What do you think?
Rate this book
Constructs
How Cities Work : Suburbs, Sprawl, and the Roads Not Taken
Do cities work anymore? How did they get to be such sprawling conglomerations of lookalike subdivisions, megafreeways, and "big box" superstores surrounded by acres of parking lots? And why, most of all, don't they feel like real communities? These are the questions that Alex Marshall tackles in this hard-hitting, highly readable look at what makes cities work. Marshall argues that urban life has broken down because of our basic ignorance of the real forces that shape cities-transportation systems, industry and business, and political decision making. He explores how these forces have built four very different urban environments-the decentralized sprawl of California's Silicon Valley, the crowded streets of New York City's Jackson Heights neighborhood, the controlled growth of Portland, Oregon, and the stage-set facades of Disney's planned community, Celebration, Florida. To build better cities, Marshall asserts, we must understand and intelligently direct the forces that shape them. Without prescribing any one solution, he defines the key issues facing all concerned citizens who are trying to control urban sprawl and build real communities. His timely book will be important reading for a wide public and professional audience.
269 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2001
16 people are currently reading
293 people want to read
About the author
Alex Marshall
5Ìýbooks9ÌýfollowersI was born in Norfolk, Virginia, and raised in the suburban wilderness of Virginia Beach. I went away to the Catholic, Polish lands of Pittsburg for college, and then ended up exiling myself in Spain for two years. I returned, and after a sojourn teaching school and visiting Central America during the war then, I became a journalist. I worked at The Virginian-Pilot for almost 10 years, after graduating from Columbia Journalism School in New York City. Leaving newspapers when my britches got too big, I got a fellowship to the Ivy League land of Harvard. I then came, like most moths, to the flame of New York City, where I still reside, in the fabled lands of Brooklyn.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews
January 26, 2009
A really interesting criticism of New Urbanism, with some suggestions about other ways to tackle the problems of sprawl, fragmentation, and loss of place. The basic claim is that New Urbanism is an aesthetic solution to what is at its root a structural problem.
Marshall is very honest about the fact that structural decisions involve trade-offs. Ultimately he concludes that to regain a sense of community and place in American (and, to a lesser extent, European) society, we will need to give up the conveniences of easy mobility, large homes, and cheap products. He argues that America developed the way it did because it prizes the freedoms of the individual over the good of the society. Marshall shows how this value system led American government to build highways rather than mass transit, leading to urban decay and the growth of suburbs. He suggests that by making a different set of decisions (primarily involving light rail and urban growth boundaries), American society could become more integrated and regain a sense of place, at the cost of having smaller, more expensive homes. (The arguments are more complex and nuanced, of course, but that's the outline of his thought).
The book is written clearly, and references a number of important urban theorists. The writing style can be awkward at times, but the ideas come across, and certainly provoke thought.
Marshall is very honest about the fact that structural decisions involve trade-offs. Ultimately he concludes that to regain a sense of community and place in American (and, to a lesser extent, European) society, we will need to give up the conveniences of easy mobility, large homes, and cheap products. He argues that America developed the way it did because it prizes the freedoms of the individual over the good of the society. Marshall shows how this value system led American government to build highways rather than mass transit, leading to urban decay and the growth of suburbs. He suggests that by making a different set of decisions (primarily involving light rail and urban growth boundaries), American society could become more integrated and regain a sense of place, at the cost of having smaller, more expensive homes. (The arguments are more complex and nuanced, of course, but that's the outline of his thought).
The book is written clearly, and references a number of important urban theorists. The writing style can be awkward at times, but the ideas come across, and certainly provoke thought.
April 18, 2011
An amazing book which cataloged in great and expert detail why we like the places we do and why we don't like so many others. Alex breaks it down by transportation type and shows that the car had changed our cities forever. Forget zoning, cars separate people, and our cities now are harbors on oceans and rivers of highways. What makes this book rise above any other planning book is that he sees the true structure of cities and calls them out. He then informs us that city making is about choices. Great places will mean having a little less of somethings to have more of others. He recognizes like I do now do that adding street trees or a cafe or some New Urbanism will not effect the basic problem of car centered city building. He does travel to one place that has beat the wave and demonstrates his recommendations in person. He ends with an amazing heartfelt couple of chapters of how this problem with our cities effects our happiness and that the only alternative is to create community, value, a conclusion I have recently stumbled upon. A must read for anyone interested in current cities, place making, planning, or regional economics.
March 15, 2018
At the core of Alex Marshall’s “How Cities Work: Suburbs, Sprawl and the Roads Not Taken� is a simple formula: cities create wealth and jobs, transportation determines the size and shape of cities, and government determines (or should determine) transportation policies. This is, presumably, how cities are supposed to work � it’s largely how they used to work.
