• Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary menu
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Say hello
Rethink Real Estate. For Good.

Rethink Real Estate. For Good.

  • Podcast
  • Posts
  • In the news
  • Speaking and media
    • About Eve
    • Speaking requests
    • Speaking engagements
    • Press kit
  • Investment opportunities

Mobility

For the love of cities.

May 8, 2024

Enrique Penalosa is an internationally respected urban thinker, who, as Mayor of Bogota in two non-consecutive terms, profoundly transformed his city from one with neither bearings, nor self-esteem into an international model in several areas. As adviser and lecturer, he has influenced policies in many cities throughout the world. 

Among his achievements is the creation of TransMilenio, the world’s best BRT (Bus based mass transit), which today moves 2.4 million passengers daily, inspired by the Curitiba model but much improved in capacity and speed, which has served as a model to hundreds of cities. Currently its lines are being extended by 61%. He contracted the first Metro line in Bogota which is under construction. He also created an extensive bicycle network when only a few northern European cities had one, greenways, hundreds of parks, formidable sports and cultural centers and large libraries, 67 schools, 35 of which managed by a successful private-public scheme and high quality urban development projects for more than 500,000 residents and a radical redevelopment of 33 hectares of the center of Bogota, previously controlled by drug dealers and crime which required demolishing more than 1200 buildings occupying 32 hectares, a few blocks from the heart of Colombia´s institutional heart, including the Presidential house.   

His advisory work concentrates on urban mobility, quality of life, competitiveness, equity and the leadership required to turn visions into realities.

Penalosa has lectured in hundreds of cities and in many of the world´s most important universities. He has advised local and national governments in Asia, Africa, Australia, Latin America and the United States.

He is a member of the Advisory Board of AMALI (African Mayoral Leadership Initiative), Fellow of the Institute for Urban Research of the University of Pennsylvania. For over a decade he was President of the Board of New York´s ITDP (Institute for Transportation and Development Policy) of New York; member of the London School of Economics´ Cities Program Advisory Board. He was a member of the Commission for the Reinvention of Transport of the New York Metropolitan Transit Authority created by the New York Governor Cuomo.

His book Equality and the City was recently published by The University of Pennsylvania; in Spanish it was published Villegas Editores and in Portuguese by the IPP (Instituto Pereira Passos) of Rio de Janeiro. 

Penalosa has been included in Planetizen´s list of The Most Influential Urbanists, Past and Present, the most recent time in July 2023. He was also one of ¨15 Thought Leaders in Sustainable City Development¨ selected by Identity Review July 2023. He has been awarded important international recognitions such as the Stockholm Challenge; the Gothenburg Sustainability Prize; the 2018 Edmund N. Bacon Award, the highest tribute of The Center for Design and Architecture of Philadelphia, given to him because of ¨the world-wide influence his pioneering initiatives have had on public transportation, infrastructure investment, and public space, including in cities such as Philadelphia and New York City¨. For Penalosa´s work Bogota was awarded the Golden Lion of the Venice Biennale.

Penalosa has a BA in Economics and History from Duke University, a Degree in Government from the IIAP (now fused with ENA) in France and a DESS in Public Administration from the University of Paris 2 Pantheon-Assas. He was Dean of Management at Externado University in Bogota and a Visiting Scholar at New York University.

Penalosa´s TED Talk has nearly one million views, his X account in Spanish has more than 2 million followers.

Read the podcast transcript here

Eve Picker: [00:00:13] Hi there. Thanks for joining me on Rethink Real Estate. For Good. I’m Eve Picker and I’m on a mission to make real estate work for everyone. I love real estate. Real estate makes places good or bad, rich, or poor, beautiful, or not. In this show, I’m interviewing the disruptors, those creative thinkers and doers that are shrugging off the status quo in order to build better for everyone.

Eve: [00:00:49] This is a long one, but I couldn’t help myself. Enrique Penalosa is an exuberant lover of cities, equitable cities. He served as mayor of Bogota, Colombia, not once but twice, profoundly transforming his city from one with no self-esteem into an international model. As mayor, Enrique launched TransMilenio, a bus mass transit system which today moves 2.4 million passengers daily. He also built an extensive bicycle network at a time when only a few northern European cities had one, along with greenways, hundreds of parks, sports and cultural centers, large libraries, 67 schools, and a radical 33-hectare redevelopment in the heart of Bogota previously controlled by drug dealers. This required demolishing more than 1200 buildings. Recently he published a new book called Equality and the City. Look for it on Amazon. Of course, the accolades are too numerous to mention here. Enrique’s work is considered significant and influential by many, and the list of awards is long. There’s a lot to learn here. More than an hour’s worth of podcasting can hold.

Eve: [00:02:21] Good morning. I’m really delighted to have you on my show, Enrique. I’ve been a huge fan of yours for a very long time.

Enrique Penalosa: [00:02:28] Thank you very much, Eve. Thank you. You’re really generous, and it’s a great pleasure to be with you.

Eve: [00:02:33] I know there have been many, many accolades. You’re one of the most influential urbanists, and you have a brand new book called Equality in the City. But I wanted to start with a question: why and how did cities come to take center stage in your professional life?

Enrique: [00:02:50] Oh, that’s an interesting question. I somehow talk about this in my book. I am from Colombia, and this, of course, conditions everything. My father was into public service, and he was the head of the Rural Land Reform Institute and the, and so I was as most middle, upper middle-class children in a developing country, in a private school. And I used to get beat up because they were this, institute was doing land reform, taking, forcefully buying land to distribute to small farmers. And so, since very early, I was obsessed with equality with, I was convinced that socialism was the solution, as many in my generation. It was that time around late 60s, 70s and I went to Duke University and there I really was very interested in studying all about this. And I realized socialism was a failure. It was both a failure for economic development, which for me was extremely important and sadly, also for constructing equality, because it was extremely hierarchical system with all kinds of privileges for the bureaucracy and all that. But at that time, when I was in college, my father became secretary general of the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements – Habitat in Vancouver. And he had always already been involved in in Bogota, he had been in city council, and at that time I began to be more and more interested in cities and less and less interested in the socialism, which I as I said, I realized it was a failure. And at that time my city was growing like 4% per year. Bogota. And I realized that maybe it was much more important to define the way cities would be built and even economic development, because economic development would come sooner or later, maybe 50 years later, 50 years earlier. But if cities were not done right, it was very difficult to correct them. If we were able to save land for a park as the city was growing or exploding, almost, this hectare or ten hectares or 100 hectares would make people happier for hundreds of years. Thousands.

Eve: [00:05:21] New York City is a really great example of that, with the fabulous park in the middle. That was very visionary. Yeah.

Enrique: [00:05:27] New York City, I mentioned this, and I work a lot with Africa recently, New York City created Central Park in 1860, when New York City had less than 1 million inhabitants and had an income per capita, very similar to some developing countries today. So, if we are able to save land for a park, it will make life happier for millions for hundreds of years. If we are not able to save land for that park and cities built over, it’s almost impossible to demolish, for example, the 300 hectares that Central Park has later. Demolish 300 hectares of city to create a park of that size. So I became more and more interested in cities. Obsessed. Later I did graduate school in Paris and, of course I was always very poor. When I was at Duke, I was on a soccer scholarship. And in Paris I worked a lot. I was a very low. I mean, I realized I was poor many years later because I was extremely happy. The city gave me everything I needed. And I realized how a great city can make life happy, even if you don’t have wealth or anything. I mean, it’s a, so I became obsessed with cities since then. When I majored in university, I studied economics and history and public administration and all that, but I never actually studied anything urban per se. But all my life that’s what I have worked on.

Eve: [00:07:02] Interesting. So, I have to ask you, what city do you think does that best today, makes people happy?

Enrique: [00:07:10] Oh.

Eve: [00:07:11] I wasn’t going to ask that question, but I have some of my own answers.

Enrique: [00:07:15] That’s an interesting city because I love all cities, you know, all of them have some charm and some great things. Clearly, today for everybody what is a great city is one that is good to be on foot for pedestrians. That’s the way. So, with that criteria, which city? What makes it a great city for pedestrians and for, also, I would add, a great city for the most vulnerable citizens, for the elderly, for the poor, for the children. And so the first thing has to have is great pedestrian qualities. And pedestrian quality means great sidewalks, of course, but also destinations, places to go to and people that you see in the sidewalks. We need to see people, to see people. I mean, we are pedestrians. We are walking animals. We need to walk to be happy. Just as birds need to fly or deer need to run, or fish need to swim. We need to walk not just to survive, but to be happy. We could survive inside an apartment all our life, but cities that are great for walking sometimes because they are very great sidewalks places such as I love New York, despite the fact that I think it’s a little too dirty recently.

Enrique: [00:08:35] And I think the occupations of public pedestrian space by by informal vendors really is getting out of hand. And this crazy, how is it that they put in the buildings the, andamios. Scaffolding all over the place that lasts for years. I mean, but despite that, I love New York because he’s so full of life and he’s so it’s so free and it has beautiful places like the riverfront and anyway I love, I mean I love all cities. And it seems very spontaneous, you know, spontaneous. So, it’s not like, and they are, everybody’s like doing their own thing and doing things. There are cities where you, I think you can be there and just simply lead a contemplative life. But others, if somehow brought you to do things, to do things, to be active, to create, to do, to do. Other cities, you can just, you know, go to the cafe, relax and that’s fine. But I like this energy New York has.

Eve: [00:09:45] You like active cities. Active cities, yeah.

Enrique: [00:09:47] Somehow brought you to be active and to create and to do things. But I mean, all cities are wonderful. I mean, all for different reasons. Mexico City, my city I like, of course. I mean, I love all cities.

Eve: [00:10:03] Yes. So, let’s move on. You had two terms as mayor of your city, Bogota, Colombia, and they’re often cited as transformative for the city. So, what led you to become mayor? I mean, I hear the love of cities, but becoming mayor is really another big step, right?

Enrique: [00:10:20] Yes. I was obsessed with the public service somehow. Always. This is why, even though it’s an interesting thing, I was born in the United States, because, but I was there for only one month, as my accent shows. When I was a kid, my family went back to when I was 15, to my father was working at the Inter-American development Bank and even though then, I was at Duke University, a very good university in the US, and I had a US nationality because I’ve been born there in one of these rare trips to Colombia, I renounced my US citizenship because, since then I was interested in politics. In politics and my father had been a public servant, but not elected. And he was attacked and all this and had many, and I remember always an uncle of mine who said, look, uh, your father was attacked so dirtily because he had neither money nor votes. So, I said I would not have money, but I will get votes. What gives you power when you are, and what makes you be able to do change when in government is to have votes. The difference between the one who is elected and the one who is appointed is like the difference between the owner of the company and the manager.

Enrique: [00:11:46] If you do, if you are appointed and you do anything that creates a conflict, you are fired. So, I always thought I wanted to be elected, and that’s why I said maybe to have a US nationality may become a handicap in the future. And I was obsessed with doing things for cities. More and more, the more I studied since I was in the middle of college, I was obsessed with studying and reading, and I lived in Paris, and I always dreamt of doing things that were very obvious. And I dreamt, for example, of bikeways much before, I mean, they were always bikeways in the Netherlands and Denmark, but there were no bikeways in Paris when I lived there, not one single bikeway. And in Bogota there were no sidewalks, very few almost. There was not one decent sidewalk in the city, in Colombia. And I always also dreamt that the rail systems were too expensive for our possibilities, that we needed to organize some kind of efficient bus-based mass transit. And, I mean, I was obsessed since then, and so I wanted to become mayor. I think I was a good mayor, relatively good. But I was not a good politician.

Eve: [00:12:58] We had a mayor like that in Pittsburgh. He was a fabulous mayor, but he was not a good politician.

Enrique: [00:13:03] Yes, yes, yes. I mean, I have lost like 7 elections in my life. And that sounds very quickly. When I said you, I lost seven elections. But in life, actually, it is almost one year of work every time, so like,

Eve: [00:13:14] Oh yeah.

Enrique: [00:13:14] You could say it’s lost seven, seven years of life for elections that were not successful. But to make the story short, in my life, I was, after a big effort, I was elected, but I wanted to be mayor because I wanted to do things. I had a whole vision in my mind of what I wanted to do. I did not want to be mayor, but to do as mayor.

Eve: [00:13:43] Yes, I get it. I mean, I’ve read that even the way you became elected, you didn’t really rely on a party machine. You relied on meeting with people one at a time, right? It was all about connecting with the people.

Enrique: [00:13:55] That’s right. Eve. When I started, Colombian politics was only machinery, very powerful machineries, organizations and a lot of money distributed to local leaders. And I did something that was completely new at that time. It’s very obvious. And I had nothing creative now in the world. It’s very easy to start to distribute little leaflets in the street, which nobody had done at that time. Even I did some interesting things that were different. For example, the first politician had a smiling picture. At that time, all of the pictures were more like, great…

Eve: [00:14:34] Powerful. Yes.

Enrique: [00:14:35] And I also put a resume and anyway, so I was able and going to homes one by one. Anyway, I was elected. I was able to be elected first to Congress, like this. And a few years later to mayor with no party, as an independent really.

Eve: [00:14:57] Independent. Interesting. So, describe Bogota as a city when you took office and some of the challenges you faced.

Enrique: [00:15:06] That’s interesting because Bogota, as most developing cities, well, Bogota, our cities have lacked a lot of planning. And even when they did plans, they weren’t very nice plans. Architects draw and they don’t, are not implemented. So a few things were a few roads, a few main big roads. But for example, more than 40% of Bogota when I was first elected in ’97, had informal origin, had been of informal origin. And since I had worked in the past in things with the city, for example, I was Vice President of this Bogota water company. I had really worked closely, and I knew very well, and I was very obsessed with this informal organization, how lower income people were not able to get legal land, well-located legal land. So were they forced to the steep hills around the city, steep mountains, or flooding zones near the river and so with the water company we used to we’re able to work a lot in the legalization of this to bring water and sewage. And so, this is one thing Bogota had. Another thing Bogota did not have sidewalks, practically not one. I would say they were not one. They had been a few decades before a few sidewalks built or some sidewalks, but the cars simply were parking on top of them whenever they had been built. And and many places they had not even been built at all. So, it was horrible for pedestrians and of course Colombia has always been a very much of a bicycling country. It’s the only developing country, the country in the developing world that has successful cyclists at the world level. Some Colombians have won.

Eve: [00:17:00] That’s interesting. Yeah.

Enrique: [00:17:02] There is no other developing country in the world. I mean, you would think this is not an expensive sport. It’s not like yachting, but nevertheless, for some reason, Colombia is the only developing country that is successful. For example, Colombian won the tour de France and Colombians have won the tour of Spain and of Italy.

Eve: [00:17:22] Oh wow! I didn’t know that. Yeah.

Enrique: [00:17:25] But there were no bicycling for work. For zero for transportation. It was like a sports thing. And of course, only 10% of the people have cars, but they were the richest and most powerful people in the city, and they think they could park in the sidewalks or two. And they thought the bicyclists were a nuisance if there were any. They were nobody used to go to work by bicycle. There were almost no parks, and the few parks were completely abandoned and not in a good shape. So, this is the environment I found, more or less. And of course, the traffic jams were worse and worse, and there was not a decent public transportation system. Of course, there was not a metro and there was not a, the bus system was completely chaotic. There were thousands and thousands of buses that were almost individually owned, racing against each other, people hanging from the doors. And sometimes since they were fighting for passengers, they would block the another ones and the other bus the driver would get out with a cudgel and break the windows of the other bus. Even if the other bus was full of passengers, it was like the Wild West. And that’s the city.

Eve: [00:18:45] It was. It was like the wild… Just just backing up a little bit, how many people live in Bogota?

Enrique: [00:18:51] Now we have like 8 million inhabitants in Bogota.

Eve: [00:18:55] It’s a big city. OK.

Enrique: [00:18:56] And also in the surrounding municipalities, like a little bit about a million, 200 more or something like that.

Eve: [00:19:02] Okay, okay. And then it was also a lot of poverty and drug activity and altogether not a very healthy city by the sounds of it.

Enrique: [00:19:12] There was a lot of poverty because we were a developing city that was very poor. And we are still I mean, so far, for example, Colombians income per capita today is around $6,000. And the United States income per capita is like $80,000 or something like that. So it would take us if we do very well with very high economic growth rates, it would take us maybe, even if we have very high economic growth rates, like, for example, if we if we grow at 3 or 4% per capita annually, it would take us more than 150 years to reach today’s income per capita of the United States, not to catch up to the United States, but to reach where the United States is today.

Eve: [00:19:53] Wow!

Enrique: [00:19:54] We have advanced a lot. Colombia has progressed a lot and we have reduced poverty very much. We have made huge advances in education and all that, but we are still at poverty. But of course, we had much more poverty 25 years ago when I first became mayor.

Eve: [00:20:10] So what did you tackle first?

Enrique: [00:20:13] One thing before I go into that, I’d like to say that this experience in urbanization, urbanization is fascinating because it’s gigantic. I mean, when I became mayor, Bogota’s population would double every 16 years or so, and the size of the city grows much more than proportional to population, because as a society gets richer, there are more buildings that are different from housing. For example, when a society is very poor, barely there are housing buildings. As societies get richer, there are shops, there are factories, there are offices, there are universities. And one thing that is very interesting, this is not just history. What we are talking about is not history because this is the challenge in Africa. I think the most important challenge in the world today is African urbanization. Today in Africa, there are more than, in sub-Saharan Africa, there are more than 250 million people who live in slums. Horrible poverty, slums with no electricity, no water, no sewage. Different degrees of poverty, but all of them horrible. And if these things continue the way as they are, they would have more than 500 million more people living in slums in 20 years. African urban population, it grows by the amount of the US population, about 320 million or something, every 15 years or so. So every 15 years, Africa has to build the amount of housing that the whole US has today every 15 or 16 years, you know. And they are extremely poor, not only housing the sewage, the water…

Speaker4: [00:22:03] The infrastructure.

