How To Make a Pile of Dough with
the Traditional City 5: The New New Suburbanism
July 31, 2011
I often call the "New Urbanists" the "New Suburbanists," because
they are generally not real interested in proper urbanism -- the
metropolitan environment where a person can live in an apartment
without a car. Mostly, they pine for the "Small Town America" of
their Norman Rockwell reveries. Unfortunately, this "Small Town
America" format is, in fact, the template for Suburban Hell today,
the primary difference being the introduction of parking lots in
3, 2010: Let's Kick Around the New Urbanists
7, 2010: Let's Take a Trip to Suburban Hell
26, 2009: Let's Take a Trip to an American Village 3: How the
Suburbs Came to Be
July 19, 2009: Let's Take a Trip to an American Village 2:
July 12, 2009: Let's Take a Trip to an American Village
I have been doing a series on City Design for a neighborhood
consisting primarily of single-family houses, both "detached" and
"attached" as appropriate, which can also include off-street parking
for at least one car per household. This is intended to be a sort of
transition format, which can fit both our Traditional City goals but
also fits easily within the existing U.S. Suburban Hell environment.
(It is also supposed to be profitable for developers.) I think this
format is a perfectly valid one within the Traditional City format,
and also one which can be implemented today as an alternative to the
typical automobile suburb. We are aiming for densities on the order
of 20,000+ people per square mile, ideally on the order of 30,000,
which also makes these neighborhoods highly "walkable" and thus also
reduces the need for a second automobile substantially.
Indeed, I think I would go beyond "walkable," which implies that it
is just barely feasible to not use your car every time you leave the
house, to "pedestrian-centric," which is supposed to mean that the
whole neighborhood feels like it is primarily a pedestrian area,
even if there is an occasional car passing from time to time.
(University campuses have this character.) In practice, this means
that a person feels comfortable walking down the middle of the
street. And since "pedestrian" is just an automobile-age word for a
"human," we could call it "human-centric," as opposed to
Do you think that maybe the places we live should be
"human-centric"? What an idea.
Single Family Detached in the Traditional City Style
City 4: More SFDR/SFAR Solutions
Let's look at some of our design goals:
1) Single family houses on plots of
2000 square feet or less, including some options on plots of about
1000sf or even 500sf (which would be more affordable of course).
We can also include some small apartment buildings, such as large
houses that have been converted to apartments, or small dedicated
apartment buildings of about ten units.
2) Offstreet parking for at least one car per household.
3) Minimizing Non-Place (large roadways, parking lots and Green
Space), ideally reaching the goal of 100% Places
4) Streets which are pedestrian-centric rather than
automobile-centric (in practice, this means a person is
comfortable walking down the middle of the street). When this
happens, the street becomes a Place, allowing us to approach our
goal of 100% Places.
5) Density on the order of 20,000-30,000 people per square mile,
much higher than a typical Los Angeles average around 8,000
6) "Walkable" neighborhoods where supermarkets, retail, pubs,
restaurants, schools, doctors, post office, bank etc. are within a
15 minute walk from most people's houses.
7) Density that is adequate to support businesses without the need
for parking lots.
8) This format can transition easily to a denser urban format
where people don't own cars, simply by replacing the buildings
with apartments at some future date.
9) This format is also completely appropriate for the future
installation of some mass-transit option of a train or even a bus,
since most houses would also be within a 15 minute walk to some
future train station or central bus stop. We can use the metric of
a square mile: if a train station is placed in the middle of a
square mile block, everyone living in that block would be able to
walk to the train station within 15 minutes or less. If you have
30,000 people per square mile, that means almost four times as
many people able to easily use a train than if you have 8,000
people per square mile. If you include bicyclists, and a two-mile
(ten minute bike ride) radius, then we have fourteen square miles,
or 14x30,000=420,000 (!!!) people who are able to use a train
station without needing a car to get to and from the station. This
makes the train highly viable, and very desirable (i.e. large
customer base). In the future, the presence of the train would
help allow people to live without a car entirely, which would also
allow the transition to apartment buildings without parking,
within walking distance of the train station. This would allow
densities of 50,000 or more people per square mile, if that was
10) This format delivers "peace and quiet," and provides a nice
environment for children, families, and seniors -- the supposed
benefits of the suburbs, although in practice this format is much
better than the suburbs.
