Upzoned

Are you a Strong Towns member? If so, don’t miss the announcement inside the podcast for a fun, free event with games, a live recording of Upzoned, and, apparently, chocolate milk and Diet Mountain Dew. Last May, we devoted an episode of the Upzoned podcast to talk about the decision of Sidewalk Labs (a subsidiary of Google’s parent company, Alphabet) to pull out of Toronto’s Quayside development. The project, first announced in 2017, had intended to transform 12 acres of industrial land on Toronto’s waterfront into a “high-tech utopia,” complete with “mass timber housing, heated and illuminated sidewalks, public Wi-Fi, and, of course, a host of cameras and other sensors to monitor traffic and street life.” The project was controversial from the start—not least because of privacy concerns. Then last spring the CEO of Sidewalk Labs announced the company was no longer pursuing the Quayside project due to “unprecedented economic uncertainty.” Earlier this month, the City of Toronto released a new RFP for the 12-acre site. The new vision is not for a neighborhood reimagined “from the internet up”, but rather, according to a recent article in The Guardian, a “people-centred vision” in which “affordability, sustainability and environmentally friendly design are prioritized over the trappings of new and often untested technologies.” Upzoned host Abby Kinney, an urban planner in Kansas City, and regular co-host Chuck Marohn, the president of Strong Towns, return to talk about Toronto’s new plans for Quayside. How “people-centered” is the new vision? In fact, how different is the vision, really? The wooden skyscrapers and heated sidewalks may be gone, but what remains—the underlying chassis—appears the same: building all at once and to a finished state. Abby and Chuck talk about why Toronto seems stuck in the big planning mindset and what happens when mega-projects get new marketing brochures. They also discuss a truly people-centered approach: a city shaped by many hands, and projects that can be adapted, re-used, and are good for more than just one thing. Then in the Downzone, Chuck talks about an audiobook he’s listening to on the story of human language. And Abby recommends the podcast miniseries Nice White Parents. Additional Show Notes: “Toronto swaps Google-backed, not-so-smart city plans for people-centred vision,” by Leyland Cecco “Smart Cities: "Are we creating solutions looking for problems?" (Podcast) Abby Kinney (Twitter) Charles Marohn (Twitter) Daniel Herriges (Twitter) Gould Evans Studio for City Design Theme Music by Kemet the Phantom (Soundcloud) Strong Towns content related to this episode “A City Shaped by Many Hands,” by Daniel Herriges “In Defense of Dumb Cities,” by Michael McGinn “Inefficient but Smart,” by Daniel Herriges “Failure Is an Option,” by John Pattison “Unleash the Swarm,” by Daniel Herriges

New York City is at a crossroads. So say Carlo Ratti and Saskia Sassen in a recent Bloomberg CityLab article, “The Case for a Duty to the City.” Many wealthy residents are fleeing New York City for the suburbs. Perhaps a third of the small businesses that closed down last year won’t be returning. And, according to a recent survey, executives report plans to reduce office space by 30%. Ratti, the director of the Senseable City Lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Sassen, a Professor of Sociology at Columbia University, say New York has a choice right now: If we do not act, we might end up with a metropolis of zombie neighborhoods, engulfed in a downward spiral of struggling businesses catering to increasingly empty offices. However, if we implement the right policies and foster a quick restructuring of real estate assets, the looming disruption may give us an opportunity—to test out urban policies we have never had the will or the necessity to imagine, much less implement. With familiar options destabilized, the times are inviting us to be innovators. To revitalize the city they suggest policy changes like vacancy taxes, more flexible zoning regulations, and working with governments and nonprofits to provisionally repurpose properties. They make the case that owners and tenants have a “duty” to the city: If you have a property in the city, you should not leave it empty. Why a duty? Because a city “is not just an agglomeration of real estate assets; it is primarily a repository of human vitality, without which those assets would be worthless.” Ratti and Sassen’s article is the topic of this week’s episode of Upzoned, with host Abby Kinney, an urban planner in Kansas City, and regular cohost Chuck Marohn, the founder and president of Strong Towns. Abby and Chuck talk about the challenge of transitioning the financial and regulatory environments in a place like New York, the pros and cons of a vacancy tax, and the systems that encourage land speculation. They also talk about the powerful rhetoric of “duty,” and how it might help towns and cities—including, but certainly not limited to, New York City—get unstuck and start building real prosperity. Then in the Downzone, Chuck recommends Uprooted, the new book by Grace Olmstead. (Olmstead was our guest on Monday’s Strong Towns podcast.) And Abby talks about an upcoming vacation. Additional Show Notes “The Case for a Duty to the City,” by Carlo Ratti and Saskia Sassen “Grace Olmstead: The Legacy—and the Future—of the Places We’ve Left Behind” (Podcast) “Richard Florida: Remote Work and ‘The Rise of the Rest’" (Podcast & Video) Abby Kinney (Twitter) Charles Marohn (Twitter) Gould Evans Studio for City Design Theme Music by Kemet the Phantom (Soundcloud) Strong Towns content related to this episode: “New York transit is facing ‘Doomsday’ cuts. Should non-New Yorkers bail it out?” by Charles Marohn “Pandemic Fallout: Will New York City Experience Long-term Decline?” (Podcast) “Thank You from a Land Speculator” (Video) “This $15 Trillion Market Is On the Verge of Collapse” (Podcast) “Why Is That House or Storefront Vacant?” by Tracy Hadden Loh and Michael Rodriguez “The Paradox of Persistent Vacancies and High Prices,” by Charles Marohn

