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 This placement stems from a narrow, outdated view of urban planning – a view that reduces it to “outdoor architecture,” concerned primarily with the visual and physical form of the city, rather than its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.

Ode to Urban Offal: Why the 'Unsightly' Parts Are the Soul of the City

Cities are Not Department Store Windows

Cities aren’t department store windows designed to seduce you with their polished surfaces and airbrushed perfection. They’re living, breathing organisms pulsating with life, creativity, and yes, even a little bit of chaos. Beneath the gleaming facades of skyscrapers and the verdant allure of city parks lies the gritty underbelly of urban infrastructure—our beloved Urban Offal. This term might evoke images of unkempt industrial wastelands or cacophonous railways, but look closer, and you'll find the essential gears and cogs that keep the urban machine humming. Cities require these robust, unglamorous elements to function efficiently, yet time and again, worthwhile projects get axed simply because they don't match the wallpaper. It's high time we challenge the aesthetic puritans and recognize the necessity and inherent value of Urban Offal.

Whose Sidewalk Is It Anyway? Navigating the Uneasy Truce of Public Space

The Promise and Peril of "Public" Space

Public space. The term itself conjures images of democratic ideals, shared resources, and urban life played out on the communal stage of sidewalks, plazas, and parks. These spaces are designed to be for everyone, serving as the bustling arteries of city life where we gather, interact, and experience the world together. Yet, anyone who has spent time in a city understands that the reality is far from idyllic. The concept of "shared" space is inherently fraught with potential conflict. Diverse groups have varying needs, desires, and ideas about how these spaces should be used and who they should serve. Whose sidewalk is it anyway? Is it for pedestrians to stroll unhindered? For businesses to expand their reach? For street performers to entertain or activists to protest? And what happens when these uses collide? When the charm of curbside dining impedes pedestrian flow? When youthful exuberance is considered a nuisance, yet amplified music is celebrated? Let’s delve into the complex reality of public space and explore the uneasy truce we continuously negotiate in our shared urban environments.

The Homeownership Hustle: Is 100% Really the Goal? (And Who Actually Benefits?)

The Unquestioned Virtue of Homeownership

Homeownership. It’s practically a secular religion in America. The cornerstone of the “American Dream,” the symbol of stability, prosperity, and personal achievement. Politicians of all stripes champion policies to “promote homeownership.” Financial advisors relentlessly preach its virtues. It’s just… understood that homeownership is a good thing, a societal goal to be pursued at all costs. But hold on a minute. Let’s actually question this unquestioned virtue. Is it really in the best interest of society to push everyone into homeownership? What exactly is the societal goal here? Is it truly achievable to get to 100% homeownership? Is that even something everyone wants? And if we somehow achieved this mythical 100% homeownership future, what would it actually look like? Ranch houses and split levels passed down through generations, monuments to intergenerational wealth? Or a nation perpetually mortgaged to the hilt, a never-ending revenue stream for the finance industry? Let’s dare to ask the uncomfortable questions about the homeownership hustle. Is 100% really the goal? And, perhaps more importantly, who actually benefits from this relentless push?

Beyond Buildings: Why Urban Planners Must Care About Wages, Unions, and the Workforce

Cities are People, and People Need to Work and Thrive

Let’s get back to basics. What is a city, really? Is it just bricks and mortar, steel and asphalt? Or is it something more… human? I’d argue that cities are fundamentally collections of people, dynamic human ecosystems, not just static collections of buildings. And if that’s true, then the workforce – the millions of individuals who live and labor in our urban centers – becomes the very heart and soul of the city. They are the vast majority of the urban population, the lifeblood that keeps the city functioning, evolving, and, hopefully, thriving. And if urban planning is truly about improving quality of life – as we so often claim it is – then how can we not be deeply concerned with the health, wealth, and education of these urban residents, these workers, these people who are the city? For the working class, wealth is primarily built through wages. So, it follows, that urban wages should be a major concern for any urban planner who’s serious about improving quality of urban life. But is that really within the purview of urban planning? Let’s explore why it absolutely should be.

Exurban Exodus: From 'Bleeding the City' to 'New Suburbanism' - Reclaiming Urban Offal in the Sprawl

Imagine a 19th-century doctor, convinced that the city was fundamentally unwell, riddled with disease and decay. His cure? Bleeding. Drain the city of its lifeblood, its teeming masses, its bustling workers, its very vitality. Send them to the… suburbs. Gruesome analogy? Perhaps. But think about the 20th-century exodus to the suburbs. Driven by good intentions, perhaps – a desire for fresh air, green space, and a perceived escape from the grit and grime of the industrial city. But in retrospect, wasn't it a kind of urban bloodletting? A draining of the city's core, a scattering of its vital components to the periphery, in the misguided belief that this would somehow “cure” its ills? Instead, we got… sprawl. Vast, car-dependent landscapes, ecologically damaging, socially isolating, and economically unsustainable in the long run. And while “New Urbanism” has emerged as a powerful force for revitalizing urban centers, reclaiming walkability, and promoting urban density, a vast percentage of the population still lives in the suburbs, or, more accurately, the exurbs. And it's these areas, these sprawling exurban landscapes, that are perhaps in the most urgent need of a cure. We need a New Suburbanism – not as an addition to New Urbanism, but as a critical evolution, a reimagining of the exurban model, one that moves beyond the unsustainable sprawl of the 20th century and towards something ecologically, socially, and economically viable for the 21st.

The Urban Planning Paradox: Pandora's Box or Puzzle Box?

Cities Before Planning: A Historical Head-Scratcher

Here's an uncomfortable truth for those of us in the urban planning world: cities, those incredibly complex, dynamic, and often chaotic human settlements, existed—and, dare we say, sometimes thrived—for millennia before anyone even thought of "urban planning.” Think ancient Rome, medieval Paris, pre-industrial London. These were sprawling, bustling, often messy places, yet they functioned, they grew, and they became centers of culture, commerce, and innovation, all without the benefit (or perhaps the hindrance?) of formal urban planning as we know it today. Long before zoning codes, traffic models, environmental impact assessments, or even basic understandings of economics, ecology, or sociology. Long before utopian visions or mechanized transport. So, how did they do it? How did cities arise, evolve, and sometimes flourish, seemingly organically, without the guiding hand of professional planners? And here's the real head-scratcher: why does urban development now, in our supposedly enlightened age of urban planning expertise, often seem so… difficult? So fraught with intractable problems, endless debates, and seemingly unsolvable conundrums? Is it possible that the very act of "urban planning" has opened a kind of Pandora’s Box? Unleashing a torrent of unintended consequences and unsolvable problems? Or is it more like a complex puzzle box? Awaiting a new way of thinking, a different approach, the right set of intellectual "keys" to unlock solutions and guide us towards better urban futures? Let's wrestle with this urban planning paradox.