Throughout history, cities tended to be denser and less spread-out largely because that was model required by past transportation infrastructure. In the 19th century, people’s ability to travel was limited to how far they (or their horses) could walk. Then came trains, which connected cities to one another and created both residential and retail density within proximity to train stations. Subway systems created similar pockets of density at each stop along a given line.
Cars changed the way we get from points A to B, certainly, but they fundamentally changed the layout and economy of our cities, as well. Marshall describes the post-automobile and, specifically, the post-Interstate Highway System American city:
“It was not until the introduction of the raised, limited-access freeway after World War II that the era of place, of urbanity and cities, was truly swept away. An interstate highway is incompatible with any form of street-based activity.�
He goes on to say that cities are now “centrifugal…more akin to a giant salad spinner, spraying growth out over the countryside indiscriminately. Growth still clusters around transportation sources, except that it is now the freeway off-ramp rather than the subway stop or train station. But the growth circle of a streetcar is measured in blocks…the growth circle of a freeway off-ramp is measured in miles.�
So? Is this not simply the evolution of transportation and urban planning? Why should anyone care that cities are laid out differently than they were at the turn of the 20th century? Well, Alex Marshall wrote this book hoping you’d ask that question.
Marshall advocates for denser, more compact cities with robust public transportation systems, less reliance upon cars, and more efficient land use. He believes that cities built in this way make more sense, period � but specifically from an economic and environmental perspective. To underscore this point, he examines several neighborhoods, towns and cities that he believes represent his ideals (to some degree) and contrasts them with communities that do not.
For example, he lauds Portland, Ore., and its controversial urban growth boundary. Established in the 1970s, the boundary limits developer’s ability to snap up thousands of acres of land on the periphery of Oregon’s cities with the intention of constructing subdivisions and other suburban enclaves. Instead, builders are forced back toward the city center, making use of existing space and open land. Not only does this create stronger neighborhoods, argues Marshall, but it also saves public money by encouraging development on land that already has the infrastructure necessary to support residency (sewer and water lines, sidewalks, streets, etc.) It also creates residential density, which benefits Portland’s growing transit system. At least partially as a result of the UGB, Portland’s downtown core started thriving long before other cities got on the revitalization bandwagon.
On the opposite end of the spectrum is Celebration, Fla., a town created by the Walt Disney Company a couple decades ago. A pure example of “New Urbanism,� a theory that Marshall openly loathes, Celebration created a bucolic small town from scratch � town hall, center square, houses with wrap-around front porches, kids riding bicycles with baskets attached to the handlebars…the whole works. What Disney didn’t do was build retail options that average citizens of Celebration need to sustain daily life. Celebrationites can walk “downtown� to get a fancy meal, but they have to drive out to Walmart to find a roll of toilet paper. That is one of countless examples of how Celebration has become anything but the Most Magical Place on Earth.
Ironically, Celebration was at least partially modeled on the town of Kissimmee, which is just next door and which sports an urban core in rapid decay. To quote Marshall: “Kissimmee has everything Celebration does, except more so…a central, but larger, main street with more stores that you can walk to…a beautiful and larger lake to walk around, with a well-designed and urbanistically appropriate park…fine old homes…a brand-new library…accompanying civic center…an Amtrak rail stop.�
And yet, though Celebration is but a cheap imitation of Kissimmee, the imitation is outperforming the original, economically speaking. This obviously makes no sense.
You get the idea. In order for cities to reach their full potential, they need to be designed in a smarter way � i.e., with an eye toward density and public transportation and by making use of smart, regional government planning. I don’t disagree with that. Nor do I disagree with cities establishing and enforcing an urban growth boundary � although, for most large cities in the United States currently, that toothpaste is already out of that tube.
Speaking of, that’s one of my primary gripes about this book. First, what few solutions Marshall offers to the problem of cities not working very well are mostly infeasible or unattainable within the American political framework.
He advocates for urban growth boundaries � which are laudable, but only really work for cities that are on the front-end of a big growth spurt. Let’s say, Chattanooga, Tenn., for example. But what about Atlanta, or Boston, or my home of Dallas? Once the city has expanded into the neighboring county’s neighboring county…how much good is an urban growth boundary going to do?
He also advocates for a �$2 to $3 tax on a gallon of gasoline� which would “push people out of their cars and densify communities.� Would it? Perhaps. But would it also be a regressive tax on the poor who are forced to live in the suburbs and exurbs because the cost of housing in the urban core is too high for them to afford? Absolutely. Google any of the dozens of thinkpieces that have been written about the commuting nightmare that Atlanta’s suburban poor have to live each day. The gas tax needs to be raised to keep up with inflation and our dire infrastructure needs. But $3? Good luck with that.
