5 ms·

Strong Towns preaches incremental development. Building anything "out of thin air" is basically antithetical that that.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
bufordsharkley 8y ago
And to finance things sensibly based upon real revenue flows, not speculative debt drawing on wishful thoughts about future growth.
Spooky23 8y ago
Sounds like the no true Scotsman approach to urban planning.
- pretendscholar 8y ago
  How? Not complying with one of the explicit tenets of the Strongtowns philosophy seems like a valid rebuttal.
- albedoa 8y ago
  Can you tell us how it fits the definition of a No True Scotsman?
  - pasabagi 8y ago
    I'm not him - but it's obviously something close, if not full NTS. Real implementations always differ from ideals, so it's always possible to take a divergence and say it makes the implementation antithetical to the ideal. That's the heart of the fallacy. To counter, you'd have to identify the heart of the Strong Towns idea, the 'spirit', and demonstrate how the implementation violates that spirit.
    - albedoa 8y ago
      You don't think incrementalism is at the heart of the Strong Towns idea?
      - pasabagi 8y ago
        I've no opinion. All I'm saying is, if you don't give strong evidence that it is at the idea's heart, then the argument is No-True-Scotsman. Like a lot of fallacies, there's a rather subtle ground between fallacious reasoning and legitimate argument, and I think NTS is basically in a class of problems like the ship of Theseus, that play on the distinction we commonly draw between the identity of a thing, and the thing itself.
        albedoa 8y ago
        > it's obviously something close, if not full NTS. > I've no opinion. Well this is a confusing line. Anyway, in addition to the other evidence provided in this thread, here is part of the Strong Towns mission statement[1]: Enduring prosperity for our communities cannot be artificially created from the outside but must be built from within, incrementally over time. 1. https://www.strongtowns.org/mission/ https://www.strongtowns.org/mission/
    - mercutio2 8y ago
      Criticizing a specifically incorrect caricature of the tenets of an organization by pointing out the actual tenets of the organization is about as far from No True Scotsman as I can imagine.
      - village-idiot 8y ago
        It's actually a strawman, ironically enough.
  - jkoudys 8y ago
    "No True Scotsman" is second only to ad-hominem on the list of frequently misidentified fallacies in comments sections.
- TheCoelacanth 8y ago
  I disagree completely. Carmel's approach of building a big fancy new neighborhood all at once is the exact opposite of StrongTown's suggested approach of making small incremental improvements spread across many poor neighborhoods. [1] > Rely on small, incremental investments (little bets) instead of large, transformative projects. > Inspire by bottom-up action (chaotic but smart) and not top-down systems (orderly but dumb). > Seek to conduct as much of life as possible at a personal scale. > Obsess about accounting for revenues, expenses, assets, and long-term liabilities (do the math). [2] > Spreading your money out over many small different investments gives you a large hedge against risk > These places are built all at once to a finished state. Today is peak wealth; it's all downhill from here, regardless of how much public investment is made. [1] https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/8/22/the-more-we-grow-the-poorer-we-become https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/8/22/the-more-we-gr... [2] https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/10/poor-neighborhoods-make-the-best-investment https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/10/poor-neighborh...
wahern 8y ago
Indeed. Relax zoning and restrain from subsidization. That should be the primary approach. But it's not free market zealotry. Interventions aren't ruled out, they should just be at the back of your playbook. It's naive to think you can manufacture sustainability (i.e. a cost efficient, opportunity maximizing environment) out of whole cloth. If you intervene don't expect your money back, at least not in a way that let's you balance the books in this lifetime. You're intervening to achieve some specific social objective, then it's manifestly unlikely to produce an economic surplus that can be easily captured, even if it does produce a surplus. If someone says you can have your cake (low-income housing near economic opportunity, ubiquitous mass transit) and eat it too (pays for itself), it's probably a lie. Yes, it happens; but so does winning the lottery. But you don't build a legitimate budget on a pile of lottery tickets.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

And to finance things sensibly based upon real revenue flows, not speculative debt drawing on wishful thoughts about future growth.

Spooky23 8y ago

Sounds like the no true Scotsman approach to urban planning.

pretendscholar 8y ago
How? Not complying with one of the explicit tenets of the Strongtowns philosophy seems like a valid rebuttal.
albedoa 8y ago
Can you tell us how it fits the definition of a No True Scotsman?
- pasabagi 8y ago
  I'm not him - but it's obviously something close, if not full NTS. Real implementations always differ from ideals, so it's always possible to take a divergence and say it makes the implementation antithetical to the ideal. That's the heart of the fallacy. To counter, you'd have to identify the heart of the Strong Towns idea, the 'spirit', and demonstrate how the implementation violates that spirit.
  - albedoa 8y ago
    You don't think incrementalism is at the heart of the Strong Towns idea?
    - pasabagi 8y ago
      I've no opinion. All I'm saying is, if you don't give strong evidence that it is at the idea's heart, then the argument is No-True-Scotsman. Like a lot of fallacies, there's a rather subtle ground between fallacious reasoning and legitimate argument, and I think NTS is basically in a class of problems like the ship of Theseus, that play on the distinction we commonly draw between the identity of a thing, and the thing itself.
      - albedoa 8y ago
        > it's obviously something close, if not full NTS. > I've no opinion. Well this is a confusing line. Anyway, in addition to the other evidence provided in this thread, here is part of the Strong Towns mission statement[1]: Enduring prosperity for our communities cannot be artificially created from the outside but must be built from within, incrementally over time. 1. https://www.strongtowns.org/mission/ https://www.strongtowns.org/mission/
  - mercutio2 8y ago
    Criticizing a specifically incorrect caricature of the tenets of an organization by pointing out the actual tenets of the organization is about as far from No True Scotsman as I can imagine.
    - village-idiot 8y ago
      It's actually a strawman, ironically enough.
- jkoudys 8y ago
  "No True Scotsman" is second only to ad-hominem on the list of frequently misidentified fallacies in comments sections.
TheCoelacanth 8y ago
I disagree completely. Carmel's approach of building a big fancy new neighborhood all at once is the exact opposite of StrongTown's suggested approach of making small incremental improvements spread across many poor neighborhoods. [1] > Rely on small, incremental investments (little bets) instead of large, transformative projects. > Inspire by bottom-up action (chaotic but smart) and not top-down systems (orderly but dumb). > Seek to conduct as much of life as possible at a personal scale. > Obsess about accounting for revenues, expenses, assets, and long-term liabilities (do the math). [2] > Spreading your money out over many small different investments gives you a large hedge against risk > These places are built all at once to a finished state. Today is peak wealth; it's all downhill from here, regardless of how much public investment is made. [1] https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/8/22/the-more-we-grow-the-poorer-we-become https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/8/22/the-more-we-gr... [2] https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/10/poor-neighborhoods-make-the-best-investment https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/10/poor-neighborh...

wahern 8y ago

Indeed. Relax zoning and restrain from subsidization. That should be the primary approach. But it's not free market zealotry. Interventions aren't ruled out, they should just be at the back of your playbook. It's naive to think you can manufacture sustainability (i.e. a cost efficient, opportunity maximizing environment) out of whole cloth. If you intervene don't expect your money back, at least not in a way that let's you balance the books in this lifetime. You're intervening to achieve some specific social objective, then it's manifestly unlikely to produce an economic surplus that can be easily captured, even if it does produce a surplus. If someone says you can have your cake (low-income housing near economic opportunity, ubiquitous mass transit) and eat it too (pays for itself), it's probably a lie. Yes, it happens; but so does winning the lottery. But you don't build a legitimate budget on a pile of lottery tickets.