Podcasts about great american cities

Exploring Urban Fabric, Adaptive Reuse, and Iconic Influences in ArchitectureIn this episode, Jamie and Kurt delve into the concept of adaptive reuse in architecture, discussing how existing buildings can be revitalized to meet modern needs. Influential books such as Jane Jacobs' 'The Death and Life of Great American Cities' and Carl Elefante's 'Going for Zero' are highlighted for their insights into urbanism and sustainability. The hosts share sketches depicting bustling downtown environments, emphasizing the importance of creativity in transforming existing structures. They also touch on the upcoming walkie-talkie event in Boston and compare favorite coffees. Join the conversation on how historical context and modern ambitions intersect in the field of architecture.00:00 Welcome and Introduction00:26 YouTube and Content Creation03:01 Influences and Inspirations03:58 Robocop and Prop Design14:46 Coffee Talk19:37 Nostalgic Toys and Childhood Memories20:34 Podcast Dynamics and Listener Engagement21:43 Upcoming Event: Boston Walkabout25:54 Sketching and Architectural Discussions31:20 Sustainable Architecture and Existing Buildings41:05 Educational Insights and Future PlansSend Feedback :) Support the showBuy some Coffee! Support the Show!https://ko-fi.com/coffeesketchpodcast/shop Our Links Follow Jamie on Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/falloutstudio/ Follow Kurt on Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/kurtneiswender/ Kurt's Practice - https://www.instagram.com/urbancolabarchitecture/ Coffee Sketch on Twitter - https://twitter.com/coffeesketch Jamie on Twitter - https://twitter.com/falloutstudio Kurt on Twitter - https://twitter.com/kurtneiswender

The fourth podcast episode from the TRUUD programme explores public engagement in shaping healthier urban environments. Hosted by Andrew Kelly in conversation with Dr Andy Gibson, University of the West of England and Dr Miriam Khan, GP and member of the TRUUD Public Advisory Board, they explore the importance of involving communities and listening to their lived experiences in policy creation. They examine methods for effective engagement, such as deliberative approaches and the use of visual aids, highlighting challenges and successes in projects like low traffic neighbourhoods. The guests also recommend books that underscore the principles of people-centred urban development and the accessibility of scientific information.Funded by the  UK Prevention Research Partnership which aims to reduce non-communicable diseases such as cancers, type-2 diabetes, obesity, mental ill-health and respiratory illnesses, TRUUD is providing evidence and tools for policy-makers in government and industry.Find more at the TRUUD website: https://truud.ac.uk/Books recommended in the episodeDr Miriam KhanHappy Cities by Charles MontgomeryDr Andy GibsonBad Science by Ben GoldacreAndrew KellyThe Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane JacobsMusic credit: New York London Tokyo by Petrenj MusicProduced by Beeston Media.

Jens Ludwig has an idea for how to fix America's gun violence problem — and it starts by rejecting conventional wisdom from both sides of the political aisle.  SOURCES:Jens Ludwig, professor of economics at the University of Chicago and director of the University of Chicago Crime Lab. RESOURCES:Unforgiving Places: The Unexpected Origins of American Gun Violence, by Jens Ludwig (2025)."Scope Challenges to Social Impact," by Monica Bhatt, Jonathan Guryan, Jens Ludwig, and Anuj Shah (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2021)."Citywide cluster randomized trial to restore blighted vacant land and its effects on violence, crime, and fear," by Charles Branas, Eugenia South, Michelle Kondo, Bernadette Hohl, Philippe Bourgois, Douglas Wiebe, and John MacDonald (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2018)."Thinking, Fast and Slow? Some Field Experiments to Reduce Crime and Dropout in Chicago," by Sara Heller, Anuj Shah, Jonathan Guryan, Jens Ludwig, Sendhil Mullainathan, and Harold Pollack (Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2016).Thinking, Fast and Slow, by Daniel Kahneman (2013)."Homicide and Suicide Rates Associated With Implementation of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act," by Jens Ludwig and Philip Cook (Journal of the American Medical Association, 2000).The Death and Life of Great American Cities, by Jane Jacobs (1992).The University of Chicago Crime Lab."Becoming a Man" (University of Chicago Crime Lab). EXTRAS:"Do the Police Have a Management Problem?" by Freakonomics Radio (2023)."From prison to Ph.D, this activist fights for peace in Chicago," by Kenya Downs (PBS News, 2016).

As we emerge from the Lenten season, freshly renewed by the triumph of the Resurrection, beauty and wonder are particularly present for Christians. In this episode, author and songwriter Andrew Peterson shares his insights about the importance of location and living responsibly and attentively in whatever specific place you inhabit. He discusses how deeper attentiveness to the beauty around us can awaken us to wisdom and wonder.This podcast is an edited version of our Online Conversation from December 2021. You can access the full conversation with transcript here.Learn more about Andrew Peterson.Authors and books mentioned in the conversation:The God of the Garden, by Andrew PetersonTim Mackey, The Bible Project's Tree of Life podcast seriesJaber Crow, by Wendell BerryWilliam WordsworthThe Death and Life of Great American Cities, Jane JacobsThe Geography of Nowhere: The Rise and Decline of America's Man-Made Landscape, by James Howard KunstlerSidewalks in the Kingdom: New Urbanism and the Christian Faith, Eric O. JacobsenGilead, by Marilynne RobinsonRich Mullins10 Resolutions for Mental Health, Clyde KilbyRelated Trinity Forum Readings:Bright Evening Star, Madeleine L'EngleA Christmas Carol, by Charles Dickens Babette's Feast, by Isak DinesenRelated Conversations:Practicing Gratitude with Diana Butler BassTo listen to this or any of our episodes in full, visit ttf.org/podcast and to join the Trinity Forum Society and help make content like this possible, join the Trinity Forum Society

Questions? Comments? Episode suggestions? Send us a text message!#204: Allen Farrington is the co-founder of Axiom, a bitcoin-native venture capital firm.  He explains what it's like working as an investment manager, the hurdles involved in creating an investment firm, and the skills you need to start a business. What you'll learn[01:33] What venture capital means. [03:06] The difference between private equity and venture capital. [04:57] How Allen started working in investment management. [08:35] The benefits of applying to jobs when not under pressure. [09:48] What it's like working as an investment manager. [13:20] How some investment firms treat new employees. [15:17] How Allen got involved with bitcoin and had the idea to start his own business. [22:35] Transitioning from working for an investment firm to starting your own firm. [23:10] The challenges of starting your own business. [25:15] The levels of wealth you deal with in the venture capital industry. [26:58] The skills you need to start a business. [30:23] How to find investors for a new venture capital firm. [31:18] Unexpected challenges involved in starting a bitcoin venture capital firm. [35:27] The challenges of sitting on the board of a company you invest in. [37:55] Common tensions between the founder of a company and its board of directors. [40:08] The difficulty of creating an effective marketing message. [43:12] The future for Axiom. Resources mentioned in this episodePlease note that some of these are affiliate links and we may get a commission in the event that you make a purchase.  This helps us to cover our expenses and is at no additional cost to you.Seeing Like a State, James C ScottThe Art of Not being Governed, James C ScottAgainst The Grain, James C ScottThe Death and Life of Great American Cities, Jane JacobsCities and the Wealth of Nations, Jane JacobsThe Unsettling of America, Wendell BerryFor the show notes for this episode, including a full transcript and links to all the resources mentioned, visit:https://changeworklife.com/thinking-big-starting-a-multi-million-dollar-investment-fund-from-the-ground-up/Re-assessing your career?  Know you need a change but don't really know where to start?  Check out these two exercises to start the journey of working out what career is right for you!

YouTube: https://youtu.be/nDrV443aLWASpotify: https://spoti.fi/35ZJGLTSummaryIn this episode of Beyond the Resume, hosts Chris Papa and Lisa Flicker from Jackson Lucas sit down with Gunnar Branson, CEO of AFIRE (Association of Foreign Investors in Real Estate), to discuss the future of global real estate investing, trends in U.S. markets, leadership, and the power of storytelling in business.Gunnar shares insights on:- Navigating foreign investment in U.S. real estate- The impact of political uncertainty and tariffs- Real estate market slowdowns and recovery timelines- Investment hot spots like New York, Dallas, and the Sunbelt- Climate risk and insurance impacts on real estate- Lessons from his career in theater, radio, and executive leadershipIf you're interested in real estate, foreign capital, urban development, or organizational leadership—this episode is packed with insight.Chapters(03:32) Leading AFIRE and the guide for foreign investors(05:49) Foreign investment outlook in a volatile market(08:11) Market distress, recovery timeline, and “Stay Alive Till 25”(10:34) U.S. markets attractive to foreign investors: NY, Dallas, Sunbelt(12:49) Climate risk and the insurance dilemma(13:50) Asset class shift: from office to multifamily and logistics(14:14) Gunnar's storytelling roots and radio beginnings(19:28) Becoming CEO at NAREIM and AFIRE(22:03) Leadership lessons and designing meaningful meetings(25:10) Book & podcast picks: Murakami, Jane Jacobs(28:34) Hiring philosophy and love for career-switchers(32:20) Leadership through inspiration, not control(35:33) Mentors and shoutouts: Peter Dubner and Jeff Barclay(40:20) Starting the AFIRE Podcast and learning to interview(46:23) Real estate is the most important invisible industry(46:53) Outro: What's next for Gunnar?

Um dos sonhos vendidos pela internet era a da praça global em que todos poderiam discutir todos os assuntos relevantes para a sociedade. Muitas terras planas depois, porém, mudamos de ideia. Hoje o Escuta Essa faz uma jornada que vai desde um podcast do Danilo até uma série de vídeos do TikTok, passando pela solução da navegação, a revolução do beisebol e um novo conceito de urbanismo. Tudo isso unido pela opinião do leigo e pelo “hot take”, a expressão em inglês para uma opinião forte, polêmica e sem muita abertura para conversa que tomou conta da internet. Este é mais um episódio do Escuta Essa, podcast semanal em que Denis e Danilo trocam histórias de cair o queixo e de explodir os miolos. Todas as quartas-feiras, no seu agregador de podcasts favorito, é a vez de um contar um causo para o outro.Não deixe de enviar os episódios do Escuta Essa para aquela pessoa com quem você também gosta de compartilhar histórias e aproveite para mandar seus comentários e perguntas no Spotify, nas redes sociais , ou no e-mail escutaessa@aded.studio. A gente sempre lê mensagens no final de cada episódio!...NESTE EPISÓDIO-O Debate de Bolso foi uma seção do podcast Pouco Pixel que virou um programa próprio de 2017 a 2018.-O Pouco Pixel está refazendo o Debate de Bolso em sua nova temporada comemorativa de 10 anos que estreou na semana passada.-O Subway Takes, de Kareem Rahma, tem mais de 800 mil seguidores no Instagram, 350 mil no YouTube e 894 mil no TikTok.-O The Guardian e a New Yorker já fizeram perfis de Rahma e seu programa viral.-Moneyball, livro de Michael Lewis, foi lançado em 2003 e fala como o Oakland A's revolucionou o beisebol nos EUA ao passar a usar estatísticas e novas formas de análise de desempenho para tomar suas decisões.-O livro da escritora e jornalista Jane Jacobs que mudou o urbanismo foi o “The Death and Life of Great American Cities”, de 1961.-O filósofo Henri Bergson é um dos que mais estudou o riso e o humor e quem afirma que eles são sociais, sempre em grupo. -O cientista social Michael Billing é um acadêmico britânico que estuda a relação do humor com o constrangimento....AD&D STUDIOA AD&D produz podcasts e vídeos que divertem e respeitam sua inteligência! Acompanhe todos os episódios em aded.studio para não perder nenhuma novidade.

Jane Jacobs (1916 to 2006) was a pioneering urbanist and activist best known for her influential book The Death and Life of Great American Cities (1961), which challenged conventional urban planning ideas by advocating for vibrant, community-centered, and pedestrian-friendly city design. For Further Reading: On Jane Jacobs - Salmagundi Magazine Jane Jacobs’s Street Smarts | The New Yorker Social Welfare History Project Jacobs, Jane — 1916 – 2006 This month, we’re talking about Architects. These women held fast to their visions for better futures, found potential in negative space, and built their creations from the ground up. History classes can get a bad rap, and sometimes for good reason. When we were students, we couldn’t help wondering... where were all the ladies at? Why were so many incredible stories missing from the typical curriculum? Enter, Womanica. On this Wonder Media Network podcast we explore the lives of inspiring women in history you may not know about, but definitely should. Every weekday, listeners explore the trials, tragedies, and triumphs of groundbreaking women throughout history who have dramatically shaped the world around us. In each 5 minute episode, we’ll dive into the story behind one woman listeners may or may not know–but definitely should. These diverse women from across space and time are grouped into easily accessible and engaging monthly themes like Educators, Villains, Indigenous Storytellers, Activists, and many more. Womanica is hosted by WMN co-founder and award-winning journalist Jenny Kaplan. The bite-sized episodes pack painstakingly researched content into fun, entertaining, and addictive daily adventures. Womanica was created by Liz Kaplan and Jenny Kaplan, executive produced by Jenny Kaplan, and produced by Grace Lynch, Maddy Foley, Brittany Martinez, Edie Allard, Carmen Borca-Carrillo, Taylor Williamson, Sara Schleede, Paloma Moreno Jimenez, Luci Jones, Abbey Delk, Adrien Behn, Alyia Yates, Vanessa Handy, Melia Agudelo, and Joia Putnoi. Special thanks to Shira Atkins. Original theme music composed by Miles Moran. Follow Wonder Media Network: Website Instagram Twitter See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Steven Robinson joins us to unravel the captivating saga of how dedicated activists thwarted the massive 1990s Television City development on Manhattan's Upper West Side. Imagine the world's tallest building casting a shadow over a vibrant community, threatening its cultural and environmental essence. Our conversation with Robinson shines a spotlight on the resilience and ingenuity of local groups like West Pride and the Civics, who banded together to preserve their neighborhood's diverse character against a looming monolith of luxury towers and retail chaos.Show Notes:To help support the show, pick up a copy of the book through our Amazon Affiliates page at https://amzn.to/4gHgBTF or even better, get a copy through your local bookstore!Further Reading: Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane JacobsThe Living City by Roberta GratzThe Well Tempered City by Jonathan F.P. RoseFighting Westway by William BuzbeeChanging Places by Richard Moe and Carter WilkieTo view the show transcripts, click on the episode at https://bookedonplanning.buzzsprout.com/Follow us on social media for more content related to each episode:LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/booked-on-planning/Twitter: https://twitter.com/BookedPlanningFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/bookedonplanningInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/bookedonplanning/

Host Joshua Turek returns with a solo episode of Turek Books after a few months hiatus and his relocation to Tucson. He discusses the very timely book, "Technofeudalism" at length as it was the first pick for a book club on his Turek Books IG live. He also gets into what else he's reading. "Debt" by David Graeber, "The Bible" by whoever wrote it, "All the Shahs Men" a book on U.S. interference in Iran, and "Lonesome Dove" by Larry McMurtry whom Joshua pines away about for awhile. Also mentioned are McMurtry's books "All My Friends Are Going to Be Strangers" and "Moving On" and the next book club pick "The Death and Life of the Great American Cities" by Jane Jacobs. Joshua is touring comedy this summer and releasing a new poetry book. Be sure to let him know which cities he should visit, follow his Substack @joshuaturek and be sure to check joshuaturek.com for tour dates and signed copies of his debut poetry book. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It only took 3 years, but after last night's defeat at the hands of the Philadelphia Eagles, Stugotz was finally right about the Kansas City Chiefs. Then, if Jimmy Johnson is going to have a whole feature dedicated to him and he's going to cry, he has to retire, right? Plus, Stugotz tells us about his experience at Radio Row and explains why he bailed on Billy and the rest of the Meadowlark crew Friday, and we learn how to properly wrap a coil. Also, Dan insists New Orleans is one of the great American cities and wants to determine the other Top 5 Great American Cities. In terms of qualifications, is it about their musical sound? Is it about their food? Is it about their ghosts? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

On this episode, Leah Rachel von Essen, whose job is books, and I discuss our shared love of translated literature, especially genre fiction from other countries, and our shared love of reading and walking. She also talks about her very entertaining experiences with the library as a child and shares about her current work with Chicago Books to Women in Prison.    Follow Leah on Instagram! Find Leah's posts about books in translation here  More information about how to support Chicago Books to Women in Prison   Books mentioned in this episode:    What Betsy's reading:  Sky Full of Elephants by Cebo Campbell  Ducks: Two Years in the Oil Sands by Kate Beaton Witchcraft for Wayward Girls by Grady Hendrix    Books Highlighted by Leah: This is How You Lose the Time War by Amal El-Mohtar & Max Gladstone Migrations by Charlotte McConaghy Manhunt by Gretchen Felker-Martin The Neapolitan Novels by Elena Ferrante, trans. Ann Goldstein The Book Thief by Markus Zusak Born to Run by Bruce Springsteen  Who Fears Death by Nnedi Okorafor Chain Gang All-Stars by Nana Kwame Adjei-Brenyah  The Broken Earth Trilogy by N.K. Jemisin  The Memory Police by Yoko Ogawa, trans. Stephen Snyder Eve Out of Her Ruins by Ananda Devi, trans. Jeffrey Zuckerman Palestine +100 ed. Basma Ghalayini They Will Drown in Their Mother's Tears by Johannes Anyuru, trans. Saskia Vogel  The Waves by Virginia Woolf Who's Afraid of Gender by Judith Butler  The Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs    All books available on my Bookshop.org episode page.   Other books mentioned in this episode: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo by Stieg Larsson Wanderlust: A History of Walking by Rebecca Solnit  The River Has Roots by Amal El-Mohtar  The Great Believers by Rebecca Makkai  Freedom by Jonathan Franzen  To the Lighthouse by Virginia Woolf

Award-winning architect and designer Umesh Kelkar, Project Designer II in the Aviation Studio, spills on his Summer Design Competition-winning project, "Deep Rooted Ellum." Intended to revitalize the district in the Southeast Dalla neighborhood, Unmesh's vision for a vibrant mixed-use development on the Southeast side of Dallas garnered critical acclaim from the Urban Land Institute and AIA Dallas as well as the Texas Society of Architects and won the FW Land Award.   Long known for its deep roots in Dallas and contributing to the urban fabric as the center of art, music, history, and culture, this mixed-use plan draws upon jazz music and blues, creating a vibrant, connected environment focused on vitality, richness, and cultural flourishes. His aviation and public spaces background informs his project, which the City of Dallas embraced.   Influenced by Jane Jacobs, the renowned writer American-Canadian journalist, author, theorist, and activist who influenced urban studies, sociology, and economics. Her book The Death and Life of Great American Cities (1961) argued that "urban renewal" and "slum clearance" did not respect the needs of city dwellers. Profoundly influential in changing the built environment, she coined the terms "mixed primary uses" and "eyes on the street" and remains one of the most influential thinkers and leaders of 21st-century urban architecture. Don't miss this riveting episode of The Square as Unmesh shares his inspiration and design processes. Be sure to include your thumbs up and comments below.   Visit: https://www.Corgan.com/    Also connect with us on: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/CorganInc/    Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CorganInc/    Twitter: https://twitter.com/CorganInc    LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/corgan    Video Produced by: Corgan   Have Questions? We'd love to hear from you.    Email: communications@corgan.com

An interview with Joan Osborne about her 2023 album "Nobody Owns You." They discuss a recent performance in Viroqua, Wisconsin, as well as the most popular song(s) from the album, putting together the list of cities in "Great American Cities," future projects, and more.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week, we talk with Evan Friss, author of The Bookshop: A History of the American Bookstore, out now from Penguin Random House. Starting with Benjamin Franklin and moving up to the present day, it is a love letter to bookstores that The New York Times calls "A spirited defense of this important, odd and odds-defying American retail category."Books We Talk About: The Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs and the works of Donna Tartt, Haruki Murakami, Kurt Vonnegut and George Saunders.

“And really the ethos of the company has been about placemaking, has been about bringing people together doing projects in areas that have been underserved. And it was really a little bit less about what types of projects they were doing, but it was more about how they were doing it and what they were offering to the community.” We're in great company with Adam Larkey, COO of family-owned Zeppelin Development, an award-winning Colorado-based neighborhood development company behind the sister properties in The Western, a recently restored landmark hotel in the historic district of Ouray and A-Frame Club, a collection of new mid-century modern cabins in Winter Park. Today, The Western serves as a homebase for leisure in the iconic mountain town of Ouray - surrounded by stunning landscapes and world-class outdoor recreation - where restored glamor meets modern luxury. And further north, A-Frame Club's boutique hotel invites guests to savor a genuine escape from everything but what's in front of them - the great outdoors and a craft cocktail. In this episode, Adam sincerely shares his passion for seeing buildings not for their business potential, but for the people they host, and how his role in restoring neighborhoods across Colorado, is not just a privilege, but a responsibility.  Top Takeaways [1:40] Adam shares a laugh over our mutual upbringing in Baltimore, Maryland where we fortunately missed out on the humorous “Ball'more” accent.   [3:00] Adam has always been drawn to life on the water, but what drew him to Denver was instead the views of majestic mountains - especially the juxtaposition of being in shorts about town while seeing snow on the mountain tops.  [4:40] How the family-owned Zeppelin Development has over 50 years of investing in the underserved and restoring the historic character of Denver neighborhoods - from the humble beginnings with an architectural bookstore and cafe to a landmark hotel and market hall.  [9:35] Seeking projects that have a story behind them, being stewards of buildings that have history within them, led Adam and his team to look beyond Denver and out into the mountain towns of Ouray and Winter Park.  [10:30] For those looking to return to the Golden Age of skiing, expect to experience mid-century modern decor and 70's style onesies at the A-Frame Club. [13:00] And for those looking to return to the Wild West, step inside the saloon of The Western, where a “work hard, play hard” mentality now pairs with a state-of-the-art spa.   [30:50] The future is nostalgic yet forward thinking - from a sunken living room lounge to pickleball and tetherball court, from a freshly planted orchard grove to a basement barbershop.  [34:50] Adam's mission in being an “urbanist” is ensuring that there is space for creatives, for artists like himself, to beautify a vibrant city without being priced out of living there - creating a sense of place where history builds on top of itself. Notable Mentions The Source Hotel & Market Hall Hunter S. Thompson  Skylab Architecture Crossbow Handmade Leather Goods Old Bay Seasoning  Winter Park Resort Denver Urban Gardens RiNo Art District The Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs Anthony Bourdain John Muir Trail in California Riverside Dinner Series at The Grill at A-Frame Club Visit For Yourself The Western Website | @thewesternouray   A-Frame Club Website | @aframeclub  Use Code GOODCOMPANY for 10% Off Zeppelin Development Website Stay In Good Company Website

If ancient Kyoto stands for orderly elegance, then Tokyo, within the world's most populated metropolitan area, calls to mind–– jam-packed chaos. But in Emergent Tokyo: Designing the Spontaneous City (Oro Editions, 2022), Professor Jorge Almazán of Keio University and his Studio Lab colleagues ask us to look again—at the shops, markets, restaurants and tiny bars in back alleys, side streets and underneath highway bridges and rail lines. Within walking distance of a commuter rail station, small wood frame detached houses on tiny lots define a cohesive neighborhood. The order underlying a seemingly chaotic cityscape makes for an eminently livable city. Finishing this remarkable study, the reader may ask—have we been overlooking under-utilized space in my town? Why not little houses on small lots? Why can't we walk to a shop around the corner? If Jane Jacobs' Death and Life of Great American Cities opened your eyes, then consider Emergent Tokyo. With Dr. Almazán as our guide, Tokyo has much to teach. James Wunsch, Emeritus Professor of Historical Studies, Empire State College (SUNY) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

If ancient Kyoto stands for orderly elegance, then Tokyo, within the world's most populated metropolitan area, calls to mind–– jam-packed chaos. But in Emergent Tokyo: Designing the Spontaneous City (Oro Editions, 2022), Professor Jorge Almazán of Keio University and his Studio Lab colleagues ask us to look again—at the shops, markets, restaurants and tiny bars in back alleys, side streets and underneath highway bridges and rail lines. Within walking distance of a commuter rail station, small wood frame detached houses on tiny lots define a cohesive neighborhood. The order underlying a seemingly chaotic cityscape makes for an eminently livable city. Finishing this remarkable study, the reader may ask—have we been overlooking under-utilized space in my town? Why not little houses on small lots? Why can't we walk to a shop around the corner? If Jane Jacobs' Death and Life of Great American Cities opened your eyes, then consider Emergent Tokyo. With Dr. Almazán as our guide, Tokyo has much to teach. James Wunsch, Emeritus Professor of Historical Studies, Empire State College (SUNY) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/east-asian-studies

If ancient Kyoto stands for orderly elegance, then Tokyo, within the world's most populated metropolitan area, calls to mind–– jam-packed chaos. But in Emergent Tokyo: Designing the Spontaneous City (Oro Editions, 2022), Professor Jorge Almazán of Keio University and his Studio Lab colleagues ask us to look again—at the shops, markets, restaurants and tiny bars in back alleys, side streets and underneath highway bridges and rail lines. Within walking distance of a commuter rail station, small wood frame detached houses on tiny lots define a cohesive neighborhood. The order underlying a seemingly chaotic cityscape makes for an eminently livable city. Finishing this remarkable study, the reader may ask—have we been overlooking under-utilized space in my town? Why not little houses on small lots? Why can't we walk to a shop around the corner? If Jane Jacobs' Death and Life of Great American Cities opened your eyes, then consider Emergent Tokyo. With Dr. Almazán as our guide, Tokyo has much to teach. James Wunsch, Emeritus Professor of Historical Studies, Empire State College (SUNY) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/architecture

If ancient Kyoto stands for orderly elegance, then Tokyo, within the world's most populated metropolitan area, calls to mind–– jam-packed chaos. But in Emergent Tokyo: Designing the Spontaneous City (Oro Editions, 2022), Professor Jorge Almazán of Keio University and his Studio Lab colleagues ask us to look again—at the shops, markets, restaurants and tiny bars in back alleys, side streets and underneath highway bridges and rail lines. Within walking distance of a commuter rail station, small wood frame detached houses on tiny lots define a cohesive neighborhood. The order underlying a seemingly chaotic cityscape makes for an eminently livable city. Finishing this remarkable study, the reader may ask—have we been overlooking under-utilized space in my town? Why not little houses on small lots? Why can't we walk to a shop around the corner? If Jane Jacobs' Death and Life of Great American Cities opened your eyes, then consider Emergent Tokyo. With Dr. Almazán as our guide, Tokyo has much to teach. James Wunsch, Emeritus Professor of Historical Studies, Empire State College (SUNY) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/public-policy

If ancient Kyoto stands for orderly elegance, then Tokyo, within the world's most populated metropolitan area, calls to mind–– jam-packed chaos. But in Emergent Tokyo: Designing the Spontaneous City (Oro Editions, 2022), Professor Jorge Almazán of Keio University and his Studio Lab colleagues ask us to look again—at the shops, markets, restaurants and tiny bars in back alleys, side streets and underneath highway bridges and rail lines. Within walking distance of a commuter rail station, small wood frame detached houses on tiny lots define a cohesive neighborhood. The order underlying a seemingly chaotic cityscape makes for an eminently livable city. Finishing this remarkable study, the reader may ask—have we been overlooking under-utilized space in my town? Why not little houses on small lots? Why can't we walk to a shop around the corner? If Jane Jacobs' Death and Life of Great American Cities opened your eyes, then consider Emergent Tokyo. With Dr. Almazán as our guide, Tokyo has much to teach. James Wunsch, Emeritus Professor of Historical Studies, Empire State College (SUNY) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

If ancient Kyoto stands for orderly elegance, then Tokyo, within the world's most populated metropolitan area, calls to mind–– jam-packed chaos. But in Emergent Tokyo: Designing the Spontaneous City (Oro Editions, 2022), Professor Jorge Almazán of Keio University and his Studio Lab colleagues ask us to look again—at the shops, markets, restaurants and tiny bars in back alleys, side streets and underneath highway bridges and rail lines. Within walking distance of a commuter rail station, small wood frame detached houses on tiny lots define a cohesive neighborhood. The order underlying a seemingly chaotic cityscape makes for an eminently livable city. Finishing this remarkable study, the reader may ask—have we been overlooking under-utilized space in my town? Why not little houses on small lots? Why can't we walk to a shop around the corner? If Jane Jacobs' Death and Life of Great American Cities opened your eyes, then consider Emergent Tokyo. With Dr. Almazán as our guide, Tokyo has much to teach. James Wunsch, Emeritus Professor of Historical Studies, Empire State College (SUNY) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/japanese-studies