Enrique: [00:22:04] The schools, the roads, they’re going to have giant cities, cities that maybe like Lagos, cities that maybe 60 million inhabitants or more. So, it is extremely important not only for Africa but for the world to do good cities in Africa. Even if at first they do not have all the water or sewage, but to leave enough space for roads, for parks, for public transport, because otherwise this is going to be horrible for the environment and horrible suffering for people. And this is even a problem for the security of the world, because this is going to be a completely inhuman situation that can have unexpected consequences. So, what I’m saying is that my experience in Latin America is some, a few decades ahead of Africa in economic development and urbanization but this is still a big challenge for the world. This is not just history.

Eve: [00:23:10] I suppose I’m wondering how you convince people. Because Bogota Ciclovia is a really amazing, iconic symbol of the city. I understand that now every Sunday, 75 miles of roads are shut down and given over to people to enjoy, almost like a Millennial Park, right?

Enrique: [00:23:30] Exactly. This is a beautiful thing that we have in Colombia.

Eve: [00:23:35] So I actually was so inspired by this, I co-founded an open street in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and I can’t tell you how hard it was to get one mile of it because everyone complained about, you know, the street in front of their shop that someone couldn’t park there and shop there that day. It was exhausting because people don’t understand the potential that that has. And I don’t know how you get to 75 miles, like, this is huge! You know, how do you convince people that they have to be fabulous cities in Africa or we’re all going to suffer? It’s, most people don’t want to think about it.

Enrique: [00:24:20] Yes. There are several aspects of this. This is a fascinating thing. It all has to do with equality, which is the theme of my book in a certain way, how cities can construct equity so that a good city is one place where nobody should feel inferior or excluded. A good city is also one where, if all citizens are equal, then public good prevails over private interest, you know? So, in developing countries, in Africa or even in Colombia and most, almost there is not one single developing country where more than 50% of the people have cars. Always developing country, almost by definition, I would say, is that it’s a developing city is one where less than 50% of the people have cars. And the one thing we should remember is that if we are all equal, as all democracies say, all constitutions state that all citizens are equal, then a citizen on a $100 bicycle is equally important to one on $100,000 car. And they have, or a citizen that is walking or is on a bicycle has a right to the same amount of road space that a citizen that has goes in a luxury car. The same amount. There is, the person in the car usually think they have a right to more space than the people in the bicycle or so, and they honk at the people in the bicycle.

Eve: [00:25:53] Oh yeah.

Enrique: [00:25:56] So, so this is very beautiful, what we have achieved in in Bogota because,I mean, it was created before, but it has been expanding, actually, when my brother was the head of the Sports and Parks and Recreation with another mayor, he expanded a lot and I expanded it a lot. So, we get, on a sunny day, we may get, a million and a half people out in the street. And one thing that is important is that Bogota is a very compact city, very dense. We have more than 220 inhabitants per hectare. So, it’s a beautiful ritual of human beings reconquering this city for themselves. One thing that I did that is interesting too, is that I held a referendum for people to vote, and one day a year a work weekday, we have a car free day. So, this whole 8 million inhabitant city has no cars, no cars at all, during the whole day. Everybody has to use public transport or bicycles. We have taxis but no private cars. And so, it’s an interesting exercise, not only in terms of the environment or even mobility, but of social integration. One of the most crucial things that we need, especially in unequal, in more unequal societies like ours, is that all citizens should meet as equals. For example, someone who owns an apartment in Fifth Avenue in front of Central Park in New York.

Enrique: [00:27:38] He may meet the doorman of the building, but they meet separated by hierarchies. One is the owner of the apartment, and the other one is the employee, low paid employee. But if they meet in the sidewalk or if they meet in the park, they meet in a completely different way. They meet as equals or if they meet in public transport. So, in a great city, people meet as equals. This is not enough for, but this is one of the kinds of equality that a good city can construct. And so in these kind of exercises, if we get people to meet together, for example, if two people meet in bicycles in a traffic light, maybe one bicycle is a $10,000 and the other one is $100, but it doesn’t matter. They both meet as fragile humans, vulnerable. They see each other. They have the same right to the street. They have the same right to the space. It’s very different than if somebody is in a crowded public transport, and the other one is in a luxury car or something. In this there is a proximity, there is a vulnerability. And so, these exercises that we do in Bogota, I think they are interesting. And they are good for the environment, they are good for mobility, and they are good for social integration or construction of some kind of unconscious equity.

Eve: [00:29:11] So you as mayor, you focused on mobility, not just bicycles, right? I read about the TransMilenio, the first metro line, a huge bicycle network, greenways. Do you want to tell us a little about all of that?

Enrique: [00:29:26] Thank you very much, Eve. Yes. For example, the TransMilenio, the BRT. I have even written about how we should organize a bus system that was different than the one I described earlier, with exclusive lanes for buses and a system that, where people would have prepaid cards so they would not take time to board the bus. And then I found the Curitiba system. Mayor Jaime Lerner in Curitiba had done a wonderful, in Brazil, Curitiba had done a wonderful system. But Curitiba was a small city. The system had been created like in 1973 or 4. And they only had 500,000 inhabitants, at that time. It did not have much impact. But then to me, I marvelled because I said, this is the solution. This is perfect because rail systems are too expensive. I mean, subways are wonderful. But they cost a huge amount of money. It’s extremely expensive to build an extremely expensive to operate. And so, we created a BRT system and actually we were innovative even in that we gave a name to it. You know, one of the things that I, I knew from, since you tell me you are in Pittsburgh, one of the first places in the world where they did some exclusive lanes for buses was Pittsburgh.

Eve: [00:30:50] Oh yeah. I use it. I used it a couple of times a week. I live downtown, and I have an office in East Liberty, a building in East Liberty, and it takes me seven minutes on the busway. And if I drive, it’s 30 minutes.

Enrique: [00:31:03] Exactly. You know, so…

Eve: [00:31:05] It’s Fantastic. Fantastic.

Enrique: [00:31:07] Well, I’m very happy that you say that, because I like to tell you and to tell the Pittsburgh people that one of the things that influenced me to create TransMilenio was the Pittsburgh project, because that’s before TransMilenio. I found about it. And these things motivated me and inspired me.

Eve: [00:31:23] It’s very limited. I wish they would expand it. They’re doing a line now from downtown to Oakland, which is the University Center, but they’ve been talking about it for 30 years, you know, takes a very long time to do things.

Enrique: [00:31:38] This brings us to the fact that solutions to mobility, more than an issue of money, are an issue of equity and political decision. This is very obvious. Some things, sometimes for us, they are before our noses, and we don’t see them. You know, for example, only about 100 years ago or a little bit more, women could not vote, you know, and it was not fascist who thought women should not vote. I mean, normal people, good people thought that this was good. That was normal, you know? And today we see this is completely mad. Or how about only about 70 years ago or so that, even in the United States that the African Americans had to give their seat to the whites or things like this, that today we think is is mad. But at that time, I’m sure many people who were good people thought this was normal. And so, in the same time, sometimes inequalities before our noses, for example, I believe it’s completely crazy that we have a bus with 50 people and then you have the give the same space that you give to a car with one, you know. This is not democratic. Besides, it’s not technically intelligent because actually a BRT is the most efficient way to use scarce road space. Since we are going to have buses, a BRT is the way that you use the least energy, the way that you use the least amount of buses, the way that you use the least amount of road space. Anyway, we created TransMilenio, which became a model to hundreds of cities around the world. It’s a system that has an amazing capacity. It moves more people per kilometer hour anyway you want to measure it than almost all subways in the world.

Eve: [00:33:28] Wow.

Enrique: [00:33:28] We move more people, passengers, our direction and also within Europe. There is only one line in New York subway that moves more than us and that’s the Green Line. But that’s only because it’s two lines actually: the express line and the local one.

Eve: [00:33:43] Right.

Enrique: [00:33:44] But our system moves more passengers per kilometer than practically even all the New York subway lines. And of course, it costs 15 times less. And this is, I think, you need more of this in many cities in the US, it’s the only way to be able to give this kind of service, even to suburbs, because this can have more flexibility. Anyway, we created this, this system. It has 114km today. And it moves a 2.4 million passengers per day.

Eve: [00:34:14] Wow.

Enrique: [00:34:15] And it’s being expanded by 60%. Now, at this time. So, we should reach easily more than 3.2 million passengers per day or something like this. And now, of course, most buses are bi-articulated buses with gas fuel. But soon all of them will be electric, of course, as well. So, and I’m sure very soon in ten years or so, they will also be driverless. So actually, what makes a mass transit system is not the fact that it has metal wheels or rubber wheels, but the fact that it has exclusive right-of-way. That’s what creates the the mass transit, the capacity, the speed. We don’t have time to go into these boring technical details. But what is interesting also is the democratic symbol it represents, because I have seen everybody in the world wants subways.

Eve: [00:35:14] Yes.

Enrique: [00:35:14] Upper income people all over the world, subways, preferably underground. So, they don’t even have to see the low income people that go in them. You know, in developing countries, I mean, this is not the case in London or in Paris or in New York, but in developing countries, all upper income people want subways, but they have not the slightest intention of using them. It has not crossed their mind. You know, I am sure that if you have Mexican friends, that are most likely upper middle-class citizens, 99% of the cases, not only they don’t use this, I mean, the Mexico City subway is one of the most extensive networks in any developing city in the world. I think only Delhi and maybe another one has longer one. But the upper middle class or upper class even less, it’s not that they don’t use it, it’s that they have never even been to it once in their lifetime. Never.

Eve: [00:36:14] So, you know that’s not only true of them. I have a Pittsburgh born and bred friend who’s in his 50s who has never ridden a bus. Ever. I was completely shocked when he told me that.

Enrique: [00:36:27] There is something very interesting. Transport has a lot to do with status for some interesting reason. You know, this is why some people pay $500,000 for a car, which basically that’s something very similar to a $50,000 car, you know, but then it’s very cool. The fancy car. And for example, in 1940, there were trams in every city in the world with more than 100,000 inhabitants. But at that time, trams were identified with the poor, with the lower income people. They were jammed and so, buses appeared. For some interesting reason buses appear much later than cars, because at first, they were not the technologies for pneumatic tires, and the only until 1920, or even more, most streets in the world were cobblestones. So, a solid rubber tire, big vehicle on cobblestones, of course, would fall apart in a few blocks.

Eve: [00:37:27] Yes.

Enrique: [00:37:28] Jumping.

Eve: [00:37:29] Yeah.

Enrique: [00:37:30] And so buses appeared, and in 1940 buses were sexy. They were the sexy, the modern thing. And trams were identified with something for the poor. Now it’s the opposite. Now, in the US, buses are identified with the poor, with the Latin Americans, with the African Americans. And the cool thing is trams. So, everybody wants to put trams, trams. All cities think trams will revitalize the city centers and all that. And, of course, trams are nice, but basically, they do the same or less than buses and they cost a lot more. But they are sexy, you know, and so we have to make bus-based systems sexy to finish this story. We may have $100,000 car stuck in a traffic jam, and there are many traffic jams in Bogota, and the bus zooms by next to it. And even a little boy can’t make faces to the guy in the car, you know, and say, hey, they can go, you know?

Eve: [00:38:31] Yes.

Enrique: [00:38:32] So it’s a symbol of democracy in action, a BRT when the expensive cars. So, because, even if an underground subway is wonderful, it’s not as powerful symbolically as the bus that zooms next to the car, because it shows that public good prevails over private interest. Democracy is not just the fact that people vote. Democracy it also requires that if all citizens are equal, public good prevails over private interest. And this is the essence of the busway. And also, this is the essence of bikeways. When first we started to do bikeways in Bogota, when I first became mayor, we did like 250km of protected bikeway, the first time I was mayor. When there were no protected bikeways anywhere in the world except the Netherlands and Denmark and a few in Germany. There was not a meter in Paris or in New York, or in London. Maybe there were a few kilometers somewhere in California or something. But we created this network and again, it’s the equity principle is what is behind it. What we are saying is a citizen on a $100 bicycle is equally important to one on a $200,000 car. And the protected bikeway not only protects the cyclist, but it raises the social status of the cyclist. And this is very interesting. Bogota today has the highest amount of cyclists in any city in America. Amsterdam has a much higher percentage, of course, but since we are much bigger, we have more cyclists than Amsterdam.

Eve: [00:40:12] Interesting.

Enrique: [00:40:13] We have like a like a million people every day using bicycles.

Eve: [00:40:17] Your optimism about this is infectious, but I can’t wonder what sort of pushback you had because wealth is powerful, right? So even if 10% of the population don’t get it, that must have been an enormous lift.

Enrique: [00:40:32] I had a lot of enemies in politics. Yes. I mentioned I was not a good politician. Amazingly enough, I was re-elected in Bogota. There is no immediate re-election. If I had immediate re-election, I would have loved to have 2 or 3 periods. I really would have transformed Bogota. But I had to wait several years afterwards. And it was very difficult, even, for example, when I was just having the war to get cars off the sidewalks and to put bollards, for example, they made this huge calumny. Half of Colombians thinks that I made a business making bollards, you know? And there was never an investigation. There was never even a press article. Nothing. But there was so much calumny that I would say, if we make a poll, a half of, not Bogota people, Colombian people, think I made some kind of business from making bollards, or that my mother had a bollard factory or my brothers or something. Because we had to put bollards because we built a lot of sidewalks. But we did not have enough money to build the sidewalks everywhere. So we had to put bollards where we did not have money to build sidewalks. It’s always difficult. I try to do many things. I mean, again, we have to do what will improve the life of all and this implies conflicts. For example, now I talk very quickly about how we create the TransMilenio. But these people who used to have individually owned buses before TransMilenio, they were extremely powerful, extremely well-organized, and they would bring the city to a halt on a strike, and they would put the president on his knees. When I was doing TransMilenio, the President would call me once they had a strike, and he would call me all the time at home and everything to tell me to stop and to negotiate, that this was not tolerable.

Enrique: [00:42:30] Happily, in the Colombian constitution, the mayor has a lot of autonomy, and I did not have to obey the President. But I don’t say this is the kind of difficulties that you find when you are seeking the public good. And not only that, for example, many of these traditional bus operators became the contractors of the TransMilenio system, and actually it was very good business for them. But it was not easy. And, for example, there was the most exclusive club. This is the cover of my book, by the way, the cover of my book. The most exclusive country club in Colombia where the elite of the elite, maybe, I don’t know, 1500 members, the all the former President, the richest people in Colombia, I mean the most powerful people. I use eminent domain to turn the riding stables and the polo fields into a public park. And I also said that the whole golf course should become a public park as well. And this was, of course, very difficult. And, of course, all of these are battles. Battles, battles. Sometimes I have to battle the drug traffickers who control the whole area downtown. The police would not enter this area unless they were on a big operative with a hundred police, but five police would not go there because it was completely controlled by crime. And this was two blocks from the Presidential palace, from the main square in the country, in the city, from Congress, from the Supreme Court of Justice. And it was extremely difficult. And there we demolished more than 1200 buildings in my two terms and were able to create parks and housing.

Eve: [00:44:16] Wow!

Enrique: [00:44:17] But everything that you do is difficult. It’s difficult and painful.

Eve: [00:44:21] And yet you went back for a second time.

Enrique: [00:44:23] I went back, this, yeah, this thing that I just.

Eve: [00:44:25] Is there a the third one that we need to know about?

Enrique: [00:44:28] Well, I was feeling that I was already in a certain age. But then, once I see Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump as candidates, so I feel very young again.

Eve: [00:44:41] Very good. It’s only a number, right?

Enrique: [00:44:43] So I will go for another time or something.

Eve: [00:44:48] This is an amazing story. So, I want to ask you what’s the accomplishment you are most proud of?

Enrique: [00:44:54] Well, there are many things that made me extremely happy. For example, I was able to get more land for parks than all the mayors in the city in the whole history. The TransMilenio is very exciting to me because I think, again, as mobility, as symbol of democracy. There are some other things that we did that are very beautiful. For example, one of the most difficult things is to give good education to the poorest people, quality education. And we began to build some beautiful libraries, like four large, beautiful libraries, some in low-income areas. So, they are symbols that construct, like temples, that construct values, that knowledge and education are important. But also, we created beautiful schools. Beautiful, like the best private schools of the upper income people in the lowest income neighborhoods and former slums. And these beautiful, but more important than the building is that we created a system that has cost me blood politically, because I confronted the extremely powerful teacher’s union in which we said, we are going to get the best private schools and the best private university to manage these public schools in the poorest areas.

Speaker4: [00:46:09] And we have now 35 of these schools that we built, and we are able to contract with this, the best university. And the results have been amazing. Amazing. It’s really amazing that these children with the poorest people, because these schools are all in the poor, they are not in middle class areas, they are in the poorest neighborhoods. These children have academic results that are comparable to the upper income children in private schools. And of course, this has been extremely exciting. I mean, I will tell you that 99% of these children who study, they’re already graduates, or they have no idea that I, that I did this. But the teacher’s union has it very clear and it has caused me blood because they have been specialists in calumny me and to say all kinds of lies. And of course, the fact is not that all public schools are going to be managed in this way, but this creates a competition with…

Eve: [00:47:09] Equality, yeah.

Enrique: [00:47:10] Exactly, a model. So, we have to understand why these children in these schools, why these schools work so much better, so much, amazingly much better than the other public school that is managed by the traditional public union style only a few blocks away. And it’s not only in academic results that are amazing in the S.A.T. kind of things, but also, for example, much lower drug consumption, much lower desertion. I mean, when desertion rates that these children leave schools. Much lower gangs, even the whole neighborhoods crime goes down.

Eve: [00:47:50] Interesting.

