. It's just about efficiency. A 2009 00:06:34.399 --> 00:06:36.839 report by the U .S. General Services Administration 00:06:36.839 --> 00:06:40.060 found that 12 sustainably designed buildings 00:06:40.600 --> 00:06:43.740 cost less to operate, and had higher occupant 00:06:43.740 --> 00:06:46.660 satisfaction than typical buildings. We also 00:06:46.660 --> 00:06:48.699 have to talk about the heat island effect. Wait, 00:06:48.779 --> 00:06:50.879 hold on. Define the heat island effect for the 00:06:50.879 --> 00:06:53.920 listeners. Sure, yeah. It's the phenomenon where 00:06:53.920 --> 00:06:56.720 urban areas become significantly warmer than 00:06:56.720 --> 00:06:59.579 the surrounding rural areas. All that asphalt, 00:06:59.759 --> 00:07:02.560 concrete, and the rooftops, they absorb the sun's 00:07:02.560 --> 00:07:04.600 heat during the day and then radiate it back 00:07:04.600 --> 00:07:07.709 at night. It raises temperatures It increases 00:07:07.709 --> 00:07:10.430 energy demand for AC, and it causes real health 00:07:10.430 --> 00:07:13.569 issues. Smart growth emphasizes things like green 00:07:13.569 --> 00:07:16.410 roofs, literally planting vegetation on top of 00:07:16.410 --> 00:07:19.009 buildings, and rain gardens to mitigate this. 00:07:19.230 --> 00:07:21.529 You just can't achieve that cooling effect with 00:07:21.529 --> 00:07:24.629 endless subdivisions of asphalt driveways. Occupant 00:07:24.629 --> 00:07:27.290 satisfaction and cooler roofs are great, but 00:07:27.290 --> 00:07:29.350 let's talk about the neighborhood impact on a 00:07:29.350 --> 00:07:32.410 more granular level. There's a concept here you 00:07:32.410 --> 00:07:34.850 need to address called the paradox of intensification. 00:07:35.550 --> 00:07:38.850 This was highlighted by Melia and others back 00:07:38.850 --> 00:07:41.189 in 2011. Right. The idea that density creates 00:07:41.189 --> 00:07:44.470 local congestion. Exactly. The argument is that 00:07:44.470 --> 00:07:46.810 while per capita car use might drop in dense 00:07:46.810 --> 00:07:49.470 areas, which is your goal, the sheer concentration 00:07:49.470 --> 00:07:52.829 of people in that specific area creates worse 00:07:52.829 --> 00:07:55.550 local congestion and higher pollution concentrations 00:07:55.550 --> 00:07:57.930 for the people living right there. It's simple 00:07:57.930 --> 00:08:00.399 math. I mean, if you double the density, even 00:08:00.399 --> 00:08:02.660 if half the people stop driving, you still have 00:08:02.660 --> 00:08:04.699 the exact same number of cars in the same amount 00:08:04.699 --> 00:08:07.720 of road space. Look at Portland, Oregon. It is 00:08:07.720 --> 00:08:10.060 the absolute poster child for smart growth in 00:08:10.060 --> 00:08:12.660 America. And yet data suggests traffic volumes 00:08:12.660 --> 00:08:15.220 there actually increased more rapidly than in 00:08:15.220 --> 00:08:17.360 other comparable cities, despite their aggressive 00:08:17.360 --> 00:08:19.779 policies. You're just concentrating the mess. 00:08:20.019 --> 00:08:23.220 The paradox is real. I'm not denying that. But 00:08:23.220 --> 00:08:26.000 I would argue that's a case for... better transit 00:08:26.000 --> 00:08:28.819 integration, not for abandoning density altogether. 00:08:29.319 --> 00:08:32.080 If we have density without high -capacity transit, 00:08:32.259 --> 00:08:34.700 then yes, of course we get gridlock. But let's 00:08:34.700 --> 00:08:37.120 look at the alternative. Sprawl spreads that 00:08:37.120 --> 00:08:39.460 pollution out, sure, but it increases the total 00:08:39.460 --> 00:08:41.759 volume of emissions because everyone is driving 00:08:41.759 --> 00:08:44.600 so much further. However, I will concede one 00:08:44.600 --> 00:08:46.820 point on the environmental front, and that is 00:08:46.820 --> 00:08:48.980 the aesthetic choices we are making in these 00:08:48.980 --> 00:08:51.919 dense centers, specifically glass skyscrapers. 