The image of the skyscraper is the hallmark of the modern city. Futuristic depictions of urban landscapes nearly always feature towering structures high above the clouds. Today, however, developing countries seem to be putting the greatest effort into building the most impressive skyscrapers, from the Burj Khalifa in the UAE, to the future Jeddah Tower in Saudi Arabia. Whether you love them or hate them, it's worth asking why we build skyscrapers and what their role will be in future cities. Today on Faster, Please! — The Podcast, I sit down with Jason Barr, author of Cities in the Sky: The Quest to Build the World's Tallest Skyscrapers.Barr is a professor of economics at Rutgers University – Newark, and is a member of the Rutgers Global Urban Systems PhD program. He is also the author of Building the Skyline: The Birth and Growth of Manhattan's Skyscrapers.In This Episode* Demand for the skyscraper (1:35)* The end of the skyscraper (9:00)* Pillars of commerce (14:05)* The sky's the limit (18:36)* Manhattan extension (23:04)* Trends and styles (24:23)Below is a lightly edited transcript of our conversationThe image of the skyscraper is the hallmark of the modern city. Futuristic depictions of urban landscapes nearly always feature towering structures high above the clouds. Today, however, developing countries seem to be putting the greatest effort into building the most impressive skyscrapers, from the Burj Khalifa in the UAE, to the future Jeddah Tower in Saudi Arabia. Whether you love them or hate them, it's worth asking why we build skyscrapers and what their role will be in future cities. Today on Faster, Please! — The Podcast, I sit down with Jason Barr, author of Cities in the Sky: The Quest to Build the World's Tallest Skyscrapers.Barr is a professor of economics at Rutgers University – Newark, and is a member of the Rutgers Global Urban Systems PhD program. He is also the author of Building the Skyline: The Birth and Growth of Manhattan's Skyscrapers.Demand for the skyscraper (1:35)Pethokoukis: You obviously love skyscrapers, you're fascinated by them. You wrote a whole book on them. So I want to just start the very basic question: Why do skyscrapers fascinate you, and the people who aren't fascinated by them, what are they missing?Barr: Great questions. Well, I grew up on Long Island, and so I was always really fascinated with Manhattan. I grew up in the '70s, and so New York back then was a very dark, mysterious place for a youngster. So when I grew up, actually when I was in college, I started hanging out in the city. So to me, the skyline of Manhattan and New York City, they're just two sides of the same coin. I really developed an interest in tall buildings through my interest and fascination with Manhattan's and New York City's history.So when I came to Rutgers Newark, I just started doing research on tall buildings, especially in New York City: what was driving the heights of these buildings; there's all these interesting height cycles over the last 150 years. So I wrote my first book on the Manhattan skyline, that was called Building the Skyline, and then after that I thought, let's see what's happening around the rest of the world. So to me, the tall building is an interesting thing because it's part and parcel with urbanization, and I just personally don't think you could have one without the other.I think some people might think that skyscrapers are, at least for rich countries, that they're kind of a 20th-century thing that we did as we were growing, and cities were getting bigger, and skyscrapers are a part of that, but now they're for other parts of the world, parts of the world which are still urbanizing, which are still getting richer. Are skyscrapers are still a thing for America?The short answer is yes, but, given how dense cities are, tall buildings are just being added a lot more slowly. In New York, the population's kind of slowly growing, and so tall buildings are either replacing old buildings that are wearing out, or there's always this push by big global corporations to be in the newest and latest tall building. And obviously there's this international demand from people abroad to have an apartment — or national demand — global demand to have some kind of residential presence in New York. But the thing is, people in other countries: cities, planners, residents in other countries, they look to New York, they look to Chicago, and I think, for many of them, they see New York as something they want to emulate, and New York is, on just about almost any metric, it's probably the top global city. And so I think cities today, especially in China, and Asia more broadly, they're trying to kind of replicate that, what you might call “the Manhattan magic,” and I don't really think people in this country realize how much tall building construction is going on in other cities around the world. People in this country are a little bit more cynical about the role of the tall building in urban growth and in housing affordability and stuff like this, but other cities are basically going gangbusters, is a way to put it.Is that driven by fundamental economic forces? Is it kind of a “national greatness” kinds of signaling projects? Are there fundamental reasons, not just to build skyscrapers, but to build very, very tall skyscrapers?“All of the above” is the answer. Fundamentally, if there's many, many people who want to be working, living, playing in the center, the only way to accommodate the demand to be in the center is to make more land in the center, so the skyscraper, at its heart, is what I would say is “land in the sky.” You just go vertical because there's constraints on how much land there is in the center.Having said that, definitely the skyscraper is seen as a kind of way to advertise, a way to increase confidence in the place, and so you boost foreign direct investment. Observatories are huge money makers, there's a big tourism component. A lot of critics will say, “Oh, it's all about spectacle and ego.” But really, for the book, and just more broadly my research, when you drill down on the economics of these super tall buildings, not all of them are profitable or profit-maximizing, but they all have a strong economic rationale.Now, I just also want to say, China has its own thing going on, which sort of compounds the skyscraper construction-building there because of their unique governance structure and land ownership structure, but China is building tall buildings because, at the end of the day, there's a kind of, what I call, a “tall building bling.” There's just something that says, “This city is growing, this city is drawing population.” So we build a tall building and we boost confidence in the city. And it works, really.The pictures don't have to be too old, if you look at a picture of Shanghai, it looks a lot different not too long ago. It's almost as if a whole other city just kind of fell from the sky, a city of skyscrapers, and where there were once goats or something grazing, there's now a bunch of massive skyscrapers.Yeah, absolutely, and there's a few reasons for this. One is, I think Chinese residents more broadly see tall building as a natural way to live. I've talked to many Chinese residents, whether it's Shanghai or other cities, and to them, to own an apartment in the sky is like the greatest thing. It's their equivalent of the single family home in the United States. Living in the clouds is something many people aspire to. The other aspect of it is, Shanghai, and the Pudong neighborhood in Shanghai, was chosen basically to become a financial hub. Basically, the leaders were looking at Hong Kong and they thought it was a, to quote, I forgot the author, but to quote him in the book, the Shanghai officials and the National Party officials saw Hong Kong as that frustratingly free city, and so they wanted to create a kind of a financial hub in Shanghai. And so the Shanghai Tower, for example, is part of that plan to really draw people's attention to Shanghai, itself. So it was part of a master plan.The end of the skyscraper (9:00)I certainly remember that, after 9/11, I heard about “the end of the skyscraper,” and then during the pandemic, I heard about “the end of the city.” Now I'm guessing that cities will continue to exist and we're going to continue to build tall buildings.Absolutely. What 9/11 did was just make sure that we make our building safer with fire protection measures. In many Asian countries, every 20 floors, let's say, are mechanical floors, so you have the electric equipment, and the heating, and the cooling, and water tanks. They can also surround these in concrete, and so if something's on fire, if a floor is on fire, they can go to this hermetically sealed floor, a refuge floor, and stay there and be protected. And the elevator cores, they're made of concrete, and so you wouldn't have something like what happened on 9/11. So it didn't really impact the demand; 9/11 didn't impact the demand for the tall building, it just made us make tall buildings safer. And of course the downside is if you want to go into an office building, you have to have a swipe and you have to have an entry, so the negative of 9/11 was more about heightened security and increasing protections in a way that engenders a little bit more mistrust of us. But the demand didn't go away.Same thing with Covid. For big cities like New York and San Francisco, I'm sure the empty-office problem is going to dissipate. It'll take a while. This may be an overly broad statement, but the truth is, our present and future is in cities. The funny thing about the internet and social media and all that, it was supposed to allow us to suburbanize more, or run away from these big, overcrowded cities, but the truth is, social media and internet technology has just made cities even more important. So, as long as cities are growing, there'll be a demand for tall buildingsOf the tallest, I don't know, half-dozen buildings, have you been to all of them?That's a good question. I've been to the Shanghai Tower, which was the second-tallest building in the world, now is the third-tallest. The one that replaced it, I think it's [Merdeka 118] in Kuala Lumpur, I believe. I didn't go to that one yet because that just opened up recently. I've been to the Burj Khalifa, which is the world's tallest building. I'd have to look at the list. I've been to the Sears Tower, Empire State Building . . . Anyway, so I've been to a handful of them. I can't say I've been to every single one of the super-tall buildings in the worldAnd in any of those super-tall buildings, can you open a window? Why can't you open the windows in these skyscrapers?Well, the wind forces are just tremendous! The biggest problem engineering tall buildings is making sure that the building doesn't sway so that people feel it. The really fascinating thing about engineering tall buildings is this question: How do you allow the building to sway enough so that you don't have to — you don't want to over-engineer a building so that you make it perfectly stiff because that's just completely uneconomic to do that, but you want to make sure the building sways just enough so if you're sitting there reading a newspaper or drinking a cup of coffee on the top floor, you don't feel it. And so the wind forces high, a thousand feet in the air, are just so tremendous. I think if you open the window, everything would just would just blow away.I was thinking about some of those very, super-skinny residential buildings, which I guess seem to be becoming more popular, and do those people really feel the motion?From what I can tell, the short answer is no. There's one lawsuit in Manhattan, in particular, where the engineering wasn't exactly perfectly right, but I think that represents the exception that proves the rule. The building is safe, that's not the problem, it's just that, when you're dealing with these super-skinny buildings — these are kind of a new kind of breed of super-tall buildings, so sometimes the engineering isn't perfectly right, so they will figure out ways to kind of fix those problems. The problems are solvable, but sometimes if you don't get it 100 percent right, people complain, and obviously there's lawsuits and you have to go back in and tweak the engineering. But these things are selling for 70, 80, 100 million dollars for a penthouse on the 90th floor, so people still value them, and if motion sickness was a problem, they'd be worthless.Pillars of commerce (14:05)In the book, you run through a number of myths: tall buildings being only for the rich, that they drive up housing prices in cities, again, that you mentioned a little bit earlier, that they're somehow bad economic deals. All these myths all tend to be very negative.I'm not going to rename your book, but I could call it “Cathedrals in the Sky,” I mean, I think these are beautiful buildings that say a lot about human aspiration and to create a sense of awe. Boy, but some people just do not see it that way.I think there's a few strands; I've been thinking about this. There's a kind of a NIMBY strand, and sort of a NIMBY/gentrification strand. So people in the middle income, let's say, they see their housing prices going up, their rent going up, and then they see these billionaire condos, and so they, in my opinion, or based on my research, there's a confusion of correlation and causation. So the most visible manifestation in people's minds of gentrification and affordability problems are the super-slim buildings, but New York City has something like 3.6 million housing units, and if you look at the outlying areas of Queens and Staten Island, they're just covered in one- and two-family homes. Those neighborhoods have added barely any housing. So all of the housing — I'm exaggerating here when I say the word “all,” but the vast majority of new housing units happens in the center where either the zoning is more permissive, or old industrial sites come online and things like this, so people don't realize that the problem of housing affordability is citywide, it just looks naturally to be in their neighborhood where high rises are going up.Then there's another strand, which I would say is kind of the “Jane Jacobs strand” / the anti-public-housing strand. Jane Jacobs has some great points in her book, The Death and Life of Great American Cities about walkability, about eyes on the street. She wasn't a big fan of tall buildings, and this has kind of given rise to this whole movement of “human scale,” where five-story Greenwich Village buildings, or 10-story Parisian mansard-roof-type buildings are perfect, and any other deviation from that is somehow destroying the city. So there's that part of it, that people see tall buildings as somehow destroying the feel or the perfect fabric of the city. And lastly, obviously, some of the failures with the public housing policy has made people convinced that it's unhealthy to live in these tall buildings. I think that gets at what you're inquiring about. I think there's those different strains.I wonder if part of it stems for a confusion about what are cities for, and I mean cities are, for a large part, are where people to come together for jobs and to conduct commerce. And if you think of them that way, then certain things make sense; but if you think of them as, I don't know, some sort of urban retreat, where it's kind of like a garden or . . . I don't know, but it's a very different view, and perhaps it is not just about bike paths, but it's about what facilitates people to connect.Without jobs, without a labor market, there's no purpose to have a city. Maybe in the 18th or 19th century, you can create a city for the king or the empire, as are many examples, or the Vatican or something like this; so you can have these sort of political capital cities, or even Washington DC, but, fundamentally, 99 percent of the world's cities are places where people go to work, and so, if you don't allow the labor market to function properly, which means having a functioning housing market, then all these ideas about “the good city” and “the perfectly crafted city,” they kind of are irrelevant.So you have to start with: what makes a city grow, what makes people productive, and then how do we accommodate that? To the extent that we can improve design, all the better. There's always a million ways to make things better for people design-wise. I think bike lanes are great, and I think pedestrian-friendly cities are better than car-centric cities, but you can't start with designing the city first and then seeing what happens. You have to start with “let's make an attractive place to live and work” first, and then work on the design feature second.The sky's the limit (18:36)How tall are these buildings going to get?Okay, well, the next world's tallest building is going to be one kilometer: The Jeddah Tower, which had started, I think back in 2013 or 2015, had been stalled, there was some sort of political turmoil in Saudi Arabia, and they've just restarted this Jeddah Tower in the city of Jeddah. And so when that's completed, that's going to be one kilometer. There were some plans floated to have a two-kilometer building in Riyadh. I don't think anyone really thinks that's going to happen.How long does it take to get up to your office in a two-kilometer building?Well, that's the thing. They're coming up with new ways to get people up there faster. The old conventional steel cables could maybe go 500 meters or something like that, which is maybe 80 floors or something. Maybe if you had a really good cable, you can get people to 80 floors and then they'd have to switch. Now they have these composite . . . it's KONE UltraRope, which could go 1000 meters, which could go basically one kilometer continuously. So if you can get people from the ground floor to wherever their destination is within a minute, that's kind of like the golden rule here. People are not willing to wait more than a minute once they get in the elevator. The trick really is the ear pressure, and that's probably the hardest part because you're going up so quickly, the air pressure changes, so you have to figure out ways to make sure the cabin remains pressurized, and then there's the air pressure up on the highest floors. So that, I would argue, is the fundamental issue that's going to be coming next on the horizon is how to efficiently pressurize the highest floors. Let's say you're a mile high; if you're a mile high on the top floor, that's the equivalent of going from New York to Denver in a minute, or two minutes. So you have to figure out a way how to pressurize the entire building so it has a constant air pressure.If I were to look at the skyline of major American cities 50 years from now, would you expect them to be radically different, futuristic looking, maybe not two-kilometer buildings, but a lot of very, very tall buildings? Or is it again, if they're not growing, if population isn't growing, then that won't happen?People are always asking me what I think about the doom loops and all that. Pick New York as one end of the spectrum: It's always going to be adding new buildings, that's just in its DNA, and so you're going to have this kind of collage of different building styles. But other cities, smaller cities, maybe where people are moving now because working from home, they'll add a few tall buildings here, they'll have mini-skylines. Then the other cities, like a St. Louis, that's just going to have to kind of figure out a plan for growth. So I don't see the world as a kind of Jetsons-type world.I mean, you never know what's going to happen with the technology. There's one company, TK or Thyssenkrupp elevators, they're working on Maglev elevators, and this can actually be a game changer because you have these shafts, so the Maglev elevator cars, they can go up or down or they can go horizontal. Part of the goal with that is that everybody has their own — if it's an apartment building, they have their own elevator car, it takes them up to their apartment, it becomes the door. So that could be a real game changer . . . And then you could run these things horizontally. So if you have these Maglev elevators, you can not only run them horizontally within the building, but, in principle, if you could work out property rights or whatever, you could connect these things across buildings. But at the end of the day, it's really about preferences and a kind of cultural perception of the tall building, and I just don't see us in the United States us having a dramatic, country-wide rethinking of where we live. There's always going to be this desire for the single-family home in the suburbs. Now maybe that'll diminish to some degree, but as long as people see their own little house as their own little castle . . .Unlike China, where there seems to be a great desire to live in these kinds of buildings.Manhattan extension (23:04)Have you had any takers about your proposal to make Manhattan bigger?No.You would extend it by about 2000 acres and maybe build some tall buildings on that, I don't know.The idea would be to create a new mini-Manhattan extending Manhattan into New York Harbor. Just briefly, the idea was both to add more housing and add more land, and to protect lower Manhattan against sea level rises and so forth. I proposed this in a New York Times op-ed piece, and, naturally, I would say the majority of commenters and people had this sort of kneejerk reaction against it.I had a kneejerk reaction for it! I loved it!You are part of a small, select core of appreciators, let's say. Having said that, in the 21st century it's just not something I think most people are willing to wrap their heads around. SoTo me, that's an idea with the future, and I think you should not be dejected that it was not initially well-received. I think that kind of idea might actually have some legs.Trends and styles (24:23)Finally, let me ask you, whether it's because of computers or new materials, would we expect skyscrapers in the future to look any differently? I think some people would love to go back to the 1930s style. They love that style of skyscraper, and they don't like the glass-and-steel, very rectangular skyscraper; they want it to look like Gotham City or something.Actually, if you look in Manhattan, in Brooklyn there's one, I think they're calling it something like the “Dark Knight Tower” or the “Gotham Tower.” It's in Brooklyn and it has this almost art deco sort of —It slipped my mind, I was thinking art deco, yes.And there's a high rise apartment near Columbia University, which uses the same color masonry as the surrounding buildings. I think it's the Union Theological Seminary, which sold some of the land to build a high rise. It sort of blends in. So I guess the question is really architecturally speaking, and it's sort of hard to say. I think maybe there'll be some neo-historical buildings coming up here or there, but there's two things: One is that people like glass windows. People love to have light and views, and so that's really just pushing the glass buildings. I think developers like glass too, because it's easy to work with, and architects — if you're a developer and you want a super-tall building, you usually go to a handful of architects and you have some kind of design competition, and, chances are, you're going to get something that looks full of glass and has some funky geometry to it.But they seem more twisty than they used to, so they're not just perfect rectangles.Right, so you're creating a lot of illusion. The interesting thing is, at the end of the day, you can only have certain internal shapes because you need functional spaces, so you have to have illusion with the twisting and these sort of Jenga towers, and a lot of that is due to massive improvements in computer technology; so the rendering software has dramatically improved, the engineering know-how, the engineering technology improved, you can send your designs right to the manufacturer where they can then use the computer programs to design exactly the shapes and sizes.So it's the learning curve of every building that you do adds to the knowledge of how to do something a little bit different, or some version of something before, and also just massive computer power. I think there'll be a lot more of these sort of funky architectural shape. How they hold up, only time tells. In the '80s there was this massive postmodern boom with all kinds of pastiche-type buildings with all kinds of references to old buildings, and funky buildings, and some of those haven't held up as well.Frankly, I'm from Chicago, and I know exactly what you're talking about. Also being from Chicago, I appreciate you calling that building the Sears Tower rather than what other name they try to put on it. Last question: Do you have a favorite skyscraper?I'm from New York and I like the Empire State Building, and it's not just because architecturally a classic building, but it speaks to New York as a city of strivers. And the more research I did into the Empire State Building, the more I appreciate the sheer guts of these guys who built this building. And the thing is, when it was completed in 1931, Great Depression was really starting to kick into high gear, and so the building was unrented, and it kind of gave this whole mythology about how these guys didn't know what they were doing, but when you crunch the numbers, they knew exactly what they were doing. They knew what the landscape looked like for New York, and the costs, and the revenues. Nobody saw the Great Depression coming, and so to say that the Great Depression showed how foolish these were, I just think it's a bad standard to hold them to. And if you look at the revenues and them building value over its 90-whatever, 93-year history, it's been a money-maker for almost a century. After the Great Depression, it recovered and has become an icon and a moneymaker, so what's not to love about that?Faster, Please! is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fasterplease.substack.com/subscribe

About The GuestDavid V. Hicks retired in 2015 as Chief Academic Officer for Meritas LLC, a company based in Chicago that owned and operated K-12 college preparatory schools worldwide.  The day after his retirement, Meritas was sold to Nord Anglia Education.   Before joining Meritas, Hicks spent thirty years in independent education, heading St. Andrew's Episcopal School in Jackson, Mississippi; St. Mark's School of Texas in Dallas; St. Paul's School in Concord, New Hampshire; and the Darlington School in Rome, Georgia.  After graduating from The Stony Brook School (New York) in 1966, Hicks studied at Princeton where he majored in English and graduated magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa in 1970. He then read for a master's degree in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (PPE) at Jesus College, Oxford as a Rhodes scholar. He later studied at the University of Moscow. Hicks served as an officer in the U.S. Navy and is the youngest man ever to teach on the faculty of the Naval War College. In 1976, he ran for Congress in New York's Westchester County in a race he narrowly lost to long-time incumbent Richard Ottinger. In 1981 his book, NORMS & NOBILITY: A TREATISE ON EDUCATION, won the Outstanding Book Award for Education from the American Library Association. In 1996, Hicks created a stir in boarding school communities around the United States when he published his essay, “The Strange Fate of the American Boarding School,” in The American Scholar. His and his brother Scot's translation of Marcus Aurelius' Meditations was published by Scribner as THE EMPEROR'S HANDBOOK in 2002.   Since then Scot and Davd have produced a series of annotated translations of Plutarch's Lives for CiRCE: The Lawgivers; The Statesmen; and The Tyrant. Forthcoming books by Hicks: The Stones Cry Out: Reflections on the Myths We Live By (CAP) and with Father Anthony Gilbert, Orthodox Christianity and Classical Education (SVP). Hicks has served on numerous boards throughout the world, most recently including the TASIS Foundation (Switzerland), the Campion School (Greece), St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary (New York), TASIS Dorado School (Puerto Rico), San Roberto International School  (Mexico), and St. Peter's Monastery Foundation (Montana).  Hicks and his wife Mary Elizabeth have four grown children and live on a ranch (West of the Moon) off the grid near Harrison, Montana.  They are members of St. Anthony the Great Orthodox Church In Bozeman.Show NotesDavid shares about his education as a child into his early career and how it lead him towards writing Norms and Nobility. Adrienne and David dive into what it means to create a spirit of inquiry rooted in dialects. David delves into the thesis of Norms and Nobility and expands on the quote on page 18 of his book. David discusses what early Christian education looked like.  David details about all his newer writing projectsDavid V. Hicks ResourcesREISSUE of Norms and Nobility releases August 6, 2024 (look for the blue book with the introduction by Andrew Kern)Orthodox Christianity and Classical Education: An Anthology edited by David V. Hicks (published by St. Vladimir's Press. Release date is not yet available)The Stones Cry Out by David V. Hicks (CAP publishing- Preorder form is available here)The Emporer's Handbook : A New Translation of the Meditations Trans. by David and Scot Hicks (the new paperback version is Marcus Arelius's Meditations also translated by Hicks)The Plutarch books (all 3: The Lawgiver, The Statesman, The Tyrant) can be found on Circe Institute's website here.Resources MentionedThucydides (He did not mention what book, but this is the version that Dr. Matthew Post used for his classes at UD)Crime and Punishment by Fyodor DostoevskyThe Book of Lost Tales by J.R.R. TolkienThe Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane JabobsThe Unsettling of America: Culture & Agriculture by Wendell Berry (audiobook is free on audible)Plutarch's LivesSingapore MathThe PsalterFilm: Seven Brides for Seven BrothersNotes from Underground by Fyodor DostoevskyChristianity and Classical Culture by Charles Norris Cochrane (free pdf here) Past Guests on the Podcast who are Mentioned in this Episode:RightStart MathTeaching Math Like Socrates with Number LabTending The Heart of Virtue: Vigen GuroianDr. Christopher Perrin on What is Classical Education?Bryan Smith: A Sage in the Liberal Arts Tradition______________________________Beautiful Teaching is hosting an online classical education conference (Karen Glass is one of the keynote speakers). https://www.beautifulteaching.com/conference$20 off Discount Code:IDEAS20note: copy/paste exactly without any spaces before or after.It is good through June 20.DETAILED PROGRAM GUIDEConference Recordings: All sessions will be recorded. Live attendance is greatly encouraged, but come and go as needed. The recording will be av...

Over the past few years, you've probably heard the term “walkability” thrown out. For those who have lived in big cities, this is a common factor to use when deciding where to live or work. If you can catch a quick bus or walk to the office, the grocery store, restaurants, or a movie theater, there's a fair chance you'll pay more for where you live. But, most real estate investors aren't thinking about this, and their ignorance could cost them. Jeff Speck, city planner and writer, is on the show to discuss how walkability, smart urban planning, and intentional property design can help you make much more money while improving the lives of your tenants and neighbors. Jeff has seen time and time again how smart urban planning leads to higher home appreciation and rents and a safer, happier community. The problem? Most of us are stuck in car-reliant American suburbs with little walkability and lacking public transportation. After hearing this episode, you'll easily be able to spot the properties that will grow faster in value due to smart city planning. So, before you go out and buy your next property, make sure it aligns with Jeff's four components of walkability because if it does, you could have a valuable property on your hands that most other investors won't even notice! In This Episode We Cover: Walkability explained and why this is such a crucial factor in home and rent prices The four components of walkability and how to ensure your property fits The huge portion of Americans who want walkable properties and communities Mixed-use development and why Americans want more than big yards and big houses Urban design trends to pay attention to that could change the real estate landscape How to get your city leaders to take the steps to building more walkable communities  And So Much More! Links from the Show Find an Agent Find a Lender BiggerPockets Forums BiggerPockets Agent BiggerPockets Bootcamps Join BiggerPockets for FREE On The Market Join the Future of Real Estate Investing with Fundrise Connect with Other Investors in the “On The Market” Forums Subscribe to The “On The Market” YouTube Channel Dave's BiggerPockets Profile Dave's Instagram BiggerPockets' Instagram Connect with Jeff Jeff's Instagram Jeff's LinkedIn Jeff's X/Twitter Jeff's Website Books Mentioned in the Show: Walkable City by Jeff Speck Walkable City Rules by Jeff Speck Suburban Nation by Andrés Duany The Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs Homelessness is a Housing Problem by Clayton Page Aldern and Gregg Colburn The High Cost of Free Parking by Donald Shoup   (00:00) Intro (01:07) Why We Need “Walkability” (07:32) Americans WANT Walkable Spaces (09:49) Bringing Back Walkable Cities (15:19) Profit Potential to Look For (19:33) Will This Increase Affordability? (25:13) Urban Design Trends to Watch (33:01) What Investors Should Do Check out more resources from this show on BiggerPockets.com and https://www.biggerpockets.com/blog/on-the-market-210 Interested in learning more about today's sponsors or becoming a BiggerPockets partner yourself? Email advertise@biggerpockets.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

“Something about the motion of walking is conducive to generating both ideas and conversation. You can empty your mind and open your mind at the same time.” —Kevin Kelly In this episode of Deviate, Rolf reports from a “Walk and Talk” across northern Thailand. Interviewees and conversation topics are listed by time-code below. Participant write-ups about (or alluding to) the 2023 Thailand Walk and Talk include: The Walk and Talk: Everything We Know, by Craig Mod Walk and Talk: Everything We Know (PDF document), by Kevin Kelly Walking the Heck out of Thailand, by Craig Mod Walk and Talk, by Derek Sivers Expanding Home, by Liz Danzico Where Do You Call Home?, by Jason Kottke 2023: Walking, by Dan Wang Why Not Pay Teachers $100,000 a Year?, by Daniel Pink Kevin Kelly (4:00-15:00) Kevin Kelly (@kevin2kelly) is a photographer, writer, and futurist, with much of his work centering on Asian and digital culture. His newest book is Excellent Advice for Living: Wisdom I Wish I'd Known Earlier. Travel can be a way to see the future (Deviate episode) Kevin Kelly on the lost world of 1970s Asia (Deviate episode) Wired (technology magazine) The Cotswolds (region in central Southwest England) Liz Danzico (15:00-27:45) Liz Danzico is VP of Design at Microsoft, and the Founding Chair of the MFA Interaction Design Program at the School of Visual Arts. Long-distance hiking at home (Deviate episode) The Death and Life of Great American Cities, by Jane Jacobs (book) Lets Drift (Kenyan hiking club) Hoka (brand of walking shoes) Silvia Lindtner (27:45-46:00) Silvia Lindtner is a writer, ethnographer, and Associate Professor at the University of Michigan. Her book Prototype Nation: China and the Contested Promise of Innovation was published by Princeton University Press in 2020. Seeking rural places (Deviate episode) Jiangxi (Chinese province) Guangdong (Chinese province) Yunnan (Chinese province) Salzburg (city in Austria) The Vulnerable Observer, by Ruth Behar (book) Anna Greenspan (media professor) Communitas (unstructured community of equals) Daniel Pink (46:00-52:00) Daniel Pink is a best-selling author of books on work, business, and life. His “Why Not?” project in collaboration with the Washington Post to aims to jolt America's imagination about possibilities. When: The Scientific Secrets of Perfect Timing, by Daniel Pink (book) Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us, by Daniel Pink (book) The Power of Regret, by Daniel Pink (book) Craig Mod (52:00-69:00) Craig Mod is an author and photographer who has written and photographed about his walks across Japan, his love of pizza toast, and his life in Japan. Walk Japan (tour company) Rich Roll (ultra-endurance athlete) The Glorious Boredom of My Walk in Japan, by Craig Mod (essay) Kissa by Kissa, by Craig Mod (book) Things Become Other Things, by Craid Mod (book) The Deviate theme music comes from the title track of Cedar Van Tassel's 2017 album Lumber. Note: We don't host a “comments” section, but we're happy to hear your questions and insights via email, at deviate@rolfpotts.com.

