8 ms·

For those new to Strong Towns, I feel this article is most representative of what they’re about: https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme https://www

For those new to Strong Towns, I feel this article is most representative of what they’re about: https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme

labrador 4y ago
I'm skeptical that things are as bad as this article states.
- forum_ghost 4y ago
  The idea is that we just don't have enough productivity to sustain slightly longer roads, and live in the same houses we used to have on farms in 1920s is insulting to reader's intelligence. This is just another piece of luddite alarmism. Always Remember: the situation is SO DIRE, we had to exempt private jets from the fuel tax. Even billionaires simply can't afford to pay gas taxes, this is how bad things are /s: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-09/private-jets-amazon-orders-set-to-escape-higher-eu-energy-taxes https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-09/private-j... Meanwhile the city of Austin debt service is 5% of its budget, and Austin's debt per capita is $1,287. Some Ponzi.
  - x3iv130f 4y ago
    Sure, we can just keep on increasing taxes until all the top earners leave for cheaper areas. I prefer low taxes. What's there to lose by building towns at a human scale? Personally, I can live without Fauxrari speeding past my door at 2 am.
    - pmoriarty 4y ago
      Tax Flight Is a Myth: Higher State Taxes Bring More Revenue, Not More Migration: https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/tax-flight-is-a-myth https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/tax-fligh...
      - refurb 4y ago
        That’s a high quality study! “It found that while the net out-migration rate of this income group accelerated after the tax increase went into effect, so did the net out-migration rate of filers with incomes between $200,000 and $500,000, and by virtually the same amount.” That’s their argument high taxes don’t drive people elsewhere?
        forum_ghost 4y ago
        Luckily Texas is 32nd in tax burden, and has zero state income tax.
        CaptainZapp 4y ago
        Then again, Texans may be in deep shit if the weather turns too cold or too hot and the power grid conked yet again. Believe it or not, but a well maintained infrastructure has a lot to do with adequate taxation and regulation.
        bin_bash 4y ago
        I just bought a generator with some of the tens of thousands I’m saving by not paying CA tax anymore
        refurb 4y ago
        Indeed, unlike say, California whose high taxes have helped create a robust electrical infrastructure which hasn’t randomly started fires destroying entire towns (and killing dozens) and doesn’t have rolling blackouts each summer. Is that what you mean?
        forum_ghost 4y ago
        ERCOT’s CEO was fired over the incident im sure you are referring to. fired within weeks. Who’s getting fired over California’s blackouts? Let me guess, it’s all just climate change?
        User23 4y ago
    - forum_ghost 4y ago
      >I prefer low taxes. Texas is 32rd in terms of tax burden, you will prefer it. >Personally, I can live without Fauxrari speeding past my door at 2 am. That’s an enforcement problem. If you think this doesn’t happen in dense cities, with way more sports carts and way more bars, idk what to tell you. I’ve literally moved to suburbia to escape the city noise. In my case it was fire engines passing by literally every 10 minutes. That’s normal in a dense “human-scale” city centre, but very rare in the suburbs.
      - jacobolus 4y ago
        > moved to suburbia to escape the city noise City noise is almost all from automobiles https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTV-wwszGw8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTV-wwszGw8
  - labrador 4y ago
    Yes and California where I am just announced a 90 billion dollar tax surplus and I see road and bridges getting fixed all the time. Maybe the rest of the country is falling apart. I don't really know.
    - rglullis 4y ago
      - California had the tax surplus, not the towns. - All ponzis look good, until growth stops and the whole thing collapses. - The towns are being bailed out by the state. - The fact that you are seeing roads and bridges getting fixed does not mean that poorer cities are. And Strong Towns also shows that the suburbs (even if richer) get subsidized by the city centers.
  - pas 4y ago
    Austin is a highly productive dense city, not a low density suburb.
    - JeremyNT 4y ago
      Austin may be productive but dense it is not! The city itself is only 1/4 as dense as say Chicago, nevermind if you include the suburbs... Towns like Austin are precisely at issue. They grow by low density sprawl and large roads.
    - renewiltord 4y ago
      There's no way that characterizes Austin. It's a sprawly city. Anyone who even tries to go car free there will be disappointed.
