Beyond Money: A Systems View of Economics for Urban Planners (and Everyone Else)

Economics as Resource Transformation, Not Just Money

Economics. The mere mention often brings to mind images of stock tickers, interest rates, and a whirlwind of figures revolving around dollars and cents. But what if we redefined economics not as being solely about money, but rather about the transformation of resources? At its core, economics is about how societies convert resources—natural, human, intellectual—into wealth. Wealth, in its broadest sense, extends beyond financial accumulation. It encompasses the value derived from economic activity and the transformation process itself, which meets societal needs and creates value from available resources.

Adopting a systems dynamics approach reveals the economy as a web of interconnected chains, where the end products of one activity become the starting resources for another. Ideally, these chains are circular, efficient, and sustainable, though every economic transformation requires resources and results in some waste. The essence of this approach is that economic activity, by creating societal wealth, enhances conditions over time. Let’s explore how this systems-based perspective on economics can inform urban planning and decision-making.

The Planner's Oath: Toward a Moral Compass for Urban Development

Beyond Technical Expertise, Toward Ethical Purpose

Urban planning is often presented as a technical discipline, a matter of zoning codes, infrastructure investments, and data-driven decision-making. While technical expertise and multidisciplinary knowledge are undeniably crucial, at its heart, urban planning is a deeply moral and ethical endeavor. We are shaping the environments in which people live, work, and interact, making decisions that have profound and lasting impacts on their well-being, their opportunities, and their very lives. This inherent ethical weight demands a clear moral compass, a set of guiding principles to anchor our decisions and ensure that our actions serve the greater good. The idea of a “Hippocratic Oath” for planners is a good starting point, but let’s push further. Let’s postulate a more comprehensive Planner’s Oath, a set of foundational principles upon which we can build a truly ethical practice of urban planning. As a starting point, let’s consider a few core principles that I believe should be at the heart of any such oath.

Town, City, Metro, Megalopolis: Lost in the Urban Lexicon (and Why It Matters)

A Personal Quest for Urban Definition

Do you live in a town or a city? A metropolis or a megalopolis? Are you downtown, in the urban core, a suburb, or perhaps an exurb? First ring or periphery? Is that your neighborhood or your district? And just how big is your city anyway? Mid-sized, mega-city, or something in between? Hamlet, village, mill town, farming community – the list of ways we categorize and describe urban areas seems endless, almost intentionally designed to create maximum confusion. It’s enough to make you feel utterly lost in the urban lexicon. Because when we try to talk about cities – about urban planning, urban problems, urban solutions – we often stumble right out of the gate, tripped up by the very words we use. Are we even talking about the same thing when we say “city”? Do your definitions match mine? And does any of this even matter? Well, yes, it does. Because this terminological messiness hinders clear communication, muddies policy discussions, and makes it harder to have any meaningful conversation about the urban world we inhabit. While we might not be able to entirely clear up this urban vocabulary soup, let’s at least take a nod to the difficulty, acknowledge the confusion, and try to offer a few working definitions to improve, even just a little, our shared understanding.

Reclaiming the Plate: Urban Planning for a Healthy Food Future Beyond the Supermarket

The Supermarket Straitjacket

In the United States, for most urban dwellers, “food shopping” is synonymous with “supermarket.” These behemoth retailers, with their vast aisles and global supply chains, have come to utterly dominate our food distribution system. From farm to fork, supermarkets act as the gatekeepers, the single buyer-sellers, wielding immense power. And the consequences are stark. Supermarkets, driven by profit maximization, are able to dictate prices both to the farmers who grow our food (often squeezing their margins to the breaking point) and to the consumers who ultimately buy it (often paying inflated prices for food that has traveled thousands of miles). A huge cut of the profits – profits that should be going back to the farmers and accessible prices that should be available to consumers – is instead siphoned off by these massive corporate intermediaries. We’ve become trapped in a supermarket straitjacket, a food system that is increasingly unsustainable, inequitable, and disconnected from both the land and the people who produce our sustenance. But it doesn’t have to be this way. Urban planners have a crucial role to play in reclaiming the plate, in designing and fostering a healthy food future that moves beyond the supermarket and towards a more localized, resilient, and just food distribution system. What would such a system look like? How far would our food travel? How would it be collected and distributed? Who would own and operate the markets themselves? Let’s start to sketch a blueprint for a healthier food future.

Labor as Landscape: Exploring the Urban Planning Implications of Wages, Work, and Unions

Labor at the Heart of Urban Life

Urban planning is all about people—the vibrant communities they create, the economies they sustain, and the lives they lead. At the very core of this urban tapestry lies a simple truth: labor is the lifeblood of any city. The jobs we hold, the wages we earn, and the power we wield as workers aren't just economic metrics; they are the essence of urban planning. As we navigate the city’s arteries, the streets and neighborhoods where people live and work, we must recognize that labor issues are as crucial as infrastructure projects or zoning laws. By focusing on improving wages, addressing unemployment, and empowering workers through unions, urban planners can enhance the quality of life, bolster the economy, and foster equity. This blog post delves into how minimum wage, employment, and unionization are deeply interwoven with urban planning, highlighting their potential to shape cities that work for everyone.

Built to Last (Or Not): Why American Cities Are Losing the Longevity Game

Introduction: Setting the Scene - The Hanoi vs. Anywhere, USA Contrast

Having lived in Hanoi, Vietnam for a decade, I’ve come to appreciate something that’s often shockingly absent in the American urban landscape: longevity. Hanoi is a city that breathes history, a city that visibly carries the weight of a thousand years on its shoulders. Walk down its streets, and you are surrounded by buildings – homes, shops, public structures – built of solid concrete, brick, and stone, structures that feel like they’ve been there for centuries, and in many cases, have. Buildings erected today in Hanoi will likely still be standing, solid and functional, a century from now. Now contrast that with… well, almost any American city. The typical American home, built with light-wood frame construction, might struggle to last two decades without needing major renovations, starting with a roof replacement. Many commercial buildings, thrown up with concrete block and corrugated steel, feel almost… temporary, designed for a quick buck and a short lifespan. Why this stark difference? Why are American construction methods so seemingly short-sighted? Are we content to build cities that are essentially… disposable? What are the long-term consequences for the longevity of our cities, for our connection to our urban past, and for the very way we think about the places we inhabit? Let’s delve into the perplexing question of why American cities are losing the longevity game.

Rehoming Urban Planning: Beyond Architecture School, Towards a More Philosophical Foundation

The "Outdoor Architecture" Assumption

Walk across any university campus with an urban planning program, and chances are, you’ll find its departmental home nestled within the school of architecture. Or perhaps cheek-by-jowl with civil engineering. It’s a default assumption, an institutional habit passed down through generations of academics. But is it the right home? Does this conventional placement truly reflect the essence of urban planning in the 21st century? I’d argue, emphatically, no. This placement stems from a narrow, outdated view of urban planning – a view that reduces it to “outdoor architecture,” concerned primarily with the visual and physical form of the city, rather than its deeper social, economic, and environmental dynamics. If we are to acknowledge urban planning as fundamentally about people, quality of life, and navigating complex systems, then we need to re-evaluate where urban planning education truly belongs within the university ecosystem. It’s time to move beyond architecture school and towards a more robust, interdisciplinary, and yes, more philosophical foundation for the discipline.