Abstract
In the middle of the 20th century, Charles Tiebout developed a model describing how individuals choose where to live according to a community’s ability to satisfy their needs (Tiebout, 1956). His model required two things: (a) mobility and (b) increasingly attractive alternative communities. At about the same time, the Congress passed the Federal Highway Act and created the Economic Development Administration, charged with the mission to “lead the federal economic development agenda by promoting innovation and competitiveness, preparing American regions for growth and success in the worldwide economy” (Mission). Add to this the postwar boom, and we were off; a new way of life had surfaced in America, with a more mobile citizenry that hungered for the good life, and a government willing and able to create conditions favorable for economic expansion.
Since that time, the competition between countries, regions, states, cities, towns, and neighborhoods over development (i.e., jobs and the resulting people and tax base) has stiffened, with strategies becoming increasingly intense, creative, and desperate. Actions range from infrastructure improvements to tax incentives to investments in educating and training citizens to providing development grants for private industry. History provides ample examples of both effective and ineffective strategies—think of the many Southern states that successfully lured foreign automakers into their jurisdictions, and the failure of Kurt Schilling’s 38 Studios. The best strategies vary and are necessarily customized to best serve unique communities or regions. All strategies involve some element of risk on the part of the municipality; in the same way, inaction also has its consequences. When governments should undertake development and what development should look like is the subject of the recent book Thoughts on Building Strong Towns, Volume 1 by Charles L. Marohn, Jr.
In the book, Marohn advocates for a cost versus benefit driven method of evaluating development proposals, and ultimately, building strong towns. The term “strong town” is used by Marohn primarily to mean a community on solid financial footing, and, to a lesser extent, a community willing to deal with difficult problems when necessary. Strong towns develop in a manner that is financially sustainable—able to produce enough revenue to cover the costs of needed services and maintenance. With this approach, strong towns avoid or are resilient enough to withstand the creative destruction cycle—a cycle where economies “survive and grow through a process that destroys old ways and creates new ways of doing business” (Blakely & Leigh, 2010, p. 6). Strong towns have little interest in such turbulence, of this shaking of the dice, of rising like a phoenix from the ashes of nostalgia. Rather, like a prudent captain at the helm of a sturdy schooner, a strong town sets course and holds steady.
Marohn offers fresh criticisms of status quo approaches, which he believes pursue an “all development is good development” mentality coupled with a reliance on federal and state funding. Starting at a place that predates other commentators, Marohn condemns cities and towns as having become “auto-centric corridors” destined to succumb to bankruptcy, largely in an effort to attract intergovernmental transfers. He strips away assumptions about commonplace practices that others take for granted or overlook.
Although his approach is unique by any measure, Marohn’s arguments parallel other movements. His urging for an increase in pedestrian friendly neighborhoods, mixed-use development, and strategies prioritizing infill are similar to the concept of Smart Growth and the New Urbanism movement (Marohn identifies as a New Urbanist), yet he arrives there via alternative reasoning that is more in line with Freakeconomics thinking. As the strong towns name indicates, Marohn’s focus is on modestly populated towns, like his own hometown of Brainerd, MN. He devotes little time to the mega-regions that dominate the work of others.
It is at the small to medium scale that the strong towns principles flourish, and are most necessary. Perpetual growth as a solution falters in these communities before their larger counterparts. Further, building strong towns is about more than sound financial positions; a strong sense of community is also needed. Marohn describes a strong community as an environment where people say hello to one-another in passing—often by name, as a place where neighbors aid and rely on each other. In a strong town people feel an obligation to one-another rooted not in laws and contracts, but instead in citizenship and community, and, for some, faith. For Marohn, “this is not an un-American idea. These are actually the principles that every little town in our country was established around” (p. 154). One should not reside in a residential neighborhood, take their children to school in a remote outlaying location, work in a business district, and shop and dine in a commercial neighborhood. This scenario is isolating in that it confines us to the cabins of our cars and robs us of opportunities for human interaction.
The solutions offered by Marohn are very different from those emanating elsewhere. In dealing with barriers to mixed-use development and infilling, he suggests doing away with current zoning regulations altogether and reestablishing regulations based on practicality rather than conformity or uniformity. Such suggestions seem at first radical, but upon more in-depth consideration appear a logical means to the ends widely professed by planning professionals.
Marohn reserves special criticism for the role played by the engineering professionals in community development. His critique is not of the profession’s mastery of engineering principles, but rather of a mind-set that propels engineers toward misguided priorities. A formally trained engineer himself who now challenges the profession publically with essays titled “Confessions of a Recovering Engineer,” Marohn deplores the profession’s approach toward development, which he sees as myopic and failing to appreciate the intricate interplay that exists among various neighborhood components (e.g., motorists and pedestrians, businesses and residences, playing kids and working adults, motor-heads and birders, bohemians and curmudgeons, Montagues and Capulets, etc.). He advocates assessing the needs of a community at the macro level long before focusing on the micro-level design of a project—a system in which engineers step back and take a planner’s perspective. This is sound advice; doing so can prevent communities from moving forward with projects whose micro and macro level goals are misaligned (e.g., erecting a LEED certified building in virgin green-space accessible only by car). Further, Marohn argues that engineers often mistakenly insist these divergent outputs can be amalgamated with newfangled designs—designs that typically carry hefty price tags. He makes no bones about this, charging that “engineers will bankrupt us if given the chance to build our cities and towns the way they envision them” (Marohn, 2012, p. 105). His critique is of a system in which neighborhoods take their cues from individual engineering components (i.e., a street or a bridge) in both a functional and aesthetic way, thereby impacting the entire ambience of the neighborhood in ways that are too often incompatible with the type of places we ought to be creating for ourselves.
Initially, readers may feel Marohn is placing too much emphasis on the fiscal component of development at the expense of other accepted goals: equity, social justice, and sustainability. Yet, his approach is justified. Balancing the books should take precedence, so long as other components are also appropriately considered in ways that are not merely afterthoughts. Marohn’s vision of a “strong town” reflects common sense approaches toward equity, social justice, and sustainability if one is able to read between the lines. His arguments marry modern technological prowess with antiquated sensibilities. Officials are increasingly stating the need to repair infrastructure, validating Marohn’s concern. Lately, experts are recognizing the impact new mileage standards for automobiles will have on transportation funding, and predicting potential shortfalls (Hajiamiri & Wachs, 2010; Vasudevan & Nambisan, 2013). When roads and bridges begin to weaken, and there are no resources to repair them, the only refuge may be a “strong town.”