Marshall advocates for more mass transit spending � which I’m all for. But streetcars � which get a lot of mention in this book � have suddenly sprung up in cities nationwide over the past decade and few of them have reached the potential they promised. The future of mass transit appears to be a combination of dense light rail in the urban core fed by spokes of suburban rail lines, bus rapid transit and driverless ride-sharing � not subways and streetcars.
Overall, I felt somewhat the same way about this book as I did Neil Postman’s “Amusing Ourselves to Death� which, incidentally, is referenced in Marshall’s book. I largely agree with the arguments presented � but fussing about problems while offering politically infeasible solutions is just screaming into the void. What good is it? Come back to me when you can offer a way forward that is doable and sensible.
Finally, I would be doing you a disservice by not pointing out three jaw-dropping paragraphs that shine a light on the author’s personal prejudices.
In his chapter on Portland, Marshall opens with a photo he took while riding one of the city’s MAX light rail trains. In the photo cutline he asks the reader to “notice the low numbers of African-Americans� � a strange notation, to say the least. Indeed, the photo shows a train car full of mostly white passengers.
Later in the chapter, he provides context for his cutline:
“I rode the light rail lines and buses while I was in Portland. I saw cars crowded with all types of people, leaning toward the working class but also with wealthy or better-off folks in nice suits and dresses. � Then, I counted the black people. Usually one or two would be the most I would come up with. For most white people, including me, I’m sorry to say, being part of the whole is easier when it’s not mostly black or brown, particularly poor black and brown. It’s easy to be tolerant and progressive where there aren’t that many poor racial minorities to be tolerant of.�
You can draw your own conclusions � but I wouldn’t have included the excerpt if I didn’t think that this is a blatantly racist and disgusting statement, one that is begging for an explanation and an apology.
Marshall wraps up his startling chapter with a truly perplexing description of hip urban neighborhoods � featuring a cringe-worthy string of “article-izations.�
“Many metropolitan areas…have at least one lively neighborhood where the gays, the artists, the lawyers, the journalists and other urbanites can make a place for themselves.�
As a former journalist, I consider this breaking news. The average the journalist, the artist, and the gay couldn’t possibly afford to live in the average the lawyer’s neighborhood.
One star � for stretching a 10,000-word thinkpiece across 214 pages, for bitching, for offering generally infeasible solutions to our urban problems, for perplexingly racist observations, and for suggesting co-mingling between journalists and lawyers.
Throughout history, cities tended to be denser and less spread-out largely because that was model required by past transportation infrastructure. In the 19th century, people’s ability to travel was limited to how far they (or their horses) could walk. Then came trains, which connected cities to one another and created both residential and retail density within proximity to train stations. Subway systems created similar pockets of density at each stop along a given line.
Cars changed the way we get from points A to B, certainly, but they fundamentally changed the layout and economy of our cities, as well. Marshall describes the post-automobile and, specifically, the post-Interstate Highway System American city:
“It was not until the introduction of the raised, limited-access freeway after World War II that the era of place, of urbanity and cities, was truly swept away. An interstate highway is incompatible with any form of street-based activity.�
He goes on to say that cities are now “centrifugal…more akin to a giant salad spinner, spraying growth out over the countryside indiscriminately. Growth still clusters around transportation sources, except that it is now the freeway off-ramp rather than the subway stop or train station. But the growth circle of a streetcar is measured in blocks…the growth circle of a freeway off-ramp is measured in miles.�
So? Is this not simply the evolution of transportation and urban planning? Why should anyone care that cities are laid out differently than they were at the turn of the 20th century? Well, Alex Marshall wrote this book hoping you’d ask that question.
Marshall advocates for denser, more compact cities with robust public transportation systems, less reliance upon cars, and more efficient land use. He believes that cities built in this way make more sense, period � but specifically from an economic and environmental perspective. To underscore this point, he examines several neighborhoods, towns and cities that he believes represent his ideals (to some degree) and contrasts them with communities that do not.
For example, he lauds Portland, Ore., and its controversial urban growth boundary. Established in the 1970s, the boundary limits developer’s ability to snap up thousands of acres of land on the periphery of Oregon’s cities with the intention of constructing subdivisions and other suburban enclaves. Instead, builders are forced back toward the city center, making use of existing space and open land. Not only does this create stronger neighborhoods, argues Marshall, but it also saves public money by encouraging development on land that already has the infrastructure necessary to support residency (sewer and water lines, sidewalks, streets, etc.) It also creates residential density, which benefits Portland’s growing transit system. At least partially as a result of the UGB, Portland’s downtown core started thriving long before other cities got on the revitalization bandwagon.
