Alright Buster...
So I know you're a big Urbanist. And I understand that viewpoint, and nothing that guy said is wrong.
For starters, let me say that my degree is in Civil Engineering with a concentration in Structural Engineering. I currently work for the #1 structural firm in the DC area, and the division that I work in is Repair and Restoration. I have my EIT license and will (hopefully) have my PE license + stamp in 3 months. Also, my dad is developer, and my mom is structural engineer. I have been on job sites and involved in the "industry" pretty much my entire life.
First things first, the major objection I have to Urbanist ideology is that the Interstate Highway System is/was somehow a bad idea. It wasn't and is/was a direct facilitator to all American prosperity. Much like the US Post Office, it doesn't matter that the Interstate Highway System "loses" money... it's a public "utility" of sorts, not a profit driven corporation. All Government programs tend to "lose" money... whether its welfare, social security, our national park system, etc. So I totally do not understand how anyone says that was a mistake.
I also disagree with a lot of his overarching philosophical/economic points... but let's talk specifically about
suburban development and the current state of affairs for many small towns/cities... because that's the main point of that video, and I don't want to type pages here. This best captures my opinion:
Even among large cities, there can be stark contrast between those that were built "vertical" and those that were built "horizontal"... and generally, I think DC (and "attached" cities of Arlington, Bethesda, Silver Spring, etc.) did a very good job of trending enough towards vertical to have solid population density without turning into a stinking shithole like NYC.
At my current job, I do the vast majority of my work for commercial entities or resident owned large multi-family dwellings (i.e. condo boards), but also some municipal work for the DC and Baltimore governments. It is baffling to me that I can work with a condo that doesn't blink an eye at a $10 million garage repair program, and a fucking TOWN can't pay a measly $300k pipe repair bill. This leads me to believe that in many of his examples the problem relies even more with the people running the town than it does with the concept of suburban development. If you want to see a suburb done right, look at how Reston was developed over the past 50 years. It basically went from farmland->to expertly planned suburban community with town center->urbanized+vertically developed commercial center with thriving economy. This isn't the "illusion" of wealth that he talks about... it's actual, realized + sustainable wealth.
Here are my rules of thumb on development:
1. Always go mixed use, if possible.
2.
NEVER EVER BUILD A PARKING LOT. It's cheap up front, but it fucks you in the long run. Allow for some street parking, and then if necessary build a singular parking facility to service many buildings. It's best if this is subterranean below the footprint of the building... but a standalone facility can also work in some cases.
3. If you're an urban planner building a "highway," make it a toll road with the correct toll amounts and it pays for its own repairs as long as you collect tolls. Otherwise, it is a cash pit that you cannot afford.
4. When redeveloping, always develop vertically. My current neighborhood of Roslyn in Arlington has done an excellent job of this over the past 5 years.
5. You are almost always better off refurbishing/revitalizing an existing building than doing a tear down. This is what I specialize in and it's fiscally responsible + low risk. But many developers/brokers/politicians are blind to this.
What I'm disappointed about in that 40 minute video is that he only hit on half of the "why does this problem exist?" Sure, cars are the devil or whatever. But the real problem is politicians... politicians like tangible things to point at and say "see! I built that!" It's proven political science that pork = wins. You have to bring home the bacon. So politicians continuously support legislation/development that either isn't practical or affordable because on the surface it looks good. Stadiums are the biggest racket of them all, but until recently when the public started getting educated they were shown to have an extremely strong positive correlation with vote attitudes... and letting a sports franchise leave town was sure to put your ass on the line with angry fans. Same thing applies with basically all suburban sprawl... you're either growing or dying. And no one wants a "dying" town on their watch as a politician.
Without a doubt the most eye-roll inducing part of that video is when the enlightened fellow talks about how 5 acres in the woods would be the "perfect place to raise a family" and then immediately follows it with "and she didn't even get to know her best friend across the street because #SuburbanIsolation" when he had to make a conscious, elective choice to build that isolated house on 5 acres. So he's blaming the "system" while being entirely complicit in the problem. The truth is that suburban expansion happened because it's human nature not to want to raise a family in a crowded, dangerous city and automobiles + roads enabled this for non-farmers in a way that hadn't existed pre-WWII. That's not a bad thing in and of itself... no, the problem is that dumb people and predatory developers took it too far, too fast and did it irresponsibly.