Of all the parts of this enjoyable conversation with Seth Zeren, now of Providence, RI, the part I liked the most was this quote:The worst fight is with your allies that betray you.The quote, which is mostly about perception, says a lot about people who are frequently in heated agreement with each other, but find themselves disagreeing on something that's very minor in the big picture. We discuss this as we discuss his post called, “When New Urbanists and YIMBYs fight.”Seth has a great Substack, talking about all the overlap in his interests from city planning to development and more. His path and his passion are impressive. From his early days working in local government, to now the cold, hard reality of making development projects work. And what's next? Perhaps some place management, perhaps some housing policy advocacy, perhaps just more really interesting redevelopment projects.Find more content on The Messy City on Kevin's Substack page.Music notes: all songs by low standards, ca. 2010. Videos here. If you'd like a CD for low standards, message me and you can have one for only $5.Intro: “Why Be Friends”Outro: “Fairweather Friend”Transcript:Kevin (00:01.269)Welcome back to the Messy City podcast. This is Kevin Klinkenberg. I'm excited today to have Seth Zarin here with me on the podcast. Seth and I have met in the past and corresponded a little bit. Seth has a sub stack that I definitely recommend called Build the Next Right Thing. And he's in Providence, Rhode Island, which is actually, I think, one of the sort of most underratedsmaller cities in the country. I've always really liked Providence, enjoyed it. So Seth, welcome to the podcast. I know we're going to have a lot of good things to talk about. We're going talk some housing and some other stuff, but glad to have you on so we can do this.Seth Zeren (00:43.574)Thanks Kevin, it's nice to be here.Kevin (00:46.261)I think, you know, Seth, I want to kind of start by talking about you're another guy who has a really interesting path and background into becoming into the development world, which is what you're doing now, but certainly not at all where you started. And I wonder if you could kind of walk people through your professional background and then even like why you wanted to do a sub stack.in the first place, as some of us silly people do to put thoughts out in the world.Seth Zeren (01:19.862)Yeah, absolutely. I usually introduce myself when I meet people by saying that I'm a former climate scientist, recovering city planner, turned real estate developer. I usually get a laugh on recovering. Much like people who have all sorts of addiction issues, city planning is something that you always kind of in the back of your head, always kind of want to work on, but can be really challenging.Kevin (01:35.381)Ha ha ha.Seth Zeren (01:48.918)I'm actually from California. I grew up in the San Francisco suburbs, south of the city in Silicon Valley, basically. And by the time I graduated high school, it was quite clear that I would never be able to afford to live there. At that point, houses were selling for about a million dollars for a little ranch. Now it's about $3 million. And so by the time I left for college, I sort of knew that the housing situation there had been a little bit of a mess.broken so much that it was really unlikely that I would be able to find a good quality of life there for myself at that time. In college, I ended up studying geology and climate science. So I was a geology major, geosciences major, and I narrowly averted the PhD. I dodged it, fortunately, and I found myself really becoming interested after college. I went and lived in South Korea for a year and I taught English there. AndIt was such a different experience than growing up in an American suburb or in a small town where I went to college. And it really got me thinking a lot. And when I came back to the U S and I went and worked at a boarding school while I was figuring out what I wanted to do with my life. And I started to read about cities and urbanism and architecture. And I realized that, Oh, actually at the time I thought I wanted to go to school and do architecture, but I was really intimidated by portfolio and drawing. And I had, I was a scientist. I mean, I could do data.I understood geology, but, um, so I was really intimidated by that. I ended up going to an environmental management program at Yale where I could kind of moonlight in law and architecture and business. And so that was kind of my entree. And I discovered I really liked zoning at the time. Uh, and I like to say like, I like board games and zoning is basically just the biggest board game imaginable. It's a huge map, bunch of colored spaces and a really long rule book, which was totally my jam. And.Kevin (03:38.485)Yeah. Yeah.Seth Zeren (03:46.038)So I was a zoning, big zoning nerd. I interned with the planning department, but you know, in between the two years of graduate school and then got a job as a zoning official after graduate school for Newton, Massachusetts, which is kind of that wealthy first ring suburb outside of Boston where the doctors and professors go to have children. And, uh, I was there for about three years before I kind of realized this was not the place for me. I wanted to do stuff. I wanted to shake things up and.One of the dynamics you'll encounter when you find a sort of a wealthy sort of trophy suburb, right, is that people buy there because they like what it is. Right. So the political dynamic in a place like Newton, like many wealthy suburbs around many cities in America is people are buying a particular place and they want it to stay that way. That's what they bought. And so there's a real change aversion there, which was just a bad fit for someone in their twenties, whose master's degree and wants to get stuff done. And.I had also at the time had the opportunity to work with a bunch of developers. And this was coming out of the financial crisis. So there wasn't a lot happening right away, but slowly, slowly things started to get back in gear. And after about three or four years there, I decided I was going to jump ship from the, from the planning side and eventually found myself working at a development shop as a development manager, kind of coming in to do the permitting work. Right. So I just basically switched sides. I was going to go do permitting for the developer.moving complex projects through design review and master plan approval and stuff like that. And I did that for my sort of early apprenticeship for about three or four years. And got to the point where, you know, I got married, we thought about buying a house and realized Boston was also too expensive. So we started considering other places and Providence was nearby. We'd visited, we had friends here. And at the time, certainly it was massively more affordable than the Boston Cambridge area.So we moved down here about eight, maybe nine years ago, about. And so I was working as a development manager, you know, for a larger firm. And then when I came down here, I was still working remotely, but I connected with some local developers and eventually joined a local firm, Armory Management Company, which is a 35 year old, almost 40 year old partnership now that has done historic rehab.Seth Zeren (06:09.782)Main Street revitalization ground up in field development and came on board here, you know, also as a development manager and kind of worked my way up. Now I'm a partner and working on kind of the future of the firm and future of development in the Providence area. So that's kind of my, my origin story. It's one path. I haven't met a lot of other people who've come through the planner path into development. I would say that I was one of those people that you probably remember this, Kevin, you know, whatever eight, nine, 10 years ago at CNU.There was this whole conversation about why are you working for shitty developers? You know, to architects, planners, engineers, go be your own. And I took that very much to heart and was trying to find a way to do it. And I've kind of managed to find a way to do it, come through that.Kevin (06:54.709)Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I have met a few other folks who kind of started in the planning route and then ended up in development. But yeah, you're right. There's not too many. I mean, one thing I'm curious about, Seth, so like I'm a Midwestern or so. I don't have that experience of growing up someplace and then realizing like I'm never going to be able to come back. I mean, so a lot of Midwesterners like myself leave at some point.And then often we find our way back home, but it's like, and there may, there's lots of reasons why people do the things, but there's never seems to be this like logistical issue that says, well, I'm just not going to be able to afford to come back where I grew up. What, what's that? And what's that like to at some point have this realization in the place you grew up in, which you probably have some really fond feelings and memories for that you just, you weren't going to be able to make it back or you weren't going to be able to afford to.make it back. That must be a strange feeling.Seth Zeren (07:55.414)It is, and I will say it becomes a lot stranger when you have your own kids, which I have now. I have two young children and we go back to California, you know, once maybe twice a year visit my parents who are still in the house I grew up in. And you know that neighborhood that I grew up in, you know, hasn't built. More than a couple net new homes in the last 50 years, right? Homes get torn down and they get replaced by bigger homes, but.Kevin (08:00.501)Yeah, sure.Seth Zeren (08:24.246)There's no net additional homes. But my parents raised three kids in that house who all have their own households. My parents are still in that house. So sort of mechanically, if you have a neighborhood that doesn't add any homes, you're essentially, but you have, but you have children, those children have to leave, right? Mechanically, right? And if you then multiply that across an entire region, well, then they have to leave the whole region, which is like why people have to leave California. And I, so I have a very,like complicated relationship with it. It's like, obviously, it's my home, it has like a smell and weather and just like the culture that is what I grew up with. It's it's I have nostalgia for that. But I also go whenever I go back there, I'm like, this place makes me crazy. Because it's not like you couldn't build more buildings, you know, you couldn't, it's not like the soil can't support more buildings, right? There's no physical limitation, really. It's the self imposed limitation. And then when you go back, especially,after the last 20 years or so, and you look, you know, here's a region in the world that is the current sort of nexus of tremendous wealth accumulation, right, the Bay Area. And what did we get for it? Right, we got kind of mediocre drive it strip malls, and the, you know, single family houses that go for three and a half million dollars to $5 million. You know, it's similar times in the world, we got, you know,London, Paris, New York, Chicago, Shanghai, Tokyo, like these metropolitan areas were built and there's this tremendous physical capital that's created by economic growth. But in the Bay Area, it's, it's, it's, it's, so it's kind of depressing for me. I feel like it's helpful to go back as a, as like a cautionary tale, you know, it's, it's a, it's a practice, you know, you have to go to the meditation retreat and struggle. And that's a little bit like what it is for me. Um,So you would ask why I write and so I'm a full -time developer. I run, you know, commercial development, residential development, run commercial leasing, a lot of architecture design permitting, you know, I would say, you know, there's a lot of different backgrounds. One can bring into the development world and all of them come with different strengths. Uh, being the planner background gives me a lot of facility with permitting. And so zoning is an area where we're really effective zoning historic.Seth Zeren (10:50.74)neighborhood relationships, all that kind of stuff. And then finding value in buildings that other people don't see because we look around at what other people are doing in other parts of the country and we're able to import those ideas and try things out. Other people have different advantages that they bring. The reason I write is probably like you, I've got like some thoughts in my head that I have to get out. And, you know, development is a great practical.you know, craft practice, you know, and it's, I mentioned, I think earlier apprenticeship, like there are a few schools that teach development, real estate development, kinda, but mostly they teach what we think of institutional development. So if you want to go build a skyscraper, go to MIT or Columbia. Fine.Kevin (11:37.333)Yeah, MIT's got those great courses and everything else that, yeah.Seth Zeren (11:39.51)Yeah, and like, totally fair. Like, that's a reason that's a thing that makes sense in the world, but it's not going to help you, you know, renovate a triple decker or, you know, put up an ad or or renovate a Main Street building. It's just not the skill set. They're not teaching that. So it's an apprenticeship. I mean, it's still really an apprenticeship job. You have to go and you have to go through a lot of stuff and struggle and you see all the pain and suffering and you go through the stress andKevin (11:53.877)Yeah. Yeah.Seth Zeren (12:08.726)You start to learn stuff and it's one of those jobs. There's so much to learn that you, you know, here I am 40 a partner doing a bunch of development work and I'm learning stuff every day, right? And we're all learning stuff every day. So it's it's really satisfying in that way, but. It's not necessarily intellectual job, right? I mean, thinking about stuff is important. Math is important. Those are all relevant things, but it's not the only thing that matters. And so I write because trying to figure out some stuff, right? Trying to figure out.for myself, but then also how to explain things to other people. Um, cause one of things I say to people is that, and I learned this when I became a developer is that like as a developer, I had more in common with the blue collar tradespeople without a college degree in terms of my understanding of the built environment than I did with someone who had my equivalent class background, education, income level, like an attorney or something, right?They live in a house that they bought from someone else, right? They are a consumer of the built environment, but they know very little about how it gets built. They don't get under the hood. But conversely, like I, you know, the plumber and I under, you know, we're in it together. Now we have very different jobs. We might, you know, we're having a different experience of it, but we both are seeing this world. We're both participating in the making of stuff. And so we end up with this very different environment. And then.because of the way we've regulated the built environment, now there's this huge chasm between the people who build the cities and the people who consume the cities that are built for them. Because people don't build much for themselves or for their cousin or for their neighbor.Kevin (13:44.533)Yeah, yeah, that's a, I mean, that's a really interesting point. I like that Seth. And it sort of resonates with me too. And, you know, in my experiences in design and development and you get some of that in architecture too. If you're the kind of an architect who you spend a lot of time doing construction administration or on job sites, you really, I think get a very different feel for that than if you're just kind of working in schematic design all the time. But yeah, that art of.creating things. And this is what I kind of often tell people about development. One of the things that just completely, like routinely frustrates me is this sort of parody of developers that's put out in the world. It's like, you know, as the black hat evil people trying to, you know, ruin cities and, and not this understanding that actually, and not that there aren't those people, there are some, you know, there are crappy people in every field. But most developers are just simply in the act of creating things that other people are going to use.Seth Zeren (14:36.278)Yeah.Seth Zeren (14:44.022)That's true. And I say that all the time as well. And I would add to that, that one of things that's interesting about development, right, coming from planning. So like real estate or city planning, right? Graduate degrees, conferences, magazines, there's even a licensure, right? You get your AICP, go to the conference, get the magazine. It's a profession. Real estate development isn't really a profession.Kevin (14:44.181)Like that's the whole point.Seth Zeren (15:11.254)You get $2 million and buy a CVS, you're a real estate developer. There you go. You put it on your business card, it's your real estate developer. So there's no professional boundaries for good and for ill. I mean, sometimes I think the boundaries around some of these professions are actually really harmful, but you kind of know what you're going to get. You know what the professional culture is and you kind of know how it changes and you know the institutions. Development really doesn't have any of that. Even the Urban Land Institute, ULI, which is a major player still like,compared to like the APA and planning is minuscule. And so like part of the challenges is that, so that's one piece of it. It's not really a profession. The other piece of it is that one of the things that's happened in the 20th century is we blew up our development culture, right? We had an ecosystem of building places, you know, that was the design, the construction, the operations, the leasing, the materials.the trades, there was a sort of ecosystem of it, and we kind of blew it up. We radically transformed it over a short period of decades. And so there's no continuity. So when people do development, there's not a sense of there's any kind of private constraint or private rules. So it feels even less like there's a profession. There's not like a coherent culture, we're going to build more of that, or we're going to evolve incrementally from a coherent culture of building.We're just going to build whatever you end up. That's where you end up with the like two story building with a mansard. That's like with the weird landscaping. It's just this weird Chimera because the developer and to a large extent, the architects have no grounded. There's, there's no like lineage they're working from. There's no continuity. They're just throwing stuff at the wall, you know,Kevin (17:00.341)Yeah, yeah, yeah. And I think one of the other aspects is that in development, so many of the players in the non -institutional world are entrepreneurs. At their heart of hearts, they're entrepreneurs. And it's hard to gather together a whole group of entrepreneurs who are, in some sense, in competition with each other all the time, to feel like a common sense of purpose.Seth Zeren (17:25.174)Yeah, and they're often grinding for their own private gain, which in many parts of the United States is sort of seen as not good, right? Profit is bad to a lot of people. And I think that's unfortunate because while certainly people can do bad things and that's not good, making a profit from doing good things is good. It's a good sign. It means you get to do more of it, right? We say we have to make a profit because that's what we, that's the...Kevin (17:30.101)Yeah.Seth Zeren (17:53.062)seed corn for the next project, right? If we ate all of our seed corn, we would have no next project, right? And if we run out of seed corn, we all starve, right? So you don't get to lose money very many times in real estate before you're out of the game. So it's...Kevin (18:05.685)Yeah, well, and nobody bemoans the local cafe or the barbershop or whomever from making a profit. We all want them to make a profit and succeed, but for some reason, the local developer in a business that's far riskier and more expensive, it's like we completely beat them up about the idea that they actually need to make money to keep going.Seth Zeren (18:22.326)Yeah.Seth Zeren (18:27.606)Yeah. And I think part of it is that there is part of this change in building culture, right? Is that there is where there is more of, or a greater percentage of the built of the new development is sort of seen as done by outsiders for short -term gain. And then they're gone. You know, you'll you've talked to other folks in the incremental development world between the farmer and the hunter, right? And it's we're, we're 90%, 95 % hunters now, you know, instead of 25 % hunters. And that just really changes.Kevin (18:41.397)Yeah. Right.Kevin (18:48.661)Yeah, sure.Seth Zeren (18:56.918)the relationship. So we're a local firm. I work in the neighborhoods in which we live. We work down the block from our projects. If we do a bad job, I have to look at it every day. People know who I am. They're going to yell at me. Like there's a level of responsibility. The profits are most, many of the profits are being reinvested again locally into the next project or into donations to local organizations. So it gets it, you know, not, it's not just as a matter of credibility, but as a matter of like the actual development culture and ecosystem, it's just a better way of life. Um,I think one of the things that's key though about the developer image, right? Is that there was this real period and formative period for, for you and for me, like in the 60s, 70s, 80s of the real estate developer is always the villain, right? And every hallmark movie and every, you know, real estate developers are always the bad guys. And it's a really easy trope, right? It's, it's, it's change for, you know, we're going to change something that's here now that's good for profit, you know, and then they're going to be gone. Um, we don't have any valorous.Kevin (19:37.811)Mm -hmm. Mm -hmm. Sure.Seth Zeren (19:56.442)examples of the real estate developer in popular culture. And I think if I had a magic wand, I would like I would have some great popular sitcom about, you know, a real estate developer, young Latino builder in LA doing interesting stuff and growing over the course of seasons and be hilarious because there's so much tragic comedy and development. So if anyone out there wants to pitch a show to Hollywood, that's that's what I would pitch. Oh, my God, no, that's not me.Kevin (20:19.893)Well, I think you've got your next screenwriting gig. So, give us an example of a project that you're involved with now, something you're working on to get people sent to what you're doing.Seth Zeren (20:31.798)Yeah, so yeah, I'll give two quick examples. So we just finished a rehabilitation of an historic structure, four story masonry building that was converted back to residential, right? It had been turned into actually a nursing home. It was first as a hospital than a nursing home in the 20th century. It was originally built as four brick row houses. And so we brought that back to residential. That just finished last summer, 12 units. And that project was really great. It's really beautiful building.We are a little bit counter -cultural in some times what we do. So we built, in part following the logic of the building, because we were doing a federal historic tax credit project, we didn't want to torture the building. So the units are large. We have, you know, 1500 square foot, two bedroom, two bath apartments, which is on current construction, like weird. It's just, they're really big and they're expensive as a consequence of being big. But what we're finding is there are people who will like nice stuff, and they're willing to pay.more for an apartment. And it's still cheap compared to New York or Boston. It's expensive in Providence, but there are people who will pay that. And right now we're working on the second phase of that project. So that's probably 26 unit building. We're going to try to get some three bedroom apartments in that, which is again, sort of philosophically, we think it's important that there are places where families could live in multifamily housing. It's on a park. It's a beautiful location. And then the project we just started,As we acquired a 50 ,000 square foot mill building in a kind of old industrial area of the city that has, it's one of those things where the previous owner kind of ran out of money and attention. So some things got done, but not other things. So we're finishing that up and that project, we are actually going to complete sort of the previous owner's plan, which was to create modestly priced commercial spaces. So we, in our portfolio, about 50, 50 residential and commercial, which isn't.necessarily by strategy. It's just sort of where we've ended up. Uh, but I think on the margin, we're a little bit more comfortable with commercials than the typical developer or landlord in our area. So because we run so much of it and it's full, I mean, we're 95, 97 % full and commercial across 300 and something thousand square feet. Um, and that's because we price to rent it, you know, and we take a good job caring for it. Uh, we follow the advice of making things smaller if they don't rent.Seth Zeren (22:57.878)Right? So if you make them smaller, then you make the rent smaller, which means more people can rent it. Um, and there's turnover, but you have a reusable unit, just like an apartment, people move right into it, uh, run their business out of that. So it's been good. I mean, you know, who knows things could always change, but we see a lot of value in, you know, one of the things that happened in American cities is disinvestment and white flight took place was not only did the people leave, but I'll sort of all the businesses.So it's like, what is your dentist? Where's your doctor's office? Where's your accountant? Where's your graphic designer? Or, you know, where's your retail shops, you know, your salons, your banks, your restaurants, your bars and restaurants and bars usually come first, but that's only a piece of the ecosystem. You know, it's a whole, you know, you need gyms and retail stores and yoga studios. And I know that sounds kind of trite, but it's sort of a, a, a curating kind of orientation. So this building, part of the strategy is to create a building that is safe.and modestly priced and not pristine so that it's a building in which people can do work. So it's artists, fabricators who have real businesses but need a space to operate their real business. It's not just a crazy building, spray painting the walls, but a reasonable building, not too expensive, not too fancy, but safe. Sprinklers and a roof that doesn't leak. So that's kind of our current project.Kevin (24:16.149)Yeah. Yeah. That's a great model. It reminds me a little bit of one of Monty Anderson's projects in South Dallas, sort of a similar deal, large former industrial building and essentially a minimal, very minimal tenant finish, but incredibly flexible. And if it's priced right, it, you know, in his case, at least up, you know, very quickly. That's a cool model. So I didn't really have any, a whole lot of personal experience withProvidence probably until the CNU was hosted there in what was that? Mid 2000s or so. Which was the best Congress up to that point and the best one until we hosted one in Savannah, of course. And anyway, I was really impressed by Providence. I thought it was...just an incredibly interesting city, very walkable, really cool architecture everywhere, nice downtown. Just seemed like it had a ton of assets, especially in that region. And like you said, priced very differently than Boston or New York. And so I'm curious about the last decade or so, what's going on in Providence. How's the market there? How are things changing? And as a...more of like a third tier city, what do you see that's different compared to some of the larger markets?Seth Zeren (25:47.094)Well, I think that the big story of the last 10 years is that we're no longer kind of isolated on our own. And I don't know if that's mostly a combination of remote work or if it also has something to do with just how expensive Boston and New York have become and other cities. And Providence has seen some of the highest year over year property appreciation in the country. So you're right. It's a nice place to live, you know, and then if you're paying, you know,$3 ,500 a month for, you know, kind of crappy two bedroom apartment in Somerville, you move to Providence and you can get a really nice apartment for $3 ,500 or you can save a bunch of money. And so that it's not so similar for me, right? We moved down here because it was cheaper. And so that adds demand. It adds demand in the upper end of the market. So a big part of what's happening in Providence, Rhode Island is, is that there's a relatively small number.but of people with a fair amount of resources, income and capital moving here. And the state chronically, because it's sort of been tucked away for a long time, it has very little home construction, right? We are the last, second to last, third to last in per capita home construction every year for the last few decades. And so the intersection of those two things is causing a really crazy housing spike and a lot of angst.And for myself, this is one of the places where like my own experience growing up in the Bay Area and then having my own kids has really hit home because, you know, I know in 20 years, I'm still going to need a house to live in. And my two kids are probably each going to want their own house to live in or apartment. Right. So I either got to build them one. They're going to buy yours or they got to leave. It's math. Right. And so it's put the question of housing shortage kind of on the sharp end of the stick for me personally.Right? Is, you know, am I going to be able to see my grandchildren more than once or twice a year kind of thing? You know, and that's a big deal. Right. And I know people don't quite appreciate it yet. I feel a little bit like a harbinger of doom sometimes because in Rhode Island, the feeling is like this could never happen here. Right. Because we're kind of this backwater sort of economically hasn't done well since deindustrialization. You know, there's some bright spots, but it's a little tough and nice quality of life, but not too expensive. And that whole script.Seth Zeren (28:13.142)of worked for a generation or two, but it's not relevant anymore unfortunately. And then that psychic cultural transformation is going to be really hard.Kevin (28:23.541)So coming from the background that you came from, how do you compare the development or the regulatory apparatus in Rhode Island and in Providence compared to places you've worked or pros and cons and what's going on there?Seth Zeren (28:36.086)Oh boy.Seth Zeren (28:41.494)Yeah, when I go to CNU and I'd say I'm from New England, they're like, how do you work there? Because it's hard. Yeah, we're more heavily regulated region. I think that in some ways that's beneficial to someone like me, right? If you're good at navigating the rules, then it's actually to your advantage to work in a regulated market because there's, you I'm not competing on how cheaply I can put up drywall. I'm competing on who can come up with the most creative use of land and get through the regs.Kevin (28:45.685)Ha ha ha ha.Seth Zeren (29:13.686)It's, you know, Providence itself has a mod, what I would call like a modern zoning ordinance. It's got a lot of, you know, there's things I would quibble with, there's things I would change, but it's basically a functioning ordinance that like does the right things more or less, right? And which is great. We mostly work in Providence. I'd say the rest of the state, like most of the rest of New England, it's still like 1955 and there's no...resources, no political impetus to like really fix that yet. I've, I've helped one of my responses is I helped found last year a group called Neighbors Welcome Rhode Island, which is a sort of strong towns meets UMB type or organization that we're still kind of launching a website now. We're working on legislation, state level legislation, and also trying to support local organizing in these towns.Seth Zeren (30:14.998)So it's a, it's, it's, you know, very similar to the markets I'm used to. It's a new England place. Everyone's in everyone else's business. The place has been inhabited buildings on it for, for, you know, hundreds of years. I think one thing that's always interesting about, about new England though, you know, compared to the national conversation is the missing middle is not missing here. Like our cities are made out of triple deckers, twos, threes, fours, sixes all over the place.Kevin (30:37.653)Mm -hmm.Seth Zeren (30:43.062)Our problem is we don't know what comes next. So a city like Providence right now, the only plan is, and this is true, Boston and these places, you can, sure, you can build on the vacant lots and there's a bunch of vacant lots and you can build those for a while. There's gonna be some bad commercial buildings. You can build on those for a while. There's some old industrial land. You're gonna build on that for a while. But in a different way, but similar to the regions where everything's zoned single family and it's built out single family, you can't add anything.to the bulk of the neighborhoods, which are zoned for two and three family homes, because there's already two and three family homes there. And what we don't have, and I don't think anyone has an answer to this, is how do you create a building typology and a business model and a regulatory framework, building code, zoning code, et cetera, to add density to those neighborhoods, to take a three -family neighborhood and bring it to the next increment.whatever that is, because I don't, I don't think we have a model for that other than to go to a full like five over one big apartment building, but the land assemblage there is really prohibitive. So what's the next thing that's denser than three families on 5 ,000 square foot lots, but isn't a big commercial building. And I don't think we have an answer for that yet. I mean, as a urbanist architecture development community, and we certainly don't have a regulatory framework that will allow us to build it either. So that's like an R and D project. That's sort of a back burner curiosity of mine.Kevin (32:08.981)Does the regulatory framework allow you to build the triple -deckers in place?Seth Zeren (32:14.198)Uh, under zoning. Yeah, kind of under building code. No, right. Cause triple deckers are commercial code. So you need sprinklers. So you can't build them. The cost difference. You'd just build a big two family instead of building a three family. It's a much better strategy. So one of the things that neighbors welcome is proposing this legislative cycle to follow on North Carolina's example and Memphis's examples to move three, four, five, six family dwellings into the residential code. And, you know, with no sprinklers, a single stair. Um,And, you know, we'll keep the two hour rating, just add more drywall. Okay, fine. But, you know, that's one of the things we're proposing along with a single stair reform for the small apartment buildings. But yeah, I mean, it's a chicken and the egg, right? There's no point coming up with the prototype and you can't build it. But then no one wants to reform the building code because there's no prototype that makes sense that people are excited about. So it's really kind of trapped. And so, you know, that's an interesting challenge that we struggle with.Kevin (33:14.069)Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it's an interesting thing to think about what that next increment to would be beyond the freestanding, you know, triple deckers and stuff like that. Because, you know, I guess the first thing that comes to mind as you start to think about neighborhoods more like you would see in New York or Boston, certain parts of those cities that went to like five and six story walk up buildings that, yeah, yeah. And they're not.Seth Zeren (33:39.476)Buildings that touch. That's the big thing.Kevin (33:43.931)really townhouses wouldn't call them townhouses, but they might be like a five story walk up. Like you'd see, you know, on the upper East or upper East side or upper West side or something like that.Seth Zeren (33:49.598)Yeah.Seth Zeren (33:52.982)Yeah, there's two tiers, I think. There is a version that's more about lot subdivision, right? So we have decently sized lots and three families are big, but you might be able to get some more houses on them or bigger versions. And then I certainly moving to the part where you have party wall construction and the buildings that touch, you recover a bunch of lost area to thin side yards that no one can use. That tier is really interesting because you could probably keep them as owner occupant.Right? They'd be small, you know, two, three, four families, but on smaller piece of land, you know, buildings that touch whatever the next year above that, you know, which is like a single stair elevator, five, six stories, you know, 20 apartments. That's a commercial loan. It's a commercial operator. And, you one of the virtues of the triple decker, right, is that you have a distributed ownership, right? So that it's not just.You know, we have tons of landlords in the state, you know, because everyone I own, the triple decker I live in, right? Everybody owns, you know, a two family, a three family mom, grandma's two family, right? It's just it, there's so many opportunities for people to be small landlords for good and for ill, mostly I think for good, but there are, there are some limitations to it. Um, you know, so when I look around at international examples, right. You know, so for example, I teach real estate development on the side, cause I really care about bringing more people into this profession and not profession trade.craft, whatever. And I had some European students last fall, and I brought them to Providence on a field trip, took them around my neighborhood, which is, you know, to native Rhode Islanders like the hood. It's like the inner city. Ooh, scary. And they're like, this is a very nice suburb, right? Because to them, a bunch of detached two and three family dwellings with a few vacant lots in between them or parking lots, this is suburban density. And they're wrong. And they're not wrong. They're right.Kevin (35:19.893)Yeah.Seth Zeren (35:47.786)you know, historically like that, that was a transition. You'd go from town, right? Which is mostly detached, small multifamily buildings to herb to the city. The building starts to touch because the frontage is really valuable and you wouldn't just leave it for like, you know, five foot grass strips and whatever. Um, and so, you know, it still ends up being quite car focused because, you know, everything is sort of far apart and you know, you got to fill in the empty gaps.Kevin (36:13.781)Yeah. Yeah. I mean, a lot of that reminds me a little bit of what Jane Jacobs used to talk about in Death and Life of Great American Cities as sort of like the gray zones. Yeah, the in -between density.Seth Zeren (36:23.094)Yeah, the gray density. Yeah. And what I would say is what happened to my neighborhood to a certain extent, and I think this is true of a lot of American, you know, urban neighborhoods, you know, sort of pre -auto suburbanization is that what happened, there was so much, there was a lot of removal, even where there wasn't wholesale urban renewal, you know, mercantile buildings were taken down and replaced with a gas station, right, or a parking lot. And the church is, you know, brought down, you know, there's little holes in the fabric.And when I look at the neighborhood as like someone who thinks about cities and can see, can, you know, learns to look in that way, it's kind of looks like someone who's slightly sick, right? Their skin's a little pale, a little drawn, you know, there's a little yellow in their eyes. That's what it kind of feels like. And so it's about kind of filling it back up again. I think we've kind of, in a lot of cases, we kind of dipped down into the gray zone and we're trying to get back into it because once we get kind of out of that gray zone, adding density is good.Right, it brings more services, more people, which can support more businesses. And there's this positive feedback that strengthens the neighborhood and makes it better. But in the gray zone, it's like, well, is more people gonna make it worse? Like, what are we? It's a nice callback, because most people don't make it past parks in death and life. It's just too bad. I tell them all the good bits are at the end.Kevin (37:37.781)There's many good bits. But yeah, I think there's an interesting aspect of American cities in particular there where you have, and I think about this a lot, we wrestle with this so much in my part of town in Kansas City where there is a sort of urban density that actually works pretty well where everybody pretty much drives still, right? If you know what I mean, like it.Seth Zeren (38:05.526)Yep. Yep. Bye, Norris.Kevin (38:06.869)The parking is easy and it's just not that, it's not really urban, but it's not really suburban. And I think there was a generation of people who re -occupied a lot of urban places like that in the 70s and 80s in particular, who love it for that. They love the fact that they're like in the city, but it's like parking was easy. Now the problem is, yeah.Seth Zeren (38:17.91)Yeah.Seth Zeren (38:32.182)Yep, we have that here too, absolutely.Kevin (38:34.997)The problem is like historically that was a complete non -starter. Those neighborhoods had far more people, were far more urban. And by today's standards, it would have been incredibly difficult to have a car and drive it around everywhere and park it.Seth Zeren (38:49.258)Well, people forget that like you could have the same number of housing units and have fewer people because house hold size is so much smaller today. So the street is relatively empty, right? Compared to when grandma was living here, you know, 80 years ago, um, as far fewer people around.Kevin (38:53.365)Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.Kevin (39:03.381)Yeah. And now with the prevalence of like one car per adult everywhere, the challenge of trying to upgrade those neighborhoods to become more like their historical predecessors, it does create a lot of conflict because then all of a sudden we are wrestling with the, it's really the car issue in many respects. Yeah.Seth Zeren (39:15.798)Yeah.Seth Zeren (39:22.774)Yeah, you're moving from one equilibrium to another equilibrium. And that's always really painful because it's going to reduce quality along the trip, even if you end up in a better place on the other side. You know, one of the things I find really helpful or really valuable, and I admired your work about this, is the business improvement district. And I don't know, whatever we call that microform of government. And we're involved in helping create one on a main street near us that has suffered from a tremendous amount of urban renewal and...Kevin (39:32.501)Yeah. Yeah.Kevin (39:46.003)Mm -hmm.Seth Zeren (39:53.3)institutional concentration and we're trying to figure out how to improve that. And one of things that I've learned from doing that is that the city, even with a pretty strong planning department, Providence has a good planning department, lots of good people, plenty of staff. It's not low capacity, but they got a big city to run, right? And they can't know it super deeply everywhere all the time, right? And here, and I'm involved because we own a bunch of property nearby and I've been working in the area for years. And so I get to know all the other owners and I get to know thethe nonprofits and the businesses and residents and you know, but I'm working on like eight square blocks, if that right. And I know that really well. I can talk about this block versus this block and this crosswalk and that curb and this parking lot and that, that tenant and you know, at that micro level. And it just seems to me that that's gotta be the future of a lot of this governance stuff. Cause to get out of that bad equilibrium is going to require a bunch of really careful.tactical hands -on changes to infrastructure, to private development, public, you know, all those pieces. And when I look at the whole city, I'm like, there's not enough coordination, right? There's not enough attention. There's too many things going on, too many fires to fight. It's at that micro level that I could kind of organize enough people, run the small planning exercise, coordinate the private development, coordinate the public investment and keep on top of everybody. But it's only, you know, eight square blocks, right? In a big city.So how does that work?Kevin (41:21.525)Yeah. Yeah. Well, it's something we've wrestled with a lot and we obviously do a bunch of it here, but I'm a big believer in, you know, place management at that scale. And I think one of the issues that we've seen over and over again is, you know, my city is even much bigger. It's like 320 square miles geographically. It's insanely large. Half a million people in the city limits. So like relatively low density for that large of a city, but...the ability of staff to actually manage all that and know what's going on. It's impossible. It's literally impossible. Yeah.Seth Zeren (41:57.142)Well, I've been city staff and I remember how insane it was. I mean, you don't get out of the building because you're too busy answering emails. You know, this is like you fight with the engineers or whoever about an intersection is like, have you ever stood in the intersection for an hour? Because I have, right? Because I'm there all the time. But you can't run the city, you know, not getting out into the field and seeing the mucky bits, right? And that's like.Kevin (42:17.045)Yeah, there's just a there's a huge mismatch in how we manage cities and their ability to change and solve just solve problems, solve basic problems.Seth Zeren (42:25.43)Well, so one of my questions is, is that in part because like the way we teach kind of all the pieces of city building and management is kind of like, and it feels like they're individually busted and then the system is busted. So like public administration, civil engineering, architecture, planning, you know, development, all, you know, whatever that there's a whole package of different professional schools that you could go to that would teach you these different skills, but none of them talk to each other.And so when they're graduates, I remember being a planner and then talking to the civil engineer Newton being like, we're from different planets, man. Like the words I'm saying, you don't understand the words you're saying, I don't understand, like, and no one's in charge. So we're just kind of like, because every department, one of the things that happens in cities, right, is every department is co equal under the under a mayor or city manager or something. So like planning department can't tell DPW what to do. They're the same level, you know, and so we're just kind of butt heads.Kevin (43:01.493)HeheheheheSeth Zeren (43:23.67)But planning is in a particularly bad situation because they don't have any shovels or trucks or much free cash or anything else. They don't get to do much. Their only power is persuasion.Kevin (43:33.525)And it's the first jobs that are cut whenever there's a recession too. But yeah, I mean, the whole industry is very siloed. And this has kind of been the classic battle of the new urbanism from the beginning was really the push from our side was to create generalists, that people who could pull everything together. And our charrette process was designed to bring all those people together and problem solve at the same time.Seth Zeren (43:36.83)Yeah.Kevin (44:03.317)And that actually worked really well, and it does work really well when you're able to facilitate that. The challenge you have in a lot of city governments that I've seen is that they're just like you said, they're all vertically, you know, all differentiated vertically and it's all siloed. And there's not a ton of incentive for the different departments to understand each other and work together unless you have a particularly strong executive who forces that to happen.Seth Zeren (44:28.662)Yeah, that's really the game. It's like, does your executive get it and care and willing to spend the time on it? You've said something really interesting in the past on other versions of this podcast, which is that, I don't know if I'll get it exactly right, but we spend like 50 % of the time on design, 40 % on policy and 10 % on implementation. And we should be like a third, a third, a third. Here's the thing. I feel like the charrette process is really great, but then the charrette leaves. New urbanists don't have, as far as I can tell, much of an answer of how you actually run the city.There's no proposal on how to reorganize the departments of the city government. There's no proposal on charter reform for cities or, you know, there's a whole universe of, you what should the education for a city manager be? Right. We have, we have an idea about what planning should do differently, you know, and so there's bits and pieces, strong towns, urban three, talk a little bit about the finance side. We're just starting to think about it. When you open that door, you realize, oh my gosh, where are the new urbanist police chiefs? Where are the new urbanist fire chiefs? Right.the controllers, the tax assessors, there's this huge apparatus of public entities that are out there. And I guess part of the reason why the place management is so cool is that you get to actually just be a little micro government. And instead of having to silo off every little bit of things, you're a taxing entity, you can also go hire people to put out flowers, you can also write regulations, you're a whole thing. And so likewise, I feel like the CNU universe has not yet...Kevin (45:47.541)Yeah. Yeah.Seth Zeren (45:55.19)really contended with like the mucky bits of administering, managing the city.Kevin (46:00.245)Yeah, I think that's totally, I think it's totally fair. And, you know, I got a lot of that thinking from Liz Plater -Zyberg who, and so the way she broke it down was design, policy and management. That's the three legs of the stool. Most of the people who came to the new urbanism originally and were most passionate were designers. So they had a very heavy emphasis on design. There were also a lot of policy wonks. So you got that policy piece, but yeah, very few people from.the world of understanding how to actually manage cities. And we've had a lot of interaction and bring people to the table and conferences and all, but I still think very little understanding in that world of how things work.Seth Zeren (46:42.166)Well, and you go, I think, to the International Downtown Association, right? The IDA. How is it that the IDA and CNU are still, like, not connected at all? As far as I could tell, right? From the outside, it just, like, the stuff we're doing is so, so connected, right? And so this, I guess, is a plea to the CNU folks and a plea to the IDA folks, like, let's get together, guys. Because, like, CNU can bring a whole bunch of the design and policy ideas. But you're right, we need managers. And manager, Strong Town sometimes talks about howKevin (46:45.173)Mm -hmm. Yeah.Kevin (46:55.925)This is a good question.Seth Zeren (47:11.132)maintenance is not sexy, right? It's easier to get people to design a new road than just fix the damn road you got. But that's the problem, right? If nobody's interested and we have no way of making management or administration better, like you'll just keep doing new projects and then as soon as you leave, they'll just fall apart, right? Because no one's going to run them when you go.Kevin (47:32.981)Yeah, no doubt. And so hopefully we can make that happen. I would have talked with a few people about this that we need to find a way to link up. I mean, there's always been a linkage there, but it's just not nearly as tight and as strong as I think it could be. I'm amazed when I go to the IDA conference just how few new urbanist consultants even bother to attend, which is shocking to me. It's enormous. But yes, I think there's an in...Seth Zeren (47:53.558)Yeah, it seems like a huge missed opportunity on both sides.Kevin (48:02.965)One of the, I think, ill effects of the last 30 or 40 years of there's been a lot of education that's pushed really smart, ambitious young people into the policy world instead of emphasizing that how important really good management is. First of all, I would say design also. I mean, and problem solving with projects generally is incredibly important.My bias is doing projects is more important than policy, but I know there's a role for both. But management, God, if you don't have good ongoing management of a place, just like any business, if a business doesn't have good ongoing management, forget it, you're toast. And a city, if it doesn't have it, is gonna suffer tremendously. So, you one, go ahead, go ahead.Seth Zeren (48:54.038)Well, I was gonna say, I feel like in my head, I've been thinking about this for a long time. And when I went to school, I went into an environmental management program, quote unquote management, right? It was supposed to train professional people to manage environmental organizations, work in government, work at the forest service, work for nonprofits, working for profits, doing environmental stuff. Were there any classes on management stuff, right? Managing people, managing budgets.Communications, no, it was all science, which is great, fine, like I need to know some stuff about ecology or water management or whatever, but like, how are we a professional school? You know, we have to go out in the world and run organizations which have budgets and staff and HR and communications and negotiation. You know, you can go to the business school and learn some of that and a lot of people did, but you gotta ask yourself like, well, what are we doing here?Kevin (49:44.405)Yeah. Well, man, I had six years of architecture school and there wasn't one business course that was required the whole time.Seth Zeren (49:49.718)Yeah, I mean, I see that. And the planning people, you know, maybe it's gotten better. But when I was going through it, I took a negotiations class at the business school, which was the most useful class for being a planner. It was negotiations. Most planners, we don't need people with physical planning backgrounds. I mean, you need someone who can do some physical planning. Mostly you need some social workers because local government is like a family therapy. They have fights going back 20 years with their neighbor about whatever and who's yelling at who. And it's like, we need just some people to get people to talk to each other.It's not about technical analysis. No one ever voted for my zoning amendment because I had a great analysis. No, it's relationships. So, you know, I look at this as like, and I know there's been efforts around this at CNU, but I think we need to really get serious about building new educational institutions. I don't know that we can do it inside. I mean, we've tried it, you know, at Miami, we've tried it at Notre Dame, and there's been some successes, but it's just not enough, right? 30 years later, you know, there's just...it hasn't really changed anything in terms of what we're training. So we have another whole generation raised up in the old way of doing business and we're surprised when we get the same results.Kevin (50:55.829)Well, one of the things that even mystifies me, somebody who's gone to a lot of architecture schools to do student crits and everything else is like there's this, there's a whole group that have come through in the last, I would say 15 years that don't even know anything now about the early new urbanism because that was like so long ago and it's just not taught. So it's wild to me. It's like that has gone down the memory hole.Seth Zeren (51:14.038)Yeah.Seth Zeren (51:19.35)Yeah.Kevin (51:21.077)So I talk about that a lot with people that I know just to try to keep some of those things going and make sure people have a memory of what actually happened in a lot of those years.Seth Zeren (51:29.91)What I think is so striking is I don't think it's actually that much money that would be needed to build some of these institutions. So if anyone out there is listening and wants to write checks, fantastic. But you could get a lot done for not a lot of money building these new institutions. I really do think that. And the scale of impact on society could be really huge. Yeah.Kevin (51:51.893)Yeah. Seth, I want to switch gears and do one more topic before we run out of time. I want to hit on this piece that you wrote about Yenbys and New Urbanists in Strong Towns and sort of the differences or perceived differences, you know, amongst the groups. I wonder if you could sort of set the table and talk a little bit about what, where you were going with that one. It's a long piece for anybody who wants to read it, but it's, it's really good.Seth Zeren (51:55.862)Oh, sure.Seth Zeren (52:02.538)Yeah.Seth Zeren (52:14.326)Yeah, it's on my my sub stack build the next right thing which is I have small children So we watch a lot of Disney movies. That's do the next right thing, which is a song from frozen 2 But related to incrementalism, right? You don't have to know the final answer You just when you and you're confused you just do the next right thing, you know, you're gonna work your way through it solve the problem incrementally Pragmatically, it's very American way to work. It's good. That's build the next right thing andKevin (52:27.533)Know it well.Seth Zeren (52:45.27)It's a part because like getting to utopia is not like you're not going to take one jump to utopia. We got to like work in the world we're in. So this piece came out actually, ironically, I started writing this in the emergency room with my child in the middle of the night. Because when you have little children, sometimes they eat like stuff and you end up in the emergency room in the middle of the night. So I'm like, I'm like starting to jot down some notes and the notes were really stimulated by another guy, Steve Mouzon, who's been on your show, I think, who, you know, is active on Twitter and occasionally.regularly gets in fights with sort of the very online Yimby crowd. And then there was an exchange, you know, about a piece that Steve wrote and some other people responded. And, you know, a lot of people that I'm considered I like or I appreciate their work. I mean, I appreciate Steve's work. I assign his book on on on the original green. I appreciate Nolan Gray's work. I assign his his stuff. So but I was really struck by this continuing like fight.In this case, between the CNU and the Yenbis. And in my analysis, I mean, you can go read the piece, but I'll give you the really short version. It's basically that, and since I'm from California, I'm very sympathetic to the Yenbi argument, right? I feel it in my bones, right? I can never return to the soil I was raised on because of the failure that has gone before us. So in the Yenbi world, it's all about supply. We got to build a bunch of homes, right? And that's the overriding value and virtue and goal.right? You see it celebrate. We're going to build so many more homes. And the new urbanist orientation, which is really importantly different for a few reasons. First of all, it was started in the eighties and nineties when there wasn't a housing crisis. So the DNA is not built around a housing crisis was built around building crappy places, right? Go read, you know, uh, suburban nation, right? It's about building bad stuff. Read consular, you know, that's, that's the DNA. It's also mostly working in the South, you know, in the Midwest to a certain extent whereThere hasn't been a supply crunch, you know, because they're building stuff, right? It's building sprawl. We can build better sprawl, worse sprawl, but it's still just getting built. And so, you know, a lot of that is about quality. How do we build good places? And so what's so frustrating about, I think, to both sides about the EMBC and U debate is that often we agree. Often building density and building quality are the same. So we're on the same team, but sometimes they're not. And the worst...Seth Zeren (55:12.502)fight is with your ally who betrays you, right? Your enemies, yeah, f**k that guy, he's terrible, right? You know, that's easy, but my friend, I thought you were with me, but now we're not, ah. And so that's what keeps happening, right? The CNU folks are like, you know, that might be a little bit too much density, aren't you worried about the blank walls? Aren't you worried about X, Y, and Z? And then, and the, and the, the Yenbis are like, are you kidding, man? Like we're all homeless, like, unless we build this building, we don't have time for your cute little nonsense. You know, your ADU is just too slow, whatever.Kevin (55:15.477)YouSeth Zeren (55:41.878)And so that's, that's on sort of goals and the people are different, right? The CNU architects first developers planners, the Yimby movement really comes out of activists, uh, political advocates, regular people, software engineers who are not professional built environment people, uh, lawyers, right? It's a policy oriented movement, economists, right? That's the core. That's their intellectual DNA is.know, economists at George Mason, whereas the CNU, it's, it's an, a few architects at Miami. That's really different DNA, right? And I think the CNU has, for whatever reason, not really, it's done some behind the scenes politics, you know, policy change, right? There's been really important behind the scenes policy change, very not visible to normal people. It's never been interested in mass mobilization, you know, votes.persuading elected officials, it's not their jam. The Yenby movement is a political advocacy movement, right? So they're trying to like win votes and get lost. So the Yenby folks have gotten more bills passed that does a bunch of CNU ideas, right? The missing middle, ADUs, all the stuff that CNU came up with like 20, 30 years ago is being mandated by bills passed by Yenby. So they're like, CNU guys, we're doing the thing. Why are you yelling at us? Right? But the Yenbys don't always appreciate that the CNU has,rebuilt so much of the DNA of 20th century planning. So like, complete streets was like a CNU invention. People don't realize that anymore because it's now so mainstream. And so there's this sort of tension where people don't see the benefits the others have provided because they're kind of operating in different styles. So that's, I think, the sort of core tension. And then I added the strong towns because strong towns sometimes finds itself fighting with both of them.And often aligned, right? Often we're all the same team, right? I consider myself a Yimby. I run a Yimby organization. I also am a Strong Towns founding member and I've been at CNU a lot. But they're subtly different, right? The Strong Towns thing that puts them at odds with some of these groups is that Strong Towns core idea is that we need to reengage bottom -up feedback, right? That the system is too top -down, too...Seth Zeren (58:06.454)tightly wound, too fixed, too set. So we build these places that are built to a finished state. We can't ever change them. We have tables that are not responsive to content. So we're just locked up. We can't get anything done. And the Strong Town's idea is, well, we need the systems to be responsive, right? If housing prices go up, we should build. If they don't go up, we shouldn't build. We need to make the streets context sensitive. And so on the one hand, we're all for getting rid of parking requirements and upzoning stuff. So the inbys are like, great.But then sometimes we're like, well, that might be too much of zoning. Here's some reasons why. And the Yenbis are like, wait, I thought you were pro density. I thought you were pro development. We're like, yes, but right. Uh, the strong towns, people would worry that the Yenbis in 1950 would have been the suburban sprawl advocates, right? They would have said, we need the houses now. Damn the consequences. We're not going to worry about fiscal insolvency in 50 years. We're just going to build the houses now. You know, that's, so that's the strong towns. Sort tension with the Yenby movement is the top down, the sort of.And this is a result of your movement being led by political advocates and attorneys and economists, right? There's the concern about that kind of top -down policy orientation, these sort of single metrics, let's get it done. And then I think sometimes there's also debate with the CNU around things trying to be too precious. Ther