      - pas 4y ago
        Of course it's a typical growing infestation of mostly single-family-homes, but at least it has some urban core as opposed to the suburbs around it. And when Austin can't grow anymore those suburb-only municipalities will, and the prediction is that their finances will continue to worsen as upkeep costs start to dominate.
        forum_ghost 4y ago
        >at least it has some urban core why do they need to exist? they are even harder to maintain than suburbs, have you not noticed the meter thick layer of dirt in the NYC subway?
        pas 4y ago
        that's where the sausage is made NYC public transportation has all the usual problems, but it moves a lot of people who otherwise would not be able to move. (this is basically why it's so "full of crazy people, but it's not a cause it's an effect of the efficiency of NYC)
  - throw0101a 4y ago
    > The idea is that we just don't have enough productivity to sustain slightly longer roads, and live in the same houses we used to have on farms in 1920s is insulting to reader's intelligence. Plenty of academic research/literature on this, as well as books: > Chuck is not the first to point out the financial inefficiencies associated with sprawl. Robert Burchell of Rutgers[1] has led several important studies showing the substantially increased municipal costs associated with sprawl development; my then-colleague Matt Raimi devoted a well-researched chapter to it in our 1999 book Once There Were Greenfields.[2] At NRDC, we undertook a small empirical study[3] in Cleveland and Chicago that confirmed the additional operating and maintenance costs associated with suburban wastewater infrastructure when compared with that in the cities. * https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/ex/sustainablecitiescollective/how-sprawl-bernie-madoff/26448/ https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/ex/sustainablecitiescollecti... Strong Towns is only reporting what the literature is saying. You're free to be skeptical, but that's what they've concluded from the empirical evidence. The claim is falsifiable if you want to get into testing it. Measure the cost of services per acre/hectare of low-density and of high-density, then measure the revenues. You'll see which is net positive and which is net negative: > Urban3 is a consulting company that helps cities better understand the economic impact of development. They have worked with many American cities to better understand and visualize the costs of development, and uncover which properties are productive, and which are not. Some municipalities have been willing to share that information, and it has provided a fascinating glimpse into the financial problems caused by sprawling car-centric suburban development. * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI Lafayette, LA case study from the video: * https://www.urbanthree.com/case-study/lafayette-la/ https://www.urbanthree.com/case-study/lafayette-la/ * https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason-your-city-has-no-money https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason... This is an accounting and ROI issue. If you don't want to believe the numbers… ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    - forum_ghost 4y ago
      >Measure the cost of services per acre/hectare of low-density and of high-density, then measure the revenues. You'll see which is net positive and which is net negative I have no interest in living in shoeboxes. > This is an accounting and ROI issue. Nope. Some just think quality of life isn’t about accounting and ROI. Do enjoy your shoebox though.
  - gota 4y ago
    Isn't Austin a city that is growing, continually attracting people? If so, it is not a valid example against their claim. If you allow some pedantry: The claim is that _cities that don't keep growing_ go broke: a->b Showing ~b (Austin didn't go broke) only allows you to deduct ~a (Austin is growing) by modus tollens
- xyzzyz 4y ago
  Strongtowns is literal misinformation. The story about infrastructure costs killing municipalities is entirely false, and can be seen as such with only bare minimum of research. Infrastructure costs are typically around 10% of the budget of municipalities, and almost universally are under 20%. Look up your own city or town, and report back if you find otherwise.
  - dsr_ 4y ago
    all numbers rounded. I live in a city near Boston. total budget: 300MM school budget: 100MM attributable to maintenance/keeping things running, including debt service: 92MM fire and police: about 20MM each.
    - xyzzyz 4y ago
      Interesting, which city is that?
  - catawbasam 4y ago
    Also add: - debt service related to infrastructure - higher transportation related costs, eg for school buses, fire fighting, parking related building costs But I agree Strongtown arguments tend to ignore other big cost categories.
  - throw0101a 4y ago
    > Infrastructure costs are typically around 10% of the budget of municipalities, and almost universally are under 20%. Today's infrastructure/capital spending is tomorrow's operating spending: * https://www.dearwinnipeg.com/2020/02/24/accounting-101-for-councillors-mayors-and-free-press-columnists/ https://www.dearwinnipeg.com/2020/02/24/accounting-101-for-c... * https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2021/11/8/holy-leaping-dollars-batman https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2021/11/8/holy-leaping-d... If you don't believe this talk your local CPA.