00:08:52.330 --> 00:08:56.289 Ah, right. The modern look. Exactly. There's 00:08:56.289 --> 00:08:58.769 this tendency in modern dense developments to 00:08:58.769 --> 00:09:01.549 build these all -glass towers because they look 00:09:01.549 --> 00:09:04.149 sleek and high -tech. But from an environmental 00:09:04.149 --> 00:09:06.309 standpoint, they are essentially greenhouses. 00:09:06.570 --> 00:09:10.029 They just trap heat. They are wildly energy inefficient 00:09:10.029 --> 00:09:12.830 and require massive air conditioning loads to 00:09:12.830 --> 00:09:15.409 keep them habitable. Some experts are now advocating 00:09:15.409 --> 00:09:18.710 for restrictions on all -glass edifices. So simply 00:09:18.710 --> 00:09:21.450 building up isn't enough. The materials really 00:09:21.450 --> 00:09:24.269 matter. We need bioclimatic design, buildings 00:09:24.269 --> 00:09:26.710 that actually respond to the local climate, not 00:09:26.710 --> 00:09:29.389 just generic glass boxes dropped anywhere in 00:09:29.389 --> 00:09:31.870 the world. And I'm glad you conceded that, because 00:09:31.870 --> 00:09:34.549 it highlights a pattern. Planners often chase 00:09:34.549 --> 00:09:36.750 these trends that turn out to be huge mistakes. 00:09:37.090 --> 00:09:40.029 But I want to go back to the economics. You mentioned 00:09:40.029 --> 00:09:42.809 the lifecycle savings of green buildings. Okay, 00:09:42.950 --> 00:09:45.730 but let's zoom out to the macroeconomic effect 00:09:45.730 --> 00:09:49.289 of urban growth boundaries, or UGBs. Cox and 00:09:49.289 --> 00:09:52.179 Utt analyzes comprehensively. And they found 00:09:52.179 --> 00:09:55.000 that UGBs, by limiting land supply, were a major 00:09:55.000 --> 00:09:57.159 contributor to the housing price escalations 00:09:57.159 --> 00:10:00.840 we saw between 2000 and 2006. This is the artificial 00:10:00.840 --> 00:10:03.980 scarcity argument again. Because it's true. When 00:10:03.980 --> 00:10:06.100 you artificially restrict the supply of developable 00:10:06.100 --> 00:10:08.500 land, that greenfield development you're so opposed 00:10:08.500 --> 00:10:11.580 to, you force prices up. It's inevitable. You 00:10:11.580 --> 00:10:14.340 turn the smart city into an elite city, where 00:10:14.340 --> 00:10:16.179 only the wealthy can afford the price of admission. 00:10:16.659 --> 00:10:19.360 You are in effect saving the environment by excluding 00:10:19.360 --> 00:10:21.970 the poor. It fundamentally breaks the ladder 00:10:21.970 --> 00:10:24.309 of homeownership. See, that analysis completely 00:10:24.309 --> 00:10:27.070 misses a massive component of the household budget, 00:10:27.269 --> 00:10:29.730 transportation. Most people look at the rent 00:10:29.730 --> 00:10:31.870 or the mortgage in isolation. But if you live 00:10:31.870 --> 00:10:34.269 in a sprawl suburb, you usually need two cars. 00:10:34.450 --> 00:10:37.669 You need insurance, gas, maintenance, depreciation. 00:10:37.809 --> 00:10:40.669 Low -income households in these transit -oriented 00:10:40.669 --> 00:10:42.570 developments, for example, there are studies 00:10:42.570 --> 00:10:45.049 looking at Los Angeles, have been shown to save 00:10:45.049 --> 00:10:48.289 approximately $3 ,100 per year on transport costs. 00:10:48.509 --> 00:10:51.279 Why? because they don't need to own a car, or 00:10:51.279 --> 00:10:53.879 they can drop from two cars down to one. That 00:10:53.879 --> 00:10:57.759 $3 ,000 offsets a lot of rent. It offers stability. 