Enrique: [00:47:51] It’s really fascinating. And of course, like many things that, so this, if you say, what are you most proud of? I think that these schools are teaching some things which have not yet been adopted by the rest of the educational system, but it’s very clear what it is that makes them much better.

Eve: [00:48:08] Interesting. We could talk all day, but I’m going to have to wrap up. So one more question. What’s next for you?

Enrique: [00:48:17] Well, we have in Colombia this time what I consider a terrible national government. We’re doing many crazy things, and I continue participating in politics. I mean, I have, like more than 2 million followers in Twitter, and so I try to give opinions or things. I may run for office somehow, even if it’s just to help somebody in the end, somebody else. I’m not obsessed with power, but I will try to contribute, and I’m also working very much internationally. I am very, I have been given the opportunity by some programs in Africa that are being, built by AMALI, an organization called AMALI and by Bloomberg. So, I am extremely interested in being able to participate more in African organization. I think this is a huge challenge, not just because we could avoid horrible problems, but because we could do cities that are better than anything that has been done before in the world. For example, in Africa, one of the things that we did here that I’m most happy about, we did more than 100km of greenways crisscrossing or bicycle highways crisscrossing an extremely dense city, because this is easy in a suburb, maybe, but this is extremely difficult.

Enrique: [00:49:33] And so, African cities could very easily have thousands of kilometers of greenways crisscrossing them in all directions. Imagine, not just one central park, but some parks all over the place. I mean, African cities can profit from the experience of all cities in the past, and in many cases, it makes it easier. In many cases, land is owned not by private owners, land that runs it by tribes or by national governments. So this is something that I hope that I’m able to participate more, because I think African people are wonderful, and I think there is a fantastic possibility to profit from us. I tell them, look, it’s not that I want to teach you the wonderful things we did. I want to tell you all the wrong things that we did, that you can avoid. Because our process of urbanization is so recent. I say, oh my God, if we had done this, that, that, that, that we would have we could have avoided so many mistakes.

Eve: [00:50:35] Yeah. Well, this has been just an incredibly delightful hour. I could go on forever. And of course, now Bogota is on my bucket list. I have to go there. Especially on a Sunday. I can get to ride those 75 miles. It would be amazing. So, thank you very, very much for joining me. And I hope every city gets your touch.

Enrique: [00:51:02] Thank you very, very much for the invitation. Thank you very much.

Eve: [00:51:19] I hope you enjoyed today’s guest and our deep dive. You can find out more about this episode or others you might have missed on the show notes page at RethinkRealEstateforGood.co. There’s lots to listen to there. Please support this podcast and all the great work my guests do by sharing it with others, posting about it on social media, or leaving a rating and a review. To catch all the latest from me, you can follow me on LinkedIn. Even better, if you’re ready to dabble in some impact investing, head on over to smallchange.co where I spend most of my time. A special thanks to David Allardice for his excellent editing of this podcast and original music. And a big thanks to you for spending your time with me today. We’ll talk again soon. But for now, this is Eve Picker signing off to go make some change.

Image courtesy of Enrique Penalosa

Manufactured authenticity.

March 27, 2024

Scott Snodgrass is a founding partner of Meristem Communities, a Houston-based real estate development firm committed to creating Places for People™️ with mindful, fine-grained developments. Meristem is a resiliency-focused developer whose guiding principles create human-centric design by thoughtfully, sustainably, and holistically connecting the land and its natural resources with people.

Scott is an innovative entrepreneur and former farmer who leads with respect for the land and the environment, carefully strategizing an interconnected resilience of all systems—natural, human, and built. His vision has always been to create neighborhoods that honor and nurture local ecosystems, empowering people to live a more holistic way of life with renewed appreciation for their natural surroundings. This vision is being brought to fruition in Indigo, one of Meristem’s first developments in the suburbs of Houston, designed with a foundational connection to agriculture and built around a human-scale working farm and pasture. The Meristem belief is that it’s the sum of a thousand small decisions that create more engaging, more interesting, and more livable neighborhoods.

Alongside his work at Meristem, Scott works collaboratively with developers and consultants to create unique and exceptional agricultural amenities (agrihoods) within master-planned communities through Agmenity. He has become a thought leader in the national agrihood movement, regularly speaking on the topic at regional and national conferences. Scott is a member of several community organizations including the Urban Land Institute (ULI), currently serving on a national committee and most recently contributed to their 2018 ULI Agrihood Report. Scott holds a Bachelor of Arts in political science and government from The University of Texas at Austin.

Read the podcast transcript here

Eve Picker: [00:00:06] Hi there. Thanks for joining me on Rethink Real Estate. For Good. I’m Eve Picker and I’m on a mission to make real estate work for everyone. I love real estate. Real estate makes places good or bad, rich, or poor, beautiful, or not. In this show, I’m interviewing the disruptors, those creative thinkers and doers that are shrugging off the status quo in order to build better for everyone.

Eve: [00:00:43] In real estate development, envisioning how future societies will live can often feel like masterminding a high-tech work of science fiction. Just outside of Houston, a new development of the future is emerging. But instead of flying cars and skyscraping utopias, this version of Tomorrowland has its roots firmly and sustainably planted in days gone by. Indigo, a 235-acre community, is being developed by Scott Snodgrass and his partner Clayton Garrett, both farmers. They have thoughtfully gone against the norm in every aspect of this project, focusing first and foremost on people and a human scale to encourage interaction. Downsized lots and homes, a working farm, the integration of small businesses, careful attention paid to embracing everyone all make this project one worth watching. You’ll want to listen in to learn more.

Eve: [00:01:54] Hi, Scott. It’s really nice to have you join me today.

Scott Snodgrass: [00:01:57] Thank you so much for having me. I’ve been a big fan of yours and the podcast, at least for the past couple of years, and so, excited to be able to join today.

Eve: [00:02:06] Oh thank you. You’ve been heard to say that in community development, envisioning how future societies will live can often feel like masterminding a high-tech work of science fiction. Why is that?

Scott: [00:02:21] Well, uh, we don’t really know what the future holds for how people are going to live, but I think that we have maybe 40,000 years or something of history with how people live. And certainly, in modern history, we have some great analogues to look back at and so, I think it’s really about learning with what we’ve done in the past, but then also applying the technological changes we’ve had to the future. We’re a little slow to adopt some technologies. I think it’s real easy to see technologies and think it’s the future. And these sexy technologies that are always being sold by some company for some high price and you have to sign up for their subscription, and they own all of your data and all that. And we’re a little wary of that. But I do think that as we look into the future, sometimes we are doing the same thing that a science fiction writer would do in imagining what the world’s going to be like in the future.

Eve: [00:03:16] That’s true. So, and you are a former farmer amongst other things. How does a former farmer become a real estate developer?

Scott: [00:03:24] It’s a great question. It’s the one that most people ask, right away off the start. But my business partner and I, we have a company called Agmenity, and it manages farms for master plan community developers, hospitals, school districts, cities and counties. And so, we had experience in agriculture and started that company as a service company to help incorporate agriculture into more real estate developments and have been doing that work since 2015. And we had, our first project is called Harvest Green. It’s here in Houston. The real estate developer was just a wonderful company and their general manager on the project, Shay Shafi, was just an incredibly generous guy. And he brought us into every single development meeting, you know, so every week or every two weeks for years. And sometimes…

Eve: [00:04:18] You caught the bug!

Scott: [00:04:19] Right. We were like, why are we here talking about engineering? And he said, well, hey, this whole like, agriculture in a community thing is relatively new in the modern framework. And so we want to make sure that we’re catching any of those conflict points. And so we got to see the behind the scenes. And we got to ask questions about, well, why are you making this decision and why are you making that decision? And Clayton and I, my business partner, we had always felt like what could be more impactful on someone’s life than the food they eat. Nothing, right? And then we saw this whole real estate development world and said, oh, wow. Like, real estate development actually has a lot to do with what food people eat and a whole host of other things. And so, this is also incredibly impactful work. So, we hired a COO at Agmenity who does a tremendous job, runs the company better than we ever did or could and is really leading that company in a growth throughout the country right now. And so, Clayton and I have been able to focus at Meristem Communities and put our energy there and really work on our first project, Indigo.

Eve: [00:05:23] And so Meristem Communities you launched with your partner. And how long ago was that?

Scott: [00:05:28] Now we just launched meristem in 2021. We owned a piece of property, um, that we had had a large-scale farm on, and we were starting to be surrounded by suburban development outside of Houston. And so, that farm was never going to grow to the full size of the property we had purchased, we realized. And so, we said, okay, well, what do we do with the rest of this property? And so, we had been walking alongside real estate developers and we said, well, let’s look at this. And we started talking to some folks about some mixed-use and sports parks and light industrial even. And none of it felt quite right. And then Covid hit, and everything stopped for a while. And then single-family real estate caught on fire, for good and for bad. And we said, okay, well, this is kind of our only option right now. And frankly, because of the demand that home builders had for lots at that time, it put us in a position where two farmers could become real estate developers because the home builders were so desperate for lots. And that was really the key that opened up financing and all the other agreements that we needed to get moving.

Eve: [00:06:38] Interesting. So, then I have to ask you, does this community differ from conventional urban plan communities? And if it does, how?

Scott: [00:06:48] Certainly for Houston, it is shockingly different, we discovered right away. Our conversations with our home builders weren’t easy, even though their demand for lots was so high. But, you know, we’ve done a number of things at Indigo that are different than the norm. You know, first off, we do have agriculture incorporated into the community. How could two farmers, you know, develop a community that didn’t have agriculture? So, we knew we had to do that, but we actually don’t find ourselves talking about it that much, related to Indigo. We see the big differences that we have are really our focus on walkability, and that means using homes that have their garages on alleys and the front doors either on the street or on a green space. And that was a very difficult framework for the Houston development world to understand. For whatever reason, Houston has just rarely had any alleys since the 50s or 60s. The city’s abandoned a lot of them in the urban core and master plan community developers just haven’t used them. And so, you know, we can easily travel around the country and see alley-loaded neighborhoods. You know, the traditional neighborhood design framework all around the country. Dallas even has a lot of it. And so, it was easy to go see it but we had a hard time getting our, our builders on board with doing that. So that was kind of the first hurdle and something we were doing that was very different. And then the second part of that was smaller…

Eve: [00:08:14] So actually let’s back up. So, the importance of alleys means that, you know, no driveways on the front, the front of the houses are really for people, not for cars and, and trash and cars are relegated to the alley. Right?

Scott: [00:08:29] Yeah. So, our tagline at Meristem Communities is places for people. And you know, we imagine a world where cars, corporations and capital are not the primary stakeholders. And those other three things are tools that humans can use to achieve their goals, but they’re not the primary stakeholders. And unfortunately, our real estate system, as you know and talk about all the time, is currently built for cars, corporations and capital. And so, we believe that it’s an important shift in the design framework as you’re designing a community to look at people first. So yes, garages on the back. That reduces our curb cuts and our conflict points for vehicles and for for driveways and sidewalks. Yeah.

Eve: [00:09:12] And people. Safer for kids.

Scott: [00:09:13] Yep. Safer for kids and all that. It allows us to have on-street parking and a lot more of it because we don’t have all of those curb cuts now, for the driveways. And it also means that when cars pull off of the road onto the alley, there’s a very limited number of cars on those alleys as well, because they serve small pockets of homes. And so even those spaces are relatively safe as well.

Eve: [00:09:35] That’s a really major urban planning feature, but I feel like I need to go back a step and ask you what your vision was. Like, what’s the overall vision for this community, and where did you draw inspiration from? Aside from the farm?

Scott: [00:09:51] And we have this conversation a lot too, like. Our PR team will ask, you know, what’s the theme of the community? And we keep coming back to it’s places for people. That really is the theme. You have to do everything. You can’t just pick one thing to do. And so, we’re incorporating agriculture into our development. We’re using alleys. We’re creating safer streets. Wherever our sidewalks cross the street we have a raised pedestrian crossing or a raised intersection table. We have narrower streets, we have on street parking, we have bulb-outs. We have all these things to create a safer environment for people and focus on that. And then we’ve also done the mixing of uses by having residential and retail and other commercial in the same space and, you know, bringing that into the neighborhood instead of pushing it out onto the major thoroughfare adjacent to our neighborhood and turning its back to the community, we’ve really brought that retail into the community and had it face the community and be really central there. And so, I think you have to do all those things. So, places for people really is the theme but then walkability and safe streets has to be an important part of that.

Eve: [00:11:00] So how big is this community? How many homes are we talking about? How many people?

Scott: [00:11:04] So we have 235 acres within the development. More than 60% of that is open space. So, we have a 25-acre lake. We have, you know, miles of walking trails and sidewalks and everything. And we also have these, we basically created a street grid and then took out every other street and made it a green space. And so, homes still front on those green spaces, and they’re served by the alleys in the back. So, we have a lot of open space there. We have, uh, 661 homes for sale. And then, and that’s a range of attached and detached and cottages and more traditional single-family homes for our market. And then we also have about 150 apartment units, but they’re distributed through a number of buildings. We have these mansion apartments that are six- and seven-unit apartments that just look like a banker’s house, that we’re putting on some of the green spaces. And then we have some, like, smaller 30-unit buildings of micro units that look like brownstones that are in what we call Indigo Commons, which is the real town center, mixed-use area of the neighborhood.

Eve: [00:12:17] And so you’re under construction, right?

Scott: [00:12:21] Correct.

Eve: [00:12:21] How far into this project are you? What percentage complete and how many people live there?

Scott: [00:12:27] So, we don’t have anyone living yet, but our section one, the model homes for the community are going to start construction here in just a few weeks. So, all of section one, which is a little more than a third of the community, all of the storm sewer, the sanitary sewer, water lines, all that’s in the water plant. And, you know, we built our own water plant and wastewater treatment plant because we didn’t have services in our area. And so, all of that is in and the paving starts this week. And so, they’re moving real quick for us. Hopefully the weather holds up for us and they’ll be out there pouring concrete for the next 30 days or so, and then we’ll have those first 265 lots available for sale. And I’ll tell you, we’ve been doing some really intentional, small-scale and intimate cultivation of the potential home buyers. And our home builders are saying the demand is intense and we believe that we’re going to sell out really quickly. So, we’re already getting section two ready. And construction for section two will start in just a few months here.

Eve: [00:13:28] And so, I have to ask how affordable are these homes?

Scott: [00:13:32] So, we are in the probably least affordable quadrant of the city. And again, partially that’s what allowed us as, you know, two simple farmers to deal. But also, what we’ve done is compare ourselves to the communities around us and if we wanted to push towards affordability, what could we do? Because Houston’s always been very affordable compared to the rest of the country but during Covid it changed quite a bit. And so, we’ve seen the same thing now where your firefighters, police officers, teachers, social workers can no longer, or anyone working in retail, can no longer afford to live even in the communities where they work. And it felt really wrong for a community to tell the people serving it they had to go somewhere else. That just felt inhuman. And so, we said, okay, we’ve got to find a way to solve for that problem. And so, one of the ways we did that was by pushing for smaller lot size, because we saw an opportunity where lots in Houston had become huge, you know, mostly in the 70s and 80s and 90s and that mostly that’s wasted space. People aren’t using those portions of their lots. So what we did was really densify our neighborhood, compared to the suburbs, you know, 3.2, 3.4, maybe four units per acre is the standard in the suburbs. I think we’re at almost eight units per acre. And then if you look at like, you know, net density in some smaller pockets in the neighborhood, we even flirt with 20 units per acre in our most dense areas. And so that’s a very different calculation. And that’s just on the first side.

Eve: [00:15:10] What were the zoning restrictions you have to contend with to get there?

Scott: [00:15:15] Most of our property was in the unincorporated county, and the county that we’re in has very little in the way of requirements for subdivisions or development. So, it’s kind of the wild, wild West out here.

Eve: [00:15:26] And that reminds me of, I don’t know if you ever used to play SimCity.

Scott: [00:15:29] Yeah, yeah.

Eve: [00:15:31] I just, you know, no restrictions.

Scott: [00:15:35] Yep.

Eve: [00:15:36] Insanity. Yeah.

Scott: [00:15:38] Yeah. So, then we, but we did have a portion of our property that was in the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the city of Richmond, which is our closest jurisdiction. We reached out to Richmond and said, hey, we’d love ultimately for our neighborhood to be a part of the city. So, we worked with them on a development agreement, and they have the right to annex our property in about ten years when we’re done with the development process. And that development agreement, so their, their minimum lot size was 6000ft², in the city of Richmond. And through our development agreement, we got that down.

Eve: [00:16:11] That’s a really huge.

Scott: [00:16:13] Right. Yeah. It’s big for the minimum. Right.

Eve: [00:16:15] Yes. Yeah,

Scott: [00:16:16] Maybe a maximum. It’d be okay. So, we worked with them and got that down to 2000ft², which is allowing us to do some cottage homes that are in that, like 950 to 1450 square footage range. That really serve, and that’s what we saw, was the suburbs of Houston have almost entirely been built for two parents with children families. There’s just so many homes built for that family formation, which in Texas is now like 20% of our family formation.

Eve: [00:16:49] Oh that’s really interesting.

Scott: [00:16:50] So the other 80% of family formations or household formations we’re just ignoring. People who want to live together, who aren’t married and have trouble with financing. You know, we have single parent families who affording a giant home like that can be really difficult. You know, all these different formations, you know, like couples who don’t want to have kids, which is more and more common today. And so, like, why are we only building these five-bedroom, you know, mini mansions in the suburbs? So, we shifted everything down on lot square footage and home square footage to create more of an ecosystem so that we’re providing homes for that wider range of people. And then especially wanted to do the aging in place concept where you could buy your first home in our neighborhood, you could rent here, then you can buy your first home in our neighborhood, and then you can size up your home as your family grows and size down as it doesn’t, as it shrinks and create all of that in one place for people.