11) Ideally, this format will allow most families to get by with
one car per household.
As we discussed earlier, most all of these goals are achieved by the
use of Really Narrow Streets
of about 16 feet wide, and house plots of around 40x50 feet
(2000sf), or as small as 25x40 (1000sf) or even 25x20 (500sf).
As far as streets, we will have three basic types:
1) Really Narrow Streets.
This should be 80%+ of all streets in terms of total length. The
Really Narrow Street is about 16 feet wide, just barely wide enough
to allow two cars to pass each other slowly, or to allow a car to
slide past another car temporarily stopped on the street. No
sidewalks. No onstreet parking. There may be a per-hour paid parking
lot in the neighborhood, to accomodate visitors. No stoplights. The
Really Narrow Street is fundamentally a pedestrian-centric design,
in which people can comfortably walk down the middle of the street,
even though they are sharing the street with the occasional
automobile (which is typically moving only about 10 miles per hour,
slower than a bicycle). Bicyclists are also comfortable biking down
the middle of the street.
Typical Really Narrow Street, with a center lane of about ten feet
and two shoulders of about three feet, totalling sixteen feet. It's
a little hard to see, but there is a cyclist on the right and some
people walking down the middle of the street in the far distance.
This is from Seijo, a single-family-detached residential
neighborhood in western Tokyo.
Biking on Really Narrow Streets.
No need for dedicated bike lanes.
2) Arterial Streets. These
should have one dedicated automobile lane in each direction, or two
lanes total width. The total roadbed should be about 20-25 feet,
with no onstreet parking or shoulders. Sidewalks are on either side,
delineated by a standard curb. The sidewalks might be about ten feet
wide including five feet of "green space" which can be used to plant
trees, thus giving a total width of 10+20+10 or about forty feet.
Roughly 17% of the total street length may be these "arterial"
streets. Arterial streets may use stoplights, although stop signs
may be sufficient in some situations. Dedicated bike lanes may be
Walking down the middle of the street.
I love all the trees here. We will incorporate this into our plan
We could eventually transition seamlessly to a format like this,
which also has a street width of about 16 feet, but has
storefronts and apartments with no parking. All you have to do is
replace the buildings. This is more viable after a train system is
added, so that a person can live without a car.
Buildings along Arterial Streets generally do not have off-street
parking, as this would require sidewalk cuts. For example, you could
have storefronts, offices, and apartment buildings without parking.
There may be a place here for large dedicated, for-fee parking
structures, though, as the Arterial Street would allow easy in/out
access. Since we have no street parking anywhere, we will need at
least a little paid parking. However, the cost of the paid parking
should reflect the value of the land; i.e. it should be justifiable
on private market profitability measures. No car subsidies. For
example, if you have a one-acre space used for parking (either
outdoor or a multi-story parking structure), and land costs are
$1m/acre, then you have to generate about 10% of $1m or $100,000 of
parking income annually, net of expenses.
Here is a nice "arterial" street, in the Daikanyama district of
Tokyo. Two dedicated auto lanes, but no onstreet parking. Sidewalks.
We will add a little bit for trees along the street. The streetfront
here consists of shops, not some cinderblock wall.
3) Grand Boulevards. The
Grand Boulevard is a large, multilane road to facilitate crosstown
travel, or access to even larger roadways such as a superhighway.