with @stevenbjohnson @cdixon @rhhackettWelcome to the web3 with a16z crypto podcast. Today's episode features a conversation between Steven Johnson, a prolific author of books about technology and innovation who is also, as editorial director at Google Labs, helping to develop AI writing tools such as NotebookLM, and Chris Dixon, founding partner of a16z crypto and author of the new book Read Write Own: Building the Next Era of the Internet. The two discuss the history of their shared interests, they explore the emergent properties of decentralized networks, and they dig into the past, present, and future of the internet.Resources for references in this episode:Author page for Steven JohnsonGoogle Labs's personalized AI writing tool NotebookLM"Beyond the Bitcoin Bubble" by Steven Johnson (New York Times Magazine, January 2018)How We Got To Now: Six Innovations That Made the Modern World by Steven Johnson (Riverhead Books: 2015)Enemy of All Mankind: A True Story of Piracy, Power, And History's First Global Manhunt by Steven Johnson (Riverhead Books: 2021)Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities, and Software by Steven Johnson (Sribner: 2002)Chris Dixon's blog at cdixon.orgThe Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs (Random House: 1961)The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York by Robert Caro (Vintage: 1975)The Cluetrain Manifesto: The End of Business as Usual (Basic Books: 2000)"A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace" by John Perry Barlow"1000 True Fans" by Kevin KellyIndex, a History of the: A Bookish Adventure from Medieval Manuscripts to the Digital Age by Dennis Duncan (W.W. Norton: 2022)ReadWriteWeb blog (ca. 2003)"Airbnb Proposes Giving Hosts a Stake in the Company" by Aisha Al-Muslim and Maureen Farrell (Wall Street Journal, September 2018)"Lyft Unlikely to Get SEC Pushback on Plan for Two Share Classes" by Nabila Ahmed and Ben Bain (Bloomberg, March 2019)"OpenAI Says New York Times Lawsuit Against It Is Without Merit" by Cade Metz (New York Times, January 2024)

The year began with a trip to Arizona. Along the way I started a series I decided to call “Great American Cities” After my home base of Miami, Florida, we explored Atlanta, … Read more "Living the RV Dream Episode 306: Year in Review"

Alright people, we made it. Six months, a few breaks, some uncontrollable laughter, some philosophy, many unhinged takes, a little bit of diarrhea and we're here, the last Ask Us Anything. After this we're never answering another God D*** question. Ever. We discuss Do you wish you could change your own interests? Methods of information ingestion Taking books off their pedestal bit Intellectual influences Veganism (why Ben is, why Vaden isn't) Anti-rational memes Fricken Andrew Huberman again Stoicism Are e-fuels the best of the best or the worst of the worst? Questions (Andrew) Any suggested methods of reading Popper (or others) and getting the most out of it? I'm not from a philosophy background, and although I get a lot out of the books, I think there's probably ways of reading them (notes etc?) where I could invest the same time and get more return. (Andrew) Any other books you'd say added to your personal philosophical development as DD, KP have? Who and why? (Alex) Are you aware of general types of insidious anti-rational memes which are hard to recognise as such? Any ideas on how we can go about recognising them in our own thinking? (I do realise that perhaps no general method exists, but still, if you have any thoughts on this...) (Lorcan) What do you think about efuels? Listen to this take (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egTCIyNBpQw&ab_channel=FullyChargedShow) by Fully Charged. References Lying (https://www.samharris.org/books/lying) and Free Will (https://www.samharris.org/books/free-will) by Sam Harris Doing Good Better (https://www.amazon.ca/Doing-Good-Better-Effective-Altruism/dp/1592409660) by MacAskill Animal Liberation (https://www.amazon.ca/Animal-Liberation-Definitive-Classic-Movement/dp/0061711306) by Peter Singer Mortal Questions (https://www.amazon.ca/Mortal-Questions-Thomas-Nagel/dp/1107604710#:~:text=Thomas%20Nagel's%20Mortal%20Questions%20explore,%2C%20consciousness%2C%20freedom%20and%20value.) by Thomas Nagel Death and Life of Great American Cities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_and_Life_of_Great_American_Cities) by Jane Jacobs Peace is Every Step (https://www.amazon.ca/Peace-Every-Step-Mindfulness-Everyday/dp/0553351397) and True Love (https://www.amazon.ca/True-Love-Practice-Awakening-Heart/dp/1590304047) by Thich Nhat Hanh Seeing like a State (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeing_Like_a_State#:~:text=Seeing%20Like%20a%20State%3A%20How,accordance%20with%20purported%20scientific%20laws.) by James Scott The Truth Behind Cage-Free and Free-Range | STUFF YOU SHOULD KNOW (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foHv_MCBveA&ab_channel=StuffYouShouldKnow) People Producers of rational memes: - Everything: Christopher Hitchens, Vladimir Nabokov, Sam Harris, George Orwell, Scott Alexander, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Steven Pinker - Sex and Relationships: Dan Savage - Environment/Progress: Vaclav Smil, Matt Ridley, Steven Pinker, Hans Rosling, Bjorn Lomborg, Michael Shellenburger, Alex Epstein - Race: Glenn Loury, John Mcwhorter, Coleman Hughes, Kmele Foster, Chloe Valdery - Woke: John Mcwhorter, Yasha Mounk, Coleman Hughes, Sam Harris, Douglas Murrey, Jordan Peterson, Steven Hicks, James Lindsay, Ben Shapiro - Feminism: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Christina Hoff Summers, Camille Paglia (Note: Then follow each thinker's favorite thinker, and never stop. ) Producers of anti-rational memes: - Eric Weinstein - Bret Weinstein - Noam Chomsky (See A Potpourri Of Chomskyan Nonsense: https://lingbuzz.net/lingbuzz/001592/v6.pdf) - Glenn Greenwald - Reza Aslan - Medhi Hassan - Robin Diangelo - Ibraam x Kendi - George Galloway - Judith Butler Socials Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link Help us fund the anti-book campaign and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber here (https://www.patreon.com/Increments). Or give us one-time cash donations to help therapy costs here (https://ko-fi.com/increments). Click dem like buttons on youtube (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ) What aren't you interested in, and how might you fix that? Tell us at incrementspodcast@gmail.com