Eve: [00:17:47] This is pretty challenging stuff that you’ve tackled for two farmers. First time real estate development. I have to ask, there’s a lot of infrastructure to put in place. How challenging was it to put the funds together for this project?

Scott: [00:18:01] I think we’re very persistent and we’re very persuasive. And then the market was really hot at that time. Like, we have the privilege of that and the privilege of both being white males, which does make a difference when you’re trying to get financing.

Eve: [00:18:15] Definitely.

Scott: [00:18:16] Absolutely. And then at the same time we were just willing to take no for an answer over and over again and go to the next person. And so we heard no, a bunch of times. We didn’t fit the traditional needs. You know, everybody understandably wanted a huge chunk of cash equity in the deal. And we didn’t have any money, we’re farmers, and we didn’t know anybody who was going to do that for us. And we didn’t want to go out and find an equity partner who would ultimately control the decision making. We wanted that to be us. So, we just kept working and working until we found a private lender that was willing to take on our deal, that was trying to move more into Texas. They had been developers in the past, which we really loved because they understood the development process. They’ve been very flexible. They are not very cheap. And I think that is the place that people need to get over that mental hurdle that, in our minds, we will pay for flexibility over and over and over again because it really brings resilience. When you lock yourself into this tiny little box of requirements and allow that lender or the bank to pull the rug out from under you whenever they decide to, that’s a tenuous place to be that we didn’t want to be. And so, we are happy to pay very high interest rates for very large sums of money for a long time in order to get the flexibility that we need. So, sure, we take a haircut in our profit at the end. And I think that’s what most people struggle with. But it does make our development more resilient.

Eve: [00:19:44] So you will have a working farm in this community?

Scott: [00:19:48] Yeah.

Eve: [00:19:48] How does that go?

Scott: [00:19:50] It’s 42 acres. And really, what most people will experience is the front three and a half acres, which are right at the entrance to the community, and it bumps right up into the town square area. And that’s the vegetable farm. So that’s where vegetables and flowers will be grown. That’s where people can go and buy some vegetables from the farm. They can take classes, they can interact with the farmers, maybe even have their own little plot to grow some vegetables in. And then the, on the back side of the property, the remainder of the farm is pasture and orchards. And so we will probably have laying hens, you know, hundreds and hundreds of laying hens and do egg production on the farm as well. And we’ll have some programming back there, but in a more limited basis that’ll mostly be a farmer’s work area on the back side of the farm.

Eve: [00:20:38] It sounds idyllic. And then also, where did you get your inspiration from for the architecture for the community, like, and what is the architecture like?

Scott: [00:20:48] We have a funny phrase we find ourselves using more and more, and that phrase is manufactured authenticity.

Eve: [00:20:54] Kind of like Disneyland, right?

Scott: [00:20:57] Yeah, in some ways. And there’s some parts of Disneyland that Disney did really well. Right? And really speak to people. There’s other parts of it that are cloying, I would say and, you know, are saccharine. But what we wanted to do, because we were developing what was just entirely farmland, not a single tree on our property, no structures at all. We felt like for people to feel like it was a place we needed to create some age, some patina on the community. So, we’ve done a few different things. You know, one, we went out and bought two 50-foot-tall live oak trees and had them planted at the property, and that was not cheap. But doing that, you know, at least makes it feel like something was here before. And then as we planned the architecture of our buildings, like the first commercial building we’re building is called the filling station. And so, it’s a little bit tongue in cheek that it was a 1930s Art Deco gas station. And then all of the decorations on it had been stripped off. It had been stripped back to its basic form, and it was no longer a gas station. It wasn’t serving cars now, now it’s serving people. So, it’s a general store, coffee, beer, wine, light breakfast and lunch options and then sells vegetables from the farm, eggs, pickles, jams and jellies, all that. And acts as the third place for the community to really activate at the beginning, where there’s cafe seating and it’s like, come hang out here, use the Wi-Fi, do whatever. So, the architecture of that building was really intentional, that it refers not only to an architectural style of the past, but also acts like it had been adaptive, reused, at some point in the future. And that goes all the way to like, choosing a polished concrete floor finish. You know, where do you incorporate some concrete block, like would have been in those buildings before so that you can see it, even if that’s not our modern construction method? So, there’s some touches to it that are Disney but what we’re hoping to do is really just give people that subconscious feeling of like, this isn’t a brand new whitewashed, you know, place. There’s some age here to, to help the community form in the beginning.

Eve: [00:23:11] And so how do you balance, like, modern amenities with this notion of small-town living?

Scott: [00:23:17] Part of that is actually doing your research on amenities and finding out what people want, and then looking at life cycle cost and value to the community. You know, in Houston, we’ve had an amenity arms race over the years, and people in other places in the country are shocked when they hear how low our association fees are compared to the amenities people get. Usually when I say we’re $1,700, they say, oh, $1,700 a month. That’s a that’s a little bit high. But we’ve seen numbers like that, and we say, no, $1,700 a year, is our cost. It’s shocking to people. And so, we wanted to, like we do with so many other things, go counterculture on that a little bit and say, what do people actually want? So, in Houston, every community has a pool, but those pools are only open three months a year. They cost millions of dollars to install, and they cost like a quarter million a year to staff and maintain. And so, we looked at that and said, okay, well, is there really the value? Like I have three elementary aged kids and we have eight pools we can go to in our neighborhood, which is ridiculous. But we go like 5 or 6 times a year. So, the amount of money that I’m paying in HOA fees towards that pool, it probably doesn’t calculate out to where it actually makes sense. And so we decided not to build a pool at Indigo.

Scott: [00:24:35] We have an amenity lake that is like a nature lake that you can swim in that we’re putting a dock on so if you want to swim, you can go there. But also, if you just desperately want to go to a pool, there are private pool clubs in the area, or you can go to a fitness center with a pool and those sorts of things. So, part of it was like getting rid of the big plays. In Houston these crystal lagoons have become all the rage, where people spend $10 million building a beach. You know, it’s an enormous pool, essentially. And we didn’t want to saddle our residents with that kind of debt. And we feel like with those big giant plays may get you a bunch of media coverage, but they’re really risky long term. So, we’ve downsized our amenities and done more of them and spread them out more throughout the community. So, it’s little things like a couple of bocce ball courts here and a natural children’s playground over here, and a small dog park over here, and a meditation maze over here, and some moving water and wind chimes over here. And really just spread those out and diffuse them throughout the community so that they’re more easily accessible. And that’s a part of the walkability. And they’re, I guess, maybe a little more equitably spread out throughout the community too, so that everyone has access to them, but not saddling the community with any specific, really large-scale debt.

Eve: [00:25:55] Yes, yeah. So, who will live there and where are they going to come from?

Scott: [00:25:59] So we did a lot of research at the beginning. We used a company called Kantar that has a giant database of demographics, looked at who lives in our area, which generation do they fall into? And then they even segment each generation by behavior. So, for example, there’s a millennial segment that’s a little more career-oriented, that’s a little more go, go, go. Then there’s another segment. So, I’m in that segment. My business partner Clayton’s in the other segment, which is a little more family oriented, a little more self-care oriented. And so, you know, it’s interesting to see the different segments and how they’re, how they want to live. So, my segment might be happier in a town home in an urban area. My business partner’s, you know, his segment might be a little bit more happy in a home, a smaller home, but with a little bit more of a lot around it and not attached. So, we did that research. Then we went out and looked at who’s in our area of those segments and then designed our home types for them. And then, we actually had 700 people answer a survey with questions about amenities and other things in our community and got amazing feedback from that that we incorporated into what we were doing. And then we took all of that to our home builders and said, here’s really what we want to see for the homes in this area. And we have architectural guidelines that control what they can build. We control the square footage band. We approve the elevations for the homes, what they look like on their facades and all of that. And then the goal is that once we get that done, we can hand it over to the homeowners’ association, and then the control can relax. And we want people to be able to have their own impact on what their home looks like.

Eve: [00:27:46] So how do baby boomers and seniors fit into your plan?

Scott: [00:27:51] Well, I mean, baby boomers are such a huge part of the population right now. And a lot of them, I’m sure everyone’s seen the articles are holding on to to larger homes and not moving out of them. And that’s creating a little bit of a scarcity for homes, for families that are growing. And I think one of the reasons is that they haven’t been given alternatives, other than the age qualified 55 and up communities and we’ve had conversations with a lot of people who don’t want to live in one of those.

Eve: [00:28:19] Me included.

Scott: [00:28:21] Right? They want to be around younger people and specifically probably even their families. And so, at Indigo, we’ve tried to design the community again, where it’s a complete community with opportunities for everyone. So, we looked at what are some good housing types for people who are downsizing, empty-nesters, aging populations. You know, there’s things like more one-story buildings, or if it’s a two-story, try to make sure your primary suites on the ground floor, and then looking at the the walkability for those homes as well. Mobility is different for every different person. But there’s some commonalities and so for people who are a little bit older, having a place to rest every 150ft or so is really critical. And so, we’ve tried to design our walking network so that there is both shade and places to stop and rest as you make your way from your home to the different places throughout the community.

Eve: [00:29:17] So what about cultural and racial diversity?

Scott: [00:29:21] Our county is the second most diverse county in the country after Queens, I think. And so, it is 25% white, 25% Black, 25% Hispanic, and 25% Asian. And the Asian population is incredibly diverse itself with a lot of Indian and Pakistani, Chinese and Vietnamese populations in our area. And so, we feel like, really fortunate to be in a place like that. Yet at the same time, the suburban neighborhoods can still be fairly white in our area. And so I think some of that is like the messaging that you present to the world when you’re asking people to come join you. So, we’ve been really intentional with our marketing team. And we took our entire design team, including marketing through some DEI workshops and learning about cultural differences and how we can approach things maybe differently with that, with cultural differences in mind. And that’s been, I think, really impactful so far in the narrative that we’re telling, making sure that our marketing materials are representative of the communities around us and the people that we are inviting to come join us. And then we’re even working on a home-buyer resources guide. Basically, if people come to try and buy a home in Indigo and are, either think they won’t qualify to buy the home or try and don’t qualify, we have some secondary resources that are designed to overcome the hurdles that people of color and women and other class distinctions have faced in real estate. I mean, I think real estate is in the top 2 or 3, you know, racist and classist…

[00:31:05] Oh yeah,

[00:31:06] Institutions that we have in the country easily. Right? I mean, the prison system.

Eve: [00:31:10] Maybe the top.

Scott: [00:31:11] Yeah. And so, we want to work against those things in every way that we can. And so, we actually are in the process of building out an equity framework for Indigo and looking at like, what are all the spheres of influence that we have and we’re targeting. So, we have eight strategies that we’re ultimately going to be targeting throughout the community for things that we can do to overcome historic barriers to either renting or real estate ownership.

Eve: [00:31:39] Wow! It sounds to me like farmers do a lot of research. You’re used to that. Yeah. So, what have been some of your biggest challenges and disappointments?

Scott: [00:31:49] Challenges and disappointments?

Eve: [00:31:50] Maybe none?

Scott: [00:31:52] Yeah. No, no, we’ve definitely had challenges. I mean, working with the city, everybody told us that our city was like the worst city to work with in Houston. That’s what the development world said. We found them to be great to work with. It just took a lot of work and time to get them convinced of what we were trying to say, but we brought data to them. You know, narrower streets. It’s the fire chiefs don’t like narrower streets because it restricts access, right? So, then we have conversations about, okay, but a narrower street means slower speeds and means less kids die when they get hit by cars. So let’s balance like, how many home fires do you have in your area? Not very many. Okay, well, maybe more kids are being hit by cars and we should balance that out. So, we just went with those things. It took longer than I think we expected, and I think we’d be a little faster next time. But I also think people need time to wrap their heads around things, and you have to give that to them. So that’s maybe one of the big challenges. And then, you know, there’s a bit of a regret, I’ll say, that in the design of the neighborhood, we didn’t like bleed the retail into the residential part more than we did.

Eve: [00:32:56] I was going to ask about that. What is the retail and where is it? Yeah.

Scott: [00:32:59] So, we have what we call Indigo Commons. It’s right next to the farm. It’s surrounded by the neighborhood. But I wish that, you know, we still have like a street as the dividing line between the mixed use and the residential. And I wish that we had been smarter and had retail on both sides of the street, I think, instead of. And so, take more of that corridor mindset than the block mindset when we were looking at land use. And so, that’s a big regret, is like pulling a few little neighborhood retail places, pulling a restaurant to like a busy corner somewhere in the residential section. I mean, all of our homes are within a seven-minute walk of the commons. So, it’s not like you’re that far away, but it still would be nice to have pulled a few things out. So, I think that’s one thing there. You know, definitely on the commercial side, there’s been some challenges. We have what we call our incremental retail buildings. So, we did the whole household formation conversation on the housing side. And we were getting like halfway through the planning of the mixed-use area. And then we said, wait a minute, we need to do the same thing for businesses that we did over there. What about the barbershop that just wants to have two seats and doesn’t need 2000ft²? Why should they be paying for 2000ft² if they don’t need it? So, we did the same thing and started downsizing and right-sizing. And you know, we’re farmers. We’ve known a lot of chefs in Houston because we sold to a lot of them over the years, and just saw too many extractive relationships between landlords and tenant restaurants, where restaurant gets a little bit of press for the chef having great food, and then all of a sudden, they get slammed and they’re just so busy for a month.

Scott: [00:34:40] And then the landlord says, you know what? Your lease is up in a couple months, we’re going to go ahead and double your rent for next year. And that restaurant may not even be making money. They just appear to be busy and got some press. And so, to fight that a little bit, we wanted to have some tenant-owned retail. And so, we’ve designed these incremental retail buildings. It’s an 800 square foot footprint, 2 or 3 stories. So, 1600 or 2400ft² maximum. The bottom floor has to be active retail. We need the foot traffic for those buildings. But then on the second and third floor, it could be more retail. It could be offices. You could live there. You could lease it out as an apartment, whatever you want to do. And we got that through our jurisdictions and approved. So, it is a little bit like a live/work unit in form. But what I’ll say on the live/work units is most of the places people have done those, they’ve been residences first and they’ve been financed as a residence and then just have the retail. We’ve designed ours to where they work with the Small Business Administration’s 504 and 7A loan programs where you can get a 25-year business mortgage on that property, and you can live there and work there or lease it out or whatever. So, we just wanted to provide a bunch of flexibility. And so, that was a little bit of a challenge to get people to wrap their head around. And even the market has taken a little bit, but now we’re really starting to see intense demand.

Eve: [00:36:03] Well wow! I’m really impressed. You guys clearly have thought about absolutely everything. I hope I get to see the community when it’s finished. Is there anything else you want to tell me? I feel like we’ve jumped around everywhere. I’m sure I’ve missed a lot.

Scott: [00:36:18] No, I mean, I think the encouragement I would give to other people working in the space, and you’ve had so many great guests on your podcast. I was actually just listening to my my good friend Jonathan Dodson, to his version, I think, take hope in the fact that there are a lot of people working in this direction right now, and it feels like the tide is shifting a little bit. And thanks in part to people like you, Eve, doing these great communications and, like, sharing this because otherwise, how would we know about all these other people working in these other cities in the same area that we are? And so, I think it’s really, really valuable. And people who are feeling alone in this work out there, reach out to the people on those, like, we’ve had great success connecting with other developers. And, I mean, we flew to Oklahoma City to meet Jonathan, you know, kind of on a whim and then have become really good friends. And so, I encourage people, even if you’re working in this area and you have questions to reach out to us. You know, find us on LinkedIn and reach out and we’ll be happy to chat.

Eve: [00:37:20] Well, this has been delightful. Thank you so much for joining me and spending time. And, um, I do want to know how it ends up.

Speaker3: [00:37:27] We hope to have you down to Houston.

Eve: [00:37:28] I’m a little bit jealous.

Scott: [00:37:31] Well, we’ll look forward to that.

Eve: [00:37:40] I hope you enjoyed today’s guest and our deep dive. You can find out more about this episode or others you might have missed on the show notes page at RethinkRealEstateforGood.co. There’s lots to listen to there. Please support this podcast and all the great work my guests do by sharing it with others, posting about it on social media, or leaving a rating and a review. To catch all the latest from me, you can follow me on LinkedIn. Even better, if you’re ready to dabble in some impact investing, head on over to smallchange.co where I spend most of my time. A special thanks to David Allardice for his excellent editing of this podcast and original music. And a big thanks to you for spending your time with me today. We’ll talk again soon. But for now, this is Eve Picker signing off to go make some change.

Image courtesy of Scott Snodgrass

Strong Towns

June 7, 2023

Charles Marohn, known as “Chuck” to friends and colleagues, is the founder and president of Strong Towns. He is a land use planner and civil engineer with decades of experience. He holds a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering and a Master of Urban and Regional Planning, both from the University of Minnesota.

Marohn is the author of Strong Towns: A Bottom-Up Revolution to Rebuild American Prosperity (Wiley, 2019) and Confessions of a Recovering Engineer: Transportation for a Strong Town (Wiley 2021). He hosts the Strong Towns Podcast and is a primary writer for Strong Towns’ web content. He has presented Strong Towns concepts in hundreds of cities and towns across North America. Planetizen named him one of the 10 Most Influential Urbanists of all time.

Chuck grew up on a small farm in central Minnesota. The oldest of three sons of two elementary school teachers, he joined the Minnesota National Guard on his seventeenth birthday during his junior year of high school and served in the Guard for nine years. In addition to being passionate about building a stronger America, he loves playing music, is an obsessive reader, and religiously follows his favorite baseball team, the Minnesota Twins.

Chuck and his wife live with their two daughters in their hometown of Brainerd, Minnesota.

Read the podcast transcript here

Eve Picker: [00:00:12] Hi there. Thanks for joining me on Rethink Real Estate. For Good. I’m Eve Picker and I’m on a mission to make real estate work for everyone. I love real estate. Real estate makes places good or bad, rich or poor, beautiful or not. In this show, I’m interviewing the disruptors, those creative thinkers and doers that are shrugging off the status quo in order to build better for everyone.