Recent winter storms in Texas and elsewhere around the United States are just the latest example of how vulnerable cities and residents are to sudden shocks to their electrical grids. Last summer, about half-a-million homes in Californians experienced rolling blackouts. Wildfire concerns last year also prompted Pacific Gas & Electric—or PG&E, which provides electricity and gas to 16 million Californians—to make “preemptive power shutoffs.” This was in response to lessons learned from the 2018 Camp Fire, which was ignited by PG&E power lines, and which killed at least 86 people. Big utility companies like PG&E have a near-monopoly in their respective regions. What alternatives do cities have—if any—to providing safe, reliable electricity to residents and businesses? The farming town of Gonzales, California (pop. 9,000) is finding a way. As described in a recent story on KCRW, Gonzales is creating California’s largest multi-customer microgrid. Microgrids are local power grids that can be either separate from, or connected to, the larger grid. “In California,” says KCRW contributor Joe Mathews, “[microgrids] are seen as tools to make electricity service more resilient and to better integrate renewable energy sources, like solar and wind. But efforts to establish microgrids face complex obstacles, including scarce financing, regulatory barriers, and utility opposition.” He continues: What distinguishes Gonzales is how the town is bringing together different entities—a technologically advanced microgrid developer, agricultural businesses, and a municipal energy authority—to surmount those obstacles. If the microgrid launches successfully next year, Gonzales could provide a model for other communities, especially those in outlying areas poorly served by the existing grid. In this episode of the Upzoned podcast, host Abby Kinney, an urban planner in Kansas City, and regular cohost Chuck Marohn, the founder and president of Strong Towns, talk about why cities and residents are looking for resilient alternatives to the big utility companies. They discuss the history of how electric power went from something managed locally to the more centralized systems we have today. And they talk about the disconnect between the producers of electricity and the users of electricity, whether more cities should pursue the course being charted by Gonzales, and the role individual producers—for example, folks with their own solar panels—play in energy resilience. Then in the Downzone, Chuck describes a book he’s reading by a former insider at the Federal Reserve. And Abby talks about binge-watching a show considered to be one of TV’s best ever. Additional Show Notes “A small farm community leads the way on energy independence,” by Joe Mathews Abby Kinney (Twitter) Charles Marohn (Twitter) Gould Evans Studio for City Design Theme Music by Kemet the Phantom (Soundcloud)

On February 22, 2011, a magnitude 6.3 earthquake struck near Christchurch, New Zealand, killing 185 people. Writing in Slate last month, James Dann said that the quake’s impact on the built environment of Christchurch, a city built on drained swampland, was unprecedented. “More than 1,200 buildings inside the central four avenues were destroyed by the quake or by demolition crews in the years after.” He continued: In the suburbs, a process called liquefaction was just as devastating. As the ground shook, water and sand squeezed up through the soil to the surface, leaving the soil to subside into the space the water had vacated. Houses slumped, and roads folded inward like the icing on a failing chocolate cake. In the hardest-hit eastern suburbs, the government eventually bought out and demolished about 6,500 houses, upending countless families. In his article—“The Last City of the 20th Century”—Dann describes not only the catastrophe of the earthquake itself but also the catastrophic missteps of local and national leaders in rebuilding Christchurch. In the months after the earthquake, there was a huge amount of public input—10,000 people with 100,000 ideas, literally—on how the city should move forward. Yet the national government rejected the community-generated, bottom-up proposal; it went instead with a top-down plan (created behind closed doors) called “the Blueprint.” The results will be sadly familiar to North American readers: Expensive and risky megaprojects, restrictive zoning, clustering activities into “precincts” (there’s even a Justice and Emergency Services Precinct), limiting the number of developers who can be involved, a focus less on current residents and more on luring tourists and out-of-town businesses—all couched in familiar buzzwords like “innovation” and “livability.” Dann concludes that the Blueprint plan “fundamentally misunderstood the organic, spontaneous nature of cities. Places evolve because of the people who live and work in them.” Dann’s article and the Christchurch rebuild are the topics of this week’s episode of Upzoned, with host Abby Kinney, an urban planner in Kansas City, and regular co-host Chuck Maroh, the founder and president of Strong Towns. Abby and Chuck talk about how Christchurch has become an object lesson in how not to rebuild after disaster, why great places aren’t manifestations of big projects, and about the Robert Moses theory-of-change that leads to top-down plans like the Blueprint in Christchurch...and to similar plans across North America. Chuck also reflects on meeting people from New Zealand at CNU and other gatherings in the years immediately after the earthquake...and how he watched those New Zealanders grow increasingly frustrated at the government’s handling of the rebuild. Then, in what must be one of the most unusual Downzones ever, Chuck recommends a book by a Harvard scientist about the search for extraterrestrial life. And Abby talks about a book she’s reading with the subtitle “Charles Manson, the CIA, and the Secret History of the Sixties.” We won’t blame you if the Downzone makes you want to go rewatch The X-Files. The truth is out there. Additional Show Notes “The Last City of the 20th Century,” by James Dann Abby Kinney (Twitter) Charles Marohn (Twitter) Gould Evans Studio for City Design Theme Music by Kemet the Phantom (Soundcloud) Strong Towns content related to this episode: “You Can't Achieve Jane Jacobs Ends with Robert Moses Means—But What If You Don't Have a Choice?” by Daniel Herriges “Robert Moses' Methods Can't Achieve Jane Jacobs' Goals” “Let's End ‘Entertainment Districts,’” by Nathaniel M. Hood “It Should Be About People,” by Nathaniel M. Hood “The Opportunity Cost of Tax Incentives in Kansas City,” by Daniel Herriges “Ready, Fire, Aim: Tax Incentives in Kansas City,” by Daniel Herriges “Conventional Thinking: Stop Pinning all Your City’s Hopes on Big Projects and Events,” by Rachel Quednau

