The alternative in the middle

Urbanists are loud advocates for cities. Suburbanites are audible advocates for suburbs. Not shocking.

Urban planners have traditionally responded to the loud paradigm of the age either as implementers or outsiders battling to bring forth an alternative vision for places we do business, live, learn, and play.

The meta-narrative of places has been trending toward greater density, not less. However, the micro-trends have swung back and forth depending on technological forms and energy sources at a given time.

For example, the invention of the automobile and its mass production was made possible because of petroleum. It was the fuel for a different kind of urbanization that we know today as low density and single-use building types.

It works efficiently for financing and has produced significant wealth.

The alternative to building places isn’t necessarily high-density development.

The alternative might be a form some time the middle. It’s where many people want to live but is missing from the zoning laws and financing tools.

But, an alternative of small scale and incremental development is gaining momentum and will have its day, generating more localized wealth than ever before. The middle is where innovation and growth will ultimately create a better and more desirable quality of life.