Eve: [00:00:55] Charles Mahron is a recovering engineer. He used to build roads. Charles followed all the rules he learned while studying to become an engineer. But in 2008, well into his engineering career, he became disenchanted with the notion that more roads lead to prosperity. So, Charles started blogging his thoughts. He advocated for a new approach to land use and warned about the dangers of suburban sprawl. With each blog, Charles gained readers until the blog converted into a nonprofit organization called Strong Towns. Today, Strong Towns has millions of followers. Listen in to learn more.

Eve: [00:01:43] If you’d like to join me in my quest to rethink real estate, there are two simple things you can do, share this podcast and go to rethinkrealestateforgood.co, where you can subscribe to be the first to hear about my podcasts, blog posts and other goodies.

Eve: [00:02:09] Hi, Charles. I’m really honored to have you here today.

Charles Mahron: [00:02:12] Thanks, Eve. It’s so nice to chat with you.

Eve: [00:02:15] Very nice. So, you recently wrote a book called Confessions of a Recovering Engineer: Transportation for a Strong Town. That’s a really tantalizing title. What’s behind it?

Charles: [00:02:27] Well, I have a lot on behalf of the engineering profession to confess to people. I think there’s a lot that people take as being normal in our transportation system. And when you work inside of it, when you work as an engineer, when you work as a design professional, many of those things that are taken as gospel, that are taken as this is the way things are and this is the way things have to be, are built on a very kind of fragile construct. And it’s a construct that conflicts with a lot of the way humanity actually operates. We have these books that are seen as the, you know, the founding texts of our profession. We have these doctrines that are brought down from on high. And I just wanted to pull back the curtain and talk seriously about those things and make it far more accessible for people, particularly people who don’t think the system is working very well.

Eve: [00:03:30] So, I suppose my question is, is what made you think about that at all in the first place, if you were trained just like all other civil engineers in your profession?

Charles: [00:03:38] It’s a fair question. I’m not a very good engineer is the way I put it. I think a good engineer is someone who colors within the lines

Eve: [00:03:49] Embraces it.

Charles: [00:03:50] Yeah, follows the rules. I got a civil engineering degree and then worked as an engineer, got my license, but then I went back to graduate school and got a planning degree, a degree in urban planning and it’s interesting because I have only met one other person who holds the same two degrees, yet, I’m sure there are more, but I’ve only met one. They seem very similar, right? They’re both working with the built environment. They’re both the physical layout and construction of cities, but they’re two very different mental approaches and two very different backgrounds. One is a very left-brain pursuit; one is a very right brain pursuit. And I think that discomfort with both allowed me to see it in a different way. And so, I’ve acknowledged I’m not a very good engineer, I’m not a very good planner, but I am a really good strong towns advocate, which kind of tries to understand and reconcile some of the things that conflict between both of those pursuits.

Eve: [00:04:54] So then, you gave up this job and you created a nonprofit, Strong Towns, eventually. What is Strong Towns?

Charles: [00:05:01] Well, giving up the job was part of figuring that out, right? I started to write a blog and it was an evenings and weekends kind of pursuit. I was interested in figuring out why our cities were going broke. Why the cities that I was working with, which were all very fast growing, you know, had some degree of affluence, although a lot of them were very small and very poor. But they were all investing in growth in a certain way. And it was very obvious to me that this was not leading to success. And so, I started a blog way back in 2008 to explore that. Like, why is that? And, you know, because you do writing as well. When you write, it forces you to think through ideas in ways that, you know, just talking about them or just experiencing them doesn’t. And so, three days a week, I would write about these issues. And out of that came this kind of body of insight that some friends of mine said we need to start a nonprofit over. And my first thing was like, No, I don’t want to do that.

Charles: [00:06:09] And they’re like, no, we insist. And they actually filled the paperwork out and got it going. And all of a sudden, we had a 501C3, and then a foundation gave us a grant, and I’ve been trying to figure out how best to infect the world with a new set of ideas ever since. And that’s really what Strong Towns is. Strong Towns is about sharing this message, here’s how we build cities that are financially strong and resilient. Here’s how we build places that are prosperous and places where people can, through their own efforts, working together with others, make their community a better place to live and a better place to pass on to the next generation.

Eve: [00:06:52] So, how many followers do you have today? How has that grown?

Charles: [00:06:56] It depends on how we measure it. I remember in the very early days when I would have, you know, 20 readers in a month and I’d say, oh, my gosh, that’s incredible. We had two and a half unique viewers of our content last year, so it’s grown quite a bit. Strong Towns has, I think, 4200 members, which are people who have donated to our 501C3 in the last 12 months. And that also is trending upward. It has grown to be quite a movement of people dedicated to doing something different.

Eve: [00:07:30] So, let’s talk a little bit more in detail. What are the key features of a strong town versus a weak town?

Charles: [00:07:39] Yeah, it’s a very good question. And we have, you know, a Strong Town’s approach and Strong Town’s principles. We are currently in the midst of something that we call the strongest town contest. And in that contest, we try to identify places that are using good practices. So, ultimately, we describe a strong town, not in terms of a destination, but in terms of the journey. Are you doing things in a bottom-up way? Are you attentive and attuned and sensitive to the struggles of people in the neighborhood as opposed to the cash that you can get from this program, that program or this developer? Are you building things at a human scale as opposed to orienting your neighborhoods around the automobile? Are you taking incremental steps to try to learn and figure things out? Or are you doing kind of these big Hail Mary transformative projects? So, for us Strong Towns is about a frame of mind. I’d like to use the analogy, it’s a lot like diet and exercise for a city. How do we have good practices, good approaches, good discipline about how we go about things and then we celebrate that because the results are there, the results pay off.

Eve: [00:09:02] So, I mean, let’s talk about practices. I’m just wondering what position you take on key issues, just to spell it out for our listeners. So, what about zoning and density? What makes a strong town?

Charles: [00:09:16] I always like the density question. When it comes to zoning, and it comes to density, I think we recognize a couple things. First, if we look at traditional development patterns, the pattern of development we had really before the Great Depression and even going back a little bit further than that, it was organic. And in being organic, it did not have anything like the regulatory framework we had today. That is almost like a libertarian ideal of what a city is. I’ve been fortunate enough to spend a lot of time in Italy. I think you can think of like the Italian hill town is such a beautiful, wonderful place to be built with completely without regulation. We recognize, though, that today the body of knowledge that created that is in a sense, absent. All of the incentives, all of the cultural understandings, not to mention the trades understandings of how to build places like that. And so, zoning becomes this like essential thing we need to make our cities work. And we spend a lot of time on how do we make zoning codes better, less responsive to, again, the cookie cutter exercise of repeating the same development pattern over and over, and instead the very kind of humble and urgent exercise of making sure that the things we build connect with and respect neighborhoods and the, you know, the adjacent buildings and all that.

Charles: [00:10:56] If we take the next step to density then, we actually are not anti-dense, we’re very pro kind of density as an outcome, but we tend to struggle with density as a metric. I see a lot of planners who obsess over density and they build really horrible places. What we talk about is neighborhoods maturing over time. Every neighborhood should be allowed to evolve and mature and thicken up and the goal of a good street, the goal of a good zoning code, the goal of a city regulatory process should be to assist every neighborhood in reaching its next level of maturity. So, if you are a toddler neighborhood of single-family homes, the expectation should be how do you become an adolescent neighborhood of duplexes? And if you’re an adolescent neighborhood of duplexes, how do we get you into something that would be more intense. Two, three story buildings, densities of multiple units per lot. How do we get you to that next stage of success? That kind of mimics the development patterns of the past that were so successful. It also tends to harmonize a little bit some of the tensions across neighborhoods that make us resist growth. And I think it’s a more kind of realistic and reality-based way to experience prosperity as opposed to neighborhoods that are stagnant and designed to never change.

Eve: [00:12:29] So, I’m going to go back to something you said, which I think maybe a lot of people don’t agree with, and that how do you move a single-family neighborhood to the next level of success, which is duplexes? And I’m pretty sure that there’s a lot of people in this country who don’t see that as a successful move. Why is it important?

Charles: [00:12:52] Yeah, there are a lot of people who don’t see that as success. I respect that and understand that, but I wholeheartedly disagree. The marketing brochure of the post-World War II pattern of development is stagnation and eternal prosperity. The idea is that if we go out and build the perfect neighborhood and we plan it just right and we zone it just right and we build the homes in a certain way, and then we come in with this regulatory overlay after it that makes it stagnate in place that we will somehow be able to not only achieve prosperity but sustain prosperity. And the reality is anybody can go look at 1950s and 1960s neighborhoods and observe that for almost all of it that is not the case. Suburbia, post-war development has a natural life cycle to it. And the life cycle is very simple to understand. It is one generation of being brand new and prosperous, a second generation of hanging on and trying to sustain that prosperity. And then a third generation of decline and sometimes gentrification, but oftentimes just decline. This is the way that all systems that are artificially stagnated operate and as opposed to pre-war pre-depression development patterns, which always had the next increment of development intensity as part of their DNA, you would start small, you would add on, you would take that house that kind of went into decline and renew it up to something more intense, more productive.

Charles: [00:14:36] And this renewal process created this kind of natural vibrancy, a cycle of life that we see in neighborhoods that allowed them to mature and allow the people who lived in it to participate in that maturing, both physically participate, like go out and build stuff, but also financially participate, gain in wealth and gain in standing as their neighborhood became a more complete and more productive, a more valuable place. We’ve arrested that from our development patterns. So, now you know your choice is one version of stagnation or another. And if you’re very affluent, you can get a high-end version of stagnation. If you’re middle class, you can get a middle-class version of stagnation. And if you’re poor, which, you know, increasingly we are a very poor country with very poor neighborhoods, you can have the poor version of stagnation. And to me, this is a one-way path to a stagnant economy, a stagnant country, a stagnant population.

Eve: [00:15:42] I think that’s a great description. It’s bringing to mind some places I know that are tackling that. But then how do streets and roads and parking minimums and walkability play into that change? Because, you know, if you start with the single-family suburban neighborhood, how can you progress to the next level in a place that’s really designed quite rigorously never to be that?

Charles: [00:16:07] Yeah, it’s really hard. And I’m not going to pretend that it isn’t hard. I’m on record as saying I think that over half of what we built post World War Two is going to ultimately go away, that we don’t have the wherewithal to maintain it. We don’t have the desire to maintain it. We don’t actually have the capacity to maintain all those roads and sidewalks and pipe. We certainly don’t have the money to maintain it. And so, the question that I kind of deal with is less about how do we get people who live in single family home neighborhoods to allow that accessory apartment or allow the house next door to convert into the duplex or that kind of thing. And I focus more of my time on the neighborhoods that are ready to do this, the places that are ready to embrace it. How do we clear the things out of their path so that this natural evolution can start to happen again? Because I’m convinced that those are the places that actually will be the leaders where, when this becomes a more, and it’s becoming more of a widespread phenomenon. But I think when that expands even more, we need good places to turn to as examples to say, okay, the trajectory of my neighborhood is one of two paths. Path number one is the stagnation and decline. And ultimately my neighborhood is going to fail and go away and be a place that doesn’t thrive. That is the natural destination for the stagnant post-World War II development pattern. Or option number two is like this neighborhood over here, which, yeah, they allow duplexes and triplexes and corner stores and other things to come in. But wow, look at the cool place that that is now. Look at how that has added to their prosperity. And those places are growing in value, growing in prosperity, growing in wealth. I want to be like that. And so, we’re really focused on getting, I think, those green shoot kind of neighborhoods up and started that, as this accelerates, we can point to and say, be like this. This is a better option.

Eve: [00:18:17] Right. You know, this brings to mind I am actually developing a project in Australia with my sister, just a small 15-unit building. But it’s in a neighborhood that was, you know, the city very purposefully said we want this to be the next Barcelona. And what’s really interesting about the neighborhood is it’s a hodgepodge of zoning. It’s got commercial and retail and industrial and housing all jammed together. It’s a fabulously vibrant place. It has a very long main street with, you know, 20 restaurants, five banks, everything you really want in one place, lots of public transit and their goal is to remove all parking in the next ten years. So, that’s kind of taking it to the ultimate, you know, hillside Italian town ideal, right. So, I suppose you need to have visionaries who get that to be able to drive that forward, you know?

Charles: [00:19:14] Yes. I feel like what you’re describing is a neighborhood, right? Like a real neighborhood. It’s a real neighborhood. Yeah. And the thing about a real neighborhood is that once it starts to accelerate, the massive waste that is parking becomes revealed to everybody.

Eve: [00:19:34] It’s expensive. Yeah.

Charles: [00:19:35] If we didn’t have this parking, we could have more seating. We could have more places to, you know, more room for walking. We could have more stores. We could have more stuff.

Eve: [00:19:44] More housing, more housing.

Charles: [00:19:47] More housing, right. In most cities in the US, parking is looked at this necessary thing, maybe even a necessary evil that we need for transactions to take place. But once you start accelerating in this way, parking becomes the huge, obvious extraneous waste of resources, and most cities seek to lessen it or eliminate it altogether, which is a really smart step to take.

Eve: [00:20:16] Yeah, and what’s been interesting to watch there is the evolution of public transit and how that city’s recognized the value of the public transit they have, which isn’t strong everywhere, right. But in this particular place, there’s a tram, they’ve added a subway station. And these have all been towards this goal of making this a walkable only place. It’s been really interesting to watch and I really want to live there. I mean, I’m not going to live there full-time. My home is in the US, but it makes me want to be there because it’s so incredibly vibrant.

Charles: [00:20:51] Yeah.

Eve: [00:20:51] So, this is really a fiscally responsible argument too, right? That’s really what it’s all about.

Charles: [00:20:57] That is where I started and that’s where I kind of focus. And it’s fascinating because I’ve gotten to places where I think a lot of people who quite frankly don’t care about the money end up as well. But I got there by doing the math, by actually sitting and running the numbers. And you brought up transit. Transit is an interesting financial case because here throughout the US we tend to treat transit as this charitable overlay of our transportation system. And when you think of it as charity for the poor or what have you, it really doesn’t work very well. It doesn’t function very well and it doesn’t create a lot of value. When you look at transit and understand that when you can successfully deploy transit, you can actually get rid of that wasteful automobile space. You can you can move out the parking, you can move out the cars because you don’t need them because people can get around easily. You can get more transactions, more people per block, per unit of space. You realize that transit is the biggest wealth accelerator that our cities have.

Eve: [00:22:05] Right.

Charles: [00:22:06] And I think we can embrace that as a financial reality while also embracing some of the other things that we value about transit in terms of being able to help people and being able to, you know, create better places for people to live and places where people who can’t afford an automobile can also utilize it and be very successful with that.

Eve: [00:22:28] I’m going to ask a question I normally don’t ask, but I’m going to bring politics into this. You’re a Republican and I’m a Democrat. And why should we both believe in strong towns? I know we do, but why should we?

Charles: [00:22:42] It’s a good question, because I know there’ll be people who will react to that strongly.

Eve: [00:22:48] I’m sure.

Charles: [00:22:49] In Minnesota, we have the caucus system. So, for our primaries, you have to identify a party and go and sit in a room with a bunch of other people and talk about policy. And for many years I caucused with the Republican Party. I haven’t caucused with the Republicans since about 2012, which is neither here nor there. I don’t generally vote Democrat. I voted a lot of independent and third party the last maybe decade, but I’m certainly more conservative than I am progressive. So, it’s a very fair insight.

Eve: [00:23:24] Right. I really meant it as you, generally. You know, I mean.

Charles: [00:23:30] Yeah. No, totally get it.

Eve: [00:23:32] I hope it didn’t make you feel uncomfortable.

Charles: [00:23:34] No, no, not at all.

Eve: [00:23:36] I generally vote Democrat, but from time to time I’m really annoyed with them. So let’s, so I think we’re all on that page, right?

Charles: [00:23:44] Yeah. No, we’re on the same page. Yeah. I voted for way more Republicans in my life. But the Republican Party, we’re in a very interesting, like, strange political time, right?

Eve: [00:23:54] Very strange. Yes. Okay. Let’s just say, why should everyone believe in strong towns?

Charles: [00:23:59] Yeah, let me answer your specific question, because I think it’s very good because I do think Republicans should be about cities. Right. And Republicans tend to not be about cities. Republicans tend to be anti-city. Right. If we go through the things that make me personally a conservative and let’s traditionally look at things like fiscal prudence, responsible government, family values, community. These are all things that require a community. They require people working together. They require people living in spaces together. And when we step back and analyze that and look at that about the most dysfunctional way you can arrange people on a landscape financially, community wise, working together, family values, prudence, all these things disappear the more dissipated we become, the more kind of separated from each other physically, which is what the marketing brochure of suburban America is. The more we actually undermine those values. And I will throw a bone to the progressives because I’ve learned to really appreciate and value, if not the means, at least the intentions of some of my progressive friends.

Charles: [00:25:25] I think if we look at the suburbs, we recognize that these are largely places that through zoning, through our way of assembling them, through our way of investing in them, have segregated themselves by class at the very least. And to a degree that is almost pathological. If you’re going to live in $200,000 house, you will be in a pod with other $200,000 houses. And if you’re going to live in a $400,000 house, you’re going to live in a pod with other $400,000 houses. And there will be earthen berms and forests and fences between you because God help us, if someone who could only afford a $200,000 house had to interact with someone who could afford a $400,000 house. This is a pathological degree of separation that we have brought into our places that is anti-human anti-community and really, I think, anti-everything that conservatives suggest that they value about, you know, just about living, about life, about places.

Eve: [00:26:33] And probably caused a lot of unnecessary friction.