Strong Towns president Chuck Marohn has said that one change every city should make is to allow the next increment of development intensity by-right—i.e., single-family zoning would now permit duplexes, and so on. But if every city should make that change, does that mean states should come in and make that decision for cities—as Oregon recently did for cities with House Bill 2001? Not necessarily. This week’s episode of the Upzoned podcast is inspired by a recent article in Governing magazine called “States Preempt Cities Almost to the Point of Irrelevance.” In that piece, senior staff writer Alan Greenblatt describes how, over the past decade and across many issues, state governments have preempted local decision-making. For example, Texas, Arizona, Indiana and Louisiana are considering legislation that would prevent cities from reducing police or public safety budgets. Texas governor Greg Abbot went as far as to tweet: “We will defund cities that tried to defund police”. Yet as Greenblatt says, “If states are going to stop cities and counties from adopting their own spending priorities—no matter how misguided they may be—that raises the question of whether localities will be masters of their own fates or merely subservient branch offices of the state.” In this episode, Upzoned host Abby Kinney, an urban planner in Kansas City, and cohost Chuck Marohn talk about the trend of states preempting cities: When (if ever) should states step in to preempt local governments...and when does it become micromanaging? Using examples from California and Missouri, among other states, Chuck and Abby discuss where decisions should be made, the principle of subsidiarity, the consequences of “removing dynamism from the system,” and the rude awakening may experience when a tool (state preemption) used to push through a policy they like is later used to force a policy change they don’t. They also talk about those times when state preemption might make sense—and how they can be kept under control. Then in the Downzone, Chuck talks about a book he at least gave a shot. And Abby describes a recent homeowner’s scare involving frozen water pipes, a subsequent water leak, and an electrical box. Additional Show Notes “States Preempt Cities Almost to the Point of Irrelevance,” by Alan Greenblatt Abby Kinney (Twitter) Charles Marohn (Twitter) Gould Evans Studio for City Design Theme Music by Kemet the Phantom (Soundcloud) Strong Towns content related to this episode: “When should the state jump in to address local problems?” by Spencer Gardner “Accessory Dwelling Units Rock. But Should States Be Overriding Cities' Laws About Building Them?” (Podcast) “Do Property Tax Caps Help or Hurt Communities?" “Mapping the Effects of California's Prop 13,” by Connor Nielsen “The Local Case for Reparations,” by Charles Marohn

In 2015, the city of Peoria, Arizona made a deal to persuade Huntington University, an Indiana-based private Christian university, to open a satellite campus in Peoria. The agreement involved $2.6 million in subsidies; most went to Huntington, but $700,000 dollars also went to a private company that renovated a building for the university. The specifics here may be unique, but cities make deals like this all the time to lure businesses to town, in the name of “economic development.” So what makes the case in Arizona so interesting? Well, earlier this month, that state’s supreme court determined Peoria's Huntington deal violated the Arizona constitution’s gift clause. In an unanimous decision, the court ruled that state and local governments must ensure the public receives real benefits in exchange for subsidies. Bob Christie of the Associated Press wrote that the case will have “wide ramifications” for state and local governments that feel the need to cut deals to lure new business. Henceforth in Arizona, “providing subsidies must do more than provide greater economic activity, they must bring the city some real return on its investment or they are illegal.” This story out of Arizona is the topic of this week’s episode of Upzoned, with host Abby Kinney, an urban planner in Kansas City, and regular cohost Chuck Marohn, the founder and president of Strong Towns. Abby and Chuck discuss the ways cities often use subsidies now, which more closely resembles gift-giving than investing. They also talk about a Strong Towns approach to incentives, why cities really do have to function like families, and how this ruling in Arizona may make room for projects so long relegated to the sidelines—the ones that are less flashy, but much more likely to generate real wealth. Then in the Downzone, Chuck talks about a book he’s reading about a pragmatic, non-alarmist response to climate change. And Abby describes how battling frigid temperatures have kept her too busy to read or watch much. Additional Show Notes: “Arizona high court says cities must benefit from subsidies,” by Bob Christie Abby Kinney (Twitter) Charles Marohn (Twitter) Gould Evans Studio for City Design Theme Music by Kemet the Phantom (Soundcloud) Recent Strong Towns content on economic development“Building Strong Local Economies (without Cheesecake Factory),” by Charles Marohn “Chris Bernardo: Filling the Gaps to Support Local Businesses” (Podcast) “This Is How You Grow a Local Economy” (Podcast) “Fighting for Small Businesses and Local Economies” (Podcast) “How Does Your Economic Garden Grow?” (Podcast) “How should my town be doing economic recovery right now?” By Rachel Quednau 