00:10:58.100 --> 00:11:00.740 In the suburbs, you're one transmission failure 00:11:00.740 --> 00:11:03.519 away from losing your job. That saving is purely 00:11:03.519 --> 00:11:06.159 theoretical for anyone who can't get past the 00:11:06.159 --> 00:11:08.620 velvet rope of the down payment or the security 00:11:08.620 --> 00:11:11.980 deposit. You mentioned Los Angeles, but the cost 00:11:11.980 --> 00:11:15.740 of entry in those trendy TODs, the transit -oriented 00:11:15.740 --> 00:11:19.169 developments, is astronomical. unless it is heavily 00:11:19.169 --> 00:11:21.549 subsidized. And this brings me to the issue of 00:11:21.549 --> 00:11:24.669 connectivity. You champion the pedestrian shed, 00:11:24.870 --> 00:11:27.830 that quarter -mile radius around a station. The 00:11:27.830 --> 00:11:30.309 assumption is that if you put people there, they'll 00:11:30.309 --> 00:11:32.909 just magically walk and take the train. And years 00:11:32.909 --> 00:11:36.049 ago, to concentrate almost all their high -density 00:11:36.049 --> 00:11:38.789 development right along the metro line. And it 00:11:38.789 --> 00:11:41.799 created this symbiotic relationship. The density 00:11:41.799 --> 00:11:43.720 provides the ridership that makes the trains 00:11:43.720 --> 00:11:46.259 financially viable, and the trains provide the 00:11:46.259 --> 00:11:48.980 access that makes the density livable. It solves 00:11:48.980 --> 00:11:51.759 the last mile problem, that difficulty of getting 00:11:51.759 --> 00:11:54.000 from the station to your home, because your home 00:11:54.000 --> 00:11:56.980 is at the station. But here's a chicken and egg 00:11:56.980 --> 00:11:59.580 question, right? Does the architecture change 00:11:59.580 --> 00:12:02.100 the behavior, or do the people choose the architecture? 00:12:02.559 --> 00:12:05.659 There's a concept called self -selection. Studies 00:12:05.659 --> 00:12:07.860 suggest that people who already want to walk 00:12:07.860 --> 00:12:09.820 and use transit are the ones who move to these 00:12:09.820 --> 00:12:12.940 areas. Building density doesn't necessarily force 00:12:12.940 --> 00:12:15.639 a car lover to give up their keys. It just sorts 00:12:15.639 --> 00:12:18.240 the population. So you aren't changing habits, 00:12:18.320 --> 00:12:20.940 you're just organizing people by lifestyle. And 00:12:20.940 --> 00:12:24.230 furthermore, look at the economic mix. In Phoenix, 00:12:24.429 --> 00:12:26.309 they found that transit -oriented development 00:12:26.309 --> 00:12:28.629 increased new business starts in service and 00:12:28.629 --> 00:12:31.090 retail, you know, coffee shops, boutiques, but 00:12:31.090 --> 00:12:33.149 it actually decreased manufacturing facilities. 00:12:33.649 --> 00:12:36.350 You're altering the local economic mix, and you're 00:12:36.350 --> 00:12:38.490 pushing out blue -collar jobs in favor of the 00:12:38.490 --> 00:12:41.330 service economy. I would frame that as an evolution 00:12:41.330 --> 00:12:44.590 of the economy rather than a loss. But there 00:12:44.590 --> 00:12:46.990 is a crucial nuance here we have to address, 00:12:47.210 --> 00:12:50.549 the difference between transit -proximate and 00:12:50.549 --> 00:12:53.679 transit -oriented. And this is a really important 00:12:53.679 --> 00:12:56.100 distinction. Just because a building is near 00:12:56.100 --> 00:12:58.860 a train station doesn't mean it works. Exactly. 00:12:59.000 --> 00:13:02.019 If you build high density housing near a station, 00:13:02.220 --> 00:13:04.799 but you surround it with a massive parking lot, 00:13:04.879 --> 00:13:07.360 put the entrance on the wrong side, and offer 00:13:07.360 --> 00:13:10.860 no sidewalks, that is merely transit proximate. 00:13:10.919 --> 00:13:15.120 It fails. It captures none of the benefits. True 00:13:15.120 --> 00:13:18.740 TOD requires walkable design, mixed use where 00:13:18.740 --> 00:13:21.220 you can buy your groceries downstairs, and reduced 00:13:21.220 --> 00:13:24.519 parking to actually discourage driving. But achieving 00:13:24.519 --> 00:13:28.059 that true TOD requires a level of top -down control 00:13:28.059 --> 00:13:31.740 that I find, well, concerning. And this leads 00:13:31.740 --> 00:13:34.440 us to the core philosophical divide here. Planning 00:13:34.440 --> 00:13:37.590 versus organic growth. You are essentially arguing 00:13:37.590 --> 00:13:40.370 that without strict zoning and urban growth boundaries, 00:13:40.549 --> 00:13:43.409 we get sprawl. But what you call sprawl, many, 00:13:43.470 --> 00:13:46.250 many people call a yard for their kids and autonomy. 