Charles: [00:26:36] Yes. And I write about this in confessions. I think there’s a libertarian aspect of modern Republicans that starts and ends with equating the automobile with freedom. And you get to crazy places where I will have people like Randal O’Toole saying that the proper role of local government is to go to the state legislature and lobby for more government funding for roads, because that will give people freedom to drive more. And I believe I’m a little more intellectually honest than that, I would like to think. But when I look at the automobile, I look at a tool that is really helpful for moving me long distance at speed. But I look at it as a tool that is not very helpful for allowing me day to day to take one block two block six, block 12 block trips. But I’m forced to do it in my automobile because of the very, very expensive environment that we’ve worked. And then, by the way, I’m also required to pay large amounts of taxes for this environment because it’s not financially solvent. And I’m required to sacrifice other services in my community, like maintaining the park and running a good government because we don’t have the money to do those things because we’ve spent it all on these roads. So, there’s a very good fiscal conservative argument, but you have to get beyond the automobile equals freedom libertarian overlay to that discussion.

Eve: [00:28:14] So, what crises are we facing that you think make your argument an imperative today?

Charles: [00:28:20] There are a lot of overlapping crises, obviously. I mean, I think we’re in very tumultuous times. I’ll say this and it’s going to sound a little over the top, but, you know, there’s a little bit of like the Romanesque decadence thing that we’ve gone through. I remember watching The Hunger Games and I think a lot of people watch The Hunger Games in the US and we’re like, Yeah, I can identify with District 12 and all this, and I’m like, no, no, no, we’re paying ‘em. We’re like the capital. You don’t get it. Like, that’s the way we are living today. But the crises that we focus on at Strong Towns primarily is the financial crisis that local governments have. Local governments are broke. If you go to any city across the country that is mature. So, not a suburb in their first or second life cycle, but any place that has gone through that illusion of wealth phase of this development pattern, what you’ll find is that they have really high taxes, they have high levels of debt, they have enormous backlogs of infrastructure maintenance that they cannot fund.

Charles: [00:29:32] And they are, in all intent and purposes, a ward of the state unable to provide reliably their basic services. That is a failed local government. And we have thousands of them here in the United States. We are trying to help them understand why they are broke and we are trying to help them take rational steps to deal with that, because ultimately Detroit is not some kind of crazy anomaly. Detroit is the destination that you get when you mismanage your city, when you take a great city and you spread it out, drive up your costs, denude your tax base, you get Detroit. And Detroit is a beautiful place that has struggled and its people have suffered as a consequence. And to me, that’s the crisis that gets me up in the morning, is I want an alternative path for cities that have gone decades down this road.

Eve: [00:30:32] And what about social equity? How does that play into the equation for a strong town?

Charles: [00:30:39] It’s a very good question. I don’t talk about social equity the way that progressives talk about it, because I’m not a progressive. I’m a conservative. And I know that sometimes riles people up because they want to be affirmed in their approach and their way of talking about things. But if people will be generous with me, I think they will hear someone speaking who shares a lot of their goals and values. When we look at the landscape of North America today, what we see is that the most productive places in every city is the pre-great depression development pattern. If we just look at cities through a financial lens, what we see is that those neighborhoods that were built before the 1930s, the walkable kind of mixed-use gridded neighborhoods around neighborhood cores or a downtown, those are the places that financially are the most successful in every city. And here’s the key insight to this. They’re the most successful even when they are occupied by the poorest people in the community. And often that is the case. I mean, you have fast growing cities where these neighborhoods have gentrified, but the vast majority of US cities, the poorest people in the city, live in the old neighborhoods. And those people are subsidizing through their taxes that they pay, through the rent that they pay, that their landlord pays the taxes they are subsidizing the new affluent development that is being built out on the edge.

Charles: [00:32:11] And so, once we recognize that, that that is where our repository of wealth is. It is a massive injustice for us to not only ask these people living in these struggling neighborhoods to pay for a luxury that other people are unwilling to pay for in their own neighborhoods, but that we are devaluing and not providing the level of service and support that is commensurate with not only just being a human being. I mean, I think we can make that argument and I would be willing to go there. But my gosh, with the level of commitment and the level of contribution that they’re making to the city, my office is in a very poor neighborhood. It’s adjacent to the neighborhood that I live, which is not a very poor neighborhood, but is a, you know, on the edge of that. This neighborhood here is subsidizing the wealthy people who live on the edge of town, on the lakes. There is no reason that this neighborhood should ever want for broken and cracked sidewalks for a rundown park or any of those things. Yet we are required to live with all of that while our city invests millions of dollars out on the edge. It’s an injustice combined with a ludicrously dumb financial approach for the community. And it’s that intersection that I think can bring us together, right?

Eve: [00:33:39] So, I have to disagree on one thing. I think you are mis-labeling yourself.

Charles: [00:33:44] Please.

Eve: [00:33:44] That is a very progressive point of view. Well, it’s the same point of view I hold. I mean, I think these labels are kind of ludicrous. And, you know, you’re, it’s a very pragmatic way to approach it, but it comes to the same conclusion. Right?

Charles: [00:34:01] Here’s where I feel that you and I overlap Eve, and it’s where I find a lot of people politically who identify from a top-down way in different factions over that. You’re a very bottom-up thinker. I’m a very bottom-up thinker. And when you are very bottom up, what you recognize is that cities need people who are sensitive to conservative things, and they need people who are sensitive to progressive things, and they need those people to work together in a place. And that is how cities have always been throughout all of human history. It’s the top down where we get divided and where we struggle and where we kind of lose each other. And so, I try to avoid all those top-down conversations because I don’t find them to be very helpful.

Eve: [00:34:50] No, I agree. And I think political divide really for me comes around some very emotional and personal issues, not necessarily these ones. So, at least for me, that’s true. So, I think we agree on all of this. And in fact, you know, I live in downtown Pittsburgh and, you know, my view out the front door is often a homeless person. And I feel very uncomfortable in places where people are segregated into one class. I don’t think, I don’t know why I feel that discomfort, but I like and need to be where, you know, the whole of mankind is because that for me is reality. So, everyone has a different way they want to live their life, I suppose.

Charles: [00:35:37] I think the idea of discomfort is an interesting one, right? Because what I hear you saying is that I feel discomfort perceiving this in this way, and I’m going to give some validation to that because I think that as humans, we are wired to, for example, find nature to be beautiful, right? In many ways. But nature is nothing but organic chaos.

Eve: [00:36:05] It’s violent.

Charles: [00:36:07] It is. It is. But the beauty emerges from that. And what we try to do as humans is create and impose a certain order on the chaos. And what happens is that you don’t get the emergent beauty then. So, we can look at a city like Charleston and we can go to the old core of Charleston or Pittsburgh, where you live, which has beautiful pre 1930 neighbors. I mean, just gorgeous places.

Eve: [00:36:38] Gorgeous and the architecture in downtown is spectacular. Beautiful.

Charles: [00:36:42] Spectacular. We can go to these places and we can see that what emerged from that messiness and chaos was something very beautiful. And it feels almost natural and organic. The way that a forest does, because it did emerge in this way. But then we can go to a different neighborhood that was built in the 80s or 90s or in the last couple of decades, and we see something that is very orderly and is very clean, but almost like orderly clean in a hospital kind of way. Right. Like everything has its place. Everything’s been taken care of, but it doesn’t feel natural. It feels unnatural. And for people who are sensitive to this, it actually is very disorienting.

Eve: [00:37:28] It’s very disorienting. And my question is, is which one is likely to have more tourists?

Charles: [00:37:36] Well, yeah. Yeah.

Eve: [00:37:38] I mean, I’m an urban designer, not an urban planner. So, I think about, you know, the physical aspect of what makes streets and squares great places to be. And, you know, Italy is really the best place in the world to understand this. And when cities sort of stomp out the ability for those surprising moments through zoning or not permitting a wide variety of density, you start to get creep into that very sterile sort of boring zone. So, I don’t know, for me, it’s like, make room for that chaos a little bit. I like my cities with a little grit in them, you know. My husband always laughs when we drive into the suburbs and I start looking very nervous because there’s something about in my brain I need markers to help me figure out where I am. And I just get lost in the suburb. It’s a sea of all the same to me. And it’s not, it doesn’t, I don’t know where I belong there. Does that make sense?

Charles: [00:38:43] It is disorienting. Yes. Let me tell you a funny story. We had a friend of Strong Towns, actually, one of our early colleagues here, who would write for us occasionally. He was getting married and he had this funny idea to go out and take his engagement photos in a suburb. And you know how most people, if you’ve seen like my daughter, I’ve got a daughter, graduated from high school and she had her grad photos taken. And of course, they go to, you go to a city and you sit on the bench and you stand by the wall and you do. They’re all urban photos or nature photos, right? Like she went out to a park and stood in the park and stuff. But Nate Hood, this friend of mine, went out with him and his wife and took the pictures in a cul-de-sac and in like a strip mall and at like a suburban setting. And it was so, the thing about it is the concept was funny, right? But the photos themselves were so weird because you just don’t, people don’t pose in these environments. They’re not appealing to look at. They’re not appealing to be in. You looked at them and it didn’t feel comfortable or safe. You got this very, it was the abstract, right? It was you felt a level of discomfort looking at these photos, even though it was two very attractive people all dressed up, very nice, posing, very nice. They were in a landscape that was very anti-human, which is what a suburb is. It’s very car oriented, anti-human. And so, they looked ridiculously out of place and it was stunning. I mean, it was visually stunning to see.

Eve: [00:40:33] Interesting. So, do you live in a strong town? Like what are the features of your hometown that you love and what would you fix if you could?

Charles: [00:40:43] I would fix a lot of things if I could. I am blessed with living in a city where my great, great grandparents lived. In fact, I grew up on the family farm that was homesteaded by my great, great grandparents. And I live in the city now near where I used to walk to from school to have lunch with my grandmother when I was a little kid. I take the dog for walks and we go past the cemetery where my ancestors are buried. I go to church right over there, like right outside the window. And on the wall is a plaque that has my grandfather’s name on it because he was a marine in World War Two. And they did something then to, to acknowledge that. So, I am here because this is where I am from and when I acknowledge that I can see a lot of the beauty in this place. But when I lose touch with that, which we all occasionally do, I start to get very frustrated. A lot of the early strong towns writing was me voicing frustration with my city, which I think in a lot of ways has become stronger over the last decade, has evolved in our thinking. There’s an article in the paper today about how we’re looking to get rid of our parking minimums throughout the core of the downtown, which is 20 years overdue, but better late than never.

Eve: [00:42:16] What city is this?

Charles: [00:42:18] Well, Brainerd, Minnesota. You probably have never heard of this. It’s a couple hours north of Minneapolis, Saint Paul.

Eve: [00:42:23] Parking minimum reduction is taking hold rapidly. But anyway, please go on. Yes.

Charles: [00:42:28] Well, my city is 14,000 people. So, that gives you some context. And it’s not 14. Yeah, it’s not 14,000 people adjacent to a larger city. It’s 14,000 people two hours away from Minneapolis. So, we’re a long way away. Yeah, but, you know, I have found a lot of beauty here in working with my neighbors and in doing things that are very Strong Towns. This summer we have a park, a small little neighborhood park that’s kind of been neglected and overlooked. And some of us are getting together, and as soon as the snow melts, which it’s the end of March and it was below zero last night, so I don’t know what is going on. It might be June before we get rid of the snow here. But we are going to go out and spend a summer making this park a more special place just with the resources that we have and the elbow grease and the that kind of stuff. So, I feel like we have aspects of a strong town and like any place, it is a work in progress and a struggle. But I see it starting to move in the right direction. And I guess ultimately I’m confident and I think this is a core part of being part of a strong town. I’m confident that my contribution will not be wasted. Like I’m confident that we won’t get there. Like this is always going to be a journey and there’s always going to be things that frustrate me. But I am more confident now that the things I do are going to matter and will make life better for people who come after me. And a decade ago, I certainly couldn’t say that.

Eve: [00:44:20] Well, that’s a great note to end this podcast on. I certainly appreciate what you do and I really enjoyed talking to you, Chuck.

Charles: [00:44:32] Thank you, Eve. That is very sweet. And I hope you know that I follow your work as well. And I feel like your part of the answer is an important part of the answer. This whole Small Change, bottom-up funding concept is a very radical way to activate capital in ways that I think connects our heart to our pocketbooks and can be, is essential to transforming our places. So, I’m a huge fan of yours as well. And I’m grateful you took the time to put this together. Thank you.

Eve: [00:45:22] I hope you enjoyed today’s guest and our deep dive. You can find out more about this episode or others you might have missed on the show notes page at RethinkRealEstateforGood.co. There’s lots to listen to there. Please support this podcast and all the great work my guests do by sharing it with others, posting about it on social media, or leaving a rating and a review. To catch all the latest from me, you can follow me on LinkedIn. Even better, if you’re ready to dabble in some impact investing, head on over to smallchange.co where I spend most of my time. A special thanks to David Allardice for his excellent editing of this podcast and original music. And a big thanks to you for spending your time with me today. We’ll talk again soon. But for now, this is Eve Picker signing off to go make some change.

Image courtesy of Charles Marohn

It’s all about walking.

May 3, 2023

Jeff Speck is a city planner and urban designer who advocates internationally for more walkable cities.

As Director of Design at the National Endowment for the Arts from 2003 through 2007, he presided over the Mayors’ Institute on City Design and created the Governors’ Institute on Community Design. Prior to his federal appointment, Mr. Speck spent ten years as Director of Town Planning at DPZ & Co., the principal firm behind the New Urbanism movement. Since 2007, he has led Speck & Associates, a private design consultancy serving mainly American cities.

With Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, Mr. Speck is the co-author of Suburban Nation, which the Wall Street Journal calls “the urbanist’s bible.” His 2012 book Walkable City was the best selling city-planning title of the past decade and has been translated into seven languages. He is also the writer of The Smart Growth Manual and Walkable City Rules.

Jeff Speck has been named a fellow of both the American Institute of Certified Planners and the Congress for New Urbanism. He is the 2022 recipient of the Seaside Prize, whose former awardees include Jane Jacobs and Christopher Alexander. His TED talks and YouTube videos have been viewed more than five million times.

Read the podcast transcript here

Eve Picker: [00:00:08] Hi there. Thanks for joining me on Rethink Real Estate. For Good. I’m Eve Picker and I’m on a mission to make real estate work for everyone. I love real estate. Real estate makes places good or bad, rich or poor, beautiful or not. In this show, I’m interviewing the disruptors, those creative thinkers and doers that are shrugging off the status quo, in order to build better for everyone.

Eve: [00:00:43] Ten years ago, Jeff Speck wrote a book called Walkable City: How Downtown Can Save America One Step at a Time. Since it was published, the book has become one of the most popular titles in urban planning. His blunt assessment of the state of the planning profession, along with ten steps for improving street design, have forever influenced livability across US cities. Basically, it’s all about walking for Jeff. Listen in and learn. After all, Jeff’s TED Talks and YouTube videos have been viewed more than 5 million times.

Eve: [00:01:34] If you’d like to join me in my quest to rethink real estate, there are two simple things you can do. Share this podcast and go to RethinkRealEstateforGood.co, where you can subscribe to be the first to hear about my podcasts, blog posts, and other goodies.

Eve: [00:02:01] Welcome to the show, Jeff. I’m really honored to have you here, especially because I’m a bit of a Walkable groupie myself.

Jeff Speck: [00:02:09] Well Eve, Thank you. I didn’t know that I was getting into real estate when I was studying design, but that is kind of where I’ve ended up.

Eve: [00:02:17] Yes. Yes. So, you’ve written a very famous book called Walkable City, which is now ten years old. And in it, you tell us how downtown can save America one step at a time. Isn’t that a really radical claim?

Jeff: [00:02:34] I didn’t realize that when I wrote it. You could say it is. I’ll try to explain why it makes sense to me. First, I’ll mention that the book is ten years old, but what’s relevant to you and your listeners is that in honor of the ten year anniversary, we’ve issued a new edition that has 100 pages of new text. So actually, I spent a month or more, well, of course, gathering the information took years, but I spent some time about a year ago doing what I usually do when I write, which is saying, what’s all the stuff that I’ve heard about that I’ve witnessed that, you know, is noteworthy and that I’ve got really ardent feelings about that I need to share. And so, there’s obviously, so much has happened in the last decade. And those 100 pages that I’ve added to the book talk about such things as the promise of autonomous vehicles and Uber and Lyft, which weren’t around to comment on when I was writing the first edition. And of course, COVID and the housing crisis and so many other things. So, it’s in some ways a new book. And I’m very pleased to hear you say it’s very famous. I know it sells well. I know it pays for my breakfast, which is pretty good for a book, but it’s a book that has, I’d like to think that it’s played a role in changing the conversation around cities and focusing on walkability as a key goal, but also a measure of success and just something that if you put walkability at the top of your list and you start to reorganize your city around being more walkable, you end up making all the right choices for your city. So, getting to your question, the book begins with a large segment that’s called “Why Walkability.”

Jeff: [00:04:24] And I would say it’s expanded in the last decade, but essentially what I did or what I tried to do was to bring to everyone’s attention three different issues impacting cities and impacting America that had been brought to my attention. And it was interesting as a city planner to be arguing for better urbanism, better urban design, which we called traditional town planning for a while, and then we called it the New Urbanism, which kind of we still do, but realizing that we were getting kind of a limited response and that arguing for good city planning in the terms of city planning wasn’t really getting the audience that it needed. And that’s when I kind of discovered these three other groups, the epidemiologists, the economists and the environmentalists. All of whom were arguing for the exact same stuff that we wanted, but from their own terms and much more effectively, and really made me think that, yes, if we make our cities more walkable, they will make America a much better place.

Eve: [00:05:25] It’s really not a radical claim then. I mean, it’s radical along with everyone else who’s making the same claim, right?