One of the arguments against YIMBYism—YIMBY stands for “Yes in My Backyard,” a response to NIMBY (“Not in My Backyard”)—is that adding housing units in a neighborhood will actually increase housing scarcity, because, in the words of journalist Nathan J. Robinson, “we’re luring rich people from elsewhere to our city.” This scenario would be the housing equivalent of the “induced demand” phenomenon seen with traffic, whereby expanding road capacity induces more people to drive, quickly negating the benefits of the expansion. In an article last month, Matthew Yglesias, took on the induced demand objection against YIMBYism. (Yglesias was also a guest on the Strong Towns podcast last month.) He says the induced demand critique “fails on four scores”: It is empirically false, at least most  of the time. Accepting its logic would counsel against all efforts to improve quality of life. If it were true, it still wouldn’t follow that new construction is bad. It misconstrues what the YIMBY proposal is in the first place. Yglesias’s article is the topic of this week’s episode of Upzoned, with host Abby Kinney, an urban planner in Kansas City, and regular co-host Chuck Marohn, the founder and president of Strong Towns. Abby and Chuck discuss the argument that increased housing worsens housing scarcity, where Strong Towns aligns with YIMBYism (and where it may diverge), and the problem with approaching the “wicked problem” of housing with a Suburban Experiment mindset: big solutions, big developers, big development. They also talk about why the fundamental problem of scale is crowding out the possibility of a city shaped by many hands. Then in the Downzone, Chuck discusses reading “On the Shortness of Life,” by Stoic philosopher Lucius Seneca. (He referenced it in his Monday article too.) And Abby talks about rewatching Breaking Bad and rediscovering just how good it is. Additional Show Notes “The ‘induced demand’ case against YIMBYism is wrong,” by Matthew Yglesias Matthew Yglesias on the Strong Towns podcast: Part 1, Part 2 “How to Talk to a NIMBY” (Webcast) Abby Kinney (Twitter) Charles Marohn (Twitter) Gould Evans Studio for City Design Theme Music by Kemet the Phantom (Soundcloud) Strong Towns content related to this episode: “Unleash the Swarm,” by Daniel Herriges “Why Housing Is the Wickedest of ‘Wicked Problems’” (Podcast) “Is Strong Towns NIMBY, YIMBY, or What?” by Charles Marohn “What Can Hives and Barnacles Teach Us About Solving a Housing Crisis?” by Patrick Condon “Here's What Happens When a Handful of Developers Control the Housing Market,” by Daniel Herriges “Gentrification and Cataclysmic Money,” by Daniel Herriges “The Trickle or the Fire Hose,” by Daniel Herriges