Examples would be Broadway Avenue in Manhattan, the Champs-Elysees
in Paris, etc. Two or three lanes of dedicated automobile traffic in
either direction. Sidewalks of perhaps fifteen or twenty feet on
either side, including eight feet of "green space" planted with
trees. A neighborhood should have only one or two Grand Boulevards,
constituting perhaps 3% of total street length. No onstreet parking,
but we may have shoulders for breakdowns or a quick taxi stop.
This typical Small Town America "main street" (it is Main Street
in Norwich, NY), is a fair model for a "Grand Boulevard." But you
only want a very few of streets of this size.
There are many options regarding street layout, building design and
so forth. Certainly we don't need to use a "grid" format, we could
use all sorts of biomorphic designs which are common to Traditional
Cities around the world. Swoopy streets are actually quite common in
suburban housing developments today, as well as a "dendritic" street
format (cul-de-sacs). We don't need to make standardized plots, they
can be all sorts of shapes and sizes. As far as house design, we
could use all sorts of architectural design elements ranging from
traditional Chinese to Spanish to Moorish to German.
Charles Gardner explores Manhattan Without the Grid
But we have to make some decisions eventually. I propose that we
start with this existing "New Urbanist" design, which I believe is a
neighborhood in the Washington DC area (Alexandria, Virginia), and
show how we can tweak this design to meet our design goals above. It
is based on a grid format. Architecturally, we will stay as close as
possible to the "Small Town America" format as we can, as this is
our own American tradition and tends to maske people comfortable.
(Developers: it's an easy sell.)
We've laid out some design outlines for the streets,
so now let's decide on some basic design features of our houses.
Basic housing design for a 2000sf (40x50) plot. The basic
house format will be similar to this design from Oakland, California
dating perhaps from the 1920s. With a 40x50 plot, we are able to
separate the houses by ten feet. This allows the use of effective
side windows, and also allows us to use the space between houses for
offstreet parking. This is a typical Small Town America element so
we will incorporate it here.
The side setback between houses can be used for parking up to two
cars end to end.
(This particular setback is a little narrow for parking but you
get the idea.)
About 8-10 foot front yard/setback here.
Parking on the left.
Is this "enough parking"? It's enough for people in Oakland. What
are you complaining about?
Parking on the left. A concrete pad is a little stark. Gravel
would be more naturalistic, especially if grass was allowed to
grow up between the gravel.
Side parking between houses. No garages. Levittown, NY, 1948.
The parking lane is even gravel with grass growing through, just
like I proposed.
Of course we also have the gigantic roadway and the immense 25-30
foot flat-green-rectangle setback in front of each house. Ugh.
However, what I am proposing is in fact quite similar to this,
with a much narrower street and much smaller front setback, more
like eight feet or even four feet.
The setback would be trees, bushes and flowers mostly. Not so much
grass. And, of course, you don't have to make all the houses the
By the way, the population density of Levittown in 2000 was 7,700
people per square mile. (These population densities are elevated
by the fact that Levittown is almost 100% residential, with little
commercial property or communal property like large parks, schools
The Small Town America suburban format also includes a front
lawn/setback of course, just as you see in the pictures here.
However, since our plot depth is only fifty feet, we will limit the
front setback to eight feet -- about the setback for the white house
at the top. This allows 30x30 feet (900sf) to be used for the house,
and leaves 12 feet for a backyard. Front or back porches, balconies
etc. can be included as desired. You can even have a white picket
fence if you want to. The front yard will include one full-size tree
per house, to give us the "tree-lined street" look we specified
earlier. (The existing New Urbanist example shown above seems to
include one tree per house, but they are not fully grown yet.) A
mowed-grass lawn is not required by any means, instead we will
encourage the use of bushes, flowers, etc., once again as we see
with the white house at the top.
Houses can be built up to three stories tall, which would give 900x3
or 2700sf of potential floorspace (actually a little less interior
space due to the wall width). Of course we will insulate the houses
to a high standard, which also provides soundproofing.
If Mr. Thundercash wishes a larger plot to build a larger house, he
is welcome to purchase multiple adjacent plots.