    - xyzzyz 4y ago
      It shouldn’t then be hard to point out to an old suburb, for which tomorrow already came. Where are they?
- skybrian 4y ago
  It seems overbroad in that some cities are doing fine, while in other, less trendy places, there actually are dying towns that these arguments could very well apply to.
  - Sharlin 4y ago
    The article says "most cities". The majority of municipalities in the US and elsewhere are those less trendy places. It’s a case of availability bias to think of NY or LA or Seattle or Austin as representative of "most cities". The "towns" in Strong Towns gives an idea of the size range of the municipalities they are talking about.
  - michael1999 4y ago
    Ponzi schemes run fine as long as the growth continues. The challenge is running at steady-state, or even weathering declines. That’s when you see if full-cycle costs reconcile.
  - tankenmate 4y ago
    To quote Warren Buffet -- "Only when the tide goes out do you discover who's been swimming naked." That's one of the main points of Strong Towns; a focus on resiliency. Down turns in the economy, be it one oversized local sector (a local coal mine maybe) or all sectors (e.g. GFC), can be a trigger for a collapse; especially for a community that has focused all it's efficiency on that (those) sectors. If there's nothing left in the tank when the bad times come you only have one option left, collapse (and quite often a cascading collapse). Here's a term I just came up with; Sociological margin call.
    - michael1999 4y ago
      That's a nice vivid metaphor for financial types. Although margin calls usually trigger liquidation, while Tainter's model of catabolic collapse starts more like an orderly wind-down. Or maybe a private vulture buyout. The real liquidation happens later.
  - actionablefiber 4y ago
- rurban 4y ago
  As ex-urban planner in Europe and having lived in Houston, academic and professional knowledge of this wrong development in the US is widely known. He is just citing popular knowledge of the failed "American dream", suburban development for cars, not families. Most of Europe has held a strong opposition to this development, and did fine.
- throw0101a 4y ago
  Strong Towns has plenty of case studies of different places, to varying degrees, losing quite a bit of money on maintenance: - Spokane: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/10/24/dispatches-from-spokane-living-a-soft-default https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/10/24/dispatches-fr... - Kanas City: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/5/5/kansas-citys-fateful-suburban-experiment https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/5/5/kansas-citys-fa... - Cobb County: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/8/3/cobb-county-addicted-to-growth https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/8/3/cobb-county-add... - Collin County: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/9/27/a-texas-sized-pavement-problem https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/9/27/a-texas-sized-... - Baxter: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2015/1/18/the-classic-case-arp6t https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2015/1/18/the-classic-ca... And then add to that the costs of climate change for car-centric development. And health effect costs of car-centric development.
  - labrador 4y ago
    That some cities get in trouble for any number of reasons isn't news and has been true throughout history, but to call America a Ponzi scheme is essentially meaningless. You might as well call civilization itself a Ponzi scheme that requires new members when they turn 18 to participate while old members at 65 cash out. Outlining why civilization was a mistake is interesting, but not sure what good can come out of it: Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Noah Harari
    - enragedcacti 4y ago
      > but to call America a Ponzi scheme is essentially meaningless Calling one specific economically advanced civilization a ponzi scheme because it has radically different and unsustainable development policy is far from meaningless given there are obvious models outside of the US that we could transition to. > You might as well call civilization itself a Ponzi scheme that requires new members when they turn 18 to participate while old members at 65 cash out. You might as well call all investments a ponzi scheme if our only requirement is that some people are buying in while others are exiting. The interesting aspect of an investment (or civilization/development policy) is how sustainable it is and how transparent it is about its sustainability. > Outlining why civilization was a mistake is interesting, but not sure what good can come out of it Strong Towns doesn't advocate that civilization was a mistake, and the good that can come of their work is not continuing to double down on unsustainable development practices.