On the opposite end of the spectrum is Celebration, Fla., a town created by the Walt Disney Company a couple decades ago. A pure example of “New Urbanism,� a theory that Marshall openly loathes, Celebration created a bucolic small town from scratch � town hall, center square, houses with wrap-around front porches, kids riding bicycles with baskets attached to the handlebars…the whole works. What Disney didn’t do was build retail options that average citizens of Celebration need to sustain daily life. Celebrationites can walk “downtown� to get a fancy meal, but they have to drive out to Walmart to find a roll of toilet paper. That is one of countless examples of how Celebration has become anything but the Most Magical Place on Earth.
Ironically, Celebration was at least partially modeled on the town of Kissimmee, which is just next door and which sports an urban core in rapid decay. To quote Marshall: “Kissimmee has everything Celebration does, except more so…a central, but larger, main street with more stores that you can walk to…a beautiful and larger lake to walk around, with a well-designed and urbanistically appropriate park…fine old homes…a brand-new library…accompanying civic center…an Amtrak rail stop.�
And yet, though Celebration is but a cheap imitation of Kissimmee, the imitation is outperforming the original, economically speaking. This obviously makes no sense.
You get the idea. In order for cities to reach their full potential, they need to be designed in a smarter way � i.e., with an eye toward density and public transportation and by making use of smart, regional government planning. I don’t disagree with that. Nor do I disagree with cities establishing and enforcing an urban growth boundary � although, for most large cities in the United States currently, that toothpaste is already out of that tube.
Speaking of, that’s one of my primary gripes about this book. First, what few solutions Marshall offers to the problem of cities not working very well are mostly infeasible or unattainable within the American political framework.
He advocates for urban growth boundaries � which are laudable, but only really work for cities that are on the front-end of a big growth spurt. Let’s say, Chattanooga, Tenn., for example. But what about Atlanta, or Boston, or my home of Dallas? Once the city has expanded into the neighboring county’s neighboring county…how much good is an urban growth boundary going to do?
He also advocates for a �$2 to $3 tax on a gallon of gasoline� which would “push people out of their cars and densify communities.� Would it? Perhaps. But would it also be a regressive tax on the poor who are forced to live in the suburbs and exurbs because the cost of housing in the urban core is too high for them to afford? Absolutely. Google any of the dozens of thinkpieces that have been written about the commuting nightmare that Atlanta’s suburban poor have to live each day. The gas tax needs to be raised to keep up with inflation and our dire infrastructure needs. But $3? Good luck with that.
Marshall advocates for more mass transit spending � which I’m all for. But streetcars � which get a lot of mention in this book � have suddenly sprung up in cities nationwide over the past decade and few of them have reached the potential they promised. The future of mass transit appears to be a combination of dense light rail in the urban core fed by spokes of suburban rail lines, bus rapid transit and driverless ride-sharing � not subways and streetcars.
Overall, I felt somewhat the same way about this book as I did Neil Postman’s “Amusing Ourselves to Death� which, incidentally, is referenced in Marshall’s book. I largely agree with the arguments presented � but fussing about problems while offering politically infeasible solutions is just screaming into the void. What good is it? Come back to me when you can offer a way forward that is doable and sensible.
Finally, I would be doing you a disservice by not pointing out three jaw-dropping paragraphs that shine a light on the author’s personal prejudices.
In his chapter on Portland, Marshall opens with a photo he took while riding one of the city’s MAX light rail trains. In the photo cutline he asks the reader to “notice the low numbers of African-Americans� � a strange notation, to say the least. Indeed, the photo shows a train car full of mostly white passengers.
Later in the chapter, he provides context for his cutline:
“I rode the light rail lines and buses while I was in Portland. I saw cars crowded with all types of people, leaning toward the working class but also with wealthy or better-off folks in nice suits and dresses. � Then, I counted the black people. Usually one or two would be the most I would come up with. For most white people, including me, I’m sorry to say, being part of the whole is easier when it’s not mostly black or brown, particularly poor black and brown. It’s easy to be tolerant and progressive where there aren’t that many poor racial minorities to be tolerant of.�
You can draw your own conclusions � but I wouldn’t have included the excerpt if I didn’t think that this is a blatantly racist and disgusting statement, one that is begging for an explanation and an apology.
Marshall wraps up his startling chapter with a truly perplexing description of hip urban neighborhoods � featuring a cringe-worthy string of “article-izations.�
“Many metropolitan areas…have at least one lively neighborhood where the gays, the artists, the lawyers, the journalists and other urbanites can make a place for themselves.�
As a former journalist, I consider this breaking news. The average the journalist, the artist, and the gay couldn’t possibly afford to live in the average the lawyer’s neighborhood.