Keep in mind that, in 1950, the average size of a new single-family
home was 983 square feet.
Basic Housing Design for a 1250sf
(25x50) plot: We will also include some houses on 25x50
plots, which would be more affordable. With a 25 foot plot width,
side parking is no longer possible. We can use a one-car-width
garage, or various forms of outside parking or carports. Houses are
either fully attached or built close together, separated by perhaps
three feet. Houses may be built right up to the property line in the
front or use a setback of up to eight feet -- or more if outside
parking is used. With an eight foot setback, the house could be
built on 25x30 square feet (750sf footprint) and allow a 12 foot
backyard. With no front setback and a ten-foot backyard, floor space
expands to 25x40 or 1000sf. Heights up to five stories, allowing
750x5=3750sf of floorspace. In practice, the first floor would
probably end up as a garage/basement, so a five-story building would
have four stories of living space, or 3000sf.
In addition to providing a
wonderful, beautiful living area, which doesn't require a car to
get around, and which is appropriate for children, moms, and
seniors, we also want to free people from their excessive
20, 2009: The Problem of Scarcity 2: It's All In Your Head
September 13, 2009: The Problem of Scarcity
Considering that we are back to an average income of the 1950s,
as measured in gold terms (maybe lower than that now), maybe we
should consider the average house of the 1950s? No wonder
everyone is broke.
21, 2010: What Happened to the Middle Class?
City governments everywhere wonder how to create "affordable"
housing, but how is that possible when everyone has to buy way
too much land, and build a house that is way too big, and also
indirectly support an incredibly excessive roadway system, and a
system of school buses for the public school, and also a second
or third car to get around this ridiculous landscape? The larger
houses themselves have a certain logic: once you have the
way-too-big land plot, the second and third car, and the vastly
excessive roadway system, you might as well go whole hog and get
the big house too. You're already 80% committed.
Basic Housing Design for a 625sf
(25x25) plot: With this very small plot size, every square
foot counts. A garage or carport can be used, with the rest of the
building built on top. No front setback, but up to five feet in the
back, to allow space for rear windows and a (very small but
surprisingly enjoyable) garden space. The house would then be built
on a 25x20 (500sf) footprint, up to four stories high.
Even teenier options: How
about a 12x25 plot? Why not? That would be 300 square feet, which is
truly miniature. However, it is enough for a Tumbleweed micro-house
(which is only eight feet wide), and enough outside space to park a
scooter or motorcycle. You could even do a carport or
house-on-pillars, if you wanted to try to fit a car in there. We
already looked at that funny house in Greenwich Village that is on a
plot only 9'6" wide. If you got rid of that useless iron railing,
you could park a motorcycle in front. A rear setback isn't necessary
with a house like this, because it is only 25' deep or less, so you
can live with front windows only. The top floor can use skylights.
This is on a 9'6" plot. 12' wide sounds pretty roomy now, doesn't
3, 2011: Let's Take a Trip to the Skinniest House in New York
The Tumbleweed Tiny House Company "Epu" model.
89 square feet.
The front porch is 7'6" wide.
I love how he hits all the "Small Town America" design cues with a
trailer that is less than half the size of a typical trailerhome.
9'6" wide sounds pretty roomy now, doesn't it?
The problem with these tiny houses is: where do you put it? Now we
have an answer -- in the New New Suburb.
Possibly the world's skinniest house. Four feet wide.
I dunno about the "it's a propeller!" styling but it's fun to see
someone make a go of it.
7'6" sounds pretty roomy now, doesn't it? We could build three of
these side-by-side on our 12 foot wide plot.
Our plots that are only 25 feet deep will be on even narrower 12'
streets, so that our street area/plot area ratio doesn't get out of
At least TEN different housing
designs for each plot size. Who says that every house has
to be identical? Who dreamt that one up? Even if one developer
handled the whole project, it is an easy matter to develop ten
different designs. Alternately, empty plots could be sold, with
buyers invited to build as they see fit. This is the best solution,
but a lot of people today would rather have a finished product than
build the house of their own individual dreams.
