Why We Should Build New Cities
Thoughts on the new California Forever proposal and bottom-up vs. top-down approaches to change.
An initiative this past week put forth by California Forever resurfaced a never-ending debate in the urbanist movement: Should we build new cities?
On one end of the spectrum, you have movements like Strong Towns that advocate for more of a “bottom-up revolution”/incremental approach on one hand, and on the other, you have those that advocate for more top-down action from state and federal governments to bring about change.
If you feel yourself sitting in the tension, sort of seeing both ways, and not knowing quite where you stand, there’s good reason for that tension: Building new cities is both the most cynical and hopeful thing we can do.
On the one hand it concedes that most of our current cities, though ripe with potential, simply lack the desire to evolve and become healthier, more welcoming places. It says we lack both the political will and prevailing spirit of neighborliness to envision a better tomorrow for all people. It says that, at least generally speaking, urban Americans (despite their allegedly progressive politics) have declared they are not their brother’s keepers. Taking a position that concedes all of this can feel incredibly defeatist.
On the other hand, seeking to build new cities plants a flag and declares it doesn’t have to be this way. It sends a signal flare to those who see their own backyards as the exact place they want to see more homes and other elements of thriving urban environments that promote human flourishing. It charts a counterculture and, as institutions all around us continue to decline, dares to build new ones that can be pillars of the West’s next chapter. It’s bold. It’s brave. It’s hopeful.
And if restrictive zoning laws and NIMBYs are the chief obstacles to building great places, we can just build where neither exist. What better way to skirt objections of “not in my backyard” than to simply build where there are no people or backyards to put up a fuss? It’s smart. It’s practical.
So in all of that, where do we land?
It’s really pretty simple. In the moment and climate we find ourselves in, we welcome the creating of new cities as one of many powerful tools in our tool belt.
Many of the differences in approach that exist in the urbanism movement get treated like they’re somehow at major odds with one another. But there’s a reason that urbanist organizations and companies across the philosophical spectrum so often partner together: they recognize they’re actually on the same team. Those who lean more “bottom-up” and those who lean more “top-down” are not on opposite sides of an aisle the same way as those with differing views on any number of polarizing issues in the national political discourse.
We don’t actually have to choose one approach or the other. As my favorite Old El Paso Hard and Soft Shell Tacos commercial asks, “Why don’t we have both?”
We shouldn’t give up on seeking incremental, bottom-up changes in our current cities: we should build ADUs, install tactical urbanism projects, bring in plastic bollards to guard otherwise-vulnerable bike lanes, and amend zoning laws even when more ambitious goals are not on the table in our local contexts.
But we should also recognize that with so many localities stonewalling even the most incremental efforts at improving our towns and cities, incremental change alone simply won’t deliver the results we need. And that’s where new cities come in.
New cities are not some silver bullet solution: When successful, they’ll face the same challenges as other booming regions in the country. Prices will go up, and those moving in from other areas will want to close the door behind them. “There’s no NIMBYs to deal with” is only true until the NIMBYs move in. And they will.
But new cities still deliver something critical, and do so at scale: more options.
And in a time such as this, more options is really all we can ask for.
Personally I am not a believer in this approach for several reasons too long to write here. These kinds of developments are not new. For example; California City, and the continuing saga of Paradise Valley outside of Joshua Tree National Park which is still fighting for its development even with the environmental impacts well known.
Rather than brand new cities, consider new country towns out beyond the exurban fringe of existing cities, which might be thought of as the third and final stage in the suburbanization of the metropolitan complex. I write about one variant of this idea on my substack and, in much greater detail, here: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00U0C9HKW