One star � for stretching a 10,000-word thinkpiece across 214 pages, for bitching, for offering generally infeasible solutions to our urban problems, for perplexingly racist observations, and for suggesting co-mingling between journalists and lawyers.
December 7, 2023
For an academic read, this book is entertaining and thought provoking. Marshall makes compelling arguments on how places should be shaped so that they’re worth caring about
September 14, 2008
The author's basic ideas are - with some exceptions - more or less sound, interesting, and helpful.
However, this guy gets the award for the most poorly constructed sentences ever to roll off an academic press. Where was Mr. Marshall's copy editor when he most needed him? They both should be embarrassed. Some examples below (all bold text mine):
"It's a Zen thing. A tongue cannot taste itself; a metro area cannot limit itself."
As they say in the parlance of our times: OMG.
"Cars produce parking lots and driveways. It is thus and ever will be."
And so spake this eloquent critic of New Urbanism.
"Costa Rica is the only stable democracy in Central America, with a larger, more prosperous middle class, because it had the blessing of not being blessed with large quantities of gold...Thus unblessed, it escaped the attention of the Spanish, the Americans, the French, and other marauding colonizers..."
Wow. I know he was trying to be clever...but clearly cleverness is not an area in which he excels.
"Portland has succeeded in proving that the city is still the largest art form in which we work, and still a very viable one, in which the painters--working mostly for the government--still have a variety of colors and brushes at their disposal"
Metaphor is also not the author's strong suit.
"But, partly successful though they are, these are alien, car-centered environments imported into the hostile, foot-walking land of a nineteenth-century downtown and kept alive by means of artificial respiration"
The environments are imported into hostile lands that walk on feet? What the hell kind of nonsensical, redundant adjective is "foot-walking"? It sounds like "mouth-breathing". Oh yes, and those lands, which must breathe in order to remain viable, are artificially respirated...like aliens are?
"It was a charming, but seedy, area in the early 1970s. Its Victorian homes and apartments were filled with a mixture of the aging, the funky, and the lowlifes".
This is only one particularly entertaining example of the author's serious parallelism problem.
"We could not find a road uncluttered by traffic, even when we selected the tiniest, most obscure country roads. Traffic was literally everywhere."
Okay. The word "literally" does not mean "seemingly". Nor does it appropriately lend emphasis to an already exaggerated statement. The traffic was not literally everywhere unless there were cars permeating every inch of the atmosphere.
"There is Hawthorne, a long street on the other side of the river which is funky in the way perhaps Twenty-third Street used to be. It has used-book stores, New Age stores, and restaurants, and people with ropelike hair standing on the corners"
This is not the place for poetic, anthropological prose, dude. "Ropelike"? Seriously? What do you have against the word "dreads"?
"These instruments also create the homeowners association, which enforces their rules, giving it the legal power to so above and beyond what a conventional government can do."
Hmm...the instruments create the association, and the association enforces the instruments' rules...or is it the association's rules that the association is enforcing? And the association also gives itself the legal power to enforce...whose rules?.
"I favor eliminating design review boards and other aesthetic arbiters. These boards tend to be composed of nit-picking s who get their kicks by nibbling to death everyone from the guy putting on an addition to his house, to the office developer trying to use a different-color brick."
Those are technical terms, I believe...
"Both our places and our society need to be 'stickier,' less flexible, less elastic."
I know what he's getting at...but oh, what poor word choice! There is NO place I can think of that needs to be stickier.
"I could keep going. I could also find people who have lost out because of Portland's direction."
Really? You could? By all means, please do...or are we just supposed to imagine what you would present as evidence, if you had in fact presented it?
However, this guy gets the award for the most poorly constructed sentences ever to roll off an academic press. Where was Mr. Marshall's copy editor when he most needed him? They both should be embarrassed. Some examples below (all bold text mine):
"It's a Zen thing. A tongue cannot taste itself; a metro area cannot limit itself."
As they say in the parlance of our times: OMG.
"Cars produce parking lots and driveways. It is thus and ever will be."
And so spake this eloquent critic of New Urbanism.
"Costa Rica is the only stable democracy in Central America, with a larger, more prosperous middle class, because it had the blessing of not being blessed with large quantities of gold...Thus unblessed, it escaped the attention of the Spanish, the Americans, the French, and other marauding colonizers..."
Wow. I know he was trying to be clever...but clearly cleverness is not an area in which he excels.