00:13:46.710 --> 00:13:50.710 And I call it financially unsustainable. Sprawl 00:13:50.710 --> 00:13:54.129 is a Ponzi scheme. It requires miles and miles 00:13:54.129 --> 00:13:57.409 of roads, sewer pipes, and electrical lines to 00:13:57.409 --> 00:14:00.450 serve very few people. The tax revenue from those 00:14:00.450 --> 00:14:03.269 low -density homes often doesn't even cover the 00:14:03.269 --> 00:14:04.830 long -term maintenance of the infrastructure 00:14:04.830 --> 00:14:07.509 that serves them. That's why movements like New 00:14:07.509 --> 00:14:11.070 Urbanism and the Awani Principles from 1991 emerged. 00:14:11.350 --> 00:14:13.970 They provide a framework to preserve open space 00:14:13.970 --> 00:14:17.350 and farmland, which are finite resources. We 00:14:17.350 --> 00:14:19.610 can't just keep eating up the countryside because 00:14:19.610 --> 00:14:21.649 the market dictates a short -term preference 00:14:21.649 --> 00:14:24.330 for large lawns. But the master plan mentality 00:14:24.330 --> 00:14:28.029 so often backfires because it assumes the planner 00:14:28.029 --> 00:14:30.730 knows better than the people. I mean, look at 00:14:30.730 --> 00:14:33.889 the backlash to Agenda 21. Now, I know that's 00:14:33.889 --> 00:14:36.210 been exaggerated by some groups into this whole 00:14:36.210 --> 00:14:38.169 conspiracy theory about a global government, 00:14:38.309 --> 00:14:40.789 but we have to look at the core sentiment driving 00:14:40.789 --> 00:14:44.129 that fear. It is the fear of losing local control 00:14:44.129 --> 00:14:46.950 to some centralized planning authority. People 00:14:46.950 --> 00:14:49.620 don't want to be told how to live. There was 00:14:49.620 --> 00:14:52.419 a study released in 2009 about smart growth policies 00:14:52.419 --> 00:14:54.960 in Maryland, and it characterized them as a failure 00:14:54.960 --> 00:14:57.700 because after 10 years, they simply couldn't 00:14:57.700 --> 00:15:00.419 force buyers to want high density living. The 00:15:00.419 --> 00:15:02.779 market demand for low density was just too strong. 00:15:02.960 --> 00:15:06.220 You cannot legislate preference. I disagree that 00:15:06.220 --> 00:15:09.259 we're legislating preference. I would argue that 00:15:09.259 --> 00:15:12.850 preference is shaped by what's available. For 00:15:12.850 --> 00:15:15.730 70 years, we subsidized sprawl through highway 00:15:15.730 --> 00:15:18.750 building, the GI Bill, and mortgage policies 00:15:18.750 --> 00:15:22.190 that heavily favored single -family homes. We 00:15:22.190 --> 00:15:25.149 literally engineered the suburbs. We made them 00:15:25.149 --> 00:15:28.750 the default choice. Smart growth is simply trying 00:15:28.750 --> 00:15:31.889 to level the playing field. And we have to acknowledge 00:15:31.889 --> 00:15:34.809 the mistakes of the past. The radiant city concept 00:15:34.809 --> 00:15:37.789 by Le Corbusier, those massive modernist towers 00:15:37.789 --> 00:15:41.210 set in parks, we know now that they led to social 00:15:41.210 --> 00:15:44.269 isolation. We agree on that. Those modernist 00:15:44.269 --> 00:15:46.610 towers were a disaster for community. They just 00:15:46.610 --> 00:15:49.509 destroyed street life. But my fear is that current 00:15:49.509 --> 00:15:52.149 smart growth is making a similar mistake, just 00:15:52.149 --> 00:15:55.110 in a different form. Instead of towers in a park, 00:15:55.250 --> 00:15:58.149 it's towers on a train line, priced for the elite, 00:15:58.309 --> 00:16:00.629 while the working class is pushed further out, 00:16:00.730 --> 00:16:03.470 dealing with the congestion caused by that paradox 00:16:03.470 --> 00:16:06.190 of intensification we discussed. But the alternative 00:16:06.190 --> 00:16:09.950 doing nothing guarantees worsening climate impacts 00:16:09.950 --> 00:16:14.230 and gridlock. We have to at least try to reshape 00:16:14.230 --> 00:16:16.970 the built environment. You mentioned Curitiba 00:16:16.970 --> 00:16:19.990 earlier, and that