Strong Towns is a nonpartisan organization. Rigorously so. But it’s fair to say we allowed ourselves to be hopeful when then-President-Elect Joe Biden picked Pete Buttigieg to head the U.S. Department of Transportation. As mayor of South Bend, Indiana, Buttigieg assembled a brilliant team of people who broke with the status quo, slowed the cars, made walking and biking a priority, and helped revitalize that city’s downtown. A recent Washington Post headline summarizes it well: “In South Bend, Pete Buttigieg challenged a decades-old assumption that streets are for cars above all else.” The Post article begins this way: For years, South Bend drivers held in their heads a magic number: Get the car to hit that speed, and you could whip through downtown without seeing a red light. When Pete Buttigieg took office as mayor of the Indiana city in 2012, he changed that. He pitched a $25 million plan to convert downtown’s wide, one-way roads into two-way streets with bike lanes and sidewalks. He hoped making it safer to get out on foot would encourage more people to spend time and money in the area. Some residents who were skeptical of the changes became converts: “Downtown was a ghost town. You wouldn’t go there after dark,” one man said. “The results speak for themselves. It’s more than just the number of businesses, it’s the feeling of it not being dead anymore.” Every week on Upzoned, host Abby Kinney, an urban planner in Kansas City, and regular cohost Chuck Marohn, the founder and president of Strong Towns, take one story from the news and they “upzone” it—they examine it from the Strong Towns perspective. This week, they discuss the Washington Post article and why—in Chuck’s words—our cities need “a heaping helping of what South Bend did.” Abby and Chuck talk about how for many years, South Bend, reeling from the effects of deindustrialization and depopulation, focused on speeding traffic: “building more and more lanes for fewer and fewer people.” Then they describe some of the changes Mayor Pete’s administration made and what cities can learn from South Bend’s example of doing much more with much less. They also talk about what Strong Towns advocates can realistically hope for from a Mayor Pete D.O.T. On the one hand, Buttigieg says the South Bend program to slow cars and revitalize downtown will shape his approach to being Transportation secretary. (“It feeds my perspective on the value of local work around mobility,” Buttigieg told The Post. “I think a successful department is one that really empowers local leaders to makea and drive decisions that work in their communities.”) Yet, as Abby and Chuck describe, it will be a challenge to effectively allocate resources in a federal system designed for bad projects. Then in the Downzone, Chuck talks about how he has been captivated by the GameStop/reddit story. And Abby is loving Skin in the Game, by the “patron saint” of Strong Towns thinking, Nassim Nicholas Taleb. Additional Show Notes “In South Bend, Pete Buttigieg challenged a decades-old assumption that streets are for cars above all else,” by Ian Duncan Abby Kinney (Twitter) Charles Marohn (Twitter) Gould Evans Studio for City Design Theme Music by Kemet the Phantom (Soundcloud) Other Strong Towns articles on South Bend, Indiana “6 Ingredients in a Troubled City's Impressive Recovery,” by Daniel Herriges “You Can't Understand the Rust Belt Without Understanding Its Suburbanization,” by Daniel Herriges "‘A High School Education and an Hour of Your Time,’" by Daniel Herriges “The Bottom-Up Revolution is... Using Art and Stories to Strengthen Your City” (Podcast) “The Case for Tactical Urbanism in the Age of Coronavirus,” by Joshua Pine

We’ve written a lot at Strong Towns about the problems with big box stores: the acres of valuable land they (and their parking lots) consume, the way the buildings are designed to be obsolete, the way they siphon money out of town rather than build wealth from within. Yet it’s hard to put all the blame on the Walmarts and Home Depots and Costcos of the world; they have figured out how to succeed under the rules that we—the towns and cities—have established. If we consistently get outcomes we don’t like, we need to change the rules of the game. The same is true of parking. American cities are massively overbuilt on parking. This has both real costs and opportunity costs. Some of the blame might be put on a parking developer who turns otherwise valuable land into a surface parking lot, holding onto it like a land speculator until it can be sold for a big profit. But don’t we the residents deserve some of the responsibility too? After all, parking developers are thriving within the system we made...or at least allow to continue. In a recent article, Joe Cortright of City Observatory described aspects of that system: “We have too much parking for many reasons: because we’ve subsidized highway construction and suburban homes, because we’ve mandated parking for most new residential and commercial buildings, and because we’ve decimated transit systems. But a key contributor to overparking is the strong financial incentives built into tax systems.” Cortright then detailed a proposed ordinance in Hartford, Connecticut that would begin to correct this. Expanding fees on private commercial parking lots and structures, the ordinance would, he said, mimic the important features of a land value tax. “Call it LVT-lite,” he wrote. In this week’s episode of Upzoned, host Abby Kinney, an urban planner in Kansas City, and Chuck Marohn, the president of Strong Towns, discuss Joe Cortright’s article and how cities essentially subsidize parking. They talk about the land value tax, the way current tax systems incentivize parking and disincentivize improvements, and why all that parking is an anchor on our prosperity. Then in the Downzone, Chuck talks about a course he’s been taking on the Black Death. And Abby talks about new adventures in cooking and making music. Additional Show Notes: “How to Stop Giving Parking Developers A Free Ride,” by Joe Cortright (Streetsblog) City Observatory City Observatory (Twitter) Abby Kinney (Twitter) Charles Marohn (Twitter) Gould Evans Studio for City Design Theme Music by Kemet the Phantom (Soundcloud) Select Strong Towns articles on parking: “Detroiters Push for Parking Reform in the Heart of Motown,” by Francis Grunow “Asphalt City: How Parking Ate an American Metropolis,” by Daniel Herriges “Parking Dominates Our Cities. But Do We Really *See* It?” by Daniel Herriges “Life After Parking,” by Alexander Dukes “Parking is Important and Not Important,” by Kevin Klinkenberg “The Many Costs of Too Much Parking”