Now, let's compare to what we see in that Virgina example:
Plot Size: I'm guessing, but
I'd say that the basic plot size here is about 40x100 feet, or
4000sf. That is twice the size of the 40x50 or 2000sf plot I'm
proposing. However, despite double the area, we have no backyard due to the use of
large two-car garages in the rear. The front yard is vestigal "green
space," not really a place that people can use, for outdoor dining,
children playing and so forth. With a little careful design, we can
eliminate the big ugly garage door, and also add a usable backyard,
with half the space. It looks like the houses have about eight feet
Roadways in the front and rear:
The "New Urbanist" idea is to eliminate the big ugly two-car-width
garage door from the streetfront by adding a rear alley. However,
the result is that we how have twice as many streets! And no
backyard! The street that I like the best is actually the alley, as
it is about 16 feet wide with no sidewalks; in other words,
identical to our Really Narrow Street. The alley-type street would become our primary street type.
This is perfectly adequate for automobile use. In the Virginia
example it is the street that is provided specifically for
Giant Hypertrophic streets:
In the front of the houses, we have a typical 19th Century
Hypertrophic Street, consisting of two dedicated auto lanes, extra
width for onstreet parking, and a full sidewalk including a strip of
Green Space planted with trees to make the whole thing a little more
tolerable, instead of a giant blank expanse of concrete and asphalt.
What's the width here? I'd guess: 10 feet sidewalk (including green
strip), eight feet onstreet parking, twelve feet auto lane, twelve
feet auto lane, eight feet onstreet parking, ten feet sidewalk for a
total of sixty feet. It is
actually larger than our "arterial" street! The strange irony is
that this automobile showcase isn't really used by automobiles at
all, since we already have dedicated alley streets for auto use.
What's it for? Even the UPS guy could use the back entrance if he
wanted to, and guests could use the extra parking in the back as
This is a shot of Murfreesboro, MD, which is nearby our Alexandria
example. This is supposedly a "New Urbanist" design. You can see the
enormous 19th Century Hypertrophic street. This is despite the fact
that there is a completely separate street system for cars, in the
back of the houses. How wide is that, from one sidewalk to the
other? About seventy feet I'd guess. We sure do love our asphalt.
As a reminder, this is what we are aiming for. This is actually
about one-fourth the width
of the 19th Century Hypertrophic street above, if you can believe
Notice the people walking down the middle of the street.
Arterial Street: Running roughly top-to-bottom in the
Alexandria photo is what amounts to an "arterial street." Here we
have the addition of yet more "green space" in the form of an
eight-foot strip on the outside of the sidewalk, bringing the total
width to about seventy-six feet. (8+10+8+12+12+8+10+8) We accomplish
the same thing with forty feet, including some "green space" to make
the automobile-dominated "arterial" roadway a little more pleasant.
Commercial Street: Toward
the top of the photo, we have a commercial street, with retail at
ground level and offices/apartments above. This is good, but we
again want to replace that huge and unnecessary 19th Century
Hypertrophic Street with a much nicer Really Narrow Street of about
twenty feet wide, possibly ranging up to forty feet although that is
not necessary. The street would be off-limits to cars during most of
the day -- a pedestrian-only environment -- with some time in the
morning for delivery access. Some parking may be available nearby,
in the form of a dedicated per-hour fee parking lot.
Commercial street, offices and apartments above. French village.
Traditional "shopping street," Japan
Contemporary "shopping street," Japan.
Obviously, architecture has deteriorated considerably over the
years. When you compare to the extraordinary design and
craftsmanship of the older example, it sort of makes you want to
cry, doesn't it?
But, the contemporary result is still successful. That's why I
keep saying "make Really Narrow Streets with No Cars." If you
start with that, you pretty much can't mess it up.