Jeff: [00:05:31] Well, it’s not radical, but the prescriptions that it then leads you to are not considered exactly standard practice in many of the cities in America and in much of the world, certainly the developing world or other places that imitate America. So, in a nutshell, the Economist’s argument was pretty straightforward. And I know you’ve had Chris Leinberger on your show, but much of the economic argument I learned from him. And it was essentially how, of course, value is generated much more strongly in mixed use, walkable places, and that, in fact, there’s kind of two sides of the coin. One is that we’re bankrupting ourselves with the individual car ownership mandate and that in the US, poor people are paying more for transportation currently than they are for housing. Many of them are paying 40% of their income just to get around, and that’s a tremendous burden on society. And of course, the typical car is costing us $10,000 a year. People talk about affordable housing. They don’t really talk about affordable living. And actually, if you don’t need a car for every adult, that makes it living much more affordable.

Jeff: [00:06:34] But then on the more optimistic, ambitious side, which is what Chris Leinberger talks about, just the fact that the same number, you know, the same square footage of living space in Greenwich Village rents for three times or sells for three times what it does in Greenwich, Connecticut. And if you know Greenwich, Connecticut, it’s an extremely lovely place. But essentially that if you create walkable, dense places, your values and your investment will be so much stronger. But then also just simple discoveries about how, you know, the denser your city is, the more patents per capita you create. And just acknowledging that we come together in dense mixed-use communities because that benefits us economically in so many different ways. The book outlines the money that Portlanders save by actually commuting less, Portland, Oregon. By commuting less, spending less time in traffic because they invested in bike lanes, because they invested in density and transit and the billions of dollars that they save annually by virtue of having made those choices a couple of decades ago. There are many more economic arguments. The epidemiological argument is essentially something I learned from a book called Urban Sprawl and Public Health, and then getting to know the authors of that book, three epidemiologists who were basically saying they studied disease and they studied the health of the culture as a whole. And they said, you know, we have the first generation of Americans who are expected to live shorter lives than their parents. And the average child born after 2000, you know, half of them are expected to get diabetes. It’s just a horrible situation that they say is due to the fact that we have engineered out of our daily life the useful walk. So, you know, there’s a bunch of doctors and others who point to our unhealthy American diet and other aspects of life in America, like car crashes that shorten our life expectancy. But the biggest factor is that walking used to be just something we did every day that made us healthy that we’re not doing because we’ve designed our neighborhoods to cause us to not do it.

Jeff: [00:08:31] And of course, The fix is an urban design fix. And then I do talk a lot about car crashes and their impact. And then finally, the environmental argument is in part not entirely taken from a wonderful book by David Owen, who’s a New Yorker writer called Green Metropolis that you may have seen about 15 years ago. That was going to be called Green Manhattan when he wrote it. Acknowledging that the place in America where people have the lightest carbon footprint is New York City and then asking why? Acknowledging that New Yorkers use a quarter of the electricity to people in Houston, they use one tenth of the gasoline of people in Houston. If you really care about the planet and love nature, if you love nature, the best thing to do is to stay away from it and live in an urban place. The denser, the better. And just wonderful arguments about, in fact, how the maps that show carbon output per square mile are so incredibly misleading. They look like the night sky photographs of the US. You know, they’re hottest in the cities and cooler in the suburbs and coolest in the countryside. But if you if you look at carbon output per capita, those maps entirely flip. And it’s urban dwellers who have the lightest footprint. Now, I should say that in the update, I’ve added two other things that I neglected to focus on enough in the first edition. One, of course, is the social impacts of living in a more walkable place. And there’s been tons of great evidence.

Jeff: [00:10:02] In fact, one sociologist, you know, it was almost like she was doing it for me, did a study that demonstrated that there was no factor that had a greater impact on how sociable people are as how walkable their community is. It’s like the number one indicator of sociability and participation in community activities is living in a walkable neighborhood. Wow. Well, that’s nice to hear. And then something I’d neglected to talk about adequately at all was the equity impacts of living in walkable and unwalkable places and how the ownership of the automobile is a great divider, creating haves and have nots. But more to the point, how with the suburbanization of poverty and a lot of poor people now living in places that were designed only around driving and people who don’t have cars. We have a tremendous epidemic underway. And now, believe it or not, compared to 14 years ago, 82% more pedestrians are dying in car crashes and it’s a function of a number of factors we can discuss. But those trends skew very much towards people of color and poor people. If you’re Native American or African American, you’re twice as likely to be killed as a pedestrian than if you’re not. And then of course, transit, which we advocate for and walking, which we advocate for, and biking, which we advocate for disproportionately benefit those who have less. Particularly people look at biking, people look at biking as some sort of elite activity when in fact, fully 38% of the people who commute for work or school are from the lowest 25% of income earners.

Eve: [00:11:41] That’s really interesting. But I want to know how the walkable theme came to take such center stage in your professional life.

Jeff: [00:11:49] It’s a funny question that I’ve asked myself. I don’t remember any moment or a decision that happened around me becoming the walkability guy. As I suggested, my colleagues and I were always just looking at best practices or better practices in urban design, and we were trained as architects. My mentors, Andrés Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, who designed the famous town of Seaside back in 1980, which kicked off the whole New Urbanist movement. And then they started the Congress for New Urbanism with some other like-minded individuals. In 1993, I was there. We talked about New Urbanism, we talked about what we call neo traditional town planning because it was a return to the traditional ways of making cities independent of architectural style, right.

Jeff: [00:12:36] We’re talking about streets and blocks and squares as opposed to the tower in the park or any of these other kind of modernist reinventions of the city, which suburban sprawl is one model of. And it’s really just best practices in urban design. But we’re like comedians who go up on stage and you try your material out, right? And you see what floats and what doesn’t float. And one way or the other, I realized, first of all, that everything that I was advocating for was making places more walkable, but perhaps more significantly, that when you framed it in terms of walkability, which is not a word I invented, but I may have helped to popularize, that people really got it. People understood it and it became a main street conversation. And I would say by making the choice, not the invention by any means, but the choice of calling what we do walkability planning or walkable centered planning, we’ve been able to popularize it much more effectively. Now it’s interesting, though, because it’s not just, you know, as someone who’s into communication, you’ll be curious to know, these things reinforce themselves.

Jeff: [00:13:41] So, it’s not just a communications tool. Because actually, when I started to use the term walkable, I began to see everything through that lens, and it actually modified my practice, and I started doing something for cities. I’ve done 15 of them, called walkability studies. So, if that’s the name of your study, what are you trying to accomplish? So, I would, you know, we’ll come to town, we’ll spend a week, we’ll have about a dozen meetings with all the different constituents in that week. And I’ll begin each meeting the same way. I’ll say my purpose of this study, what you are paying me for, is for us to figure out together in the, you know, how in the least amount of time and spending the least amount of money we can visibly witness the largest number of people, more people walking and biking in your neighborhood. And it’s almost always the downtown of a city when that’s the problem you’re trying to solve, you make a whole bunch of decisions that are a little more straightforward and clearer and more complete perhaps than you would make if you’re just trying to make a good urban plan. So, you know, my general theory of walkability, which is a fun term, talks about how, for people to make the choice to walk the walk has to be simultaneously useful, safe, comfortable and interesting. And each one of those categories then puts forward a series of changes that you can make around improving mixed use, around bringing more housing downtown, subsidizing it if necessary, to have a lot of bodies in your downtown around where we spend most of our time, which is the reconfiguration of streets. And I studied architecture for, you know, years and years and years, I have ten years post-high school of studying architecture.

Jeff: [00:15:20] Now, what I do mostly is measure and design lanes in streets, because that’s where you can have the most impact on the success of a place. Because most of our downtowns in America, the places that are useful, comfortable and interesting, still aren’t safe to walk around because of the speeds that cars are traveling because of the way that they’re designed, and we fix those in cities. So, that’s become a huge part of my practice. And then comfort and interest. Comfort implies space making, spatial definition, giving proper edges to spaces because we like to be in outdoor living rooms with our flanks covered from attack. It’s something we, you know, we’ve inherited along with all animals. The evolutionary biologists tell us all animals are seeking prospect and refuge. So, we’re seeking refuge, we want to know that our flanks are covered. That means that you want to hold the edge of the streets with buildings that are near the street, tall enough to make a space. That’s something we spend a lot of time on. And then finally, interest is a little more straightforward. You know, no one wants to walk past a surface parking lot, past a structured parking lot, past a blank wall or, and this is important, past 100 yards of the exact same thing. So, we have, for example, we introduced into cities the concept of demise lines, which I’ve done in many of my projects, where you take one big building, and you actually get three architects to do the facade and make it look like three different buildings. Then when you walk down the street, something interesting is happening.

Jeff: [00:16:45] As Jane Jacobs says, No one will walk from repetition to repetition or from sameness to sameness, even if the effort expended is minimal. We line the parking with residential. We put some other use on the ground floor, or we just keep it away from the edge of the street. Right? So, there’s all these techniques and from, you know, the biggest scale of mixed use to the smallest scale of the building edge, we don’t leave anything out. And obviously some things are achievable more quickly than others. Fixing streets is often the first thing you can do, which is why I spend so much time on it. And I do a lot of work for mayors who want results within a couple of years because they’re up for re-election. So…

Eve: [00:17:24] Of course.

Jeff: [00:17:25] City planning is notoriously a 20-year phenomenon, right? But the work that that we do for cities, they don’t want to wait that long, and we focus on streets for that reason.

Eve: [00:17:38] Well, that’s a good thing, actually. So, if ten years is enough time to see if your predictions actually came true and I want to know if there were any surprises, if there have been any bad things that have happened over the last ten years.

Jeff: [00:17:53] One kind of smart thing about the book probably is I didn’t make many predictions. I certainly made a whole bunch of recommendations and gave a whole bunch of direction. And I would say, looking back, there’s nothing in that direction. I mean, the book is literally, you know, there’s four categories of the useful, safe, comfortable and interesting walk. But then there’s the ten steps of walkability. And the big part of the book is these ten steps, which include let transit work, get the parking right, mix the uses, make friendly and unique faces, welcome bikes, um, etcetera. And so, each chapter is dedicated to one issue like trees or bikes. But the chapter that I, and I say this in the update, the only chapter I wanted to retract a little bit was pieces of the biking chapter, because first of all, biking is what is evolving the fastest in most, or micro mobility in general is what’s evolving the fastest in most American cities. We are just now catching up with Berlin in the 1990s. I mean literally I was in Berlin in the 1990s and we had the bike lane up on the curb, out of the street, on the edge of the sidewalk. And now when we do new plans in American cities, that’s what we’re doing. You know, I will no longer put a bike lane in the door zone period. Ten years ago, I would because we were lucky to get it.

Eve: [00:19:24] We’re still doing that in Pittsburgh. I just noticed new ones. It’s scary.

Jeff: [00:19:30] I’ll put a bike lane adjacent to two lanes of traffic. If there’s no parking on the other side of it. More often, I’ll pull parking into the street to protect the biking and put the biking either against the curb in an existing street that we don’t rebuild, or if we’re building a new street or rebuilding the curbs, we’ll put the bike up on the curb, separated often from the sidewalk by trees. When I wrote the book, sharrows were respected. In the intervening ten years, a couple studies were done that showed that sharrows, those share the road markings in the roadway, have no positive impact and in certain instances have made streets more dangerous than not having anything at all. So, that’s out.

Eve: [00:20:11] Interesting.

Jeff: [00:20:12] The main thing I wanted to retract was that I was kind of treating the cyclist like any other lobby, bearing in mind I’m a cyclist, I’m also a driver. You know, like most people, I do all those things. I told them, you know, we can’t put bike lanes in every street. I mean, let’s be serious here. You know, if we gave everyone in every street everything they wanted, the streets would all be the size of airport runways. And, you know, it actually isn’t the proper design of a bike network to have bike lanes everywhere. If you go to Copenhagen, you know, the major streets have bike lanes, but the minor streets, most of the streets, almost all of them, are just slow speed, comfortable streets where everyone mixes and it’s better. So, I was a little bit critical of the biking lobby just to be even handed. I’ve now thought better of it. In fact, I’m leafing through my book here and, if you don’t mind, I’ll do a tiny reading.

Eve: [00:21:09] Sure, sure.

Jeff: [00:21:10] And this has to do with my retraction, since you asked. If there’s one passage of this book that I would like to retract, it’s step six’s ‘Don’t get greedy’. Sure, bike advocates are specialists, and we need our cities to be designed by generalists. As I noted, there isn’t enough room in the streets for every specialist to get what they want. But here’s what I got wrong. I’ve yet to see a city do anything requested by a bike advocate that is not made that city better for everyone. I’ve finally been to Copenhagen and biked miles of downtown without the slightest fear for my eight- and ten-year-old boys in front of me. If you haven’t had that life changing experience, don’t begin to think you know what you are doing when you deny a cyclist anything. The cycling city is the city we all need. And remembering Copenhagen fills me alternately with joy and rage. Just today, Milan announced $271 million in funding for a 466-mile citywide bike network. Paris recently upped its biking investment to half $1 billion.

Eve: [00:22:10] Wow.

Jeff: [00:22:11] In order to achieve an 100% cycling city, in quotes. Meanwhile, the Boston Cyclists Union clamors enthusiastically for an increase in the city’s bike budget to $2.6 million. And Boston’s one of the good ones. Don’t get greedy, don’t settle for scraps, demand more, 100 times more, and don’t stop until the very last bike hating motorist throws up their hands and decamps permanently for the suburbs.

Eve: [00:22:37] Or gets a bike, right?

Jeff: [00:22:39] Yeah. So, that was the only real retraction. But I have to say, you know, the book was written to be somewhat timeless and there were a few things it didn’t anticipate, like COVID. It also didn’t anticipate the housing crisis properly enough and was also not fully aware. You know, and I co-wrote and was the principal author of the book Suburban Nation, which is, was with my mentors, which was the best-selling planning book of the previous decade, 2000s. And in that book as well, certainly in Walkable City, I did not pay enough attention to or share enough of the information that people need to know about how racial prejudice has shaped our cities and particularly has shaped our housing crisis and how there is still a crisis for folks of color. And a wonderful book that informed that was Richard Rothstein’s The Color of Law. I presume you’re familiar with that book.

Eve: [00:23:34] Yes. I did also interview him.

Jeff: [00:23:37] I would love to get a chance to talk to him. I haven’t yet, but I read that book with great interest, and I excerpt it within my update. I think a lot of that was eye opening to me. Probably the thing that most people don’t know that I didn’t know. I learned it before I read his book, but I didn’t know it until more recently. People always talk about redlining like it was some sort of thing that the banks did, right? Oh, those evil banks redlining, not granting loans for mortgages in mixed race or neighborhoods of color. In fact, that was the federal government. That was Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac. You know, that was that was that was our leaders who said, no, we will not guarantee a loan in any neighborhood of color and also any investment the federal government made in housing development, which was huge, particularly with affordable housing neighborhoods, was mandated to be single race. It’s absolutely incredible.

Jeff: [00:24:35] And then, of course, the strong evidence that Rothstein collects about how the single-family zoning as a concept was basically created as a way to perpetuate race based zoning when the Supreme Court ruled that that was illegal. And then finally, the understanding that the way that the typical American family has built wealth, the typical middle class American family, if it has built wealth, it has built wealth probably through the ownership of a single-family house that got that mortgage deduction.

Eve: [00:25:08] Right.

Jeff: [00:25:08] And that that wealth building opportunity was only made available to white Americans for many decades. You know, as Martin Luther King said, you can’t expect a man to lift him up by his bootstraps if he has no boots. And so, the constant deprivation of opportunity to a portion of our population, I’m getting off topic of planning, but it’s all.

Eve: [00:25:30] But it’s all part, it’s all part and parcel of it. Definitely. I want to drag you back to the suburbs because, you know, in recent years there have been talk about making suburbs pedestrian friendly. And I’ve noticed the suburbs I drive through, you know, I get a little scared when I’m in the suburbs because I don’t know where there is. Yeah, there’s no there there. But I’ve noticed that little pieces of sidewalk emerge. They don’t necessarily go anywhere. It’s amusing to watch. Have you seen any successful attempts to urbanize the suburbs? And is this the future for suburbs?

Jeff: [00:26:12] Well, I think it’s important to understand that most American suburbs, most American post, all American post-war suburbs and most American suburbs have the wrong bones, right? It’s like chipmunks versus dinosaurs or, you know, mammals versus lizards, whatever you want to say. And when you’ve got the wrong bones.

Eve: [00:26:34] You need a lot of surgery.

Jeff: [00:26:36] Well, when you got the wrong bones, you actually, it’s impossibly expensive to change your nature. So, these giant blocks, these arterial highway, arterial collector, local road networks with a major intersection every half mile that constitute probably 50% of the American landscape right now, the built environment. They can’t be changed in a way that will make them walkable. They can be changed street by street, intersection by intersection, you know, roadside by roadside into places that are safer. They can be changed into places that are more bikeable, but they will never have a condition in which walking is a favored means of getting around. Except as we’ve seen, and I’ve participated in several of these, when you get a chunk which is big enough to become a new mixed use town center. And so, you find in places like it’s called City Center in Houston, it’s nowhere near the downtown of Houston, but it’s in the geographical center. That’s a place where a developer got a big enough piece of property and said, let’s have shopping and housing and offices and hotel and cinema and everything in one place. And eventually what you get is a little bit of a town center, and it might be what you call a park once environment, right? But people end up living there. People who work there end up living there, and certain people really reduce their carbon footprint and have a much better quality of life living in those places.

Jeff: [00:28:01] And many of our cities have this. There’s one in Alpharetta, Georgia, called Avalon. You know, they’re all over the place. And they’re, some are better than others. Some are not much better than exterior malls with a main street down the middle instead of pedestrian. But once you get significant housing, hotel, office above the main street, then it’s almost nothing that distinguishes it from being a real town center.