is often cited as the miracle 00:16:19.990 --> 00:16:22.929 of urban planning. But they succeeded because 00:16:22.929 --> 00:16:25.830 they integrated their zoning and their bus rapid 00:16:25.830 --> 00:16:29.669 transit, their BRT system, very early on before 00:16:29.669 --> 00:16:33.220 the city exploded in growth. Most American cities 00:16:33.220 --> 00:16:36.259 are retrofitting. Trying to force a Curitiba 00:16:36.259 --> 00:16:39.279 model onto a sprawling city like Houston or Atlanta 00:16:39.279 --> 00:16:42.460 is incredibly difficult and expensive. You're 00:16:42.460 --> 00:16:46.600 trying to unbake a cake. Difficult, yes, but 00:16:46.600 --> 00:16:49.580 not impossible. And the benefits go beyond just 00:16:49.580 --> 00:16:52.139 the commute. The business case for green building 00:16:52.139 --> 00:16:55.120 also highlights worker productivity. This is 00:16:55.120 --> 00:16:57.460 something businesses are waking up to. Better 00:16:57.460 --> 00:17:00.669 lighting. better air quality, specifically low 00:17:00.669 --> 00:17:03.710 VOCs or volatile organic compounds, which are 00:17:03.710 --> 00:17:06.009 the chemicals off gas by paints and carpets, 00:17:06.049 --> 00:17:08.950 they lead to fewer sick days. This isn't just 00:17:08.950 --> 00:17:11.470 about saving the planet. It's about human health 00:17:11.470 --> 00:17:14.569 and economic output. If we build smarter, we 00:17:14.569 --> 00:17:16.990 live better. The data on sick building syndrome 00:17:16.990 --> 00:17:20.670 is very real. But again, at what cost and who 00:17:20.670 --> 00:17:23.440 pays that cost? I just worry that in our quest 00:17:23.440 --> 00:17:25.660 for the perfect city, we're engineering environments 00:17:25.660 --> 00:17:27.599 that are too expensive for the people who actually 00:17:27.599 --> 00:17:30.259 build them and service them. So to wrap up my 00:17:30.259 --> 00:17:32.819 position, I want to reiterate that while the 00:17:32.819 --> 00:17:35.799 transition to smart growth is messy, it's difficult. 00:17:35.940 --> 00:17:39.339 The data on energy consumption and land use makes 00:17:39.339 --> 00:17:42.539 it, in my view, inevitable. We simply can't afford 00:17:42.539 --> 00:17:44.880 the infrastructure or environmental costs of 00:17:44.880 --> 00:17:47.559 sprawl any longer. The goal isn't to restrict 00:17:47.559 --> 00:17:50.410 freedom. It's to offer genuine transportation 00:17:50.410 --> 00:17:53.750 choices and healthy buildings that just aren't 00:17:53.750 --> 00:17:56.029 available in a sprawl model. We need to design 00:17:56.029 --> 00:17:59.190 for the future, not for the past. And I'll conclude 00:17:59.190 --> 00:18:01.470 by saying that while efficiency is a worthy goal, 00:18:01.690 --> 00:18:04.009 smart growth often ignores the deep -seated human 00:18:04.009 --> 00:18:07.170 desire for space, for privacy, and for autonomy. 00:18:07.369 --> 00:18:10.750 We need to be very, very cautious. When planners 00:18:10.750 --> 00:18:13.029 try to fight the market, the market usually wins, 00:18:13.190 --> 00:18:15.589 and the poor usually lose. We need to ensure 00:18:15.589 --> 00:18:17.950 that policy adapts to how people actually live, 00:18:18.089 --> 00:18:20.809 rather than how planners wish they lived. A city 00:18:20.809 --> 00:18:23.269 is not a math problem to be solved. It is a habitat 00:18:23.269 --> 00:18:26.109 for people. And that is the tension we live with. 00:18:26.670 --> 00:18:29.809 The conflict between the planned city, optimized 00:18:29.809 --> 00:18:32.710 for the collective good, and the organic city, 00:18:32.890 --> 00:18:36.170 driven by individual market choices. It's a tension 00:18:36.170 --> 00:18:40.150 that isn't going away anytime soon. Indeed. Thank 00:18:40.150 --> 00:18:42.410 you for listening to the debate. We hope this 00:18:42.410 --> 00:18:45.170 discussion has illuminated the complex tradeoffs 00:18:45.170 --> 00:18:48.029 inherent in the world we build around us. Until 00:18:48.029 --> 00:18:48.569 next time.