Commercial street, Madrid, Spain.
British "high street." Notice the people walking in the
middle of the street. Do you see what I mean by
"pedestrian-centric" as opposed to "walkable"?
This is obviously a pedestrian ... errr, "human-centric"
environment, and thusly a Place, rather than an automobile
High street, Edenbridge, England.
This is our English heritage, but for some reason, we can only do
these things when we are imitating a movie based on a book that is
based on our English heritage.
Universal Studios "Harry Potter" village, Orlando, Florida.
Don't you love the fake snow in Florida?
Our basic goal, in all this, is to deliver roughly triple the density as this "New
Urbanist" model, while still preserving what looks very much like a
"traditional Small Town America single family house," including a
nice backyard and lush, tree-lined streets. This is what gets us
from 8,000 people per square mile, for a typical Los Angeles suburb
(with 5000sf plots), to maybe 10,000 for the New Urbanist example
and more like 25,000-30,000 for our example. We have already seen
how our basic house plot shrinks from 4000sf to 2000sf, which
doubles the density right there. We even have some smaller house
plots of 1,250sf and 625sf. Then, we have a huge amount of land now
being consumed by vastly excessive roadways and associated Green
Space, that we can replace with Really Narrow Streets, thus freeing
up more land for houses. For example, if the house plot/total land
area ratio rises from 50% to 75%, that is a 50% increase in density
right there. The combination of half the lot size plus a 50%
increase in density due to reduction in land used for streets/Green
Space/parking lots gives us our triple density bogey. Triple the
density means that every store or restaurant now has 30,000 people
who are within an easy walk of 15 minutes or so, which means that
they can have a viable business without a parking lot. It means that
every school now has three times as many students that are within an
easy walk. No more chauffering your kids to school. No more school
buses. At 30,000 people per square mile, and if 15% of the people
are school age (6-17), that means 4500 kids are within walking
distance of the school. It means that the four-year high school
would have about 1500 students, all within a half-mile walk of the
school. It means that, if a train station is introduced later, three
times as many people will be able to walk there as well. In short,
everything becomes a lot more "walkable." By making it walkable, we thus eliminate the need for
cars unless travelling outside the immediate neighborhood, which
eliminates auto traffic and also makes the neighborhood much more
peaceful, quiet, and suitable for kids, families, and seniors.
It also makes houses more affordable, because obviously you are
buying only half as much land, and second, because you might be able
to avoid purchasing that second car. Even if the land costs a
million dollars an acre, which is pretty high, you are only using a
twentieth of an acre, or $50,000. If you build a 1000sf
three-bedroom house on it, at $100/sf, that makes a total cost of
$150,000. If you are one of those small-house types, you can get the
500sf plot ($12,500) and build a 700sf two-bedroom house on it, for
a total cost of $82,500. Extremists might go with a 250sf house, for
a total cost of $40,000 including land. Developers: what do you think about buying land for
$100,000 and acre and selling it for $1 million per acre? Do you
think you can make a business out of that?
I've tried to give a visual impression of the difference between the
plot sizes and street widths of the Alexandria example and my
proposed layout. These are at the same scale:
Sixty foot streets with 40x100 plots.
Sixteen foot streets with 40x50 plots. I've also included a few 12
foot streets with 25x25 and 25x50 plots, even a small section of
Also, I threw in a little parking lot, a pocket park, and a larger
neighborhood park. You can have a lot of fun with this stuff.
The distance between larger
arterial streets is about 1600'. Thus, the person in the middle,
who is the farthest possible from an arterial street, is 800'
away. That is about 0.15 mile. At a speed of ten miles an hour,
it would take you fifty four seconds to drive 800'. So, everyone
is within a fifty-four-second drive of a larger arterial street.