A conversation with Tim Hwang about historical simulations, the interaction of policy and science, analogies between research ecosystems and the economy, and so much more.  Topics Historical Simulations Macroscience Macro-metrics for science Long science The interaction between science and policy Creative destruction in research “Regulation” for scientific markets Indicators for the health of a field or science as a whole “Metabolism of Science” Science rotation programs Clock speeds of Regulation vs Clock Speeds of Technology References Macroscience Substack Ada Palmer's Papal Simulation Think Tank Tycoon Universal Paperclips (Paperclip maximizer html game) Pitt Rivers Museum   Transcript [00:02:02] Ben: Wait, so tell me more about the historical LARP that you're doing. Oh, [00:02:07] Tim: yeah. So this comes from like something I've been thinking about for a really long time, which is You know in high school, I did model UN and model Congress, and you know, I really I actually, this is still on my to do list is to like look into the back history of like what it was in American history, where we're like, this is going to become an extracurricular, we're going to model the UN, like it has all the vibe of like, after World War II, the UN is a new thing, we got to teach kids about international institutions. Anyways, like, it started as a joke where I was telling my [00:02:35] friend, like, we should have, like, model administrative agency. You know, you should, like, kids should do, like, model EPA. Like, we're gonna do a rulemaking. Kids need to submit. And, like, you know, there'll be Chevron deference and you can challenge the rule. And, like, to do that whole thing. Anyways, it kind of led me down this idea that, like, our, our notion of simulation, particularly for institutions, is, like, Interestingly narrow, right? And particularly when it comes to historical simulation, where like, well we have civil war reenactors, they're kind of like a weird dying breed, but they're there, right? But we don't have like other types of historical reenactments, but like, it might be really valuable and interesting to create communities around that. And so like I was saying before we started recording, is I really want to do one that's a simulation of the Cuban Missile Crisis. But like a serious, like you would like a historical reenactment, right? Yeah. Yeah. It's like everybody would really know their characters. You know, if you're McNamara, you really know what your motivations are and your background. And literally a dream would be a weekend simulation where you have three teams. One would be the Kennedy administration. The other would be, you know, Khrushchev [00:03:35] and the Presidium. And the final one would be the, the Cuban government. Yeah. And to really just blow by blow, simulate that entire thing. You know, the players would attempt to not blow up the world, would be the idea. [00:03:46] Ben: I guess that's actually the thing to poke, in contrast to Civil War reenactment. Sure, like you know how [00:03:51] Tim: that's gonna end. Right, [00:03:52] Ben: and it, I think it, that's the difference maybe between, in my head, a simulation and a reenactment, where I could imagine a simulation going [00:04:01] Tim: differently. Sure, right. [00:04:03] Ben: Right, and, and maybe like, is the goal to make sure the same thing happened that did happen, or is the goal to like, act? faithfully to [00:04:14] Tim: the character as possible. Yeah, I think that's right, and I think both are interesting and valuable, right? But I think one of the things I'm really interested in is, you know, I want to simulate all the characters, but like, I think one of the most interesting things reading, like, the historical record is just, like, operating under deep uncertainty about what's even going on, right? Like, for a period of time, the American [00:04:35] government is not even sure what's going on in Cuba, and, like, you know, this whole question of, like, well, do we preemptively bomb Cuba? Do we, we don't even know if the, like, the warheads on the island are active. And I think I would want to create, like, similar uncertainty, because I think that's where, like, that's where the strategic vision comes in, right? That, like, you have the full pressure of, like, Maybe there's bombs on the island. Maybe there's not even bombs on the island, right? And kind of like creating that dynamic. And so I think simulation is where there's a lot, but I think Even reenactment for some of these things is sort of interesting. Like, that we talk a lot about, like, oh, the Cuban Missile Crisis. Or like, the other joke I had was like, we should do the Manhattan Project, but the Manhattan Project as, like, historical reenactment, right? And it's kind of like, you know, we have these, like, very, like off the cuff or kind of, like, stereotype visions of how these historical events occur. And they're very stylized. Yeah, exactly, right. And so the benefit of a reenactment that is really in detail Yeah. is like, oh yeah, there's this one weird moment. You know, like that, that ends up being really revealing historical examples. And so even if [00:05:35] you can't change the outcome, I think there's also a lot of value in just doing the exercise. Yeah. Yeah. The, the thought of [00:05:40] Ben: in order to drive towards this outcome that I know. Actually happened I wouldn't as the character have needed to do X. That's right That's like weird nuanced unintuitive thing, [00:05:50] Tim: right? Right and there's something I think about even building into the game Right, which is at the very beginning the Russians team can make the decision on whether or not they've even actually deployed weapons into the cube at all, yeah, right and so like I love that kind of outcome right which is basically like And I think that's great because like, a lot of this happens on the background of like, we know the history. Yeah. Right? And so I think like, having the team, the US team put under some pressure of uncertainty. Yeah. About like, oh yeah, they could have made the decision at the very beginning of this game that this is all a bluff. Doesn't mean anything. Like it's potentially really interesting and powerful, so. [00:06:22] Ben: One precedent I know for this completely different historical era, but there's a historian, Ada Palmer, who runs [00:06:30] Tim: a simulation of a people election in her class every year. That's so good. [00:06:35] And [00:06:36] Ben: it's, there, you know, like, it is not a simulation. [00:06:40] Tim: Or, [00:06:41] Ben: sorry, excuse me, it is not a reenactment. In the sense that the outcome is indeterminate. [00:06:47] Tim: Like, the students [00:06:48] Ben: can determine the outcome. But... What tends to happen is like structural factors emerge in the sense that there's always a war. Huh. The question is who's on which sides of the war? Right, right. And what do the outcomes of the war actually entail? That's right. Who [00:07:05] Tim: dies? Yeah, yeah. And I [00:07:07] Ben: find that that's it's sort of Gets at the heart of the, the great [00:07:12] Tim: man theory versus the structural forces theory. That's right. Yeah. Like how much can these like structural forces actually be changed? Yeah. And I think that's one of the most interesting parts of the design that I'm thinking about right now is kind of like, what are the things that you want to randomize to impose different types of like structural factors that could have been in that event? Right? Yeah. So like one of the really big parts of the debate at XCOM in the [00:07:35] early phases of the Cuban Missile Crisis is You know, McNamara, who's like, right, he runs the Department of Defense at the time. His point is basically like, look, whether or not you have bombs in Cuba or you have bombs like in Russia, the situation has not changed from a military standpoint. Like you can fire an ICBM. It has exactly the same implications for the U. S. And so his, his basically his argument in the opening phases of the Cuban Missile Crisis is. Yeah. Which is actually pretty interesting, right? Because that's true. But like, Kennedy can't just go to the American people and say, well, we've already had missiles pointed at us. Some more missiles off, you know, the coast of Florida is not going to make a difference. Yeah. And so like that deep politics, and particularly the politics of the Kennedy administration being seen as like weak on communism. Yeah. Is like a huge pressure on all the activity that's going on. And so it's almost kind of interesting thinking about the Cuban Missile Crisis, not as like You know us about to blow up the world because of a truly strategic situation but more because of like the local politics make it so difficult to create like You know situations where both sides can back down [00:08:35] successfully. Basically. Yeah [00:08:36] Ben: The the one other thing that my mind goes to actually to your point about it model UN in schools. Huh, right is Okay, what if? You use this as a pilot, and then you get people to do these [00:08:49] Tim: simulations at [00:08:50] Ben: scale. Huh. And that's actually how we start doing historical counterfactuals. Huh. Where you look at, okay, you know, a thousand schools all did a simulation of the Cuban Missile Crisis. In those, you know, 700 of them blew [00:09:05] Tim: up the world. Right, right. [00:09:07] Ben: And it's, it actually, I think it's, That's the closest [00:09:10] Tim: thing you can get to like running the tape again. Yeah. I think that's right. And yeah, so I think it's, I think it's a really underused medium in a lot of ways. And I think particularly as like you know, we just talk, talk like pedagogically, like it's interesting that like, it seems to me that there was a moment in American pedagogical history where like, this is a good way of teaching kids. Like, different types of institutions. And like, but it [00:09:35] hasn't really matured since that point, right? Of course, we live in all sorts of interesting institutions now. And, and under all sorts of different systems that we might really want to simulate. Yeah. And so, yeah, this kind of, at least a whole idea that there's lots of things you could teach if you, we like kind of opened up this way of kind of like, Thinking about kind of like educating for about institutions. Right? So [00:09:54] Ben: that is so cool. Yeah, I'm going to completely, [00:09:59] Tim: Change. Sure. Of course. [00:10:01] Ben: So I guess. And the answer could be no, but is, is there connections between this and your sort of newly launched macroscience [00:10:10] Tim: project? There is and there isn't. Yeah, you know, I think like the whole bid of macroscience which is this project that I'm doing as part of my IFP fellowship. Yeah. Is really the notion that like, okay, we have all these sort of like interesting results that have come out of metascience. That kind of give us like, kind of like the beginnings of a shape of like, okay, this is how science might work and how we might like get progress to happen. And you know, we've got [00:10:35] like a bunch of really compelling hypotheses. Yeah. And I guess my bit has been like, I kind of look at that and I squint and I'm like, we're, we're actually like kind of in the early days of like macro econ, but for science, right? Which is like, okay, well now we have some sense of like the dynamics of how the science thing works. What are the levers that we can start, like, pushing and pulling, and like, what are the dials we could be turning up and turning down? And, and, you know, I think there is this kind of transition that happens in macro econ, which is like, we have these interesting results and hypotheses, but there's almost another... Generation of work that needs to happen into being like, oh, you know, we're gonna have this thing called the interest rate Yeah, and then we have all these ways of manipulating the money supply and like this is a good way of managing like this economy Yeah, right and and I think that's what I'm chasing after with this kind of like sub stack but hopefully the idea is to build it up into like a more coherent kind of framework of ideas about like How do we make science policy work in a way that's better than just like more science now quicker, please? Yeah, right, which is I think we're like [00:11:35] we're very much at at the moment. Yeah, and in particular I'm really interested in the idea of chasing after science almost as like a Dynamic system, right? Which is that like the policy levers that you have You would want to, you know, tune up and tune down, strategically, at certain times, right? And just like the way we think about managing the economy, right? Where you're like, you don't want the economy to overheat. You don't want it to be moving too slow either, right? Like, I am interested in kind of like, those types of dynamics that need to be managed in science writ large. And so that's, that's kind of the intuition of the project. [00:12:04] Ben: Cool. I guess, like, looking at macro, how did we even decide, macro econ, [00:12:14] Tim: how did we even decide that the things that we're measuring are the right things to measure? Right? Like, [00:12:21] Ben: isn't it, it's like kind of a historical contingency that, you know, it's like we care about GDP [00:12:27] Tim: and the interest rate. Yeah. I think that's right. I mean in, in some ways there's a triumph of like. It's a normative triumph, [00:12:35] right, I think is the argument. And you know, I think a lot of people, you hear this argument, and it'll be like, And all econ is made up. But like, I don't actually think that like, that's the direction I'm moving in. It's like, it's true. Like, a lot of the things that we selected are arguably arbitrary. Yeah. Right, like we said, okay, we really value GDP because it's like a very imperfect but rough measure of like the economy, right? Yeah. Or like, oh, we focus on, you know, the money supply, right? And I think there's kind of two interesting things that come out of that. One of them is like, There's this normative question of like, okay, what are the building blocks that we think can really shift the financial economy writ large, right, of which money supply makes sense, right? But then the other one I think which is so interesting is like, there's a need to actually build all these institutions. that actually give you the lever to pull in the first place, right? Like, without a federal reserve, it becomes really hard to do monetary policy. Right. Right? Like, without a notion of, like, fiscal policy, it's really hard to do, like, Keynesian as, like, demand side stuff. Right. Right? And so, like, I think there's another project, which is a [00:13:35] political project, to say... Okay, can we do better than just grants? Like, can we think about this in a more, like, holistic way than simply we give money to the researchers to work on certain types of problems. And so this kind of leads to some of the stuff that I think we've talked about in the past, which is like, you know, so I'm obsessed right now with like, can we influence the time horizon of scientific institutions? Like, imagine for a moment we had a dial where we're like, On average, scientists are going to be thinking about a research agenda which is 10 years from now versus next quarter. Right. Like, and I think like there's, there's benefits and deficits to both of those settings. Yeah. But man, if I don't hope that we have a, a, a government system that allows us to kind of dial that up and dial that down as we need it. Right. Yeah. The, the, [00:14:16] Ben: perhaps, quite like, I guess a question of like where the analogy like holds and breaks down. That I, that I wonder about is, When you're talking about the interest rate for the economy, it kind of makes sense to say [00:14:35] what is the time horizon that we want financial institutions to be thinking on. That's like roughly what the interest rate is for, but it, and maybe this is, this is like, I'm too, [00:14:49] Tim: my note, like I'm too close to the macro, [00:14:51] Ben: but thinking about. The fact that you really want people doing science on like a whole spectrum of timescales. And, and like, this is a ill phrased question, [00:15:06] Tim: but like, I'm just trying to wrap my mind around it. Are you saying basically like, do uniform metrics make sense? Yeah, exactly. For [00:15:12] Ben: like timescale, I guess maybe it's just. is an aggregate thing. [00:15:16] Tim: Is that? That's right. Yeah, I think that's, that's, that's a good critique. And I think, like, again, I think there's definitely ways of taking the metaphor too far. Yeah. But I think one of the things I would say back to that is It's fine to imagine that we might not necessarily have an interest rate for all of science, right? So, like, you could imagine saying, [00:15:35] okay, for grants above a certain size, like, we want to incentivize certain types of activity. For grants below a certain size, we want different types of activity. Right, another way of slicing it is for this class of institutions, we want them to be thinking on these timescales versus those timescales. Yeah. The final one I've been thinking about is another way of slicing it is, let's abstract away institutions and just think about what is the flow of all the experiments that are occurring in a society? Yeah. And are there ways of manipulating, like, the relative timescales there, right? And that's almost like, kind of like a supply based way of looking at it, which is... All science is doing is producing experiments, which is like true macro, right? Like, I'm just like, it's almost offensively simplistic. And then I'm just saying like, okay, well then like, yeah, what are the tools that we have to actually influence that? Yeah, and I think there's lots of things you could think of. Yeah, in my mind. Yeah, absolutely. What are some, what are some that are your thinking of? Yeah, so I think like the two that I've been playing around with right now, one of them is like the idea of like, changing the flow of grants into the system. So, one of the things I wrote about in Microscience just the past week was to think [00:16:35] about, like sort of what I call long science, right? And so the notion here is that, like, if you look across the scientific economy, there's kind of this rough, like, correlation between size of grant and length of grant. Right, where so basically what it means is that like long science is synonymous with big science, right? You're gonna do a big ambitious project. Cool. You need lots and lots and lots of money Yeah and so my kind of like piece just briefly kind of argues like but we have these sort of interesting examples like the You know Like framing a heart study which are basically like low expense taking place over a long period of time and you're like We don't really have a whole lot of grants that have that Yeah. Right? And so the idea is like, could we encourage that? Like imagine if we could just increase the flow of those types of grants, that means we could incentivize more experiments that take place like at low cost over long term. Yeah. Right? Like, you know, and this kind of gets this sort of interesting question is like, okay, so what's the GDP here? Right? Like, or is that a good way of cracking some of the critical problems that we need to crack right now? Right? Yeah. And it's kind of where the normative part gets into [00:17:35] it is like, okay. So. You know, one way of looking at this is the national interest, right? We say, okay, well, we really want to win on AI. We really want to win on, like, bioengineering, right? Are there problems in that space where, like, really long term, really low cost is actually the kind of activity we want to be encouraging? The answer might be no, but I think, like, it's useful for us to have, like, that. Color in our palette of things that we could be doing Yeah. In like shaping the, the dynamics of science. Yeah. Yeah. [00:18:01] Ben: I, I mean, one of the things that I feel like is missing from the the meta science discussion Mm-Hmm. is, is even just, what are those colors? Mm-Hmm. like what, what are the, the different and almost parameters of [00:18:16] Tim: of research. Yeah. Right, right, right. And I think, I don't know, one of the things I've been thinking about, which I'm thinking about writing about at some point, right, is like this, this view is, this view is gonna piss people off in some ways, because where it ultimately goes is this idea that, like, like, the scientist or [00:18:35] science Is like a system that's subject to the government, or subject to a policy maker, or a strategist. Which like, it obviously is, right? But like, I think we have worked very hard to believe that like, The scientific market is its own independent thing, And like, that touching or messing with it is like, a not, not a thing you should do, right? But we already are. True, that's kind of my point of view, yeah exactly. I think we're in some ways like, yeah I know I've been reading a lot about Keynes, I mean it is sort of interesting that it does mirror... Like this kind of like Great Depression era economic thinking, where you're basically like the market takes care of itself, like don't intervene. In fact, intervening is like the worst possible thing you could do because you're only going to make this worse. And look, I think there's like definitely examples of like kind of like command economy science that like don't work. Yes. But like, you know, like I think most mature people who work in economics would say there's some room for like at least like Guiding the system. Right. And like keeping it like in balance is like [00:19:35] a thing that should be attempted and I think it's kind of like the, the, the argument that I'm making here. Yeah. Yeah. I [00:19:41] Ben: mean, I think that's, [00:19:42] Tim: that's like the meta meta thing. Right. Right. Is even [00:19:46] Ben: what, what level of intervention, like, like what are the ways in which you can like usefully intervene and which, and what are the things that are, that are foolish and kind of. crEate the, the, [00:20:01] Tim: Command economy. That's right. Yeah, exactly. Right. Right. And I think like, I think the way through is, is maybe in the way that I'm talking about, right? Which is like, you can imagine lots of bad things happen when you attempt to pick winners, right? Like maybe the policymaker whoever we want to think of that as like, is it the NSF or NIH or whatever? Like, you know, sitting, sitting in their government bureaucracy, right? Like, are they well positioned to make a choice about who's going to be the right solution to a problem? Maybe yes, maybe no. I think we can have a debate about that, right? But I think there's a totally reasonable position, which is they're not in it, so they're not well positioned to make that call. Yeah. [00:20:35] Right? But, are they well positioned to maybe say, like, if we gave them a dial that was like, we want researchers to be thinking about this time horizon versus that time horizon? Like, that's a control that they actually may be well positioned to inform on. Yeah. As an outsider, right? Yeah. Yeah. And some of this I think, like, I don't know, like, the piece I'm working on right now, which will be coming out probably Tuesday or Wednesday, is you know, some of this is also like encouraging creative destruction, right? Which is like, I'm really intrigued by the idea that like academic fields can get so big that they become they impede progress. Yes. Right? And so this is actually a form of like, I like, it's effectively an intellectual antitrust. Yeah. Where you're basically like, Basically, like the, the role of the scientific regulator is to basically say these fields have gotten so big that they are actively reducing our ability to have good dynamism in the marketplace of ideas. And in this case, we will, we will announce new grant policies that attempt to break this up. And I actually think that like, that is pretty spicy for a funder to do. But like actually maybe part of their role and maybe we should normalize that [00:21:35] being part of their role. Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. [00:21:37] Ben: I I'm imagining a world where There are, where this, like, sort of the macro science is as divisive as [00:21:47] Tim: macroeconomics. [00:21:48] Ben: Right? Because you have, you have your like, your, your like, hardcore free market people. Yeah. Zero government intervention. Yeah, that's right. No antitrust. No like, you know, like abolish the Fed. Right, right. All of that. Yeah, yeah. And I look forward to the day. When there's there's people who are doing the same thing for research. [00:22:06] Tim: Yeah, that's right. Yeah. Yeah when I think that's actually I mean I thought part of a lot of meta science stuff I think is this kind of like interesting tension, which is that like look politically a lot of those people in the space are Pro free market, you know, like they're they're they're liberals in the little L sense. Yeah, like at the same time Like it is true that kind of like laissez faire science Has failed because we have all these examples of like progress slowing down Right? Like, I don't know. Like, I think [00:22:35] that there is actually this interesting tension, which is like, to what degree are we okay with intervening in science to get better outcomes? Yeah. Right? Yeah. Well, as, [00:22:43] Ben: as I, I might put on my hat and say, Yeah, yeah. Maybe, maybe this is, this is me saying true as a fair science has never been tried. Huh, right. Right? Like, that, that, that may be kind of my position. Huh. But anyways, I... And I would argue that, you know, since 1945, we have been, we haven't had laissez faire [00:23:03] Tim: science. Oh, interesting. [00:23:04] Ben: Huh. Right. And so I'm, yeah, I mean, it's like, this is in [00:23:09] Tim: the same way that I think [00:23:11] Ben: a very hard job for macroeconomics is to say, well, like, do we need [00:23:15] Tim: more or less intervention? Yeah. Yeah. [00:23:17] Ben: What is the case there? I think it's the same thing where. You know, a large amount of science funding does come from the government, and the government is opinionated about what sorts of things [00:23:30] Tim: it funds. Yeah, right. Right. And you [00:23:33] Ben: can go really deep into that. [00:23:35] So, so I [00:23:35] Tim: would. Yeah, that's actually interesting. That flips it. It's basically like the current state of science. is right now over regulated, is what you'd say, right? Or, or [00:23:44] Ben: badly regulated. Huh, sure. That is the argument I would say, very concretely, is that it's badly regulated. And, you know, I might almost argue that it is... It's both over and underregulated in the sense that, well, this is, this is my, my whole theory, but like, I think that there, we need like some pockets where it's like much less regulated. Yeah. Right. Where you're, and then some pockets where you're really sort of going to be like, no. You don't get to sort of tune this to whatever your, your project, your program is. Yeah, right, right. You're gonna be working with like [00:24:19] Tim: these people to do this thing. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, and I think there actually is interesting analogies in like the, the kind of like economic regulation, economic governance world. Yeah. Where like the notion is markets generally work well, like it's a great tool. Yeah. Like let it run. [00:24:35] Right. But basically that there are certain failure states that actually require outside intervention. And I think what's kind of interesting in thinking about in like a macro scientific, if you will, context is like, what are those failure states for science? Like, and you could imagine a policy rule, which is the policymaker says, we don't intervene until we see the following signals emerging in a field or in a region. Right. And like, okay, that's, that's the trigger, right? Like we're now in recession mode, you know, like there's enough quarters of this problem of like more papers, but less results. You know, now we have to take action, right? Oh, that's cool. Yeah, yeah. That would be, that would be very interesting. And I think that's like, that's good, because I think like, we end up having to think about like, you know, and again, this is I think why this is a really exciting time, is like MetaScience has produced these really interesting results. Now we're in the mode of like, okay, well, you know, on that policymaker dashboard, Yeah. Right, like what's the meter that we're checking out to basically be like, Are we doing well? Are we doing poorly? Is this going well? Or is this going poorly? Right, like, I think that becomes the next question to like, make this something practicable Yeah. For, for [00:25:35] actual like, Right. Yeah. Yeah. One of my frustrations [00:25:38] Ben: with meta science [00:25:39] Tim: is that it, I [00:25:41] Ben: think is under theorized in the sense that people generally are doing these studies where they look at whatever data they can get. Huh. Right. As opposed to what data should we be looking at? What, what should we be looking for? Yeah. Right. Right. And so, so I would really like to have it sort of be flipped and say, okay, like this At least ideally what we would want to measure maybe there's like imperfect maybe then we find proxies for that Yeah, as opposed to just saying well, like here's what we can measure. It's a proxy for [00:26:17] Tim: okay. That's right, right Yeah, exactly. And I think a part of this is also like I mean, I think it is like Widening the Overton window, which I think like the meta science community has done a good job of is like trying to widen The Overton window of what funders are willing to do. Yeah. Or like what various existing incumbent actors are willing to [00:26:35] do. Because I think one way of getting that data is to run like interesting experiments in this space. Right? Like I think one of the things I'm really obsessed with right now is like, okay, imagine if you could change the overhead rate that universities charge on a national basis. Yeah. Right? Like, what's that do to the flow of money through science? And is that like one dial that's actually like On the shelf, right? Like, we actually have the ability to influence that if we wanted to. Like, is that something we should be running experiments against and seeing what the results are? Yeah, yeah. [00:27:00] Ben: Another would be earmarking. Like, how much money is actually earmarked [00:27:05] Tim: for different things. That's right, yeah, yeah. Like, how easy it is to move money around. That's right, yeah. I heard actually a wild story yesterday about, do you know this whole thing, what's his name? It's apparently a very wealthy donor. That has convinced the state of Washington's legislature to the UW CS department. it's like, it's written into law that there's a flow of money that goes directly to the CS department. I don't think CS departments need more money. I [00:27:35] know, I know, but it's like, this is a really, really kind of interesting, like, outcome. Yeah. Which is like a very clear case of basically just like... Direct subsidy to like, not, not just like a particular topic, but like a particular department, which I think is like interesting experiment. I don't like, I don't know what's been happening there, but yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Natural, natural experiment. [00:27:50] Ben: Totally. Has anybody written down, I assume the answer is no, but it would be very interesting if someone actually wrote down a list of sort of just all the things you [00:28:00] Tim: could possibly [00:28:00] Ben: want to pay attention to, right? Like, I mean, like. Speaking of CS, it'd be very interesting to see, like, okay, like, what fraction of the people who, like, get PhDs in an area, stay in this area, right? Like, going back to the, the [00:28:15] Tim: health of a field or something, right? Yeah, yeah. I think that's right. I, yeah. And I think that those, those types of indicators are interesting. And then I think also, I mean, in the spirit of like it being a dynamic system. Like, so a few years back I read this great bio by Sebastian Malaby called The Man Who Knew, which is, it's a bio of Alan Greenspan. So if you want to ever read, like, 800 pages about [00:28:35] Alan Greenspan, book for you. It's very good. But one of the most interesting parts about it is that, like, there's a battle when Alan Greenspan becomes head of the Fed, where basically he's, like, extremely old school. Like, what he wants to do is he literally wants to look at, like, Reams of data from like the steel industry. Yeah, because that's kind of got his start And he basically is at war with a bunch of kind of like career People at the Fed who much more rely on like statistical models for predicting the economy And I think what's really interesting is that like for a period of time actually Alan Greenspan has the edge Because he's able to realize really early on that like there's It's just changes actually in like the metabolism of the economy that mean that what it means to raise the interest rate or lower the interest rate has like very different effects than it did like 20 years ago before it got started. Yeah. And I think that's actually something that I'm also really quite interested in science is basically like When we say science, people often imagine, like, this kind of, like, amorphous blob. But, like, I think the metabolism is changing all the [00:29:35] time. And so, like, what we mean by science now means very different from, like, what we mean by science, like, even, like, 10 to 20 years ago. Yes. And, like, it also means that all of our tactics need to keep up with that change, right? And so, one of the things I'm interested in to your question about, like, has anyone compiled this list of, like, science health? Or the health of science, right? It's maybe the right way of thinking about it. is that, like, those indicators may mean very different things at different points in time, right? And so part of it is trying to understand, like, yeah, what is the state of the, what is the state of this economy of science that we're talking about? Yeah. You're kind of preaching [00:30:07] Ben: to the, to the choir. In the sense that I'm, I'm always, I'm frustrated with the level of nuance that I feel like many people who are discussing, like, science, quote, making air quotes, science and research, are, are talking about in the sense that. They very often have not actually like gone in and been part of the system. Huh, right. And I'm, I'm open to the fact that [00:30:35] you [00:30:35] Tim: don't need to have got like [00:30:36] Ben: done, been like a professional researcher to have an opinion [00:30:41] Tim: or, or come up with ideas about it. [00:30:43] Ben: Yeah. But at the same time, I feel like [00:30:46] Tim: there's, yeah, like, like, do you, do you think about that tension at all? Yeah. I think it's actually incredibly valuable. Like, I think So I think of like Death and Life of Great American Cities, right? Which is like, the, the, the really, one of the really, there's a lot of interesting things about that book. But like, one of the most interesting things is sort of the notion that like, you had a whole cabal of urban planners that had this like very specific vision about how to get cities to work right and it just turns out that like if you like are living in soho at a particular time and you like walk along the street and you like take a look at what's going on like there's always really actually super valuable things to know about yeah that like are only available because you're like at that like ultra ultra ultra ultra micro level and i do think that there's actually some potential value in there like one of the things i would love to be able to set up, like, in the community of MetaScience or whatever you want to call it, right, [00:31:35] is the idea that, like, yeah, you, you could afford to do, like, very short tours of duty, where it's, like, literally, you're just, like, spending a day in a lab, right, and, like, to have a bunch of people go through that, I think, is, like, really, really helpful and so I think, like, thinking about, like, what the rotation program for that looks like, I think would be cool, like, you, you should, you should do, like, a six month stint at the NSF just to see what it looks like. Cause I think that kind of stuff is just like, you know, well, A, I'm selfish, like I would want that, but I also think that like, it would also allow the community to like, I think be, be thinking about this in a much more applied way. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. [00:32:08] Ben: I think it's the, the meta question there for, for everything, right? Is how much in the weeds, like, like what am I trying to say? The. It is possible both to be like two in the weeds. Yeah, right and then also like too high level Yeah, that's right. And in almost like what what is the the right amount or like? Who, who should [00:32:31] Tim: be talking to whom in that? That's right. Yeah, I mean, it's like what you were saying earlier that like the [00:32:35] success of macro science will be whether or not it's as controversial as macroeconomics. It's like, I actually hope that that's the case. It's like people being like, this is all wrong. You're approaching it like from a too high level, too abstract of a level. Yeah. I mean, I think the other benefit of doing this outside of like the level of insight is I think one of the projects that I think I have is like We need to, we need to be like defeating meta science, like a love of meta science aesthetics versus like actual like meta science, right? Like then I think like a lot of people in meta science love science. That's why they're excited to not talk about the specific science, but like science in general. But like, I think that intuition also leads us to like have very romantic ideas of like what science is and how science should look and what kinds of science that we want. Yeah. Right. The mission is progress. The mission isn't science. And so I think, like, we have to be a lot more functional. And again, I think, like, the benefit of these types of, like, rotations, like, Oh, you just are in a lab for a month. Yeah. It's like, I mean, you get a lot more of a sense of, like, Oh, okay, this is, this is what it [00:33:35] looks like. Yeah. Yeah. I'd like to do the same thing for manufacturing. Huh. Right. [00:33:39] Ben: Right. It's like, like, and I want, I want everybody to be rotating, right? Huh. Like, in the sense of, like, okay, like, have the scientists go and be, like, in a manufacturing lab. That's right. [00:33:47] Tim: Yeah. [00:33:48] Ben: And be like, okay, like, look. Like, you need to be thinking about getting this thing to work in, like, this giant, like, flow pipe instead of a [00:33:54] Tim: test tube. That's right, right. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, [00:33:57] Ben: unfortunately, the problem is that we can't all spend our time, like, if everybody was rotating through all the [00:34:03] Tim: things they need to rotate, we'd never get anything done. Yeah, exactly. [00:34:06] Ben: ANd that's, that's, that's kind of [00:34:08] Tim: the problem. Well, and to bring it all the way back, I mean, I think you started this question on macroscience in the context of transitioning away from all of this like weird Cuban Missile Crisis simulation stuff. Like, I do think one way of thinking about this is like, okay, well, if we can't literally send you into a lab, right? Like the question is like, what are good simulations to give people good intuitions about the dynamics in the space? Yeah. And I think that's, that's potentially quite interesting. Yeah. Normalized weekend long simulation. That's right. Like I love the idea of basically [00:34:35] like like you, you get to reenact the publication of a prominent scientific paper. It's like kind of a funny idea. It's just like, you know, yeah. Or, or, or even trying to [00:34:44] Ben: get research funded, right? Like, it's like, okay, like you have this idea, you want yeah. [00:34:55] Tim: I mean, yeah, this is actually a project, I mean, I've been talking to Zach Graves about this, it's like, I really want to do one which is a game that we're calling Think Tank Tycoon, which is basically like, it's a, it's a, the idea would be for it to be a strategy board game that simulates what it's like to run a research center. But I think like to broaden that idea somewhat like it's kind of interesting to think about the idea of like model NSF Yeah, where you're like you you're in you're in the hot seat you get to decide how to do granting Yeah, you know give a grant [00:35:22] Ben: a stupid thing. Yeah, some some some congressperson's gonna come banging [00:35:26] Tim: on your door Yeah, like simulating those dynamics actually might be really really helpful Yeah I mean in the very least even if it's not like a one for one simulation of the real world just to get like some [00:35:35] common intuitions about like The pressures that are operating here. I [00:35:38] Ben: think you're, the bigger point is that simulations are maybe underrated [00:35:42] Tim: as a teaching tool. I think so, yeah. Do you remember the the paperclip maximizer? Huh. The HTML game? Yeah, yeah. [00:35:48] Ben: I'm, I'm kind of obsessed with it. Huh. Because, it, you've, like, somehow the human brain, like, really quickly, with just, like, you know, some numbers on the screen. Huh. Like, just like numbers that you can change. Right, right. And some, like, back end. Dynamic system, where it's like, okay, like based on these numbers, like here are the dynamics of the [00:36:07] Tim: system, and it'll give you an update. [00:36:09] Ben: Like, you start to really get an intuition for, for system dynamics. Yeah. And so, I, I, I want to see more just like plain HTML, like basically like spreadsheet [00:36:20] Tim: backend games. Right, right, like the most lo fi possible. Yeah, I think so. Yeah. Yeah, I think it's helpful. I mean, I think, again, particularly in a world where you're thinking about, like, let's simulate these types of, like, weird new grant structures that we might try out, right? Like, you know, we've got a bunch [00:36:35] of hypotheses. It's kind of really expensive and difficult to try to get experiments done, right? Like, does a simulation with a couple people who are well informed give us some, at least, inclinations of, like, where it might go or, like, what are the unintentional consequences thereof? Yeah. [00:36:51] Ben: Disciplines besides the military that uses simulations [00:36:56] Tim: successfully. Not really. And I think what's kind of interesting is that like, I think it had a vogue that like has kind of dissipated. Yeah, I think like the notion of like a a game being the way you kind of do like understanding of a strategic situation, I think like. Has kind of disappeared, right? But like, I think a lot of it was driven, like, RAND actually had a huge influence, not just on the military. But like, there's a bunch of corporate games, right? That were like, kind of invented in the same period. Yeah. That are like, you determine how much your steel production is, right? And was like, used to teach MBAs. But yeah, I think it's, it's been like, relatively limited. Hm. [00:37:35] Yeah. It, yeah. Hm. [00:37:38] Ben: So. Other things. Huh. Like, just to, [00:37:41] Tim: to shift together. Sure, sure, go ahead. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I guess another [00:37:44] Ben: thing that we haven't really talked about, but actually sort of plays into all of this, is thinking about better [00:37:50] Tim: ways of regulating technology. [00:37:52] Ben: I know that you've done a lot of thinking about that, and maybe this is another thing to simulate. [00:38:00] Tim: Yeah, it's a model OSTP. But [00:38:04] Ben: it's maybe a thing where, this is actually like a prime example where the particulars really matter, right? Where you can't just regulate. quote unquote technology. Yeah. Right. And it's like, there's, there's some technologies that you want to regulate very, very closely and very tightly and others that you want to regulate very [00:38:21] Tim: loosely. Yeah, I think that's right. And I think that's actually, you know, I think it is tied to the kind of like macro scientific project, if you will. Right. Which is that I think we have often a notion of like science regulation being like. [00:38:35] literally the government comes in and is like, here are the kind of constraints that we want to put on the system. Right. And there's obviously like lots of different ways of doing that. And I think there's lots of contexts in which that's like appropriate. But I think for a lot of technologies that we confront right now, the change is so rapid that the obvious question always becomes, no matter what emerging technology talking about is like, how does your clock speed of regulation actually keep up with like the clock speed of technology? And the answer is frequently like. It doesn't, right? And like you run into these kind of like absurd situations where you're like, well, we have this thing, it's already out of date by the time it goes into force, everybody kind of creates some like notional compliance with that rule. Yeah. And like, in terms of improving, I don't know, safety outcomes, for instance, it like has not actually improved safety outcomes. And I think in that case, right, and I think I could actually make an argument that like, the problem is becoming more difficult with time. Right? Like, if you really believe that the pace of technological change is faster than it used to be, then it is possible that, like, there was a point at which, like, government was operating, and it could actually keep [00:39:35] pace effectively, or, like, a body like Congress could actually keep pace with society, or with technology successfully, to, like, make sure that it was conformant with, sort of, like, societal interests. Do you think that was [00:39:46] Ben: actually ever the case, or was it that we didn't, we just didn't [00:39:50] Tim: have as many regulations? I would say it was sort of twofold, right? Like, I think one of them was you had, at least, let's just talk about Congress, right? It's really hard to talk about, like, government as a whole, right? Like, I think, like, Congress was both better advised and was a more efficient institution, right? Which means it moved faster than it does today. Simultaneously, I also feel like for a couple reasons we can speculate on, right? Like, science, or in the very least, technology. Right, like move slower than it does today. Right, right. And so like actually what has happened is that both both dynamics have caused problems, right? Which is that like the organs of government are moving slower at the same time as science is moving faster And like I think we've passed some inflection [00:40:35] point now where like it seems really hard to craft You know, let's take the AI case like a sensible framework that would apply You know, in, in LLMs where like, I don't know, like I was doing a little recap of like recent interoperability research and I like took a step back and I was like, Oh, all these papers are from May, 2023. And I was like, these are all big results. This is all a big deal. Right. It's like very, very fast. Yeah. So that's kind of what I would say to that. Yeah. I don't know. Do you feel differently? You feel like Congress has never been able to keep up? Yeah. [00:41:04] Ben: Well, I. I wonder, I guess I'm almost, I'm, I'm perhaps an outlier in that I am skeptical of the claim that technology overall has sped up significantly, or the pace of technological change, the pace of software change, certainly. Sure. Right. And it's like maybe software as a, as a fraction of technology has spread up, sped up. And maybe like, this is, this is a thing where like to the point of, of regulations needing to, to. Go into particulars, [00:41:35] right? Mm-Hmm. . Right, right. Like tuning the regulation to the characteristic timescale of whatever talk [00:41:40] Tim: technology we're talking about. Mm-Hmm. , right? [00:41:42] Ben: But I don't know, but like, I feel like outside of software, if anything, technology, the pace of technological change [00:41:52] Tim: has slowed down. Mm hmm. Right. Right. Yeah. [00:41:55] Ben: This is me putting on my [00:41:57] Tim: stagnationist bias. And would, given the argument that I just made, would you say that that means that it should actually be easier than ever to regulate technology? Yeah, I get targets moving slower, right? Like, yeah, [00:42:12] Ben: yeah. Or it's the technology moving slowly because of the forms of [00:42:14] Tim: the regulator. I guess, yeah, there's like compounding variables. [00:42:16] Ben: Yeah, the easiest base case of regulating technology is saying, like, no, you can't have [00:42:20] Tim: any. Huh, right, right, right. Like, it can't change. Right, that's easy to regulate. Yeah, right, right. That's very easy to regulate. I buy that, I buy that. It's very easy to regulate well. Huh, right, right. I think that's [00:42:27] Ben: That's the question. It's like, what do we want to lock in and what don't we [00:42:31] Tim: want to lock in? Yeah, I think that's right and I think, you [00:42:35] know I guess what that moves me towards is like, I think some people, you know, will conclude the argument I'm making by saying, and so regulations are obsolete, right? Or like, oh, so we shouldn't regulate or like, let the companies take care of it. And I'm like, I think so, like, I think that that's, that's not the conclusion that I go to, right? Like part of it is like. Well, no, that just means we need, we need better ways of like regulating these systems, right? And I think they, they basically require government to kind of think about sort of like moving to different parts of the chain that they might've touched in the past. Yeah. So like, I don't know, we, Caleb and I over at IFP, we just submitted this RFI to DARPA. In part they, they were thinking about like how does DARPA play a role in dealing with like ethical considerations around emerging technologies. Yep. But the deeper point that we were making in our submission. was simply that like maybe actually science has changed in a way where like DARPA can't be the or it's harder for DARPA to be the originator of all these technologies. Yeah. So they're, they're almost, they're, they're placing the, the, the ecosystem, the [00:43:35] metabolism of technology has changed, which requires them to rethink like how they want to influence the system. Yeah. Right. And it may be more influence at the point of like. Things getting out to market, then it is things like, you know, basic research in the lab or something like that. Right. At least for some classes of technology where like a lot of it's happening in private industry, like AI. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. [00:43:55] Ben: No, I, I, I think the, the concept of, of like the metabolism of, of science and technology is like really powerful. I think in some sense it is, I'm not sure if you would, how would you map that to the idea of there being a [00:44:11] Tim: research ecosystem, right? Right. Is it, is it that there's like [00:44:17] Ben: the metabolic, this is, this is incredibly abstract. Okay. Like, is it like, I guess if you're looking at the metabolism, does, does the metabolism sort of say, we're going to ignore institutions for now and the metabolism is literally just the flow [00:44:34] Tim: of [00:44:35] like ideas and, and, and outcomes and then maybe like the ecosystem is [00:44:41] Ben: like, okay, then we like. Sort of add another layer and say there are institutions [00:44:46] Tim: that are sure interacting with this sort of like, yeah, I think like the metabolism view or, you know, you might even think about it as like a supply chain view, right? To move it away from, like, just kind of gesturing at bio for no reason, right? Is I think what's powerful about it is that, you know, particularly in foundation land, which I'm most familiar with. There's a notion of like we're going to field build and what that means is we're going to name a field and then researchers Are going to be under this tent that we call this field and then the field will exist Yeah, and then the proper critique of a lot of that stuff is like researchers are smart They just like go where the money is and they're like you want to call up like I can pretend to be nanotech for a Few years to get your money Like, that's no problem. I can do that. And so there's kind of a notion that, like, if you take the economy of science as, like, institutions at the very beginning, you actually miss the bigger [00:45:35] picture. Yes. Right? And so the metabolism view is more powerful because you literally think about, like, the movement of, like, an idea to an experiment to a practical technology to, like, something that's out in the world. Yeah. And then we basically say, how do we influence those incentives before we start talking about, like, oh, we announced some new policy that people just, like... Cosmetically align their agendas to yeah, and like if you really want to shape science It's actually maybe arguably less about like the institution and more about like Yeah, the individual. Yeah, exactly. Like I run a lab. What are my motivations? Right? And I think this is like, again, it's like micro macro, right? It's basically if we can understand that, then are there things that we could do to influence at that micro level? Yeah, right. Which is I think actually where a lot of Macro econ has moved. Right. Which is like, how do we influence like the individual firm's decisions Yeah. To get the overall aggregate change that we want in the economy. Yeah. And I think that's, that's potentially a better way of approaching it. Right. A thing that I desperately [00:46:30] Ben: want now is Uhhuh a. I'm not sure what they're, they're [00:46:35] actually called. Like the, you know, like the metal, like, like, like the [00:46:37] Tim: prep cycle. Yeah, exactly. Like, like, like the giant diagram of, of like metabolism, [00:46:43] Ben: right. I want that for, for research. Yeah, that would be incredible. Yeah. If, if only, I mean, one, I want to have it on [00:46:50] Tim: my wall and to, to just get across the idea that. [00:46:56] Ben: It is like, it's not you know, basic research, applied [00:47:01] Tim: research. Yeah, totally. Right, right, right. When it goes to like, and what I like about kind of metabolism as a way of thinking about it is that we can start thinking about like, okay, what's, what's the uptake for certain types of inputs, right? We're like, okay, you know like one, one example is like, okay, well, we want results in a field to become more searchable. Well what's really, if you want to frame that in metabolism terms, is like, what, you know, what are the carbs that go into the system that, like, the enzymes or the yeast can take up, and it's like, access to the proper results, right, and like, I think that there's, there's a nice way of flipping in it [00:47:35] that, like, starts to think about these things as, like, inputs, versus things that we do, again, because, like, we like the aesthetics of it, like, we like the aesthetics of being able to find research results instantaneously, but, like, the focus should be on, Like, okay, well, because it helps to drive, like, the next big idea that we think will be beneficial to me later on. Or like, even being [00:47:53] Ben: the question, like, is the actual blocker to the thing that you want to see, the thing that you think it is? Right. I've run into far more people than I can count who say, like, you know, we want more awesome technology in the world, therefore we are going to be working on Insert tool here that actually isn't addressing, at least my, [00:48:18] Tim: my view of why those things aren't happening. Yeah, right, right. And I think, I mean, again, like, part of the idea is we think about these as, like, frameworks for thinking about different situations in science. Yeah. Like, I actually do believe that there are certain fields because of, like, ideologically how they're set up, institutionally how [00:48:35] they're set up, funding wise how they're set up. that do resemble the block diagram you were talking about earlier, which is like, yeah, there actually is the, the basic research, like we can put, that's where the basic research happens. You could like point at a building, right? And you're like, that's where the, you know, commercialization happens. We pointed at another building, right? But I just happen to think that most science doesn't look like that. Right. And we might ask the question then, like, do we want it to resemble more of like the metabolism state than the block diagram state? Right. Like both are good. Yeah, I mean, I would [00:49:07] Ben: argue that putting them in different buildings is exactly what's causing [00:49:10] Tim: all the problems. Sure, right, exactly, yeah, yeah. Yeah. But then, again, like, then, then I think, again, this is why I think, like, the, the macro view is so powerful, at least to me, personally, is, like, we can ask the question, for what problems? Yeah. Right? Like, are there, are there situations where, like, that, that, like, very blocky way of doing it serves certain needs and certain demands? Yeah. And it's like, it's possible, like, one more argument I can make for you is, like, Progress might be [00:49:35] slower, but it's a lot more controllable. So if you are in the, you know, if you think national security is one of the most important things, you're willing to make those trade offs. But I think we just should be making those trade offs, like, much more consciously than we do. And [00:49:49] Ben: that's where politics, in the term, in the sense of, A compromise between people who have different priorities on something can actually come in where we can say, okay, like we're going to trade off, we're going to say like, okay, we're going to increase like national security a little bit, like in, in like this area to, in compromise with being able to like unblock this. [00:50:11] Tim: That's right. Yeah. And I think this is the benefit of like, you know, when I say lever, I literally mean lever, right. Which is basically like, we're in a period of time where we need this. Yeah. Right? We're willing to trade progress for security. Yeah. Okay, we're not in a period where we need this. Like, take the, take, ramp it down. Right? Like, we want science to have less of this, this kind of structure. Yeah. That's something we need to, like, have fine tuned controls over. Right? Yeah. And to be thinking about in, like, a, a comparative sense, [00:50:35] so. And, [00:50:36] Ben: to, to go [00:50:36] Tim: back to the metabolism example. Yeah, yeah. I'm really thinking about it. Yeah, yeah. [00:50:39] Ben: Is there an equivalent of macro for metabolism in the sense that like I'm thinking about like, like, is it someone's like blood, like, you know, they're like blood glucose level, [00:50:52] Tim: like obesity, right? Yeah, right. Kind of like our macro indicators for metabolism. Yeah, that's right. Right? Or like how you feel in the morning. That's right. Yeah, exactly. I'm less well versed in kind of like bio and medical, but I'm sure there is, right? Like, I mean, there is the same kind of like. Well, I study the cell. Well, I study, you know, like organisms, right? Like at different scales, which we're studying this stuff. Yeah. What's kind of interesting in the medical cases, like You know, it's like, do we have a Hippocratic, like oath for like our treatment of the science person, right? It's just like, first do no harm to the science person, you know? [00:51:32] Ben: Yeah, I mean, I wonder about that with like, [00:51:35] with research. Mm hmm. Is there, should we have more heuristics about how we're [00:51:42] Tim: Yeah, I mean, especially because I think, like, norms are so strong, right? Like, I do think that, like, one of the interesting things, this is one of the arguments I was making in the long science piece. It's like, well, in addition to funding certain types of experiments, if you proliferate the number of opportunities for these low scale projects to operate over a long period of time, there's actually a bunch of like norms that might be really good that they might foster in the scientific community. Right. Which is like you learn, like scientists learn the art of how to plan a project for 30 years. That's super important. Right. Regardless of the research results. That may be something that we want to put out into the open so there's more like your median scientist has more of those skills Yeah, right, like that's another reason that you might want to kind of like percolate this kind of behavior in the system Yeah, and so there's kind of like these emanating effects from like even one offs that I think are important to keep in mind [00:52:33] Ben: That's actually another [00:52:35] I think used for simulations. Yeah I'm just thinking like, well, it's very hard to get a tight feedback loop, right, about like whether you manage, you planned a project for 30 years [00:52:47] Tim: well, right, [00:52:48] Ben: right. But perhaps there's a better way of sort of simulating [00:52:51] Tim: that planning process. Yeah. Well, and I would love to, I mean, again, to the question that you had earlier about like what are the metrics here, right? Like I think for a lot of science metrics that we may end up on, they may have these interesting and really curious properties like we have for inflation rate. Right. We're like, the strange thing about inflation is that we, we kind of don't like, we have hypotheses for how it happens, but like, part of it is just like the psychology of the market. Yeah. Right. Like you anticipate prices will be higher next quarter. Inflation happens if enough people believe that. And part of what the Fed is doing is like, they're obviously making money harder to get to, but they're also like play acting, right? They're like. You know, trust me guys, we will continue to put pressure on the economy until you feel differently about this. And I think there's going to be some things in science that are worth [00:53:35] measuring that are like that, which is like researcher perceptions of the future state of the science economy are like things that we want to be able to influence in the space. And so one of the things that we do when we try to influence like the long termism or the short termism of science It's like, there's lots of kind of like material things we do, but ultimately the idea is like, what does that researcher in the lab think is going to happen, right? Do they think that, you know, grant funding is going to become a lot less available in the next six months or a lot more available in the next six months? Like influencing those might have huge repercussions on what happens in science. And like, yeah, like that's a tool that policymakers should have access to. Yeah. Yeah. [00:54:11] Ben: And the parallels between the. The how beliefs affect the economy, [00:54:18] Tim: and how beliefs [00:54:19] Ben: affect science, I think may also be a [00:54:21] Tim: little bit underrated. Yeah. In the sense that, [00:54:24] Ben: I, I feel like some people think that It's a fairly deterministic system where it's like, ah, yes, this idea's time has come. And like once, once all the things that are in place, like [00:54:35] once, once all, then, then it will happen. And like, [00:54:38] Tim: that is, that's like how it works. [00:54:40] Ben: Which I, I mean, I have, I wish there was more evidence to my point or to disagree with me. But like, I, I think that's, that's really not how it works. And I'm like very often. a field or, or like an idea will, like a technology will happen because people think that it's time for that technology to happen. Right. Right. Yeah. Obviously, obviously that isn't always the case. Right. Yeah. Yeah. There's, there's, there's hype [00:55:06] Tim: cycles. And I think you want, like, eventually, like. You know, if I have my druthers, right, like macro science should have like it's Chicago school, right? Which is basically like the idea arrives exactly when it should arrive. Scientists will discover it on exactly their time. And like your only role as a regulator is to ensure the stability of scientific institutions. I think actually that that is a, that's not a position I agree with, but you can craft a totally, Reasonable, coherent, coherent governance framework that's based around that concept, right? Yes. Yeah. I think [00:55:35] like [00:55:35] Ben: you'll, yes. I, I, I think like that's actually the criteria for success of meta science as a field uhhuh, because like once there's schools , then, then, then it will have made it, [00:55:46] Tim: because [00:55:47] Ben: there aren't schools right now. Mm-Hmm. , like, I, I feel , I almost feel I, I, I now want there to b