- throw0101a 4y ago
  Plenty of academic research/literature on this, as well as book: > Chuck is not the first to point out the financial inefficiencies associated with sprawl. Robert Burchell of Rutgers[1] has led several important studies showing the substantially increased municipal costs associated with sprawl development; my then-colleague Matt Raimi devoted a well-researched chapter to it in our 1999 book Once There Were Greenfields.[2] At NRDC, we undertook a small empirical study[3] in Cleveland and Chicago that confirmed the additional operating and maintenance costs associated with suburban wastewater infrastructure when compared with that in the cities. * https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/ex/sustainablecitiescollective/how-sprawl-bernie-madoff/26448/ https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/ex/sustainablecitiescollecti... Strong Towns is only reporting what the literature is saying. You're free to be skeptical, but that's what they've concluded from the empirical evidence. The claim is falsifiable if you want to get into testing it.
jordanpg 4y ago
I read the article, and still don't see what is being proposed. > we need to intentionally return to our traditional pattern of development, one based on creating neighborhoods of value, scaled to actual people. When we do this, we will inevitably rediscover our traditional values of prudence and thrift as well as the value of community and place. So, less suburbs and more what?
- ryukafalz 4y ago
  Walkable cities and walkable small towns.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    What does a walkable small town mean? I can walk to a pub, maybe some other food place, and a small market? The town I live in, like many around New England, has a cute little town center where the library and town hall are but there's not a lot else there. I'm certainly not living there without a car even if I were in the center. I've spent some time doing walking tours in England and it doesn't seem much different.
    - presentation 4y ago
      Strongtowns isn’t totally anti car; it sounds like your small New England town is in the line of things they consider desirable. My small Midwestern childhood suburb would have me drive at least 15 minutes to get to the nearest business, which was a big box supermarket with a parking lot that would take 10 minutes to walk across, plus crossing a highway sized median in order to get to the next business over. Meaning totally unwalkable, which is how most of the USA is - no town center with anything worth going to, meaning no community worth being a part of, and really high infrastructure costs for a very unproductive area.
      - ghaff 4y ago
        > it sounds like your small New England town is in the line of things they consider desirable. I don't know. It's mostly old farming towns around where I live. They don't generally have a lot of retail businesses--although the bigger ones may have some on the main street going through town. They're pleasant towns but you're mostly not walking to get places. To grocery shop I'm driving 15 minutes or to the nearest small city next door. My town is the oldest one in the neighborhood (1600s) and my house is a couple hundred years old. But it was mostly farms so everything is pretty spread out.
mattcwilson 4y ago
You may also appreciate: https://devonzuegel.com/post/we-should-be-building-cities-for-people-not-cars https://devonzuegel.com/post/we-should-be-building-cities-fo...

labrador 4y ago

I'm skeptical that things are as bad as this article states.

forum_ghost 4y ago
The idea is that we just don't have enough productivity to sustain slightly longer roads, and live in the same houses we used to have on farms in 1920s is insulting to reader's intelligence. This is just another piece of luddite alarmism. Always Remember: the situation is SO DIRE, we had to exempt private jets from the fuel tax. Even billionaires simply can't afford to pay gas taxes, this is how bad things are /s: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-09/private-jets-amazon-orders-set-to-escape-higher-eu-energy-taxes https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-09/private-j... Meanwhile the city of Austin debt service is 5% of its budget, and Austin's debt per capita is $1,287. Some Ponzi.
- x3iv130f 4y ago
  Sure, we can just keep on increasing taxes until all the top earners leave for cheaper areas. I prefer low taxes. What's there to lose by building towns at a human scale? Personally, I can live without Fauxrari speeding past my door at 2 am.
  - pmoriarty 4y ago
    Tax Flight Is a Myth: Higher State Taxes Bring More Revenue, Not More Migration: https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/tax-flight-is-a-myth https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/tax-fligh...
    - refurb 4y ago
      That’s a high quality study! “It found that while the net out-migration rate of this income group accelerated after the tax increase went into effect, so did the net out-migration rate of filers with incomes between $200,000 and $500,000, and by virtually the same amount.” That’s their argument high taxes don’t drive people elsewhere?
      - forum_ghost 4y ago
        Luckily Texas is 32nd in tax burden, and has zero state income tax.
        CaptainZapp 4y ago
        Then again, Texans may be in deep shit if the weather turns too cold or too hot and the power grid conked yet again. Believe it or not, but a well maintained infrastructure has a lot to do with adequate taxation and regulation.
        bin_bash 4y ago
        I just bought a generator with some of the tens of thousands I’m saving by not paying CA tax anymore
        refurb 4y ago
        Indeed, unlike say, California whose high taxes have helped create a robust electrical infrastructure which hasn’t randomly started fires destroying entire towns (and killing dozens) and doesn’t have rolling blackouts each summer. Is that what you mean?
        forum_ghost 4y ago
        ERCOT’s CEO was fired over the incident im sure you are referring to. fired within weeks. Who’s getting fired over California’s blackouts? Let me guess, it’s all just climate change?