However, the vast majority of streets are sixteen foot wide
Really Narrow Streets, including the commercial street toward
the top. I arbitrarily designated a Grand Boulevard one mile
away, although this is actually a little far and maybe more like
a half-mile would be appropriate.
* * *
Fan Mail: More nice
Just wanted to send a note saying
things for all the thoughts you share on New World Economics. I've
found the site to be very worthwhile. It has helped transform some
of my own thinking about urban design and economics. As a recent
graduate of a Master in Urban Planning program, I've found your
concepts of "Hypertrophic Cities," "Place vs. No-Place," and
"Suburban Hell" to be particularly compelling, original, and
useful. I came out of my academic program thinking that New
Urbanism and "traditional (Amercian) neighborhood design" were the
pinnacle of sustainable city design. Your discussion of
Hypertrophic Cities and true (European & Asian) Traditional
Cities made me realize just how wasteful all of American urban
settlements tend to be...even the New Urbanist and "traditional
Other commentary in this series:
reader S.A., Minneapolis, MN
the Traditional City 4: More SFDR/SFAR Solutions
3, 2011: The New World Economics Guide to Men's Fashion
City 3: Single Family Detached in the Traditional City Style
15, 2011: A Ski Resort Village
1, 2011: Let's Take a Traditional City Break 3: Life With Really
3, 2011: Let's Take a Trip to the Skinniest House in New York
20, 2011: Let's Take a Trip to Julianne Moore's House
13, 2011: Let's Take a Traditional City Break 2: More Really
Narrow Streets Than You Can Shake a Stick At
6, 2011: Let's Take a Traditional City Break
19, 2010: Life Without Cars: 2010 Edition
17, 2010: The Problem of Scarcity 3: Resource Scarcity
3, 2010: Let's Kick Around the New Urbanists
22, 2010: How to Make a Pile of Dough with the Traditional City
1, 2010: The Problem With Bicycles
6, 2010: Transitioning to the Traditional City 2: Pooh-poohing the
23, 2010: Transitioning to the Traditional City
16, 2010: The Service Economy
18, 2010: How to Live the Good Life in the Traditional City
4, 2010: The Problem With Little Teeny Farms 2: How Many Acres Can
Sustain a Family?
28, 2010: The Problem With Little Teeny Farms
14, 2010: The Traditional City: Bringing It All Together
7, 2010: Let's Take a Trip to Suburban Hell
21, 2010: Toledo, Spain or Toledo, Ohio?
31, 2010: Let's Take a Trip to New York 2: The Bad and the Ugly
Let's Take a Trip to New York City
27, 2009: What a Real Train System Looks Like
13, 2009: Life Without Cars: 2009 Edition
22, 2009: What Comes After Heroic Materialism?
Let's Kick Around Carfree.com
The Future Stinks
18, 2009: Let's Take Another Trip to Venice
Place and Non-Place
28, 2009: Let's Take a Trip to Barcelona
20, 2009: The Problem of Scarcity 2: It's All In Your Head
The Problem of Scarcity
26, 2009: Let's Take a Trip to an American Village 3: How the
Suburbs Came to Be
Let's Take a Trip to an American Village 2: Downtown
Let's Take a Trip to an American Village
3, 2009: A Bazillion Windmills
19, 2009: Let's Kick Around the "Sustainability" Types
3, 2009: Let's Visit Some More Villages
15, 2009: Let's Take a Trip to the French Village
1, 2009: Let's Take a Trip to the English Village
25, 2009: How to Buy Gold on the Comex (scroll down)
4, 2009: Currency Management for Little Countries (scroll
28, 2008: Currencies are Causes, not Effects (scroll down)
21, 2008: Life Without Cars
10, 2008: Visions of Future Cities
20, 2008: The Traditional City vs. the "Radiant City"
2, 2007: Let's Take a Trip to Tokyo
7, 2007: Let's Take a Trip to Venice
17, 2007: Recipe for Florence
9, 2007: No Growth Economics
26, 2006: The Eco-Metropolis