Chapter 1 Interpret what The Death And Life Of Great American Cities is about"The Death and Life of Great American Cities" is a book written by Jane Jacobs, first published in 1961. In the book, Jacobs criticizes the urban planning theories and practices that were prevalent at the time and suggests alternative approaches. She argues against the prevailing idea that urban renewal and slum clearance were necessary for improving cities and instead advocates for preserving and revitalizing existing neighborhoods.Jacobs examines the social, economic, and cultural factors that contribute to vibrant and thriving cities. She emphasizes the importance of diverse and mixed-use neighborhoods, pedestrian-friendly streets, and a sense of community. She argues that a city is more than just its physical structures and that the complex interactions and activities of its residents are what truly make it great.The book has had a significant impact on urban planning and has become a classic in the field. It challenged prevailing assumptions about city planning and advocated for a more organic and community-driven approach to urban development. Jacobs' ideas continue to be influential today in shaping discussions and practices around urban design and revitalization.Chapter 2 Is The Death And Life Of Great American Cities A Good BookYes, "The Death and Life of Great American Cities" by Jane Jacobs is widely considered to be a classic and influential book in urban planning and sociology. It offers insightful and original ideas about city dynamics, emphasizing the importance of a diverse and active street life, mixed-use development, and community engagement. Many urban planners, architects, and academics regard it as a must-read for anyone interested in understanding and improving cities.Chapter 3 Key Features of The Death And Life Of Great American Cities"The Death and Life of Great American Cities" is a seminal work written by urban activist and journalist Jane Jacobs. Published in 1961, it challenged conventional urban planning theories and presented a compelling critique of urban renewal projects and modernist urban design.Jacobs argues that successful cities are characterized by vibrant and diverse neighborhoods, filled with a mix of residential, commercial, and public spaces. She emphasizes the importance of street life and pedestrian activity in creating a sense of community and safety. In her view, urban planners often overlook the intricate social and economic dynamics of a city, leading to the destruction of local communities in the name of progress.One of the central arguments in the book is the importance of mixed-use development and dense city neighborhoods. Jacobs claims that a mix of old and new buildings, varied building heights, and a mix of businesses and residences creates a lively and dynamic urban environment. She criticizes modernist planning practices that separate residential areas from commercial and industrial zones, resulting in isolated and often deserted neighborhoods.Jacobs further analyzes the social and economic aspects of urban life, highlighting the importance of public spaces, such as parks and plazas, in fostering community interaction. She also puts forth the concept of "eyes on the street," emphasizing the importance of active and engaged citizens in maintaining a safe and vibrant city.Throughout the book, Jacobs offers a series of case studies and observations from various American cities and neighborhoods, providing examples of successful and unsuccessful urban planning practices. She also critiques the prevailing theories of