"Portland has succeeded in proving that the city is still the largest art form in which we work, and still a very viable one, in which the painters--working mostly for the government--still have a variety of colors and brushes at their disposal"
Metaphor is also not the author's strong suit.
"But, partly successful though they are, these are alien, car-centered environments imported into the hostile, foot-walking land of a nineteenth-century downtown and kept alive by means of artificial respiration"
The environments are imported into hostile lands that walk on feet? What the hell kind of nonsensical, redundant adjective is "foot-walking"? It sounds like "mouth-breathing". Oh yes, and those lands, which must breathe in order to remain viable, are artificially respirated...like aliens are?
"It was a charming, but seedy, area in the early 1970s. Its Victorian homes and apartments were filled with a mixture of the aging, the funky, and the lowlifes".
This is only one particularly entertaining example of the author's serious parallelism problem.
"We could not find a road uncluttered by traffic, even when we selected the tiniest, most obscure country roads. Traffic was literally everywhere."
Okay. The word "literally" does not mean "seemingly". Nor does it appropriately lend emphasis to an already exaggerated statement. The traffic was not literally everywhere unless there were cars permeating every inch of the atmosphere.
"There is Hawthorne, a long street on the other side of the river which is funky in the way perhaps Twenty-third Street used to be. It has used-book stores, New Age stores, and restaurants, and people with ropelike hair standing on the corners"
This is not the place for poetic, anthropological prose, dude. "Ropelike"? Seriously? What do you have against the word "dreads"?
"These instruments also create the homeowners association, which enforces their rules, giving it the legal power to so above and beyond what a conventional government can do."
Hmm...the instruments create the association, and the association enforces the instruments' rules...or is it the association's rules that the association is enforcing? And the association also gives itself the legal power to enforce...whose rules?.
"I favor eliminating design review boards and other aesthetic arbiters. These boards tend to be composed of nit-picking s who get their kicks by nibbling to death everyone from the guy putting on an addition to his house, to the office developer trying to use a different-color brick."
Those are technical terms, I believe...
"Both our places and our society need to be 'stickier,' less flexible, less elastic."
I know what he's getting at...but oh, what poor word choice! There is NO place I can think of that needs to be stickier.
"I could keep going. I could also find people who have lost out because of Portland's direction."
Really? You could? By all means, please do...or are we just supposed to imagine what you would present as evidence, if you had in fact presented it?
September 7, 2021
This is a study of new urbanism and an exploration of its principles through several case studies of American cities. It’s laced with plenty of philosophy and economic theory as well as humor. For me, it was a joy to read, and I would describe it as the The Omnivore's Dilemma of urbanism, though this would not be wholly accurate as How Cities Work was published several years before Michael Pollan’s definitive work on modern foodways.
The overall thesis is that the character of a city is the direct result of the transportation systems that support it, and, furthermore, if we want to change the nature of cities, we must start with transportation. This book also explores concepts such as the death of place and ornamental versus essential construction.
Reading this was especially rewarding for me because the author is from the region in which I grew up: Hampton Roads, VA. At the time of writing, he lived in Norfolk (in Ghent!), thus, when he used examples from his city to illustrate a point or provide an example, I knew exactly what he was talking about and could picture it perfectly.
The best part, though, is how engaging the writing is. Let’s take some examples of his descriptive style:
In the first case study, he examines Celebration, a manufactured community run by Disney. As he describes the nostalgic Colonial style of the homes and the Quartier Latin-style shops on Main St, he derides the ultra-modern architecture of businesses such as the Post Office and movie theater. In his words: “I’m not sure it works; it’s like mixing arugula and iceberg lettuce.�
Or, in describing “the New Urban creation� as:
There are many equally entertaining passages throughout the book. Furthermore, each chapter stands on its own, and the book as a whole is a great primer on public policy and urban planning with respect to building communities, providing ample support for a humanist approach in urban policy.
The overall thesis is that the character of a city is the direct result of the transportation systems that support it, and, furthermore, if we want to change the nature of cities, we must start with transportation. This book also explores concepts such as the death of place and ornamental versus essential construction.
Reading this was especially rewarding for me because the author is from the region in which I grew up: Hampton Roads, VA. At the time of writing, he lived in Norfolk (in Ghent!), thus, when he used examples from his city to illustrate a point or provide an example, I knew exactly what he was talking about and could picture it perfectly.