In a recent op-ed for The New York Times, journalist and novelist Ross Barkan wrote about public housing and the housing crisis. An eviction crisis is looming, Barkan wrote, staved off only by an eviction moratorium. But that moratorium will eventually expire. “When it does, a crushing housing emergency could descend on America—as many as 40 million Americans will be in danger of eviction.” Barkan goes on to say the federal government must play an important role in addressing the short-term crisis as well the underlying problems in the housing market. One “major step,” according to Barkan, would be to repeal "an obscure 22-year-old addition to the Housing Act of 1937, the Faircloth Amendment. Passed in an era when the reputation of housing projects was at a low, the amendment prohibits any net increase in public-housing units.” The repeal of Faircloth is a regular feature in progressive proposals, including the Green New Deal and other efforts by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. In this week’s episode of Upzoned, host Abby Kinney, an urban planner in Kansas City, is joined by regular co-host Chuck Marohn, the founder and president of Strong Towns, as well as by Strong Towns senior editor Daniel Herriges. The three of them discuss the Faircloth Amendment and the role of the federal government in addressing the housing crisis. They talk about where a federal response could align with a Strong Towns response, the problems with supersized solutions, and to what extent repealing Faircloth will address the underlying dysfunctions in the housing market. Then in the Downzone, Daniel says he’s finally reading E.F. Schumacher, Chuck talks about a course he’s starting on the plague, and Abby discusses a show she’s been binge-watching, a terrifying psychological thriller. Additional Shownotes: “It’s Time for America to Reinvest in Public Housing,” by Ross Barkan Online Course: “Creating Housing Opportunities in a Strong Town” Abby Kinney (Twitter) Daniel Herriges (Twitter) Charles Marohn (Twitter) Gould Evans Studio for City Design Theme Music by Kemet the Phantom (Soundcloud) Recent Strong Towns content related to this podcast“What's Missing From the Green New Deal, by Daniel Herriges “Form Without Function in Public Housing,” by Johnny Sanphillippo “What Happens When a Third of U.S. Tenants Don’t Pay Rent” (Podcast) “Can We Afford to Care About Design in a Housing Crisis?” by Daniel Herriges “The Connectedness of Our Housing Ecosystem,” by Daniel Herriges

In the first few months of the pandemic, many towns and cities moved quickly to create “slow streets,” streets that restricted vehicle access in order to make room for socially distanced walking, biking, play, etc. While the thinking behind those adaptations may have been justified, the speed with which they were implemented often came at the expense of meaningful public engagement and buy-in from residents. As Laura Bliss writes in a recent article for Bloomberg CityLab, slow streets have drawn “controversy, community resistance and comparisons with racist urban planning practices of earlier decades.” Bliss quotes Corinne Kisner, the executive director of the National Association of City Transportation Officials, who said, “I think there’s a tension between planners wanting to act fast, because their work is so critical to reduce fatalities and greenhouse gas emissions — the reasons for this work are so compelling and historic. But the urgency to move fast is in conflict with the speed of trust, and the pace that actually allows for input from everyone who’s affected by these decisions.” This article is the topic of this week's episode of Upzoned -- our first episode of 2021 and our 100th episode overall -- with host Abby Kinney, an urban planner from Kansas City, and regular co-host Chuck Marohn, the founder and president of Strong Towns. Abby and Chuck discuss why improving how streets and public spaces are utilized isn’t worth much if you get the process wrong. (“Robert Moses tactics can’t achieve Jane Jacobs goals.”) They also contrast the one-size-fits-all solutions that create resentment with the benefits of iiterative, truly collaborative approaches. Then in the Downzone, Chuck talks about finishing The Queen’s Gambit on Netflix and recommends a blockbuster new religion podcast by a hometown host. And Abby talks about why climbing is the best sport for understanding incrementalism. Oh, and also about skydiving, which prompted Chuck to recommend this video. Additional Show Notes “‘Slow Streets’ Disrupted City Planning. What Comes Next?” by Laura Bliss Robert Moses Tactics Can’t Achieve Jane Jacobs Goals Abby Kinney (Twitter) Charles Marohn (Twitter) Gould Evans Studio for City Design Theme Music by Kemet the Phantom (Soundcloud) Select Strong Towns content on “Slow Streets” and “Open Streets” “Oakland’s Open Streets Programs Are Still a Work in Progress. That’s a Good Thing.” by Daniel Herriges “The Bottom-Up Revolution is... Working Together to Make a Street for People” (Podcast) “How’s that temporary street redesign your city started this spring doing now?” by Rachel Quednau “The Evolving 2020 Open Streets Movement, or What if We Threw Out the Rule Book and Everything Was Fine? By Daniel Herriges “Hearing One Engineer's Call to "Sit in the Ambiguity" of Transportation Planning,” by Daniel Herriges 