Randal O'Toole, an American policy analyst, discusses his maverick career, non consensus views on urban planning, transportation, and housing in this interview. O'Toole runs the Thoreau Institute as well as the popular policy blog, The Antiplanner. He has written several books and hundreds of policy papers from a free market perspective on urban planning, government policy, housing, rail and other related land use topics. We explore his belief that urban planners often impose their preferences on the public, such as imposing restrictive land use planning codes to “force” people to live in apartments and use public transit, even though most people prefer single-family homes and driving. O'Toole also shares the impact of the pandemic on urban planning, reinforcing existing trends such as people moving to the suburbs and working from home. We discuss the potential of autonomous vehicles in replacing public transit in the future as well as his views on cycling. In this interview, O'Toole critiques the idea of planning itself and promotes the repeal of federal and state planning laws and the closure of state and local planning departments. He explores in detail why planning fails, through documentation of planning disasters, while giving context of his perspective on land use issues in Hawaii such as cycling, light rail, affording housing, and agricultural lands as well as providing solutions for environmental protection and stewardship.Topics / Time Stamps* (2:08) On Biking in Oahu* (12:33) Educational Background and Current Work* (16:05) Economics vs Planning* (20:31) The Iconoclastic Mindset* (24:25) Buses vs Light Rail* (26:55) Criticism of the Honolulu Light Rail System* (33:47) On New Urbanism* (43:45) Urban Planning and the Pandemic* (46:16) Solutions to non utilized urban cores / skyscrapers * (49:06) The Iron Triangle* (51:30) Autonomous vehicles as an alternative* (54:07) Houston as Model* (59:18) Incentive-based conservation* (1:04) The Grassroot Institute* (1:06) Hawaii Land Use Reforms Recommendations* (1:12) Vacancy Taxes as Symptom * (1:15) On Optimism* (1:17) Policy Briefs The Antiplanner: https://ti.org/antiplanner/Policy Briefs: https://ti.org/antiplanner/?page_id=16274The Education of an Iconoclast: https://ti.org/antiplanner/?page_id=16272Leafbox:Today I had the pleasure of speaking and learning from Randal O'Toole. He's an American policy analyst. He's written several books, hundreds of policy papers, and he provides solutions from a free market perspective to various problems. He runs a popular blog called The Antiplanner, and he's featured in several debates on urbanism, environmentalism, government policy. But today I was curious about exploring his biography and discussing his memoir, the Education of an Iconoclast. We discussed his shift from forestry to economics, his 50 year career, his thoughts on light rail and other transportation, housing solutions, bus, Hawaii, top down urban planning, Houston as a model for development and other topics. I hope you enjoy. Thanks for listening.Leafbox:Hi, good afternoon, Randal.Randal O'Toole:Can you hear me?Leafbox:Now I can. Perfect. Thank you for your punctuality and for rearranging the meeting. I know you're a busy man.Randal O'Toole:Great.Leafbox:Well, Randal, I just thank you so much for your time. I've been reading your blog on and off for years and this morning I was biking. I live in Oahu, so I think that's important visual wise.Randal O'Toole:Oh, I hate biking in Oahu. It is so awful.Leafbox:I bike every day about 10, 12 miles to drop off my daughter back and forth. I was listening to some of your debates you've had with people, mainly James Kunstler and obviously I love biking. I wanted to start with biking. There are many debates you have online about the pros and cons of government planning and light rail, but I really wanted to start with your relationship with cycling and how that influenced your political evolution because I read most of your excellent biography and memoirs and I just wanted to understand how that cycling framework has influenced your analysis of cities and urban planning and design and everything.Randal O'Toole:Well, it's funny. One of the very first transportation issues I got involved in, it wasn't the first, but it was early. It was about 1975. I was invited to attend meetings of the bicycle advisory committee for the city of Portland. And I was an ardent cyclist. I didn't even have a driver's license at the time and I worked in downtown Portland and I lived in the east side, which if you know Portland means you have to cross the river. And Portland has, I think 11 bridges now. Only nine of them are open to vehicles and only seven of them are open to bicycles. And the lanes tended to be pretty narrow and there was a lot of on and off ramps on some of those bridges. So I went to the advisory committee and I said, you need to put some curb cuts to make it easy for bicycles to use the sidewalks so that they aren't blocking your narrow lanes.A couple of the bridges, the lanes were only like 12 feet wide and there was no ability to pass because there were structures on both sides of the lanes. And so if you were bicycling, it was kind of scary to have cars pass you in this narrow lane if you were in the lane. Now there was a sidewalk, but you couldn't get up to the sidewalk without stopping and getting off your bike and lifting the bike onto the sidewalk and so on. So I said, put in curb cuts. And the city said, oh, we can't do that. It would be too dangerous when the bicycles come off, the cars wouldn't expect it. And they'd hit the bicyclists and two years later they put in all the curb cuts and all the places I recommended. So I stopped going to those advisory committee meetings, but they ended up doing what I recommended.Now it wasn't because I had recommended it, it was because that was the logical place to put it. Since then, I occasionally participated in bicycle proposals, but today what I'm seeing is that the bicycle community has been captured by the anti automobile community. Even though at the time I didn't have a driver's license, I wasn't anti automobile, I was a follower of John Forrester. John Forrester wrote a book called, what was it called? Anyway, he argued that bicycles were vehicles by law, they were treated as vehicles and so they should act like vehicles. They should assert themselves when they were in very narrow lanes and make sure that cars knew they were there, occupy the whole lane if necessary, but usually they should try to be a part of the flow of traffic and not expect any special lanes or anything like that. In fact, he argued that bicycle lanes actually made traffic more dangerous.What's happened since then is that we've had movements, pro bicycle movements that have made bicycle list feel like they are superior to other vehicles in traffic. There was a movement called critical mass where hundreds or thousands of bicyclists would go at rush hour one day a week and occupy some entire streets that were vital streets for people getting home and disrupt traffic as much as possible. And the bicyclists who were attending these critical mass events were told You were superior, cars are inferior, you should have the right of way over cars at all times. And what we saw happen was bicyclists then would go away from these critical mass meetings and be convinced that they were superior and they would insist on occupying right away and asserting right away when they didn't actually have it and they would get hit more frequently. And we've seen an increase in bicycle fatalities in recent years.And I think that's partly because critical mass has warped the perspective of bicyclists. And so we've had cities adopt plans that they claim are to make streets safer. They call them vision zero plan. And these vision zero plans often call for taking a four lane street, in other words, a major collector street that's moving a lot of traffic and take away one of the lanes from the automobiles and make it into bike lanes. So you'd have a 12 foot lane turned into two six foot lanes, one for bicyclists going one way and one for bicyclists going the other way. That leaves three lanes. One of the lanes would be used for left turns and the other two lanes would be for traffic in two different directions. Now that kind of project is designed to safeguard bicyclists from being hit from behind by cars. Well, on average, about 3% of bicycle fatalities consist of people being hit from behind by cars.Now I'm a cyclist. I know you're always nervous about getting hit from behind, but the cars see you, they know you're there, and so they watch out. They don't want to hit you any more than you want to be hit by them. So only 3% of fatalities are being hit by cars from behind. Half of all fatalities take place at intersections where the bike lanes disappear. So we're safeguarding against a very rare event and not doing anything about the kind of event that is responsible for half of all bicycle fatalities by putting in the bike lanes, we're sending a message to bicyclists that it's safe to ride on this busy street. So we get an increase in bicyclists riding on these busy streets, which means you're get an increase in bicyclists crossing busy intersections and getting hit. So we're making bicycling more dangerous by creating an illusion of bicycle safety that isn't real.I would've done something completely different. I would've taken local streets that are parallel to those busy streets and turned them into bicycle boulevards, which means you remove as many stop signs as you can so that you can have through bicycle traffic with minimal stops, but put in a few little concrete barriers to discourage cars from using those streets as through street. So you now have streets that are open to cars for local traffic and open to bicycles for through traffic. And I've used bicycle boulevards in Berkeley and Portland and other streets and they feel a lot safer. They are a lot safer and they don't cause the imposition on cars. It happens when you take lanes away from cars. So that's my attitudes towards cycling, which is that bicycles are vehicles, cars are vehicles. One should not be superior to the other. In certain situations, cars have the right of way and other situations, bicycles have the right of way. The safest thing we can do is separate them when we can by putting bicycles on bicycle boulevards instead of by asserting that bicycles are safe, by putting them into bike lanes when actually we're making it more dangerous.Leafbox:So Randal, you mentioned that you don't like biking in Oahu. What specifically do you not like about biking here?Randal O'Toole:Well, you've got a lot of busy streets. Their lanes are narrow. There's often not bike lanes where you do have bike lanes. They have strangely put two-way traffic in one bike lane. And so you have a risk of hitting other bicyclists, but you also have the risk that not only do you have bicyclists going with the flow of traffic, you have bicyclists going in the opposite flow from traffic. And so you're compounding the risk of not just having the risk of getting hit from behind, but having the risk of a head on collision. And I don't see that as particularly safe. I've bicycled, the last time I got hit by a truck was when I was bicycling in Maui on a bike lane and the truck was turning left into a driveway. I was bicycling at about 20 miles an hour. There was a lot of traffic and the truck didn't see me before it turned and I didn't see it until the last second and got hit by this truck. So again, it's another situation where bike lanes do not increase safety. It would've been better if there had been a local bicycle boulevard and I think you could probably put some bicycle boulevards in Oahu, but they haven't done that. Instead. Mostly bicycles are then for themselves and there are those few bike lanes downtown, which I didn't find particularly well designed.Leafbox:Randal, I should have asked first, but for people who aren't familiar with your work, I'm a fan of Antiplanner, but how do you describe yourself? What's a quick summary of your actual work and education and framework?Randal O'Toole:Well, the funny thing is my training is as a forester and I spent the first 20 years of my career as a forest policy analyst. I was analyzing government plans, Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management plans for mainly public lands, but also in some cases for private lands. That analysis carried over. I discovered that, well, what happened was is I was challenging the federal timber sale levels. They were selling a lot of timber, losing money at most of it, doing a lot of environmental damage. And in a nutshell:, we won federal timber sale levels declined by 85% between 1990 and 2000, and it was a great deal of that was due to my work. Part of it was due to the spotted owl, which I didn't really work on, but most of it was due to my work, which persuaded the forest service, that they were cutting too much timber and that they shouldn't be doing so much.And so now having won that battle, I looked around for other battles to fight and came across battles that were going on with land use and transportation in the city I lived in, which was the Portland urban area. And extended that to found out that I was dealing with a movement that was a national movement that was trying to force people to stop driving, trying to force more people to live in apartments instead of single family homes. And since 98% of the travel we do in cities is driving, and since 80% of Americans want to live in single family homes, it seems to me that even though I was a bicyclist, I have to realize that most people don't bicycle. Most people drive. And even though I have lived in apartments, I have to realize that most people want to live in single family homes.So I shouldn't be imposing my preferences on other people through some kind of planning process. So I began to challenge city plans, urban area plans, state plans, transportation plans, land use plans, and I discovered that there's a lot of similarities between forest planning and urban planning. Basically, forest planners think that there's these inanimate objects out in forest that they can make, do whatever they want. I actually found a forest plan that proposed they were going to grow trees to be 650 feet tall when the tallest trees in the world are less than 400 feet tall. Forest planners just thought they could imagine anything they want and it would happen. And urban planners think that there's these inanimate objects in cities that they can make, do whatever they want. And those inanimate objects are people and they think that, well, they can just force more people to live in apartments. They can just force more people to take transit or to bicycle instead of drive. And to me, those are very unappealing ideas and whether you're libertarian or not, you don't really like to think that somebody is trying to manipulate you to force you to use a much more expensive way of transportation or to live in a much less desirable home. That also happens to be more expensive than the single family home you might be living in. Now,Leafbox:When did that shift, I think in your memoirs, you started taking economics classes or was it when you were learning first computer modeling, when did that shift come in understanding reality versus imposed reality?Randal O'Toole:The funny thing was that when I was working on forest issues, I was making quite a name for myself. One Forest Service official told a reporter that Randal O'Toole has had more impact on the forest service than all the environmental groups combined. And so I would get speaking invitations and a professor at the University of Oregon Department of Urban Planning asked me to come and speak to his class, and I did at the time, I had a bachelor's degree in forestry and he said, you should go to graduate school, you should go to graduate school in our urban and regional planning department. And I said, well, I'm not really interested in urban planning. I'm interested in forest issues. He said, well, we also do regional planning, so they offered me funding support and things like that. So I said, okay, so I took the first terms worth of courses in urban planning and I looked around and I said, I shouldn't just take courses in one field.I should also learn some other fields. And there was a course in urban economics, it was also a graduate course, and what I discovered was the urban economists didn't make any assumptions about cities. Instead, they looked at the data and then they tried to build for how the city works, they compared the model against the data and if the model didn't produce the data that they knew was real, they modified the model and then they compared that against the data and they kept modifying it until they got a model that came out pretty close to how the cities actually were working. So then they were able to ask questions of the model like what happens if you draw an urban growth boundary around the city and force the density of the city to get higher force higher densities, force more people to live in apartments instead of single family homes?Will that result in more congestion or less? Well, the model clearly showed that although some people would respond to density by taking transit, most people would keep driving and the congestion would just get worse. Because you have more people driving per square mile of land because you'd have higher population densities? Well, in the urban planning courses, they asked the same question, and instead of building a model or looking at any data at all, they just said, well, I think if they were higher density people would ride transit more and so there'd be less congestion. And everybody in the class agreed. There were two urban planning professors in this class and they agreed and I said, no, the actual economic data show that the congestion would get worse. We went back and forth and finally one of the professors said, well, everybody's entitled to their opinion.And that was the day I knew I wasn't going to become a planner, I was going to become an economist. So I stopped taking urban planning courses and I started taking economics courses and took a whole slew of those courses and still spent most of my time working on forest issues. And so I ended up not earning any degrees, but I think more like an economist than a planner. In fact, I think more like an economist than a forester. Foresters have a way of thinking. Geographers have a way of thinking. Landscape architects have a way of thinking. Economists and planners have ways of thinking, and I think like an economist. And so sometimes I'll call myself an economist even though I don't have a degree in economics. Sometimes I call myself a policy analyst even though I don't have a degree in policy analysis. My degree is in forestry. All of these things are alike in the sense that these planners and basically what I've spent my career doing is critiquing government plans. These planners think that they can impose things on the land or impose things on people that people don't want to have imposed on them.Leafbox:Going back to where does that iconoclastic mindset emerge from? I'm curious and how do you keep defending it? Why don't you go with the flow of the consensus?Randal O'Toole:Well, it's funny, I've always been an iconoclast. I grew my hair down well below my shoulders when I was in high school, which made the high schools vice principals hate me. I would leave school to go to anti-Vietnam protest marches or civil rights protest marches. I would skip school to go to environmental events and eventually started an environmental group in my high school when Earth Day came along that persuaded me that I should work on environmental issues. So I went to a forestry school where they taught people how to grow trees so they could cut them down and cut them up into forest products. And here I was not being real obvious about it, but being somewhat obvious because I was spending my summers doing internships, working on how to stop the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management and other agencies from cutting down trees.And so I was always out of step and that seems to have continued throughout my career. One interesting example lately has been bus rapid transit. I spent a lot of the last 30 years of my career critiquing urban transit systems and we'd see cities like Portland and Seattle spending billions of dollars on rail transit and Honolulu now spending billions of dollars on rail transit and I'd say, wait a minute, bus rapid transit can move more people faster, faster to more destinations than rail transit. So instead of rail transit, we should be looking at bus rapid transit, and now we're seeing cities say, okay, we'll do bus rapid transit, but we won't do the kind of bus rapid transit Randal O'Toole was talking about, which was running buses on ordinary city streets. But the buses only stop once per mile like a rail line, and so they're faster.They don't have to stop as frequently and they'll be more attractive to passengers both because they're faster and they're more frequent. Instead of just doing that, we're going to build special lanes for the buses. We're going to build fancy stops for all the buses, fancy stations for all the buses to stop at. And so instead of spending a million dollars a mile on bus rapid transit, we're going to spend $50 million a mile or a hundred million dollars a mile on bus rapid transit. We're going to make bus rapid transit as expensive as building rail transit. Well, I've lost interest in that, and so I'm now no longer enthusiastic behind bus rapid transit. Instead, the kind of transit I've been advocating is express buses, nonstop buses throughout urban areas that will take people from lots of origins to lots of different destinations with intervening 20 miles an hour, which is the average speed for bus rapid transit or 11 miles an hour, which is the average speed for local buses. They'll go at 50 miles or 55 miles an hour because they'll be going on freeways for most of their routes. Nobody else in the transit industry is thinking about this. So I guess I'm ahead of my time. I was talking about bus rapid transit before they were, and now I'm talking about express buses before anybody else. We'll see if they follow.Leafbox:Randal. These are like the buses, the Bolt bus in Los Angeles or San Francisco or the Chinatown buses in New York to Boston or DC or those type of private industry buses.Randal O'Toole:Those are intercity buses. And the interesting thing about the intercity bus industry is it used to be tied down by bus stations. You'd have these expensive bus stations in every city and they'd have baggage clerks and they'd have ticket salesmen and stuff like that. And the kind of buses you're mentioning, they've abandoned all that. They go from curbside to curbside, which means they don't have to pay for a station. They let the passengers load their own luggage, which means they don't have to pay for baggage handlers. You buy your tickets on the internet, which means they don't have to pay for ticket agents.And that led to a huge resurgence in inter city buses. intercity buses buses were on the decline for about 1960 to 2005, and you started seeing these infrastructure light buses, megabus and bolt bus and so on, and suddenly bus ridership, intercity buses bus ridership is increasing. So we look at the transit industry and instead of saying, let's see, we've got this great infrastructure out there, it's called roads and streets. Let's run our transit on roads and streets. Instead of saying that, they're saying, let's build a lot of infrastructure that's dedicated solely to urban transit, and it's going to be really expensive infrastructure. We can build a lane mile of road for half a million dollars, but we're going to spend a hundred million dollars building a mile of rail or $200 million. There are some rail projects now that are costing $500 million per mile of rail.That's a billion dollars a route mile because we have a mile of rail going in each direction. So we're spending phenomenal amounts of money for something that's only going to be used by a few transit riders because transit only carries half a percent of all passenger travel in this country. Before the pandemic, it was 1%, but now it's down to about a half a percent. Maybe it'll get us way back up to three-fourths of a percent. We're spending billions and billions of dollars on this tiny percentage of travelers with buses. We could attract the same number of people, move the same number of people, probably more people for a lot less money because the buses can go faster. Even New York City subways average less than 30 miles an hour, and buses on freeways can average 60 miles an hour.Leafbox:So Randal here in Hawaii about the new HART (Light Rail), I'd love to just a quick summary of your critiques of that system and why you think it was built.Randal O'Toole:Well, of course, when they first planned it, they said it was going to cost less than 3 billion. And in fact, the original proponents said that fares were going to pay not only all the operating costs, but they were going to pay part if not all of the capital costs. Well, the costs have exploded to well over $9 billion. The Federal Transit Administration thinks that by the time they're done, it's going to be $12 billion and they've run out of money. So they're saying we're not going to be able to finish it all the way immediately. Eventually we might get enough money to be able to finish it, but not right away. And the ridership numbers they were projecting were probably way too high. Certainly they're not getting anything close to what they were expecting with the part that's opened. That's partly because it's not finished and you look at it and all it really is a bus route.They could have done exactly the same thing with buses. They could have gone just as fast if not faster with buses. They persuaded people to go for it. They said it's going to relieve congestion. Well, it's not going to relieve congestion. In fact, their own data show the congestion is going to increase near the transit stops because people were going to be slowing down and stopping there to pick up and drop off rail riders instead of people walking to the rail stations that were going to drive to the rail stations and have somebody drive them and drop them off. So their own data showed it was going to increase congestion, but they convinced people it was going to reduce congestion. And the onion had a great story many years ago saying 98% of American commuters want other people to ride transit so that they can drive in less congested traffic.So transit agencies in Honolulu, in Los Angeles and San Diego and cities all over the country had convinced people to go for these extremely expensive transit projects by claiming that it was going to reduce congestion when in fact, on almost every case, it made congestion worse. And we made these critiques of the Honolulu Rail project before they began, before it began, the city council ignored us. They were heavily pressured by the unions that wanted jobs for constructing it. When the construction is done, there aren't going to be any jobs. The transit is automated, there aren't going to be jobs for drivers, there's going to be some maintenance jobs. There's going to be a tiny fraction, the jobs that they're getting for building. And so it was just basically unions and contractors wanted to build it. They threw money into the right campaign funds, and so politicians supported it.So we end up seeing, and we're seeing us all over the country, we're seeing it for high speed rail, we're seeing it for Amtrak. We're seeing this what's called the iron triangle, which is people who make money from tax dollars in one corner of the triangle, the bureaucracy that another corner of the triangle and the politicians at a third corner of the triangle, the politicians appropriate money to the bureaucracy, which then give it out to the contractors who spend it and then who then take some of that money and use it for campaign contributions to the politicians. Very hard to break that triangle. We have found that if a measure goes on the ballot and we can spend 10% as much money as a proponent spend, we can usually reach enough voters to convince 'em to vote it down. But if we only reach five, only spend 5% as much as the proponent spend, it usually passes because they drown us out with their claims that it's going to relieve congestion and is education.It's convincing people to be skeptical of government. We've got this huge movement now that's skeptical of capitalism and they don't realize that a lot of government is really crony capitalism where people take money from government to build up their companies. You've got companies that exclusively live off of government spending, and you see this in transportation. We've got all these engineering and consulting firms like Parsons Brinkerhoff, which has now got a new name WSR and HDR and a bunch of other companies, and they overtly lie. HDR has made a specialty of going to cities and saying, if you build rail transit, you're going to get billions of dollars of economic development. Look what happened in Portland. They built a light rail line and they got a billion dollars of economic development. They don't mention the fact that Portland got zero economic development after it built the light rail.So 10 years after it opened the line, it threw a billion dollars in subsidies to developers along the light rail line, and those developers then put in new developments and they said, look, we built the light rail line. We've got all this new development. Well, you didn't mention the billion dollars in subsidies: where you didn't put in the subsidies, you got no new development, or you did put in the subsidies and you didn't have light rail, you got new development. It was the subsidies, not the light rail that got new development. HDR lies to people and claims it's the rail transit that got the new development. They even hired a city counselor in Portland, the person who had originally proposed these subsidies, and he traveled around the country telling cities that they put in the rail lines and they got all this development. He never mentioned the subsidies that he himself had initiated on the Portland City Council.So you need to educate people and we need a skeptical public. We need people in the public who aren't going to automatically assume that government is good and that private operations, private companies are automatically bad. Private corporations aren't necessarily purely good, but given a choice between a public agency and a private corporation, I would rather have the private corporation because I can at least decide not to patronize that company if I don't like their products or what they do. Whereas when the government does something, I'm stuck with having to pay taxes for it whether I like it or not.Leafbox:What are your thoughts on New Urbanism? I think you've had debates with James Kunstler and have any of your thoughts changed or evolved orRandal O'Toole:Yes, they've evolved. I originally didn't like it and now I hate it. I originally thought new urbanism was a little misguided. Now I think they're delusional. Totally delusional. New urbanism is the idea that people will be happier if they live within walking distance of shops, of coffee shops, of stores of transit stops, maybe even within walking distance of work that people will be healthier if they're within walking distance. The way to do that is to build a lot more apartments because that's the way to get the density you need to get people living within walking distance. And so new urbanism effectively supported the urban planners who are trying to have urban growth boundaries around cities and densify the cities and increase the apartments. And if you look at the history of new urbanism, it basically came in the 1990s from a group of architects and planners who read a book that was published in about 1960 called The Death and Life of Great American Cities.The book was written by an architecture critic at the time named Jane Jacobs. She lived in Greenwich Village, New York City at the time, the urban planning profession believed that high density apartments were bad. Most of the big cities like New York and Chicago and Boston had a bunch of apartments that had been built before the turn of the 20th century. They were like four and five and six stories tall. They didn't have any elevators. You had to climb up all these staircases if you lived on an upper floor to get to your apartment. At the time they were built, elevators had just been invented or they hadn't even been invented yet. High speed electric elevators dated to 1891. So a lot of these were built before the elevators. They were built for people who couldn't afford to ride a street car to work. And so you had blocks of apartments that had like 5,000 people living per block, and they were within walking distance of blocks of factories that had like 3000, 4,000 people per block of factories.So people would walk, from the apartment for the factory. Well, after the turn of the 20th century, we got Henry Ford developed the moving assembly line for automobiles, and he made automobiles so cheap that everybody who was living in those apartments could afford to buy them. And the moving assembly line required so much land that all the factories moved out of downtowns into the suburbs. So the jobs moved to the suburbs, the people who bought cars that a lot of them moved to the suburbs, they could live in single family home instead of apartments. And after World War ii, we could see those apartments were not very desirable. And so in 1949, Congress passed a law that gave the cities money for urban renewal that was to be used to clear these apartments out and replaced them with something else. Well, the cities didn't want to replace 'em with single family homes because they didn't think they'd get as much tax revenue for the single family homes.So for the most part, the cities were replacing them with high rise apartments with elevators. In the 1930s, there was a crazy architect from Switzerland who called himself Le Corbusier , which I think means the crow, and he thought that everybody should live in high rise apartment. I don't know why he thought that, because he himself never lived in a high rise apartment. He lived in low-rise, but he thought cities should build highrise apartments. So the urban planning fad of the 1950s was to build high-rise apartments, not just in American cities, but all over the world. You go to South Korea and the cities, all of them have high rise apartments. You go to Japan, you go to China, you go to Russia, you go to Paris, you go to cities everywhere you find all these high-rise apartments. They were all inspired by this kooky architect named Lake Buer who thought people should live in a way that he himself didn't want to live.So here comes Jane Jacobs. They want to tear down her apartment building and put in a high-rise, and she says, urban planners don't understand how cities work. Well, she was right about that. Urban planners don't understand how cities, but then she went on to say something that was totally wrong, which was that she, Jane Jacobs understood how cities work, and the way she described an ideal city was you had five story apartment building and with all this density, the ground floor would be shops and people would entertain their guests out on the street. She didn't say this apartments were so small, there was no room for entertaining guests. So you'd entertain the guests out on the streets, so you'd have people playing out on the streets, they'd be barbecuing out on the streets, they'd be shopping out on the streets because the shops are out on the streets, so there wouldn't be any crime because everybody would be able to see everything that was going on because they'd all be down on the streets all the time.You'd have these lively streets, it'd be so exciting to live in them. It'd be a wonderful place to live. And that's what a real city was like. She didn't understand that what she was describing was an artifact from the 1880s that people were moving out of as rapidly as they could and that, despite her claims, they did have high crime rate. The people didn't want to live in buildings, so they had to climb up to five stories, four, four or five stories on stairs to get to their apartments that they're moving out. She herself didn't live in a five story building. She lived in a three story building. I don't know if she lived on the second floor or the third floor. I suspect her apartment was probably on both floors because she was welted due. Her husband had a good job, she got a good job.They lived in this three story building. There was a shop on the ground floor and they had to walk up, I think one floor to get to the main part of their apartment. So she didn't understand what it was like having to walk up three, four, and five flights of stairs to get to apartments on the fourth, fifth, and sixth floors. Doubly ironic, in 1968, her son decides to dodge the draft because he didn't believe in the war in Vietnam. So he moved to Canada. She decided to move to Canada with him, and she made so much money selling her book, the Death and Life of Great American Cities that she bought a single family home in Canada. She didn't live in a mid-rise apartment, and she moved to a single family home. And yet the urban planners who were young in the 1960s and becoming dominant in the 1990s who had read her book said, yes, we were wrong to try to force people to live in high rise apartments.We should instead try to force people to live in five story apartments like the apartments that she described in the Death and Life of Great American Cities, like the apartments in Greenwich Village. So instead of saying, alright, let's build some of these five story apartments in the inner cities in Portland and Denver and Seattle, they said, let's build these five story apartments everywhere. Let's build them in the suburbs. Let's build them in rural areas. Let's build 'em everywhere. All urbanites should live in these five story apartment buildings. And so we're seeing them spring up all over the place. Most of them are subsidized because as I say, 80% of Americans want to live in single family homes, not in apartments. We even had an urban planner write a paper that was very popular in the urban planning profession that said by the year 2025, and he wrote this in about 2002 or something. By the year 2025, people aren't going to want to live in single family homes anymore, and we're going to have a surplus of 22 million single family homes in the suburbs. The suburbs are going to turn into slums because everybody living in those suburbs are going to have moved into apartments in downtown. And so what urban planners should do today is get ahead of the situation by getting their cities to build more apartments, building more apartments in the suburbs, replace these icky single family homes that people won't want to live in so that we won't have a shortage of apartments when people want them. Well, of course, we're two years away from 2025. We have people moving away from cities as fast as they can before the pandemic where there were polls that showed that 40% of people who were living in dense cities wanted to move to suburbs or rural areas. And we had the same polls showed that more people wanted to live in suburbs that actually lived in them, and that was in 2018. And then the pandemic comes along and people just flee these dense cities, the populations of San Francisco and New York and others, Portland and Seattle, they're all declining and the populations of their suburbs, some cases are growing the populations of small towns. Boise, Idaho is the fastest growing city in the country.The guy was just totally wrong. And yet we have suffered for two decades under urban planners who have tried to force these ideas on cities by subsidizing, by taxing people, and then subsidizing these high density apartments that people don't really want to live in.Leafbox:Randal, talking about the pandemic, how has that changed or affected your outlook on urban planning or on where people want to live? Or do you have the same critiques of the subsidies of suburban living orRandal O'Toole:All the pandemic has done is reinforced the ideas I already had. A pandemic doesn't really change things. What it does is it reinforces trends that are already happening. We already had a trend where people were buying cars and stopping the use of transit. Transit ridership declined every year from 2014 to 2018. It recovered slightly in 2019, but not much. Most cities still declined. About 45% of our transit takes place in New York City. And what happened was it grew in New York City in 2019. It's still declined almost everywhere else, but the growth in New York City overcame the decline everywhere else, but basically people were still buying cars. Gas prices dropped in 2014 and that just killed transit everywhere except New York City.And then we have the trend to living in suburbs. We have the trend of wanting to live in single family homes as soon as people could afford to do so. They would buy a car and then they could live out in the suburbs where they didn't have to be in a lot of congestion or they didn't have to deal with crime or they didn't have to deal with pollution and things like that. And all the pandemic did is it reinforced all those things before the pandemic. You might've thought everybody who wanted to move to the suburbs had already done, but no, it turns out a lot more people wanted to move to the suburbs, but by the pandemic allowed more people to work at home and that led more people to say, okay, now I can move to the suburbs. Or before I couldn't because I was required to work in an office that was too far away from the place I wanted to live in the suburbs. So we now have people who maybe work in an office one day a week, but live a hundred miles away from that office and instead of driving 20 miles five days a week, they're driving a hundred miles one day a week each way and living far, far away from the density that urban planners had made for them.The pandemic didn't change my views, it just reinforced them.Leafbox:What is your solution for the urban cores that are the skyscrapers of New York and the developers that built up that infrastructure? What are they supposed to do with these remote work is a challenge for 'em?Randal O'Toole:I think the government shouldn't do anything. I think the developers are going to have to figure it out for themselves. The owners are going to have to figure out for themselves what to do with those offices. Solution number one is to find lower valued tenants. They have what they call Class A offices and class B offices and class A offices attract companies like Chase Manhattan and Wells Fargo and Class B attracts lower rung companies. Then you have Class C that attracts nonprofit groups and flea markets and antique stores and things like that. So the owners of these office buildings are going to have to accept a lower class of tenants. Now you hear proposals to convert office buildings to apartments, and I think the Biden administration just approved a bill that's going to offer money to developers to convert office buildings to apartments. The problem is you look at the way plumbing is set up in an apartment building, every single apartment has to have plumbing for kitchen and bathrooms.And you look at the way plumbing is set up in an office building, they put the plumbing in this core of the building where the restrooms are and the outer reach of the building have no plumbing at all. So it's going to be very expensive to change office buildings into apartment buildings. And really it's cheaper to build single family homes than it is to build apartments, and it's probably cheaper to build single family homes than it is to convert offices to apartment buildings. If you didn't have urban growth boundaries around cities, you're not going to convert offices to apartments because people aren't going to be willing to pay that extra cost of living in an apartment. If you live in a place that does have urban growth boundaries, you've driven up the cost of single family homes to be two to five times greater than it ought to be, then maybe you'll be able to justify converting offices to apartments economically justify. But that's only because you've distorted the housing market totally rid of those distortions.Leafbox:Like you said, it's still the triangle, the iron triangle, because the developers are getting subsidies for their losses instead of just taking the loss and finding Class C tenants.Randal O'Toole:Well, that's going to happen in some places, but even with the subsidies, I don't think you're going to see a lot of apartment conversions in Houston or Dallas or Atlanta or Omaha or Raleigh, places where you don't have urban growth boundaries. And so housing is still pretty affordable. Single family housing is still pretty affordable. The new urbanists like to ask people, would you rather live in an apartment where you're within walking distance of coffee shops and grocery stores and your work? Or would you rather live in a single family home or you have to drive everywhere you go? Everywhere you go. And a lot of people will say the apartment, but if you ask a question honestly, you'd say, would you rather live in a 1000 square foot apartment that costs $400,000 that's within walking distance of a limited selection, high priced grocery store and a coffee shop?Or would you rather live in a 2000 square foot single family home on a large lot that's with an easy driving distance of multiple grocery stores that are competing hard for your business, both on and on having a wide selection of goods to sell you. And there's not much congestion because you live in a low density area. Well, you asked a question that way. You mentioned that your 2000 square foot house only costs $200,000, whereas to 1000 square foot apartment costs $400,000, even without the cost, you're going to find a lot more people saying they want the single family home. And when you add in the cost, the preference for single family homes just zoomed upward. So in Houston, you're not going to see a lot of conversions. You'll probably see a bunch of conversions in San Francisco, but do people really want to live that way? I think people are being forced to live that way, and I don't like the fact that planners are getting away with forcing people to live in ways they don't want to live. WhatLeafbox:Are your thoughts? I think you're a proponent of autonomous vehicles as an alternative to public infrastructure and public transport. Could you expand on that?Randal O'Toole:Well, I'm not so much a proponent, as I see that's the wave of the future. So we see cities like Seattle spending gobs of money. I mean, Seattle's got spending like 90 billion on light rail when autonomous vehicles, once they're applied to Seattle are going to be just destroy light rail as a mode of transportation. Who's going to want to ride light rail when you're going to be susceptible to diseases that you can catch from other people on the train? There's going to be crime on the train, and it only goes when the rail is scheduled, not when you want to go, and it only goes where that we've spent billions of dollars building the rail lines and not where you want to go. Whereas you could call up an autonomous vehicle, have it come to your door, take you to your door, and it's going to cost you probably not much more, maybe even less than when you count all the subsidies.It's certainly going to cost less than the light rail. So it's going to happen. I mean, it's happened in San Francisco. Waymo has just announced that they're serving the entire Phoenix metropolitan area now just 550 square miles. Cruise is shut down in San Francisco temporarily in response to calls because there was one accident. But the data show that even as primitive as it is today, we've the autonomous vehicles that have traveled millions and millions of miles have only had about one fifth as many accidents per million miles. They travel as human-driven vehicles. The pressure is coming from the taxi drivers, the truck drivers, the people whose jobs are going to be lost when they're replaced by autonomous vehicle, and they're the ones who are putting pressure in California to try kill autonomous vehicles in San Francisco. But it's going to happen. And since it is going to happen, we shouldn't be spending money on these 19th century forms of rail transportation that are slow and expensive and don't go where people want to go.Leafbox:Talking about international frameworks, you travel, you went to Switzerland and you're going to Canada and you're a fan of rail. Where can Americans learn? Who's doing planning, right? Who's letting, is it Singapore, is it Tokyo? Where's the most ideal framework for development in your opinion, meeting the needs of this civilian, the government, and just where do you find that balance?Randal O'Toole:Houston. Houston is the closest I can come to the ideal. Houston has no zoning. Texas counties are not allowed to zone. And so Houston is surrounded by lots, some suburban cities that are incorporated. The biggest one is Pasadena. They don't have any zoning. Other Incorporated cities around Houston do have zoning, but what happens is the developments take place in unincorporated areas. The developers build houses that people want. They build homes for the market. They do build some multifamily, but they build mostly single family. And then these developed areas then get annexed into the suburbs and the suburbs then sometimes apply zoning. Sugar land is one example of that. Almost all of sugar land was built in unincorporated areas and then annexed into the city. Even the city hall was built when it was unincorporated, and then they annexed it into the incorporated area. So the zoning only came after it was built.And so the developers were able to build the kind of houses that people wanted. And one of the things that developers found is that if you're going to buy a single family home, you want to have some assurance that nobody's going to put in a gravel pit or a meat packing factory or a brick factory or something like that right next door to you. And so the developers did something that was like zoning. They put protective covenants on the properties. They said All the homes in this neighborhood have to be a certain size. All the homes in this neighborhood have to be a certain size or whatever, and the lots have to be a certain size and so on. And what happens is when you do that, if you're a developer, you don't get more money from your lots, but they sell a lot faster.It doesn't increase the cost. There's no cost of putting these covenants on, but they sell a lot faster. These covenants are actually developed decades before zoning, and they were so successful that zoning was invented by cities to apply to existing single family neighborhoods to increase home ownership. Home ownership rates went from about 15% in cities in 1890 to over 50% by 1960, because people had the assurance that if they bought a home, it wasn't going to be degraded in use because the next door neighbor decided to put in something that was incompatible, whether it was zoning or protective covenants. So Houston has protective covenants in all these suburban developments, and these covenants are flexible. If a developer says, look, your neighborhood has these covenants in and they're incompatible with the development I want to put in, but I think my development will sell really well, I'll pay you to change your covenants.And some neighborhoods have agreed to do that so that the developers can put in something that they think is more marketable than the kind of housing that's in that neighborhood and people's taste change. So these kinds of things do happen over time. Now, another thing that's happened is that some of the suburban counties around Houston have toll road authorities, and they are funded exclusively out of their tolls. They build roads rather economically. They build freeways that are cost about $5 million a lane mile, and they build these freeways to get from the suburban communities that are being built by developers who are using protective covenants to get from these suburban neighborhoods to downtown Houston. So Fort Bend County, for example, has several freeways that is built exclusively with toll roads that are paid for solely out of tolls. They don't get any gas taxes, they don't get any tax dollars, and I consider these to be very successful.Now nobody is perfect. Houston. After voting down light rail a couple of times, they managed to persuade them that voters that if they built light rail, it would relieve congestion. And so they ended up building some light rail lines That to me, have been total disasters. Transit ridership in Houston was growing before they started building a light rail is now lower than it was in the last couple of years before light rail opened. Because they spent so much money on the light rail, they ended up cutting back on their bus service and you lost more bus riders than you gained rail riders. That's a pattern we've seen in Los Angeles and St. Louis and Sacramento and cities all over the country that you build rail and you lose riders because you end up having fewer bus riders than you gain rail riders. But overall, despite that quirk, the light rail problem in Houston, I say Houston is the place you should go to if you want to find out how cities could work without a lot of government plansLeafbox:As an environmentalist, you have a model called Incentive-based conservation. Could you just summarize that for people and how you think market reactions can help secure environmental rights and whatnot?Randal O'Toole:Well, I developed those ideas back when I was working on forest issues and the Forest Service and other agencies were doing a lot of clearcutting that clear cutting damaged wildlife habitat. It reduced recreation values because recreationists to the most valuable recreation was recreation in areas that were wild and where you had some solitude from other people and from big cities and from roads and things like that. And so the forest service is eagerly building roads, cutting down trees, damaging watersheds, damaging fisheries, damaging wildlife habitats. The best fisheries in Oregon, for example, are an area that have no roads, that have had no logging, the best salmon fisheries. So I looked at after years of looking at Forest service data, something hit me one day, and that was that the reason why the Forest Service was doing this is because Congress had inadvertently designed their budget to reward the Forest Service for losing money on environmentally destructive activities and to literally penalize the forest Service for either making money or doing environmentally benign activities, activities that were not bad for the environment.And certainly they didn't reward them for doing environmentally good activities. And so the Forest Service was merely following its incentive. I wrote a whole book about this. It was called Reforming the Forest Service. It came out in 1988. In 1989, the Forest Service sold 11 billion Ford feet of timber started declining in 1990. By 2001, it had fallen to one and a half billion board feet of timber. It had fallen by 85%. And people in the Forest Service came to me and said, we read your book and we thought you were accusing us of being corrupt. And then this guy said, the guy told me, I suddenly realized last week I had signed off on a timber sale so I could get a bigger budget. And they stopped doing that. They stopped saying, they said, we don't want to be motivated by our budget to do these bad things anymore.And so they stop these environmentally destructive timber sale. I didn't think that was going to happen. I thought we would have to change their incentives. So I talked about incentive-based conservation. I said, we should charge recreation fees. We should charge fees, bigger fees for fishing and hunting. Right now, when you fish and hunt, technically under federal law or under US law, the animals you fish and hunt are owned by the states. But if you, on national forest, the land you're hunting on is owned by the federal government. So right now you pay a hunting fee to the state, but you don't pay anything to the federal government. I said, you should also have to pay a fee to the federal government to hunt on federal land or fish on federal land. If you did that, I pointed out then private landowners would also be able to charge fees, and you'd see both federal and private landowners modifying their activities so that they would enhance wildlife habitat, enhance fisheries, and enhance recreation opportunities.We'd have more recreation, not less if we were willing to pay fees. And so my solution to the forest problems was to charge recreation fees to balance the fees from timber cutting and grazing and mining. And the forest services own numbers showed that recreation was worth more than all the other activities combined. So they would make a pretty good balance. I got quite a few environmentalists supporting this. But then in the mid 1990s, the environmental movement kind of got taken over by people who believed in top down planning, they believed that the president should make all the decisions for every single timber sale. And if a timber sale didn't meet their approval, they literally went to the president of the United States and got him to call up the district, not him, but one of his age, to call up the district ranger and say, don't do that timber sale. It drove the Forest Service bureaucracy nuts because these people in the administration in the White House were overruling 'em. And so incentive-based conservation didn't get very far. Now we're seeing some people in the environmental movement going back and recognizing that this top down planning doesn't work very well, and they're beginning to look at these ideas again.Leafbox:Randal, as you had that interview with the Grassroots Initiative here in Hawaii discussing housing policy, what's your relationship with them? And my other question is, do you have an opinion on vacancy taxes for Hawaii or other places?Randal O'Toole:Alright, well, you're talking about the Grassroot Institute, not plural, but Grassroot Institute, and they're a state-based think tank in Hawaii. And I work with state-based think tanks all over the country. Recently, I've done work for state-based think tanks in North Carolina, Arizona, Oregon, Colorado, a lot of different states and Hawaii. And some of them have hired me to do some work. Some of them just asked me to comment in Zoom meetings or in podcasts or radio interviews or whatever. But the Grassroots Institute is one of a great network state-based think tanks that I'm happy to be working with and for as much as I can. Even when I worked for the Cato Institute, which is a national think tank in Washington dc, I really saw my job as being a liaison from Cato to these state-based think tanks because most people in Cato working on national or international issues, I was one of the few in Cato who was working on local issues like housing or transportation issues. And so I've always had a good relationship with the Grassroot Institute. The director and their staff are great people and they do good work on housing and a lot of other issues in Hawaii.Leafbox:And then what are your thoughts? I mean, you advocated for a voucher model, just to summarize that for meeting affordable housing and then if you have any thoughts on vacancy taxes. Many people want to apply vacancy tax in Hawaii for empty units or empty second homes or I'm just curious if you've studied that at all.Randal O'Toole:Well, Hawaii was the first state in the country to try to restrict the development of single family homes. And it's such an irony because in the 1950s, most of the land in Hawaii was owned by the five companies, Dole and so on, and the bishop estate. And if you wanted to own your own home in Hawaii, often you couldn't find land to own it on something like 99% of the land was owned by one of these six entities. So you would have to lease land from one of these entities and build your home on it. And the five companies were agricultural companies and they weren't interested in leasing land for homes. They wanted to grow pineapple and sugarcane and other crops on their land. And so you had this huge housing crisis in Hawaii in the late 1950s. And at the time, in the early 1950s, Hawaii's legislature, territorial legislature was run by Republicans and they were very sympathetic to the five companies, and they weren't sympathetic to the people who needed housing.Well, the late 1950s, the Democrats took over and they took over on a promise of land reform. They promised that they would force the five companies and the bishop estate perhaps to sell some of their land to use for housing so that people could find affordable housing. Well, the Democrats won and in 1961 they passed their land reform cap package and it did exactly the opposite of what they promised. Instead of requiring the companies to sell the land, they declared all the rural land in the state, most of which was owned by these five companies. They declared that land off limits to developments. They said the only land you could develop was urban land. This story is told by a great book called Land and Power in Hawaii. I recommended to all your listeners if they're from Hawaii. And what the Democrats discovered was that as legislators, they could make exceptions for themselves.And so if you're a developer and you wanted to develop some land, you went to a state legislator and you made that legislator a partner in your development, the partner would then get the state to override the rules that had been passed by the state in response to the law you passed so that you could have your land developed or your developer partners land development developed and you'd make all this money. And so it became quite a corrupt system, and that's a system that governs Hawaii. To this day, only about 14% of the land in Hawaii has been developed. There's lots of land even in Oahu. Most of the land is still undeveloped. It's rural land that could be developed. And the real irony is supposedly the 1961 law that reserved all these rural areas where supposed to protect the agricultural industry, and yet the farm industry has practically died in Hawaii.Why? Because the farmers can't afford to hire farm laborers and pay them enough money for those laborers to find housing and still produce pineapple and sugarcane and other produce that's competitive with farms in Costa Rica and Fuji and other places that haven't restricted housing. And so we've destroyed more than 80% of the farm industry in Hawaii just since 1982. It's been 80%. So since 1961, it's been more than 80%. In order to preserve the farmlands, we had to destroy the farms. That to me is a very sad commentary on what's happened in housing. Now, since housing has gotten expensive, we've come up with all these wacko ideas to make housing that's affordable. One wacko idea is build high density housing, build more apartments. Well, it turns out apartments cost twice as much per square foot to build as single family homes, maybe more than twice as much if it's really tall, partly because you have to put in elevators.If you're building taller than two or three stores, you have to put in elevators. They're really expensive, more steel, more concrete. It just makes housing a lot more expensive. So you're not building affordable housing when you build apartments. And yet we have all these subsidies that we're throwing at developers that are inefficiently building expensive housing, but it's subsidized housing. And so then they can rent it at lower rates. Then we come up with crazy ideas like, oh, Airbnb is using up all the housing. Well, if we didn't have these restrictions on housing, we could build more housing. There'd be enough housing for Airbnb, there'd be enough housing for vacation homes, and there'd be enough housing for year-round residents. It's only because of the land use law that restrict housing, restrict new development that's made housing expensive. So the number one priority of anybody who cares about affordable housing should be to abolish the state land use laws, not just modify them to increase the amount of urban land, but totally abolish them. We'd see a lot more development on Oahu. We'd see a tiny bit more development on the other islands. Not much. Most of the land that's rural and the other islands would stay rural. At least half the land on Oahu that's rural would stay rural. Probably half of Oahu would stay rural, but there'd be a lot more development and housing would get to be a lot more important.Leafbox:A

Are Berlin, Rome, Brussels or Aukland great AMERICAN Cities? How should you read the US Empire? DO YOU LIVE IN THE AMERICAN EMPIRE???How should one deal with the US Empire [aka collective west] #Empire#America Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Strong Towns founder and president, Charles Marohn, was invited to the Lit with Charles podcast to discuss Jane Jacobs' seminal work, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, and the impact it has had on urban planning and the building of cities. If you love Jane Jacobs or want to learn more about her views and how Strong Towns advocates are working to make them a reality, you will want to explore this conversation. We have provided a full transcript to go along with the audio version, which we share here with the permission of the Lit with Charles podcast.