The best part, though, is how engaging the writing is. Let’s take some examples of his descriptive style:
In the first case study, he examines Celebration, a manufactured community run by Disney. As he describes the nostalgic Colonial style of the homes and the Quartier Latin-style shops on Main St, he derides the ultra-modern architecture of businesses such as the Post Office and movie theater. In his words: “I’m not sure it works; it’s like mixing arugula and iceberg lettuce.�
Or, in describing “the New Urban creation� as:
less a blend of old and new than a masquerade. New Urbanism is really more comparable to the wood-grained strips of plastic that used to be put on station wagons in the 1960s. The New Urban design philosophy is akin to dressing up a car to look like a horse-drawn carriage, and then saying you have brought back the intimacy and community of carriage life. p.25
There are many equally entertaining passages throughout the book. Furthermore, each chapter stands on its own, and the book as a whole is a great primer on public policy and urban planning with respect to building communities, providing ample support for a humanist approach in urban policy.
September 19, 2018
My parents used to invite their grandchildren and me for a week in central Tennessee, or some other timeshare vacation spot they had selected. Reading Alex Marshall's "How Cities Work" reminded me of how I felt at the timeshare golfing community. Here was a planned community of perfectly manicured yards and newly planted select trees, each sapling practically a clone of the other, each townhouse and yard exactly a perfect twin to it's neighbor. The neighborhood included a grocery store, beauty shop, bank, a couple casual cafes, some fine dining, playgrounds, and other essential elements regarded as paramount to convenient community living.Ìý
Being an early morning walker I explored the lanes and trails that wound around this seemingly perfect example of a minature town, wondering at my contempt as my sensation of dissatisfaction grew into scorn for this example of an ideal place to live.
Too sterile I thought, too fake, too lacking in something real that makes up the stuff of life. What was missing I wondered? Perhaps the irregular, the mishapped, the noisy, and the smelly. Ah yes, I realized what it was that was missing, ...noise: insects, birds, barking dogs, traffic...people going about the business of living in a real life. Honking horns, school buses. Cows, horses, farm smells. The messiness of life.
I met a friend from England one day, who helped me figure it out when she desribed her favorite city as a lovely gritty little city. That's what made it real to her. It's grittiness. We can subtract the smells, noise, the insects, the weeds, the farms, the homeless, the shabby, and the stray dogs, to our loss. Yes, we can choose to live in a perfectly clean, peacefully quiet, gated world, and loose our souls. That was what was false. It was the "share" in the word timeshare.
Being an early morning walker I explored the lanes and trails that wound around this seemingly perfect example of a minature town, wondering at my contempt as my sensation of dissatisfaction grew into scorn for this example of an ideal place to live.
Too sterile I thought, too fake, too lacking in something real that makes up the stuff of life. What was missing I wondered? Perhaps the irregular, the mishapped, the noisy, and the smelly. Ah yes, I realized what it was that was missing, ...noise: insects, birds, barking dogs, traffic...people going about the business of living in a real life. Honking horns, school buses. Cows, horses, farm smells. The messiness of life.
I met a friend from England one day, who helped me figure it out when she desribed her favorite city as a lovely gritty little city. That's what made it real to her. It's grittiness. We can subtract the smells, noise, the insects, the weeds, the farms, the homeless, the shabby, and the stray dogs, to our loss. Yes, we can choose to live in a perfectly clean, peacefully quiet, gated world, and loose our souls. That was what was false. It was the "share" in the word timeshare.
December 10, 2021
Twenty years out from its publication, this book still has relevance in many of its criticisms of New Urbanism. The attempt to re-create working city centers has played out very much as he predicts in this book; adding art spaces and cultural attractions is at best a temporary filler to spaces that should be occupied by retail and offices. I could argue with him on some points about suburbs (some small ones functioned more like small cities) and highways (their appearance in the 1950s was a civic project disguising a military one). This is one that would be interesting to see updated as covid has changed the calculus on where we work and live.
April 16, 2022
Even though 22 years old, this book explains why density and closeness in communities give us a sense of place, something cities do and the suburbs do not. I ventured into Northern Kentucky today and went from the Mall area to a new subdivision ( with no flavor ) to big box store to major traffic (yuck). Glad I am in an urban neighborhood. This book reminds me of that
May 25, 2022
An excellent reminder of the fundamentals of cities. Marshall breaks down the dynamics that shape cities and reinforces the key message that it's almost entirely based on the transportation network. A stimulating read. I also enjoyed (and agreed with) his criticism of New Urbanism. Hard to believe this was first published in 2000 as it still resonates today.
January 23, 2018
Eye opening rational for why sprawl is so prevalent. Do wish there was a new edition with an update of Celebration.
February 28, 2017
This book would have made more sense 10-15 years ago. The large scale infrastructure problems that Marshall brings up are still present, but much of the smaller scale issues have changed.