        User23 4y ago
  - forum_ghost 4y ago
    >I prefer low taxes. Texas is 32rd in terms of tax burden, you will prefer it. >Personally, I can live without Fauxrari speeding past my door at 2 am. That’s an enforcement problem. If you think this doesn’t happen in dense cities, with way more sports carts and way more bars, idk what to tell you. I’ve literally moved to suburbia to escape the city noise. In my case it was fire engines passing by literally every 10 minutes. That’s normal in a dense “human-scale” city centre, but very rare in the suburbs.
    - jacobolus 4y ago
      > moved to suburbia to escape the city noise City noise is almost all from automobiles https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTV-wwszGw8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTV-wwszGw8
- labrador 4y ago
  Yes and California where I am just announced a 90 billion dollar tax surplus and I see road and bridges getting fixed all the time. Maybe the rest of the country is falling apart. I don't really know.
  - rglullis 4y ago
    - California had the tax surplus, not the towns. - All ponzis look good, until growth stops and the whole thing collapses. - The towns are being bailed out by the state. - The fact that you are seeing roads and bridges getting fixed does not mean that poorer cities are. And Strong Towns also shows that the suburbs (even if richer) get subsidized by the city centers.
- pas 4y ago
  Austin is a highly productive dense city, not a low density suburb.
  - JeremyNT 4y ago
    Austin may be productive but dense it is not! The city itself is only 1/4 as dense as say Chicago, nevermind if you include the suburbs... Towns like Austin are precisely at issue. They grow by low density sprawl and large roads.
  - renewiltord 4y ago
    There's no way that characterizes Austin. It's a sprawly city. Anyone who even tries to go car free there will be disappointed.
    - pas 4y ago
      Of course it's a typical growing infestation of mostly single-family-homes, but at least it has some urban core as opposed to the suburbs around it. And when Austin can't grow anymore those suburb-only municipalities will, and the prediction is that their finances will continue to worsen as upkeep costs start to dominate.
      - forum_ghost 4y ago
        >at least it has some urban core why do they need to exist? they are even harder to maintain than suburbs, have you not noticed the meter thick layer of dirt in the NYC subway?
        pas 4y ago
        that's where the sausage is made NYC public transportation has all the usual problems, but it moves a lot of people who otherwise would not be able to move. (this is basically why it's so "full of crazy people, but it's not a cause it's an effect of the efficiency of NYC)
- throw0101a 4y ago
  > The idea is that we just don't have enough productivity to sustain slightly longer roads, and live in the same houses we used to have on farms in 1920s is insulting to reader's intelligence. Plenty of academic research/literature on this, as well as books: > Chuck is not the first to point out the financial inefficiencies associated with sprawl. Robert Burchell of Rutgers[1] has led several important studies showing the substantially increased municipal costs associated with sprawl development; my then-colleague Matt Raimi devoted a well-researched chapter to it in our 1999 book Once There Were Greenfields.[2] At NRDC, we undertook a small empirical study[3] in Cleveland and Chicago that confirmed the additional operating and maintenance costs associated with suburban wastewater infrastructure when compared with that in the cities. * https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/ex/sustainablecitiescollective/how-sprawl-bernie-madoff/26448/ https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/ex/sustainablecitiescollecti... Strong Towns is only reporting what the literature is saying. You're free to be skeptical, but that's what they've concluded from the empirical evidence. The claim is falsifiable if you want to get into testing it. Measure the cost of services per acre/hectare of low-density and of high-density, then measure the revenues. You'll see which is net positive and which is net negative: > Urban3 is a consulting company that helps cities better understand the economic impact of development. They have worked with many American cities to better understand and visualize the costs of development, and uncover which properties are productive, and which are not. Some municipalities have been willing to share that information, and it has provided a fascinating glimpse into the financial problems caused by sprawling car-centric suburban development. * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI Lafayette, LA case study from the video: * https://www.urbanthree.com/case-study/lafayette-la/ https://www.urbanthree.com/case-study/lafayette-la/ * https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason-your-city-has-no-money https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason... This is an accounting and ROI issue. If you don't want to believe the numbers… ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  - forum_ghost 4y ago
    >Measure the cost of services per acre/hectare of low-density and of high-density, then measure the revenues. You'll see which is net positive and which is net negative I have no interest in living in shoeboxes. > This is an accounting and ROI issue. Nope. Some just think quality of life isn’t about accounting and ROI. Do enjoy your shoebox though.
