It turns out that the “law of demand” (the tendency of higher prices to reduce consumption) and the principles of urban economics (that improved accessibility increases land values) still apply. If we are smart, we can use these to help solve problems and benefit consumers.

With climate change on the mind of the world's policy makers, the auto-oriented design of our cities has been singled out as a major culprit -- and understandably so. Cars burn a lot of fossil fuel, so getting people to walk, bike and use public transportation more would help cut down on pollution and green house gases.

But how to get people out of their cars? The key, many agree, is to redesign cities. Right now cities are designed for people moving around in their cars, so it's unreasonable to expect people to use any other means of transportation. But give them a city that's planned for walking, biking and public transit -- and it could be a whole new ballgame.

On the bus this morning I was handed a survey asking me to detail my satisfaction with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority's public transit system. As a daily bus commuter, I was more than happy to spend my two cents, but I'm a bit skeptical that those two cents will really do anything.

Once every few semesters, I teach a seminar on "Sprawl and the Law." On the first day of the seminar, I ask students what "sprawl" is. After getting a variety of answers, I reveal the truth: most definitions of sprawl involve one of two separate definitions:

"Where we grow"- Sprawl as movement from the core to the fringe of a region.

"How we grow"- Sprawl as development oriented towards drivers as opposed to nondrivers.

When talking to people about Los Angeles, one comment I often here is that L.A. was the first city to be built around the automobile. This statement certainly makes sense when you look at the current landscape of Los Angeles – with its freeways and strip malls and crowded parking lots – and lack of a widespread rail transit infrastructure when compared to other dense American cities.

The problem with this statement is that it’s not really true. While the car has definitely left its impression on the region, Los Angeles could actually be considered a textbook example of a city built around transit – albeit one that no longer exists.

My recent posts have provided advice on the exit project or thesis in planning: how to get started, write a proposal, manage one’s committee, and troubleshoot problems. This post concludes this series by providing advice on getting

Last Tuesday was a big day for me and an even bigger Earth Day for the City of Los Angeles. After 18 months of meetings, focus groups, workshops, conference calls, briefings, and a lot of collective putting together of heads the City Council unanimously passed a landmark green building ordinance. Three hours later it was signed into law by the Mayor.

One of the many signs that green development and design is reaching a tipping point toward becoming business-as-usual, is the quantity of articles and writings on the subject in what might be considered "mainstream" land development publications. Case-in-point is the current Issue of Urban Land, the Green issue. This attention is a good thing, despite the growing need to ensure that developments that play the green card, truly do walk the talk. 

I'm at the Paris Hotel on the Vegas strip for the 100th annual American Planning Association (APA) conference, which started Saturday, and runs through Thursday, May 1. The conference offers 300 sessions and 60 mobile workshops to the approximately 5,000 participants.

And it's going to be a crowded week, if the 30-minute line for coffee this morning in the Paris boulangerie is any indication.

Infrastructure matters; Planners should be politically active.

So how do you permit and build a 4,000-mile undersea communication cable system? And why do we care?

I once was consigned to a table full of business school students at a land-use conference at UCLA. Trying to be a good sport, I offered the only idea that I'd ever had about business: car insurance charged according to miles driven. I posited that since risk and mileage were more or less correlated, it only made sense that people who drove more and incurred more risk should pay more.

My tablemates stared back at me as if I had just issued a rousing recitation of Das Kapital.

Both supporters and opponents of the sprawl status quo often refer to suburbia as “The American Dream.” One sprawl-defending organization even calls itself “The American Dream Coalition”. Sprawl critics use similar language; for example, in 1998, the Sierra Club issued a report titled “Sprawl: The Dark Side of the American Dream.” (www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/report98/)

 Since its launch, one of the three primary goals of Vancouver's EcoDensity Initiative has been to use density, design and land use to strategically assist with the City's growing challenges around affordability. Over the course of the long public dialogue, we've heard many comments and questions on the relationships between density, supply, type of housing and affordability, and it’s been a very hot topic.  

One of the most influential pieces of contemporary urban theory I've ever read was a short monograph by Richard Norton entitled "Feral Cities", which appeared in the Naval War College Review in 2003. Norton described feral cities thusly:

"Imagine a great metropolis covering hundreds of square miles. Once a vital component in a national economy, this sprawling urban environment is now a vast collection of blighted buildings, an immense petri dish of both ancient and new diseases, a territory where the rule of law has long been replaced by near anarchy in which the only security available is that which is attained through brute power."

Many viewers may not fully appreciate movies as a visual story-telling medium, but that fact came home to me dramatically the other night while watching “Juno,” the off beat, smart and funny film that just snagged a best screenplay Oscar. The deliberate use of architecture and public spaces, in particular, was quite effective although you probably won’t find these references in plot summaries or synopses.

From public transit to public parks to public space, this past week brought a lot of interesting and innovative ideas in the world of urban planning.

Cities are sized-up, measured and analyzed in countless ways. The Economist uses statistics to indicate how New York’s financial sector is faring against its London counterpart. Richard Florida measures the extant of the creative class. Allan Jacobs carefully records intersection densities and Jan Gehl simply counts pedestrians. Some, like Peter Calthorpe, go beyond the city line and take stock of the whole region.

Can any North American city have a meaningful public discussion about sustainability, about its "green-ness" or ecological footprint, without having the challenging but necessary public discussion about the city's density? 

Many are still trying to. Many freely trumpet smart growth and sustainability without the tension and trouble that comes with discussing the "d-word" openly, and thus avoid the necessary heavy-lifting. Few politicians, and embarrassingly not enough city planners, are willing to tackle the density issue publicly, as it is still what Sustainable Urbanism author Douglas Farr calls the "3rd rail" of sustainable city building.

I’ve been torn lately between two contradictory perspectives on the state of the country as it relates to providing transportation infrastructure and service.

Long before I arrived here, I've been a fan and student of Vancouver city-building.