Every week on the Upzoned podcast, host Abby Kinney, an urban planner in Kansas City, and regular co-host Chuck Marohn, the founder and president of Strong Towns, take one big story in the news and they “upzone” it—they look at it through a Strong Towns lens. At the close of a year in which towns and cities were tested in profound ways by a global pandemic and social unrest, it seems fitting that the final episode of the year should be about an article called “Will Cities Survive 2020?” Writing in Reason magazine, Christian Britschgi says that COVID-19 has reignited age-old debates about land-use and public health: The history of America's cities is, in a very real sense, the history of zoning regulations, which have long shaped real estate development, labor, and living arrangements. So it's no surprise that COVID-19, the biggest public health crisis in a century, which has occasioned an equally massive public health response, has already begun reshaping how people live in cities and how they are governed—rekindling old debates over urban density vs. suburban sprawl while raising new questions about the value of many land-use regulations. In the article, Britschgi describes the ways in which public health crises shaped cities in the past. But, says Britschgi, zoning codes initially justified as a way to protect health "have now gone far beyond nuisance laws...and control of infectious disease. They instead incorporated planners' desires to scientifically manage cities, protect property values, and combat the moral corruption that supposedly came with high-density housing." The coronavirus pandemic is similarly placing immense pressure on cities, but it remains to be seen whether communities will be allowed (because of that constrictive zoning) “to grow, evolve, and adapt to new challenges.” In this episode of Upzoned, Abby and Chuck discuss the Reason article and what effect 2020 will have on towns and cities going forward. They talk about why most cities are likely to survive, but probably not in their current form. They discuss why cities were so fragile in the first place, why disruptive change has become exponentially more common, and the surprising cities that can teach us about how to adapt creatively to a crisis. Then in the Downzone, Chuck continues his Christmas tradition of baking while listening to novels, most recently The Sentinel, by Lee Child. And Abby is doing some holiday crafting of her own...with a to-scale, gingerbread version of her own home. Additional Show Notes: “Will Cities Survive 2020?” by Christian Britschgi Abby Kinney (Twitter) Charles Marohn (Twitter) Gould Evans Studio for City Design Theme Music by Kemet the Phantom (Soundcloud) Additional Strong Towns content on the coronavirus and the future of cities: "Effective Quarantines and Strong Towns," by Spencer Gardner "9 Things Local Government Needs to Do Right Now in Response to the Pandemic," by Charles Marohn "This Is the Great Reshuffling," by Johnny Sanphillippo "We're In the Endgame Now for Small Towns," by Charles Marohn "Is Your City Willing to Be Flexible So Small Businesses Can Survive?" (Podcast)

When you were a teenager, where did you go to hang out with friends? For many of us, the first places we think of are school (and school activities), the mall, arcades and movie theaters, parks, rec centers, restaurants, and coffee shops. There’s a good chance that whatever came to mind for you just now isn’t currently available to teenagers. Only 35% of K-12 students are daily attending school in-person. Education has moved online and school activities are canceled. Many malls, arcades, restaurants, theaters, and rec centers are closed altogether, have strict occupancy limits, or are open by appointment only. The parks may be open but many towns and cities conspire against groups of teenagers lingering too long in parks, paranoid they are up to no good. It’s been said that cities are built with an “anti-teen bias.” As a result, communities that offered few options for teenagers before the pandemic have even fewer options today. This is more than mere inconvenience for teens and their families, as Amy Crawford describes in a recent article in CityLab. “Eight months into the pandemic,” Crawford writes, “life under coronavirus restrictions has proven especially hard on teens, who, despite being at lower risk from the virus itself, have fewer opportunities to be with their peers than perhaps any other demographic.“ Crawford quotes Tamar Mendelson, director of the Center for Adolescent Health at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health: Isolation is a big issue for young people right now...Adolescence is a time of incredible growth and development. A big piece of that is developing more of a social identity, and that’s getting disrupted a lot during Covid. Young people are resilient, and they’re adept at technology, but it’s a hard adjustment. Crawford’s article is the inspiration for this week’s episode of Upzoned, with host Abby Kinney, an urban planner in Kansas City, and regular co-host Chuck Marohn, the founder and president of Strong Towns. Abby and Chuck discuss the challenges facing teens in cities largely not built with them in mind, the impacts of social isolation on adolescents, and why we, as a culture, must not overlook the deep effect the pandemic is having on teenagers. This isn’t merely an academic discussion, as Chuck describes the sacrifices his own teenage children have been asked to make during the pandemic. Then in the Downzone, Chuck talks about his annual ritual of listening to novels while baking Christmas cookies. And Abby recommends a book that was recommended to her by Joe Minicozzi of Urban3: Misbehaving: The Making of Behavioral Economics, by Richard Thaler.   Additional Show Notes “There’s No Room for Teens in the Pandemic City,” by Amy Crawford Abby Kinney (Twitter) Charles Marohn (Twitter) Gould Evans Studio for City Design Theme Music by Kemet the Phantom (Soundcloud) Related content from Strong Towns on building cities for people of all ages: “The Isolation of Aging in an Auto-Oriented Place,” by Sara Joy Proppe “The Next Baby Boom: Affordable Urban Lifestyles for Millennials with Children,” by Jennifer Griffin “To build a strong town, get the kids involved,” by Jonathan Holth “The Livability of a Multi-Generational Neighborhood,” by Daniel Herriges “What makes a home truly work for people of all ages and abilities?” by Rachel Quednau “Want to Start a Local Revolution? Ask a Kid This Question.” by John Pattison