- gota 4y ago
  Isn't Austin a city that is growing, continually attracting people? If so, it is not a valid example against their claim. If you allow some pedantry: The claim is that _cities that don't keep growing_ go broke: a->b Showing ~b (Austin didn't go broke) only allows you to deduct ~a (Austin is growing) by modus tollens
xyzzyz 4y ago
Strongtowns is literal misinformation. The story about infrastructure costs killing municipalities is entirely false, and can be seen as such with only bare minimum of research. Infrastructure costs are typically around 10% of the budget of municipalities, and almost universally are under 20%. Look up your own city or town, and report back if you find otherwise.
- dsr_ 4y ago
  all numbers rounded. I live in a city near Boston. total budget: 300MM school budget: 100MM attributable to maintenance/keeping things running, including debt service: 92MM fire and police: about 20MM each.
  - xyzzyz 4y ago
    Interesting, which city is that?
- catawbasam 4y ago
  Also add: - debt service related to infrastructure - higher transportation related costs, eg for school buses, fire fighting, parking related building costs But I agree Strongtown arguments tend to ignore other big cost categories.
- throw0101a 4y ago
  > Infrastructure costs are typically around 10% of the budget of municipalities, and almost universally are under 20%. Today's infrastructure/capital spending is tomorrow's operating spending: * https://www.dearwinnipeg.com/2020/02/24/accounting-101-for-councillors-mayors-and-free-press-columnists/ https://www.dearwinnipeg.com/2020/02/24/accounting-101-for-c... * https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2021/11/8/holy-leaping-dollars-batman https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2021/11/8/holy-leaping-d... If you don't believe this talk your local CPA.
  - xyzzyz 4y ago
    It shouldn’t then be hard to point out to an old suburb, for which tomorrow already came. Where are they?
skybrian 4y ago
It seems overbroad in that some cities are doing fine, while in other, less trendy places, there actually are dying towns that these arguments could very well apply to.
- Sharlin 4y ago
  The article says "most cities". The majority of municipalities in the US and elsewhere are those less trendy places. It’s a case of availability bias to think of NY or LA or Seattle or Austin as representative of "most cities". The "towns" in Strong Towns gives an idea of the size range of the municipalities they are talking about.
- michael1999 4y ago
  Ponzi schemes run fine as long as the growth continues. The challenge is running at steady-state, or even weathering declines. That’s when you see if full-cycle costs reconcile.
- tankenmate 4y ago
  To quote Warren Buffet -- "Only when the tide goes out do you discover who's been swimming naked." That's one of the main points of Strong Towns; a focus on resiliency. Down turns in the economy, be it one oversized local sector (a local coal mine maybe) or all sectors (e.g. GFC), can be a trigger for a collapse; especially for a community that has focused all it's efficiency on that (those) sectors. If there's nothing left in the tank when the bad times come you only have one option left, collapse (and quite often a cascading collapse). Here's a term I just came up with; Sociological margin call.
  - michael1999 4y ago
    That's a nice vivid metaphor for financial types. Although margin calls usually trigger liquidation, while Tainter's model of catabolic collapse starts more like an orderly wind-down. Or maybe a private vulture buyout. The real liquidation happens later.
- actionablefiber 4y ago
rurban 4y ago
As ex-urban planner in Europe and having lived in Houston, academic and professional knowledge of this wrong development in the US is widely known. He is just citing popular knowledge of the failed "American dream", suburban development for cars, not families. Most of Europe has held a strong opposition to this development, and did fine.
throw0101a 4y ago
Strong Towns has plenty of case studies of different places, to varying degrees, losing quite a bit of money on maintenance: - Spokane: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/10/24/dispatches-from-spokane-living-a-soft-default https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/10/24/dispatches-fr... - Kanas City: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/5/5/kansas-citys-fateful-suburban-experiment https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/5/5/kansas-citys-fa... - Cobb County: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/8/3/cobb-county-addicted-to-growth https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/8/3/cobb-county-add... - Collin County: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/9/27/a-texas-sized-pavement-problem https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/9/27/a-texas-sized-... - Baxter: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2015/1/18/the-classic-case-arp6t https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2015/1/18/the-classic-ca... And then add to that the costs of climate change for car-centric development. And health effect costs of car-centric development.
