The Strong Towns perspective, as articulated by Andrew Burleson, combines a lot of my YIMBY impulses with ideas about what we need from our public infrastructure. In particular, the way we build streets determines whether a car becomes mandatory to participate in society and, subsequently, has downstream effects on everything from public finances to whether a neighborhood is safe for children.
As always, I learned a lot. Hopefully, y’all will will, too.
The Strong Towns Perspective
[00:01:53 – 00:06:30]
There is a dominant way we build communities in the United States. This post-World War II development paradigm centers on low-density sprawl, rigid separation of uses, and the assumption that driving is the default way to access daily life.
That model produces a familiar set of pathologies. Cars are prioritized as the primary transportation mode, and incremental growth leads to exponentially worse congestion. The ten-minute drive to IKEA becomes twenty, then thirty—and there is no meaningful alternative to sitting alone in traffic.
Andrew notes that this is actually the best-case scenario. Beneath the congestion lies a deeper problem: the infrastructure required to support sprawl—roads, pipes, utilities—often costs more to maintain and replace than the tax base it serves can ever generate.
The Infrastructure Maintenance Gap
[00:06:30 – 00:10:15]
Infrastructure built between the 1950s and 1970s is reaching end-of-life simultaneously across thousands of municipalities. Reconstructing a single mile of four-lane roadway can cost $2–4 million. Meanwhile, most suburban residential development generates only $10,000–$30,000 per acre per year in property tax revenue. In Andrew’s telling, this means the postwar development paradigm renders many municipalities fundamentally insolvent.
By contrast, dense, traditional neighborhoods with mixed-use development generate far more revenue per acre while requiring less infrastructure per household. Sprawling subdivisions underperform financially—even before accounting for pedestrian safety, housing affordability, or quality-of-life concerns.
JUST…ONE…MORE…LANE
[00:10:15 – 00:18:45]
The belief that widening roads reduces congestion is false. Expanding unpriced highways induces new demand, filling added capacity within months. Single-occupancy vehicle use does not scale.
Compounding the problem, American engineering standards treat streets as conduits for vehicle throughput, optimized for speeds of 35–45 miles per hour. This framing ignores the reality that streets are also public spaces—places where people live, walk, bike, and exist.
(Shoutout to Ballard, Seattle)
Learning from the Past
[00:18:45 – 00:28:30]
Pre-World War II development patterns—streetcar suburbs, traditional main streets, connected grids—now command premium property values because support the dense, walkable kind of environments people love (this is the correct instance in which to deploy revealed preference). The Strong Towns perspective says we should allow places to density over time and build infrastructure that actually supports that kind of growth. Modern zoning makes this literally illegal is most places across the country.
Andrew also brings a lot of nuance to this part of the conversation. He doesn’t position the solution as doing some program of RETVRN to the past; it’s about recognizing things we used to do that worked and reincorporating them into how we do things today.
Recovering from Suburban Sprawl
[00:28:30 – 00:35:20]
There’s not a straight line out of the post WWII development pattern. A lot of what’s been built in many places is effectively throw away; in other terms, it’s tech debt.
That said, Andrew explains that older neighborhoods in older cities — that are built on older street grids — will have an easier time becoming automatically more walkable and bikeable by just allowing infill.
In other places, it’ll be harder.
Street design is key. As densification happens, making streets navigable for non-car modes of transportation is absolutely critical. E-bikes and electric scooters will be invaluable for making that transition possible. Also, optimizing streets for speed != optimizing streets for throughput.
Baby Steps
[00:35:20 – 00:44:15]
Andrew points out that major transformation isn’t necessary for significant quality-of-life improvements. Reducing arterial speeds from 45 to 35 miles per hour dramatically improves pedestrian safety while causing minimal trip time impact. Installing mid-block crosswalks and allowing corner stores in residential areas provides destinations within walking distance.
Housing is Good, Actually
[00:44:15 – 00:50:30]
American zoning restricts housing supply in precisely the neighborhoods where people want to live—walkable, transit-accessible areas. This artificial scarcity drives prices far above construction costs while cities continue building sprawling subdivisions where infrastructure burdens mount. The policy solution is straightforward: allow incremental densification in established neighborhoods through accessory dwelling units, lot splits, and elimination of density caps.
Andrew also reminds us that dense neighborhoods generate higher tax revenue per acre while requiring less infrastructure per household. Cities that allow densification improve their fiscal position while addressing housing shortage.
A Neighborhood Safe Enough for Kids
[00:56:30 – 01:01:20]
We close the call with a conversation about building better places for families and their children.
Andrew explains that, because of the way his neighborhood in Denver is built, his 11-year-old daughter is able to walks home from school with friends, stop at playgrounds, and visit the ice cream shop independently. Apparently his daughter’s cousins find this amazing. He goes on to offer this as a worthwhile policy goal: enabling children to navigate neighborhoods safely and independently - which is really just a subset of the larger objective of making people’s lives better.
Postscript
That’s a wrap on my three part live stream series with leaders from different urban reform movements. If you’re interested in similar conversations from advocates working on either the YIMBY or Georgist fronts, consider checking out my prior interviews.
Next week, I’m going to try to make sense of all three movements and what their existences say about the moment in which we find ourselves and where we might be going next.