August 24, 2024
I'm changing my review after some time. Marshall stands of the right side of history or "urbanisms" or whatever you want to say, but fails to grasp anything with any sort of nuance, despite referencing many illuminating works. The public is right in eating this stuff up, and good, let them become champions of transport oriented development, urban growth boundaries, gentle density and permeability. But just know that there exists an equal and opposite trope that can be wielded to pick this book apart, somewhat ruthlessly, despite not being factual.
All in all, it's actually not a bad book. It's surface level, and that might be good. I'm over exaggerating to a certain extent, but more so questioning why this guy is the voice of urbanism when he includes things like "Some very pretty teenage girls, rail-thin in that Latin way, play on a neighboring court." Maybe he thought nobody would read that weird line hidden in there, but when your book claims to explain something so broad such as "How Cities Work," maybe you should proofread for Freudian slips.
All in all, it's actually not a bad book. It's surface level, and that might be good. I'm over exaggerating to a certain extent, but more so questioning why this guy is the voice of urbanism when he includes things like "Some very pretty teenage girls, rail-thin in that Latin way, play on a neighboring court." Maybe he thought nobody would read that weird line hidden in there, but when your book claims to explain something so broad such as "How Cities Work," maybe you should proofread for Freudian slips.
March 10, 2012
How Cities Work: Suburbs, Sprawl, and the Roads Not Taken helped me think more deeply about sprawl and its root causes. Originally intended as a critique of New Urbanism, journalist Alex Marshall developed this theme into a book which articulately demonstrates that ultimately the decision is political, but with time how this authority has been wielded became less direct. Economy, transportation, and politics ultimately decide what and where things get built. Marshall gives four atypical examples, especially praising Portland for its growth boundary, metropolitan regional government, and conscious decision-making. Libertarians and other anti-government-minded individuals would probably not like his critique of how fundamental government inputs are for city-building, and wonder what such theory is doing in a book about urban planning. Instead, this book helped me understand more about how places came to be in America.
January 6, 2014
For like a second, I was pretty sure Urban Planning was perfect for me. I got some books from the library, but as they are dense rather than super easy, kept ignoring them (I've still got one! I WILL read it!). This book was accessible to me as a smart, news-reading, and analytic layperson, and I enjoyed reading about different examples of towns, such as Celebration, Florida (a town basically run by Disney) and about the growth boundary around Portland. However, it was QUITE repetitive - YES, I get it, public transit and other logistics affect how a city develops, YES OKAY. Recommend for some fairly light reading to think more about urban development, though. I need to read more about Chicago's development.
August 21, 2016
Chapter six alone is worth getting this book. "The Master Hand: The Role of Government in Building Cities." After reading this chapter, you will come to appreciate government much more in how it "lays down the concrete slap that economies and places are built upon." Government is essential to any economy. The author gives many strong supporting cases.
This chapter has made me into someone who is happy to pay taxes.
I have lots of marginalia on this chapter. If you'd like a copy of my notes, please let me know. I will be happy to share them.
This chapter has made me into someone who is happy to pay taxes.
I have lots of marginalia on this chapter. If you'd like a copy of my notes, please let me know. I will be happy to share them.
October 5, 2016
Family book club #6
My husband is studying Urban Planning. It was really interesting to learn about how different transportation methods control the development of a city. This book gave me a greater appreciation for those planning cities. It also made me want to be a better citizen. It influenced some of my political views as well. The book spotlighted several locations throughout the USA and world. After reading this book, I want to visit some of these locations.
My husband is studying Urban Planning. It was really interesting to learn about how different transportation methods control the development of a city. This book gave me a greater appreciation for those planning cities. It also made me want to be a better citizen. It influenced some of my political views as well. The book spotlighted several locations throughout the USA and world. After reading this book, I want to visit some of these locations.
July 29, 2016
Structurally incoherent, if interesting. I had a hard time trying to discover the reason the book was created within the rambling sentence structure and disorienting tangents. I only give three stars because of the interesting, if blunt, perspective that New Urbanism is deeply flawed due to changes in how transportation drives cities. That's it, though.
April 24, 2009
I like this. The author is a good writer. Harsh critic of New Urbanism, but in the last couple years, New Urbanists have actually adapted to some of Marshall's ideas for planning, so it feels a bit outdated. But still good for thinking about urban issues.
January 15, 2008
Interesting perspective on the built environment.
July 11, 2008
This is the first urban planning book I read, and it really shaped my thinking.
December 13, 2008
so far we're discussing new urbanism. i had to check the publication date...2003..so interesting to see "smart growth" in "quotes"
December 4, 2009
Should be required reading for anyone involved in or thinking of getting into planning or urban design. But one point deducted for poor editing.
August 7, 2019
ban cars
July 24, 2007
I think this book might the reason that I took so many transportation classes in grad school.
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.