- labrador 4y ago
  That some cities get in trouble for any number of reasons isn't news and has been true throughout history, but to call America a Ponzi scheme is essentially meaningless. You might as well call civilization itself a Ponzi scheme that requires new members when they turn 18 to participate while old members at 65 cash out. Outlining why civilization was a mistake is interesting, but not sure what good can come out of it: Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Noah Harari
  - enragedcacti 4y ago
    > but to call America a Ponzi scheme is essentially meaningless Calling one specific economically advanced civilization a ponzi scheme because it has radically different and unsustainable development policy is far from meaningless given there are obvious models outside of the US that we could transition to. > You might as well call civilization itself a Ponzi scheme that requires new members when they turn 18 to participate while old members at 65 cash out. You might as well call all investments a ponzi scheme if our only requirement is that some people are buying in while others are exiting. The interesting aspect of an investment (or civilization/development policy) is how sustainable it is and how transparent it is about its sustainability. > Outlining why civilization was a mistake is interesting, but not sure what good can come out of it Strong Towns doesn't advocate that civilization was a mistake, and the good that can come of their work is not continuing to double down on unsustainable development practices.
throw0101a 4y ago
Plenty of academic research/literature on this, as well as book: > Chuck is not the first to point out the financial inefficiencies associated with sprawl. Robert Burchell of Rutgers[1] has led several important studies showing the substantially increased municipal costs associated with sprawl development; my then-colleague Matt Raimi devoted a well-researched chapter to it in our 1999 book Once There Were Greenfields.[2] At NRDC, we undertook a small empirical study[3] in Cleveland and Chicago that confirmed the additional operating and maintenance costs associated with suburban wastewater infrastructure when compared with that in the cities. * https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/ex/sustainablecitiescollective/how-sprawl-bernie-madoff/26448/ https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/ex/sustainablecitiescollecti... Strong Towns is only reporting what the literature is saying. You're free to be skeptical, but that's what they've concluded from the empirical evidence. The claim is falsifiable if you want to get into testing it.

jordanpg 4y ago

I read the article, and still don't see what is being proposed. > we need to intentionally return to our traditional pattern of development, one based on creating neighborhoods of value, scaled to actual people. When we do this, we will inevitably rediscover our traditional values of prudence and thrift as well as the value of community and place. So, less suburbs and more what?

ryukafalz 4y ago
Walkable cities and walkable small towns.
- ghaff 4y ago
  What does a walkable small town mean? I can walk to a pub, maybe some other food place, and a small market? The town I live in, like many around New England, has a cute little town center where the library and town hall are but there's not a lot else there. I'm certainly not living there without a car even if I were in the center. I've spent some time doing walking tours in England and it doesn't seem much different.
  - presentation 4y ago
    Strongtowns isn’t totally anti car; it sounds like your small New England town is in the line of things they consider desirable. My small Midwestern childhood suburb would have me drive at least 15 minutes to get to the nearest business, which was a big box supermarket with a parking lot that would take 10 minutes to walk across, plus crossing a highway sized median in order to get to the next business over. Meaning totally unwalkable, which is how most of the USA is - no town center with anything worth going to, meaning no community worth being a part of, and really high infrastructure costs for a very unproductive area.
    - ghaff 4y ago
      > it sounds like your small New England town is in the line of things they consider desirable. I don't know. It's mostly old farming towns around where I live. They don't generally have a lot of retail businesses--although the bigger ones may have some on the main street going through town. They're pleasant towns but you're mostly not walking to get places. To grocery shop I'm driving 15 minutes or to the nearest small city next door. My town is the oldest one in the neighborhood (1600s) and my house is a couple hundred years old. But it was mostly farms so everything is pretty spread out.

mattcwilson 4y ago

You may also appreciate: https://devonzuegel.com/post/we-should-be-building-cities-for-people-not-cars https://devonzuegel.com/post/we-should-be-building-cities-fo...