Eve: [00:28:28] Interesting.

Jeff: [00:28:29] The other hope for suburbs is the pre-war suburbs. I was in Tigard, Oregon, which is a suburb of Portland, and they want to be more walkable. And they were almost entirely a driving suburb, but then I discovered, like struggling, but there this germ of a main street, like it was a pre-war main street. And many of our suburbs have these old centers that were disinvested but are still there, are still zoned for mixed use. And if you can get more people living there or allow more people. Change the rules, often to allow more people to live around that old main street, then you get that little walkable downtown core that becomes the heart of the community. And still, most people are driving to it, but not everyone is. And those who do drive to it have that lovely experience when they get out of their car of walking around.

Jeff: [00:29:11] Now, I want to mention I have something to say about this, too. I have a book I’m showing you called Walkable City Rules. That is a book that I recommend mostly to professionals. So, your audience, the realtors, the real estate developers or others in your audience. Walkable City is the book that people read for entertainment. They read it to get convinced. Mostly they distribute it to get to convince other people. And I’ve worked in a lot of cities where they’ve given it out by the box to the city councilors, to others. It’s a great tool for winning converts, but if you’re already doing the work and you just want all the information, you know, all the stuff you need to know, including such little tidbits as when you remove the center line from a local street, people drive seven miles an hour slower. Like that’s good to know. That’s get rid of some center lines. Or when you replace a signal with an all way stop sign, severe pedestrian injury crashes dropped by 68%. Well, that’s a nice thing to do. So, that’s all in there. But there’s one. So, it’s 101 steps to making better places, Walkable city Rules.

Eve: [00:30:16] I’m going to buy that book.

Jeff: [00:30:18] Each rule is two pages. It has a headline, it has a rule at the end, it has a photograph or a chart. Step 100 is Don’t give up on sprawl, it’s where most Americans live. It talks about these two conditions. The opportunity to create a mixed use town center if the economics are there to support it and you have a chunk of land or to find the, you know, the moribund main street that was once there and the rule 100 at the end of the page says, in sprawl, invest in old Main Streets where they exist and otherwise focus on safety for all road users because that’s the main thing that you can accomplish. And I’ll do a tiny reading from this book, which is the sad conclusion. But then there are the newer places like Chandler, Arizona, 250,000 humans doomed to scuttle around perhaps the most utterly placeless landscape in America, 65mi² of entirely car dependent nowhere.

Jeff: [00:31:14] Without the full-scale insertion of a large new town centre, what can be done to make the denizens of the purest sprawl less isolated? While true walkability is out of the question, the most essential improvements would seem to surround safety for pedestrians, cyclists and drivers too. People are dying in these landscapes at an alarming rate, thanks to high-speed road geometrics, inadequate crossings and rare and dangerous bike lanes. Such places can’t really be fixed, but they can and should be made safer using many of the techniques contained in this volume. So, that’s my conclusion for the sprawl.

Eve: [00:31:48] I’m going to I’m going to order that right after this because I want to see those rules. That’s interesting. So, let me ask you, what’s one of your favorite places or cities in the US or elsewhere where you feel really happy walking and why do you love it?

Jeff: [00:32:06] I think the best answer to your question is that any, almost any pre-war city in the US has kernels, pieces that are that are fantastic and a majority that’s probably pretty bad, and that the distinction is not so much among cities as it is among pieces of cities. I would also argue, I think this is important for your audience, that the decision, the contrast also in our work, particularly in Suburban Nation that we wrote about, isn’t about town versus city or town versus village or even suburb versus city, but it’s around walkable versus unwalkable organizational patterns and how there are cities that are unwalkable, there are towns that are unwalkable, there are villages that are unwalkable and the opposite.

Jeff: [00:32:57] You know, I grew up in a suburb. I think many Americans my age did. I’m almost 60. Where I mean, it was a pure suburb. It was Belmont, Massachusetts, next to Cambridge outside of Boston. It was completely walkable. My dad walked to work every day. I walked to the bus that took me into Harvard Square. I walked to school. It’s possible to create cities, towns, villages and suburbs that are fully walkable beyond a certain point, it’s not a question of density. And what’s more important is neighborhood structure. Neighborhood structure means small blocks, small streets, frequent intersections, civic spaces, a sense of center and a sense of edge. You know, the neighborhood and planning terminology is very well defined as being compact, mixed use and walkable.

Jeff: [00:33:43] And so, that’s what really matters. Now, to answer your question and enjoy in my memory some of the wonderful places I love to go, you know, most of those are the places that were not run through with highways that maintain their existing pre-war character. You know, I love to visit the great cities of the South, Charleston, Savannah, New Orleans. Alexandria, if it weren’t part of DC would be another city like Charleston that people would go to just to walk around Alexandria, Virginia. You know, and then there are amazing Western examples, Albuquerque and you know, Carmel by the sea. Carmel by the sea. Excuse me. I’m working in Carmel, Indiana, which is not pronounced the same as Carmel by the sea. But, you know, for big cities, you know, despite the problems with homelessness and other issues, I still think San Francisco is one of the best places in the world to walk around.

Eve: [00:34:40] Yeah.

Jeff: [00:34:41] And in a global perspective, off-season, because the tourists make it hell. But off season would have to say my favorite city is Venice because it has so many wonderful qualities, most of which derive from, independent of its historic character, most of its wonderful qualities derive from the fact there are no cars in it.

Eve: [00:35:00] Yes,

Jeff: [00:35:01] This makes it so amazing.

Eve: [00:35:02] Yeah, but the tourism just almost unpalatable.

Jeff: [00:35:06] But you can truly enjoy it off season and you can live there off season.

Eve: [00:35:10] I’ll have to try that. So, I’m going to put a plug in for Australia because you know, that’s where I grew up and those cities really sprawl. I mean, Sydney has a huge sprawl, a lot of land area compared to a city like New York. But I, when I was a kid, I could walk everywhere. I could catch a bus. I lived in what you would consider a suburb. There was sidewalks on always on one side of the street, if not both. Every neighborhood had, and has to this day, a main street. And those main streets have survived.

Jeff: [00:35:43] I spent some time in Sydney, in Melbourne, in Adelaide, lovely town, in Perth. I have to say clearly Sydney is the most spectacular and most exciting to visit. I found Melbourne to be the place where I wanted to live.

Eve: [00:35:57] Oh, Melbourne’s fabulous.

Jeff: [00:35:59] So much character. But here’s what I observed about Melbourne. Street after or I should say neighborhood after neighborhood of almost endless main streets with no chain restaurants or chain stores on. Mile long. And I think what does, that is the trams. So, you’ve got streetcars in the middle of your main streets throughout, I mean the parts of Melbourne that I enjoy, and that combination of, you know, moderate density. But the streetcar corridor is what allows for all these neighborhoods in Melbourne to not only have Main Streets that are successful and continuous, but have character and unique establishments of, you know, avoiding the chain stores which aren’t a blight, but they sure make places boring. It’s really remarkable.

Eve: [00:36:53] It is remarkable. You know, Australia was a coffee culture well before Starbucks happened and somehow Starbucks could never get a foothold there because you have flat white. And so, yeah, but I think it’s a very, very different expectation about how you’re going to live your life. Not that people don’t have cars and drive a lot, but I think what you said before that I wanted to hang on to is the fact that you’ll walk if there’s something interesting along the way and interest can come in all sorts of shapes and forms, or if you have a destination to go to, you won’t walk if there’s nowhere to go. And so, is that what you think about when you’re designing a place? It’s like a it’s like an anchor on a mall, right? There’s an anchor at each end.

Jeff: [00:37:36] Well, you need to do everything you can to change the zoning and to direct the city investment through tax increment financing or any other tool at their disposal to impact what real estate developers are building. So, If a place needs more housing, then you find a way, which most places do, most urban places do need more housing in the US to be successful or more successful, You reorient the zoning and the investment around that. But that does that takes time. So, you know, the useful, comfortable and interesting walk are all a function of almost entirely the private market which the government can influence. But the safe walk is what the government can typically control immediately and invest in immediately. And so, that is where we short circuit the investment as fast as we can to make it happen. I think it is interesting also to compare Australia to the US or Canada to the US, to the degree our cities were undermined by both being reamed out by highways, but also each individual street being reamed out.

Jeff: [00:38:43] If you look at Manhattan, you know, Park Avenue used to have a park in the middle. Now it has a little median that no one would sit in because it’s just a break in 6 or 8 lanes of traffic. It used to be two lanes of traffic on each side and a big park in the middle. And so many American streets have had the trees removed, the parking removed other things to just carry more cars. In terms of highways, you know, you look at the US cities versus Canada cities and Canadian cities have done so much better in their downtowns. Well, in the US, the federal government invested $0.90 on the dollar. If you wanted to put a highway through your city centre in Canada, it was $0.10 on the dollar. So, you know, there’s choices like that that clearly. People say Americans love suburbs. We voted with our feet, but that’s completely false. I mean, there were incredible subsidies between highway building and home loan, insuring that led to the outcomes we now see.

Eve: [00:39:37] So, I have just a couple more questions. And one is, do you still get pushback? Who gives you pushback?

Jeff: [00:39:45] So, there’s this. Inchoate mass called the automotive hordes, that in certain places and certain circumstances will you know, is the specter that’s looming when you’re trying to make changes in a community. I’ve found that to some degree they’re mythological. Like everyone’s worried about what the motorists are going to think. But most places I work, and I’ve got to tell you, in most places I work, I’m not trying to make driving harder. I’m just trying to make walking and biking easier. And there are ways to do that that don’t make driving harder. Like every city, however congested it is, has certain streets that aren’t congested, or you’ve got a main street. This is, here’s a perfect example. You’ve got a main street that’s in a network, and that Main Street is handling 18,000 cars per day. And like in Lancaster, California, it is dismal. It’s five lanes. It’s a highway, 18,000 cars a day, but it’s in a network. They made a decision in Lancaster to make it only two lanes. They put a parking plaza in the middle. So, they use it for farmers markets and stuff. And when there’s no farmers market, people just angle park in the middle of the street, and it’s become a linear plaza.

Jeff: [00:41:04] This like ten block Main Street. It now only handles 12,000 cars a day. But guess what? The cars are moving on the parallel streets, which is fine. The parallel streets aren’t contributing to the social heart of the city. And in fact, most cities, most small cities and towns, they have only one chance to have a great main street. There’s no reason why that Main Street’s design should be dictated by maintaining the existing throughput. That’s the term, like maintaining throughput network wide. Sure. You know, most communities will fight any decision that limits network wide auto mobility. but you can easily make an argument that you’re going to shift traffic over a street or simply take some lanes away from a street which isn’t congested. And that’s how I work. Understanding, in fact, that behavior adjusts that when you reduce capacity, more people walk and bike and that actually the carmageddon that’s predicted by reductions in capacity never comes when you remove a highway or narrow lanes.

Eve: [00:42:10] That’s a much more sophisticated conversation that I’d love to have and that almost never wins, which is that in fact driver demand is not static, it’s not fixed, it’s dynamic, it responds to the environment. And whenever a highway has been closed or a lane has been removed, we’ve never witnessed the gridlock that people predict because people adjust their behavior and they’re often happier for it. But that’s an argument I try not to make in communities because it’s counterintuitive. Mostly I say we’re going to find ways, and I demonstrate that we can find ways to improve walking and improve biking without in any way hampering the motion of automobiles except to get drivers going the speed limit as opposed to 10 to 15 miles an hour over the speed limit, which is how our our streets are designed.

Jeff: [00:42:57] And, you know, I love to rant and I had a recent editorial in the Hill that your listeners can look up under my name, Speck and The Hill talking about how actually in the US engineers as a matter of practice design streets for ten miles an hour over the speed limit because they’ve learned safety from highways instead of learning it from reality and in reality.

Eve: [00:43:22] That’s interesting.

Jeff: [00:43:22] In urbanized areas where people walk, driver speed is not determined by the speed limit, it’s determined by the environment. And therefore, anything you do to create elbow room or forgiveness is actually causing speeding and death. So, that’s a whole nother aspect of how the traffic engineering profession does not acknowledge that environment influences behavior. They don’t understand that environment influences behavior in terms of traffic, and that traffic demand is dynamic. They don’t understand that environment influences behavior in terms of speeding, and that speeding is caused by the very forgiveness that they introduced to our town centres and it’s really angering because they figured it out in Europe. But here in the US they have not figured that out.

Eve: [00:44:04] No. So, I have one final question for you, and that is what keeps you up at night? Or maybe nothing.

Jeff: [00:44:17] I’m fairly convinced that I’m going to lose someone that I love to traffic violence.

Eve: [00:44:24] Oh.

Jeff: [00:44:25] I mean, the odds are very high.

Eve: [00:44:27] That’s a horrible thought to keep you up at night.

Jeff: [00:44:30] The odds are very high that any of us will lose someone we care about to traffic violence. There’s a 1 in 100 chance that is how you will die in America. Um, it’s more than 40,000 people a year. It’s going up every year. And if anything keeps me up at night, you know, those are the only sort of thoughts that keep me up at night. I’m a good sleeper, but, you know, it’s those near and dear. Otherwise, I would say that, you know, I don’t think we’re taking the right measures to stem climate change by any means. This idea of electrify everything is perhaps necessary, but by no means sufficient to solve the climate problem. You know, the idea that Joe Biden is driving around this 9,000 pound Hummer, not to mention that it’s an anti-pedestrian device whose battery weighs more than a Toyota Corolla. And that that’s going to save the planet is just preposterous.

Jeff: [00:45:27] You know, and between 85 and 90% of the airborne particles that come from driving are from your tires and brakes. So, what are we doing about that? You know, so I mean, there’s so many reasons why different better cars is not the answer. And the question, the question people ask in America is always, how can we make cars better? It’s the wrong question. So, of course you get the wrong answer. Yeah, I think electrification is important, but they’re looking entirely at the supply side and not the demand side for energy and pollution. And that was the mistake of, you know, the war on poverty. It was the mistake of the war on drugs. You know, supply side solutions generally don’t work. And you have to look at the demand side. And the demand side is how can we live lives wonderfully enjoyably, you know, delightfully that cause us to use less energy? And the answer is to collect into villages, towns and cities that aren’t automobile dependent.

Eve: [00:46:26] Well, I’m totally with you on that. And I thank you very, very much for joining me. And I’d love to. I’m actually going to go order your Walkable City Rules immediately, so I know what they are. It sounds like a really useful book. So, thank you, Jeff. I really appreciate you joining me.

Jeff: [00:46:42] Both Walkable City and Walkable City Rules are also on Audible. The Walkable City Rules. I do recommend you get the hard copy because there’s pictures. Walkable City, remarkably, for a planning book has no pictures, which is why it’s one reason it’s sold so well is that it’s, you know, it’s written to be entertaining.

Eve: [00:46:59] Well, thank you, Jeff. I really appreciate it.

Jeff: [00:47:02] Hey, I love the attention. I’m grateful for what you do. And I am happy that you are willing to listen to me rant for so long.

Eve: [00:47:26] I hope you enjoyed today’s guest and our deep dive together. You can find out more about this episode or others you might have missed on the show notes page at RethinkRealEstateforGood.co. There’s lots to listen to there. If you like what you heard, you can support this podcast by sharing it with others, posting about it on social media, or leaving a rating and review. To catch all the latest from me, you can follow me on LinkedIn. Even better, if you’re ready to dabble in some impact investing, head on over to smallchange.co, where I spend most of my time. A special thanks to David Allardice for his excellent editing of this podcast and original music. And a big thanks to you for spending your time with me today. We’ll talk again soon, but for now, this is Eve Picker signing off to go make some change.

Image courtesyˆof Jeff Speck

Parking minimums gone!

April 22, 2023

The pandemic shone new light on the value of urban land. Climate change has also prompted some serious thought to the role of the car in the urban landscape.

In Montreal a parking lot has become a children’s playground. In Winnipeg several have become popular beer gardens. In Toronto, a 100-unit apartment building is replacing a downtown parking lot. 

We are witnessing the gradual dismantling of the idea that more parking is better.

There is some local pushback, because change can be hard to understand at first. But the trend is accelerating. After all, is a parking lot the highest and best use in a dense urban neighborhood?  Surely not! 

Now both Canadian and US cities are eliminating parking minimums completely. These minimums force developers to include parking based on anything but rigorous standards.  And they are expensive.  

The removal of parking minimums holds great promise. Some outcomes I expect to see?  Better quality affordable housing. Pedestrian-friendly streets.  Lots more outside dining. Long-vacant urban lots finally redeveloped. 

Here’s the article that got us so excited.  Want to read more like this?  Follow Eve on Linkedin.

Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

sign up here

APPLY TO BE A PODCAST GUEST

More to See

Passive House Duplex.

November 20, 2024

The case for social housing.

September 18, 2024

Pittsburgh champion.

September 3, 2024

FOLLOW

  • LinkedIn
  • RSS

Tag Cloud

Affordable housing Climate Community Creative economy Crowdfunding Design Development Environment Equity Finance FinTech Gentrification Impact Investing Mobility Offering Opportunity zones PropTech Technology Visionary Zoning

Footer

©rethinkrealestateforgood.co. The information contained on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this website is intended as investment, legal, tax or accounting strategy or advice, or constitutes an offer to sell, solicit or buy securities.
 
Any projections discussed or made may not be accurate and do not guarantee a specific outcome. All projections or investments are subject to risk due to uncertainty and change, including the risk of loss, and past performance is not indicative of future results. You should make independent decisions and seek independent advice regarding investments or strategies mentioned on this website.

Recent

  • Real estate and women.
  • Oculis Domes.
  • Bellevue Montgomery
  • West Lombard
  • Swank Atlanta.

Search

Categories

Climate Community Crowdfunding Development Equity Fintech Investing Mobility Proptech Visionary

 

Copyright © 2025 · Magazine Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in