A key figure in the mythology of the American West is that of the rugged individualist, the impressively self-reliant person, rarely needing help from anyone, least of all the federal government. The self-reliant ethos is a powerful one, not just at the level of the individual but at the level of the city. Yet the reality is that most towns and cities in the American West are reliant to a remarkable degree on state and federal governments, as well as on a few large (often extractive) global industries: coal, oil, natural gas, etc. What happens when demand for those resources drops? What happens when the state or federal government runs out of money? Wyoming is finding out. In an op-ed last month in the Casper Star-Tribune, Nate Martin, the executive director of Better Wyoming, wrote: “Faced with COVID-19 and the collapse of Wyoming’s coal industry, Republican Gov. Mark Gordon said recently that the state might have to start abandoning small towns because there’s not enough money to maintain their sewers and streets.” Wyoming has no income tax and some of the lowest property and sales taxes in the country. Martin makes the case that, to help cover its projected two-year, $1.5 billion budget shortfall, the state should increase tax revenue — perhaps by instituting an income tax or raising its other taxes. This week on Upzoned, host Abby Kinney, an urban planner in Kansas City, and regular cohost Chuck Marohn, founder and president of Strong Towns, discuss Martin’s op-ed and the situation in Wyoming...and, really, throughout the West. Abby and Chuck talk about why saying Wyoming has a revenue problem doesn’t go deep enough in diagnosing the underlying issues there. They talk about the ways in which the extractive economies of many Western states are mimicked in extractive development patterns. They also discuss how towns and cities in Wyoming can begin to build local economies strong enough to weather the hard times. (Hint: It starts not with minerals in the ground, but with the people.) Then in the Downzone, Chuck recommends the book 1493, by Charles C. Mann, and talks about finally signing up for Netflix. And Abby recommends a show on Netflix that Chuck can now watch, The Queen’s Gambit.   Additional Show Notes “Martin: Wyoming needs to bite the bullet,” by Nate Martin "Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon Faces Massive Budget Hole As COVID-19 Cases Rise," by Peter O'Dowd “Just Print the Money” (Podcast) Abby Kinney (Twitter) Charles Marohn (Twitter) Gould Evans Studio for City Design Theme Music by Kemet the Phantom (Soundcloud) Additional content from Strong Towns on small towns and rural economies:“A Plan for Building Strong Rural Communities,” by Charles Marohn “Small Towns Are Dying. Can They Be Saved?” (Podcast) “We’re in the Endgame Now for Small Towns,” by Charles Marohn “What happens when an entire region of rural communities buys into the same bad approach to development?” by John Pattison “Local Leaders Are Reshaping America One Small Town at a Time,” by Quint Studer

Among the most heartbreaking stories of 2020 are those coming out of assisted-living and independent-care facilities: stories of the virus spreading like a brush fire among vulnerable elders; stories of isolated seniors unable to receive loved ones as visitors for months at a time; or the recent story about the Minnesota National Guard being called in to serve at nursing homes because so many of the staff were sick. The pandemic should cause us to take a cold, hard look in the mirror at the way we have segmented our society — reminiscent of Euclidean zoning — by age, socioeconomic class, and other criteria. As our friend Gracy Olmstead wrote back in June: Yet we often like to see the various parts of our world as separate entities: churches, nuclear families, schools, grocery stores, office buildings, hospitals, assisted living centers and nursing homes, apartments and townhouses all subsist in detached zones...We approach our world like a machine: divorcing ourselves from every other part, pulling apart the various strands in the tapestry. Earlier this month, The Wall Street Journal ran an article about how the pandemic is giving the “multigenerational home business” a boost. While occupancy rates in assisted-living and independent-care facilities have seen their biggest drop ever, homebuilders say interest in accessory dwelling units has exploded. “Reluctant to send their elderly parents to senior-living facilities,” says the article, “some homeowners are building properties equipped to house extended family.” This article, and the rise of multigenerational housing, are the topics on this week’s episode of Upzoned. Host Abby Kinney, an urban planner in Kansas City, and regular cohost Strong Towns president Chuck Marohn talk about how nursing homes and other senior living facilities have been hit hard by the pandemic. They discuss why it’s critical that cities give homeowners and builders the freedom to be flexible with housing, including the flexibility to add or include accessory dwelling units. (In fact, the longterm survival of the suburbs may hinge on this flexibility.) They also discuss why it’s not helpful that the Journal article seemed to frame multigenerational housing as novel and upscale. Then in the Downzone, Chuck describes a work trip he took recently to Disney World and recommends a book by Strong Towns content manager John Pattison. And Abby talks about decorating for the holidays, including building a to-scale gingerbread replica of her house that we can’t wait to see pictures of.   Additional Show Notes: ”Covid-19 Is Giving the Multigenerational Home Business a Big Boost,” by Katy McLaughlin “I just want to see people smile again.” by Chuck Marohn Abby Kinney (Twitter) Charles Marohn (Twitter) Gould Evans Studio for City Design Theme Music by Kemet the Phantom (Soundcloud)  Further content from Strong Towns on ADUs and multigenerational living:“Want a city that works for people of all ages? Take these 3 steps.” by Rachel Quednau “The Livability of a Multi-Generational Neighborhood,” by Daniel Herriges “The Isolation of Aging in an Auto-Oriented Place,” by Sara Joy Proppe “If You're Going to Allow ADUs, Don't Make It So Hard to Build One,” by Daniel Herriges “Making Normal Neighborhoods Legal Again,” by Daniel Herriges “So You Want to Build an ADU?” by Aubrey Bryon