Today's episode follows an interesting literary path. The first stop in that path is a book written in 1974 by Robert Caro, called The Power Broker. It's one of the most brilliant biographies of all time. If you're looking for a magnificently researched, and totally gripping book on the life of one of the most influential men of the 20th century, then this the one. It's the story of Robert Moses.  That name may not mean much to a lot of people but in short, he's basically the man who built New York City from the 1930s to the 1960s. Through a finely tuned network of money and power that he put together, he was able to decide, pretty much single-handedly, what was built in New York: roads, parks, bridges, buildings. Robert Moses' ideas started spinning out of control and he developed visions of massive highways ploughing through New York and to do that, he was going to tear down vast neighbourhoods of the city.  The person who ignited the opposition to Robert Moses was a journalist and urban activist called Jane Jacobs. In 1961, she wrote a book called “The Death and Life of Great American Cities” in which she outlined a very different path for urban planning, one that was more focused on organic human interaction, based on historic urban traditions, as opposed to abstract planning based on data. I was curious to know how she and her book were perceived today in the urban planning community and how this book had aged. I was very lucky to connect with today's guest, Chuck Marohn who is the founder of Strong Towns, a movement based in Minnesota, dedicated to helping cities and towns in the United States achieve financial resiliency through civic engagement, and seeks to improve communities through urban planning concepts such as walkability, mixed-use zoning, and infill development. Strong Towns manages a blog and a podcast of the same name, hosted by Chuck. In today's episode, we discuss the influence of Jane Jacobs' book, the context that surrounded its publication and how the urban planning debate has evolved over time and what's at stake for cities today. The most brilliant book: Economy of Cities by Jane Jacobs (1969) His favorite book I've never heard of: The Lives of a Cell by Lewis Thomas (1974) The best book he's read in the last 12 months: “The One: How an Ancient Idea Holds the Future of Physics” by Henrich Päs (2023) The book he found disappointing in the last 12 months: “Doughnut Economics” by Kate Raworth (2017) The book that he would take to a desert island: The Bible The book that changed his mind: “What the Dog Saw”, by Malcolm Gladwell (2009) Links: Chuck's Book: https://amzn.eu/d/4tpGm1I Strong Towns Website: https://www.strongtowns.org/contributors-journal/charles-marohn Follow me ⁠⁠⁠@litwithcharles⁠⁠⁠ for more book reviews and recommendations!

EPSIODE 91 | Tartaria Sauce : The Great Tartarian Empire and 15-Minute Cities One day, I wondered if there were any conspiracy theories about architecture, which is something I am quite keen on, so I fired up the laptop and did a Google search, and sure enough, there is. One. One that's weird and funny and just a little bit sad. While researching this, a new conspiracy pops up on the interwebs, this time about urban planning, another subject I‘m very interested in. And so, between the Tartarian Empire/Great Mud Flood theory, and the newly minted freak out about 15-minute cities, it felt like this episode of Conspiracy Clearinghouse was sort of writing itself. Like what we do? Then buy us a beer or three via our page on Buy Me a Coffee. #ConspiracyClearinghouse #sharingiscaring #donations #support #buymeacoffee You can also SUBSCRIBE to this podcast. Review us here or on IMDb! SECTIONS 02:08 - Trans-Continental Hustle - Fomenko's New Chronology and Levashov's ramblings 04:51 - This City Never Sleeps - NYC's Singer Building & Penn Station, San Francisco's 1915 Panama–Pacific International Exposition, the White City at the 1893 World's Columbian Exposition in Chicago 10:49 - World in My Eyes - Great Tartaria, the Great Mudflood, YouTube and Reddit 15:29 - They Might Be Giants - Tartarians were giants, mountains are petrified buildings, ancient nukes 18:29 - Bury the Evidence - Zero point energy, Nikola Tesla, we was robbed, a 1957 CIA report is proof (or not) 25:45 - I of the Storm - It's the QAnon of architecture 29:56 - City to City - Gemma O'Doherty discovers the 15-minute city, Carlos Moreno's ideas, Frank Llyod Wright's Broadacre Cities, Build Back Better and Agenda 21/30 35:02 - Deeply Dippy - O'Doherty ramps up her rhetoric, Oxford gets in trouble, Neo-Nazis and Not Our Future make noise 38:46 - Party at Ground Zero - Death threats, climate change deniers get in on the action, Jordan Peterson and other screwheads weigh in, not really a new idea, Jan Gehl's groundbreaking ideas on urban planning, many cities are making plans (like Prague) 45:24 - Bitter Sweet Symphony - 15-minute cities have become a rallying point for alt-right madness and conspiracy theories Music by Fanette Ronjat More Info: Time for Timer: Pseudohistories & Historical Revisions episode Khazar Love Triangle episode Singer Building on Skyscraper.org The Story Behind The Singer Building: NYC's Lost Skyscraper The birth, life, and death of old Penn Station The Panama-Pacific International Exhibition SAN FRANCISCO, UNITED STATES 1915 on America's Best History WORLD'S COLUMBIAN EXPOSITION OF 1893 The World's Columbian Exposition: The White City and fairgrounds on Smart History 5 fun facts about the World's Columbian Exposition of 1893 The Devil in the White City: Murder, Magic, and Madness at the Fair That Changed America by Erik Larson Lost Empire of Tartaria in Never Was Magazine Tartaria and the Mud Flood on the Skeptoid podcast Inside The Empire Of Tartaria, One Of History's Wildest Conspiracies Twitter thread on Tartaria by @cinemashoebox Tartarian Architecture on Reddit Nikola Tesla - The Monster from Venus episode Tartaria Uncovered: AntiquiTech, Tesla, Mud Flood & Beyond! subreddit Inside the wild architecture conspiracy theory gaining traction online John Levi on YouTube Philipp Druzhinin on YouTube Tartaria: an Empire hidden by history, or revealed by ignorance? Question the Narrative | Trees, Titans, or Melted Buildings? History Reset video The Lost Empire of Tartaria on Historical Blindness National Cultural Development Under Communism - 1957 CIA report Inside the ‘Tartarian Empire,' the QAnon of Architecture Tartaria Explained in Three Minutes video What is the Truth about Tartaria video The Tartarian Meltdown YouTube channel The 15-minute city: how Ireland's conspiracy theorists grew to fear an urban planning concept Introducing the “15-Minute City”: Sustainability, Resilience and Place Identity in Future Post-Pandemic Cities 15-Minute City on Deloitte The 15-Minute City: Putting people at the center of urban transformation website Paris' Vision for a ‘15-Minute City' Sparks a Global Movement Paris, the 15-minute city in The New European THE PROMISE OF THE 15-MINUTE CITY on Politico The Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs Revisiting Frank Lloyd Wright's Vision for “Broadacre City” Agenda 21 - This Land Is My Land episode How '15-minute cities' turned into an international conspiracy theory What is the '15-minute city' conspiracy theory? Why is the apparently harmless idea of 15-minute cities exercising conspiracy theorists? Oxford, the 15-Minute City, and the Birth of a Lie Why do traffic reduction schemes attract so many conspiracy theories? Oxford hit by wave of protests over '15-minute city' backlash Oxford protest video Oxfordshire and Oxford councillors threatened over traffic filters False climate lockdown claims in Oxford lead to death threats Don't lock me in my neighborhood! 15-minute city hysteria sweeps the UK Walkable Cities Jan Gehl website "The Human Scale" in IMDb Times Square Transformation Times Square: Putting the “square” back in Times Square Citing “Livability and Mobility,” Bloomberg Declares Broadway Plazas a Success on Next City Portland's 20-Minute Neighborhoods after Ten Years: How a Planning Initiative Impacted Accessibility London's Gear Change plan Prague Metropolitan Plan Prague 2050 Plan Prague Institute of Planning and Development plans How can we bring ‘zero auto ownership' out of the shadows? Tackling the 15-minute cities conspiracy means fixing inequality Conspiracy Theorists Are Coming for the 15-Minute City The 15-Minute City Freakout Is a Case Study in Conspiracy Paranoia 15-minute cities: how to separate the reality from the conspiracy theory Follow us on social for extra goodies: Facebook Twitter Other Podcasts by Derek DeWitt DIGITAL SIGNAGE DONE RIGHT - Winner of a 2022 Gold Quill Award, 2022 Gold MarCom Award, 2021 AVA Digital Award Gold, 2021 Silver Davey Award, 2020 Communicator Award of Excellence, and on numerous top 10 podcast lists.  PRAGUE TIMES - A city is more than just a location - it's a kaleidoscope of history, places, people and trends. This podcast looks at Prague, in the center of Europe, from a number of perspectives, including what it is now, what is has been and where it's going. It's Prague THEN, Prague NOW, Prague LATER

Why is it important to have a passion for what you want to do? In this episode of Weiss Advice, we welcome Coby Lefkowitz. Coby Lefkowitz is a real estate developer, writer, and thought leader in the world of urban planning and development. Based in New York, and in addition to his own projects at his firm Backyard, Coby works with people and cities worldwide to create more beautiful, walkable, sustainable, and dynamic communities for all. Coby tries to marry romantic ways of looking at the world with how to actually implement them in our built environment, something he calls romantic pragmatismTune in to this episode as Coby shares how an individual got their feet wet in the development world![00:01 - 01:16] Opening SegmentWe welcome, Coby Lefkowitz!Coby is the Principal & Co-Founder of Backyard[01:17 - 24:56] Romantic Pragmatism In Creating Sustainable NeighborhoodsCreating walkable, dynamic, sustainable, and resilient neighborhoods by unlocking density near city cores and amenitiesOpenness to opportunities and passion for architectureOpportunity zones have been used to help build in core neighborhoodsReforming zoning and building codes has allowed for more progressive infill development[24:57 - 33:17] THE FINAL FOURWhat's the worst job that you ever had?Working in basement studios in the summerWhat's a book you've read that has given you a paradigm shift?“The Death and Life of Great American Cities” by Jane JacobsWhat is a skill or talent that you would like to learn?Learn how to draw architectureWhat does success mean to you?Coby says, “It's contentment, and then you can put a monetary or a material value to success.“Connect with Coby Lefkowitz: Website: Coby LefkowitzTwitter: @CobylefkoLEAVE A 5-STAR REVIEW by clicking this link.WHERE CAN I LEARN MORE?Be sure to follow me on the below platforms:Subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify, Google, or Stitcher.LinkedInYoutubeExclusive Facebook Groupwww.yonahweiss.comNone of this could be possible without the awesome team at Buzzsprout. They make it easy to get your show listed on every major podcast platform.Tweetable Quotes:“You're never going to have 100% confidence. And so, you need to get a sufficient threshold. And then as soon as I feel sufficiently comfortable, I dive in.” – Coby Lefkowitz“It was a real opportunity for us to kind of make good on what we preach of wanting to create more walkable and dynamic and sustainable and resilient neighborhoods, but actually being able to do that, goes back to the romantic and pragmatism.” – Coby LefkowitzSupport the show

Welcome ladies, germs, and people of all genders! Join Taylor & Curtis as we discuss films set in the most haunting location of all....the suburbs! We discuss what makes the suburbs such a perfect setting for a horror movie (the term "liminal spaces" is used) before diving into to two very interesting examples of suburban horror!! We could have chosen literally a hundred movies (seriously there are so many horror films set in the suburbs!!) but we chose two oddly similar, sweaty movies!! Why are the suburbs so scary, specifically to Americans? What themes are common in suburban horror films? What would you do if you found a human ear lying in a field? Would it be scary if someone had their boobs and butt on the same side of their body? Listen and find out!Check out the resources we reference in this episode!"American Suburbs Are a Horror Movie and We're the Protagonists" by Shina Shayesteh: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2022/1/13/american-suburbs-are-a-horror-movie-and-were-the-protagonists"The Horror of Suburbia: What is “Universal” Horror?" by Shannon Lewis: https://slowburnhorror.com/2021/05/13/the-horror-of-suburbia/And if you want to learn more about urbanization and the suburbs, Taylor recommends: "The Death and  Life of Great American Cities" by Jane Jacobs, "Black Picket Fences" by Mary Pattillo, "The Big Roads" by Earl Swift and "Suburban Nation" by Andres Duany, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, and Jeff Speck. Support affordable housing and public transit policies in your local communities!!! YIMBY!!!!Please connect with us on Twitter: @ahhreelfilms or Instagram: @ahhrealfilms, or drop us a line to let us know how we're doing, or to suggest a future topic or film to discuss: ahhrealfilms@gmail.com. We'd love any recommendations for this series or a future listener submitted episode! And please remember to rate, review, and subscribe on your favorite podcast app! You can also find us both on Letterboxd! Follow us on our horror journey and occasional forays into romcoms (because let's be real).  Taylor: @happydeathtay Curtis: @let5groove2nit3 Movies Covered: Blue Velvet (1986), Society (1989), Evil Dead Rise (2023), Influencer (2023)

[This is one of the finalists in the 2023 book review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] If you know Jane Jacobs at all, you know her for her work on cities. Her most famous book, published in 1961, is called The Death and Life of Great American Cities. It criticizes large-scale, top-down “urban renewal” policies, which destroy organic communities. Today almost everyone agrees with her on that, and she is considered one of the most influential thinkers on urban theory. This is not a review of The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Perhaps it would be, if I had become interested in Jane Jacobs's ideas on cities like a normal person. But I didn't: I started with two books that came to me by random chance, or fate, if you want to call it that. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-cities-and-the-wealth

Henry Grabar is a writer for Slate, the online magazine, and he has written “Paved Paradise: How Parking Explains the World.” Now you probably are thinking, “I've never read a book about parking. A whole book? Come on.” Well, we thought the same thing but we were intrigued. So we read it and were engrossed. It is fascinating! It is funny! And it tells you so much about a subject on which we all have such strong opinions and about which we all suffer such frustrations. Just some facts he relates - major ones like “more square footage is devoted to parking each car (in America) than to housing each person” - and minor ones like Disney World has 45,000 parking spaces. 10 to 20 families lose their cars there every day.” Intrigued? Read on. The Walt Disney Company is the parent company of ABC News. Our bookstore this week is a grandaddy of second hand book stores - Second Story Books in the Washington, D.C. area. Books mentioned in the podcast: Paved Paradise: How Parking Explains the World by Henry Grabar Fear and Loathing at Rolling Stone: The Essential Writing of Hunter S. Thompson by Hunter S. Thompson Volumes 1-4 of the Gonzo Papers - Essays by Hunter S. Thompson The Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs The Economy of Cities by Jane Jacobs

Mary Portas discusses books, poetry, her connection to nature and tells us what we can all do to help protect our planet and build our communities. Mary is one of the UK's most well-known and innovative people in business.She made her name turning Harvey Nichols into a global fashion destination, by the age of just 30 she was on the board of directors. At 37, she left corporate life to launch Portas, her own creative company, with the mission to turn businesses into brands, places and spaces people want in their lives. She has been a regular on our TV screens, advised the government on the future of high streets and developed a fashion label. She is the author of Shop Girl, Work Like a Woman and most recently Rebuild: How to thrive in the new Kindness Economy. Mary's book choices are:  ** Angel by Elizabeth Taylor  ** The Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs ** The Cost of Living by Deborah Levy **  Devotions: The Selected Poems of Mary Oliver ** The Pocket by Pema Chodron Vick Hope, multi-award winning TV and BBC Radio 1 presenter, author and journalist, is the host of season six of the Women's Prize for Fiction Podcast. Every week, Vick will be joined by another inspirational woman to discuss the work of incredible female authors. The Women's Prize is one of the most prestigious literary awards in the world, and they continue to champion the very best books written by women. Don't want to miss the rest of Season Six? Listen and subscribe now! This podcast is sponsored by Baileys and produced by Bird Lime Media.

On today's Architectette podcast we welcome Katrina Johnston-Zimmerman. Katrina is an urban anthropologist that specializes in human behavior in public spaces. In 2019, she was selected as one of the BBC's 100 Influential Women Around the World and currently works as a data fellow for the City of Philadelphia within the Smart Cities Department doing research on data equity and privacy. She is dedicated to the improvement of public space, with extensive experience teaching and researching the topics we speak about. We talk about: - What is urban anthropology and how did it grow from the work of Jane Jacobs and Holly Whyte? - Surprising things you find in the city and what stories those items tell. - How cities identify and address problems to improve life for residents. - We discuss urban design improvements and lessons learned from the South Street Headhouse Square District, Barcelona, and Çatalhöyük. - Katrina shines a light on the bias of cities and how these biases impact layout, function, and policy. - We talk about strategies to invoke the spirit of urban anthropology in your professional and personal life. - I ask Katrina her opinion regarding the rising trend of suburban "Fake Downtowns", public space, and decentralization. Links: Katrina's Website (articles, talks, and more!): http://thinkurban.org/ Follow Katrina: https://www.instagram.com/think_katrina/ The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Jane Jacobs: https://bookshop.org/a/91133/9780679741954 More about William H. Whyte: https://www.pps.org/article/wwhyte More about Ada Colau's work in Barcelona: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/23/two-way-street-how-barcelona-is-democratising-public-space Çatalhöyük Urban Design: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1405/ Feminist City, Leslie Kern: https://bookshop.org/a/91133/9781788739825 "Fake Downtowns" Article: https://cheddar.com/media/why-fake-downtowns-are-the-new-malls Architectette Podcast Website: www.architectette.com Connect with the pod on LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/groups/12735000/), Instagram (@architectette), and TikTok (@architectette) Music by AlexGrohl from Pixabay. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/architectette/support

The World Economic Forum and its Great Reset is making the 15-Minute City a scary reality. It's rolling out totalitarian rules in cities regarding climate change "alarmism' with the trial run starting in Oxford, England in January 2024 and then moving to other cities in the future.  Links in this episode: Canada's Dr. Tam's Holiday Health Check with the North Pole (video): https://youtu.be/djfKXwlisZI  World Economic Forum 15-Minute City - Putting people at the center of urban transformation: https://www.15minutecity.com/  UN Agenda 2030 Beware: '15-Minute Cities' Are Another Globalists Scheme to Control, Punish, Surveil, and Imprison You (Katie Hopkins explains - lots of videos): https://rairfoundation.com/un-agenda-2030-beware-15-minute-cities-are-another-globalist-scheme-to-control-punish-surveil-and-imprison-you-video/ Richard Vobes - I bet Oxford council hasn't thought of this (video): https://youtu.be/VWuIS-A_hjM and The Insidious 'Restriction of Movement' trial in Oxford (video): https://youtu.be/a2y0FTRaUEM  15-minute cities: a new environmental vision (video): https://youtu.be/NOSflLHuzDo  Jane Jacobs: Neighborhoods in Action (video): https://youtu.be/Z99FHvVt1G4  The Hill 'Rising' News - CNN's Charlie Chester says in undercover video 'beat To death' climate change agenda (video): https://youtu.be/fkXsOes3CnM  If you have a subscription to NYTimes: 'Pack Your Bags, We're Moving To 'Roku City' https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/02/style/roku-city-screensaver.html?searchResultPosition=1  Books mentioned: Covid-19: The Great Reset by Klaus Schwab and Thierry Malleret: https://amzn.to/3w1CQ1D The Great Narrative by Klaus Schwab and Thierry Malleret: https://amzn.to/3Zxk1ky  The Great Reset by Glenn Beck and Justin Haskins The Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs: https://amzn.to/3vWp54l  The Most Dangerous Game by Richard Connell: https://amzn.to/3Gs0Qjm  1984 by George Orwell: https://amzn.to/3ivzqkC  http://truthdetectivepodcast.com truthdetectivepodcast@gmail.com 

James C. Scott, Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed, 1998.XKCD, Always try to get data good enough that you don't need to do statistics on it.Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi, 1883.Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, 1961.Rosa Luxemburg, Organizational Questions of Russian Social Democracy, The Mass Strike, the Political Party and the Trade Unions, The Russian RevolutionCreditsImage of a cow being given a physical exam ("bright or dull") courtesy Dawn Marick.

Beauty and Wonder with Andrew PetersonIn this second episode of our Advent Series, celebrated author and songwriter Andrew Peterson shares his insights about the importance of location and living responsibly and attentively in whatever specific place you inhabit. He discusses how deeper attentiveness to the beauty around us can awaken us to wisdom and wonder.This podcast is an edited version of our Online Conversation from December 2021. You can access the full conversation with transcript here.Learn more about Andrew Peterson.Authors and books mentioned in the conversation:The God of the Garden, by Andrew PetersonTim Mackey, The Bible Project's Tree of Life podcast seriesJaber Crow, by Wendell BerryWilliam WordsworthThe Death and Life of Great American Cities, Jane JacobsThe Geography of Nowhere: The Rise and Decline of America's Man-Made Landscape, by James Howard KunstlerSidewalks in the Kingdom: New Urbanism and the Christian Faith, Eric O. JacobsenGilead, by Marilynne RobinsonRich Mullins10 Resolutions for Mental Health, Clyde KilbyRelated Trinity Forum Readings:Bright Evening Star, Madeleine L'EngleA Christmas Carol, by Charles Dickens Babette's Feast, by Isak DinesenRelated Conversations:Practicing Gratitude with Diana Butler BassTo listen to this or any of our episodes in full, visit ttf.org/podcast and to join the Trinity Forum Society and help make content like this possible, join the Trinity Forum SocietySpecial thanks to Ned Bustard for our podcast artwork.

N.K. Jemisin is a fantasy and science-fiction writer who won three consecutive Hugo Awards — considered the highest honor in science-fiction writing — for her “Broken Earth” trilogy; she has since won two more Hugos, as well as other awards. But in imagining wild fictional narratives, the beloved sci-fi and fantasy writer has also cultivated a remarkable view of our all-too-real world. In her fiction, Jemisin crafts worlds that resemble ours but get disrupted by major shocks: ecological disasters, invasions by strange, tentacled creatures and more — all of which operate as thought experiments that can help us think through how human beings could and should respond to similar calamities.Jemisin's latest series, which includes “The City We Became” and “The World We Make,” takes place in a recognizable version of New York City — the texture of its streets, the distinct character of its five boroughs — that's also gripped by strange, magical forces. The series, in addition to being a rollicking read, is essentially a meditation on cities: how they come into being, how their very souls get threatened by forces like systemic racism and astronomical inequality and how their energies and cultures have the power to rescue and save those souls.I invited Jemisin on the show to help me take stock of the political and cultural ferment behind these distressing conditions — and also to remember the magical qualities of cities, systems and human nature. We discuss why multiverse fictions like “Everything Everywhere All at Once” are so popular now, how the culture and politics of New York and San Francisco have homogenized drastically in recent decades, Jemisin's views on why a coalition of Black and Latinx voters elected a former cop as New York's mayor, how gentrification causes change that we may not at first recognize, where to draw the line between imposing order and celebrating the disorder of cities, how Donald Trump kept stealing Jemisin's ideas but is at the root a “badly written character,” whether we should hold people accountable for their choices or acknowledge the way the status quo shapes our decision-making, what excites Jemisin about recent discoveries about outer space, why she thinks we are all “made of exploding stars” and more.Mentioned:N.K. Jemisin interview on Vox's "The Gray Area with Sean Illing"Book recommendations:Fullmetal Alchemist by Hiromu ArakawaMechanique by Genevieve ValentineWitch King by Martha WellsThe Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane JacobsThoughts? Guest suggestions? Email us at ezrakleinshow@nytimes.com.You can find transcripts (posted midday) and more episodes of “The Ezra Klein Show” at nytimes.com/ezra-klein-podcast, and you can find Ezra on Twitter @ezraklein. Book recommendations from all our guests are listed at https://www.nytimes.com/article/ezra-klein-show-book-recs.“The Ezra Klein Show” is produced by Annie Galvin, Jeff Geld and Rogé Karma. Our researcher is Emefa Agawu. Fact-checking by Michelle Harris and Mary Marge Locker. Original music by Isaac Jones. Mixing by Jeff Geld and Sonia Herrero. Audience strategy by Shannon Busta. Special thanks to Kristin Lin, Kristina Samulewski and Jesse Bordwin.

Collaborative care allows for a principal physician, behavioral health case worker and psychiatrist to work together to manage patients with both behavioral and medical needs. Spencer Hutchins, CEO & Co-founder of Concert Health tells us what his organization is doing to engage primary care and OB/GYN physicians in this process. Show notes:  website: concerthealth.io.  Books: Aaron Slater, Illustrator by Andrea Beatty and The Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs.

A lifetime spent reading, writing and reflecting teaches you a lot. Nilanjana Roy joins Amit Varma in episode 284 of The Seen and the Unseen to talk about books, feminism, family, memory and the state of the world.  Also check out:1. Nilanjana Roy on Twitter, Instagram, Amazon, Financial Times, Business Standard and her own website. 2. The Girl Who Ate Books: Adventures in Reading -- Nilanjana Roy. 3. The Wildings -- Nilanjana Roy. 4. The Hundred Names of Darkness -- Nilanjana Roy. 5. Episodes of The Seen and the Unseen that discuss reading and writing with Sara Rai, Amitava Kumar, VK Karthika, Sugata Srinivasaraju, Mrinal Pande, Sonia Faleiro, Vivek Tejuja, Samanth Subramanian, Annie Zaidi and Prem Panicker. 6.  Episodes of The Seen and the Unseen on the creator ecosystem with Roshan Abbas, Varun Duggirala, Neelesh Misra, Snehal Pradhan, Chuck Gopal, Nishant Jain, Deepak Shenoy and Abhijit Bhaduri. 7. A Meditation on Form -- Amit Varma. 8. Why Are My Episodes so Long? -- Amit Varma. 9. The Prem Panicker Files -- Episode 217 of The Seen and the Unseen. 10. Jonathan Haidt on Amazon. 11. Where Have All the Leaders Gone? -- Amit Varma. 12. The Ranga-Billa Case. 13. Sarojini Naidu on Amazon. 14. The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi. 15. The Mahatma and the Poet — The letters between Gandhi and Tagore, compiled by Sabyasachi Bhattacharya. 16. Amitava Kumar Finds the Breath of Life -- Episode 265 of The Seen and the Unseen. 17. Margaret Mascarenhas on Amazon. 18. The Web We Have to Save -- Hossein Derakhshan. 19. The Country Without a Post Office -- Agha Shahid Ali. 20. Wanting — Luke Burgis. 21. René Girard on Amazon and Wikipedia. 22. The Silence of Scheherazade -- Defne Suman. 23. Silver -- Walter de la Mare. 24. Lessons from an Ankhon Dekhi Prime Minister — Amit Varma. 25. George Saunders and Barack Obama on Amazon. 26. A life in 5,000 books -- Nilanjana Roy. 27. Surender Mohan Pathak, Ibne Safi and Gabriel Garcia Marquez on Amazon.  28. The Power Broker — Robert Caro. 29. The Death and Life of Great American Cities — Jane Jacobs. 30. JRR Tolkien, Ursula Le Guin and Terry Pratchett on Amazon. 31. Forget reading Thomas Piketty. Try a bit of Terry Pratchett -- Robert Shrimsley. 32. Fifty Shades of Grey -- EL James. 33. Ankur Warikoo, Aanchal Malhotra, Manu Pillai and Ira Mukhoty on Amazon. 34. Mahashweta Devi and Naiyer Masud on Amazon. 35. The former homes of Hurree Babu and Putu the Cat. 36. The Life and Times of Abhinandan Sekhri -- Episode 254 of The Seen and the Unseen. 37. Om Namah Volume -- Amit Varma. 38. Salman's Sea of Stories -- Salman Rushdie's Substack newsletter. 39. What Is It Like to Be a Bat? — Thomas Nagel. 40. The Hidden Life of Trees -- Peter Wohlleben. 41. An Immense World -- Ed Yong. 42. The Twitter thread by Sergej Sumlenny that Nilanjana mentioned. 43. The Inheritance of Loss -- Kiran Desai. 44. The Grapes of Wrath -- John Steinbeck. 45. Pather Panchali --  Bibhutibhushan Bandopadhyay. 46. Gora -- Rabindranath Tagore. 47. William Shakespeare, Kalidasa, Geoffrey Chaucer and Krishna Sobti on Amazon. 48. The Cult of Authenticity -- Vikram Chandra. 49. Meenakshi Mukherjee: The Death of a Critic -- Nilanjana Roy. 50. Field Notes from a Waterborne Land: Bengal Beyond the Bhadralok -- Parimal Bhattacharya. 51. Patriots, Poets and Prisoners: Selections from Ramananda Chatterjee's The Modern Review, 1907-1947 -- Edited by Anikendra Sen, Devangshu Datta and Nilanjana Rao. 52. The City Inside -- Samit Basu. 53. Understanding India Through Its Languages -- Episode 232 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Peggy Mohan). 54. Wanderers, Kings, Merchants: The Story of India through Its Languages — Peggy Mohan. 55. The Life and Times of Mrinal Pande -- Episode 263 of The Seen and the Unseen. 56. Manjula Padmanathan on Amazon. 57. The Life and Letters of Raja Rammohun Roy. 58. If No One Ever Marries Me -- Lawrence Alma-Tadema. 59. If No One Ever Marries Me -- Natalie Merchant. 60. Kavitha Rao and Our Lady Doctors -- Episode 235 of The Seen and the Unseen. 61. Lady Doctors: The Untold Stories of India's First Women in Medicine — Kavitha Rao. 62. The Memoirs of Dr Haimabati Sen — Haimabati Sen (translated by Tapan Raychoudhuri). 63. Women at Work — Episode 132 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Namita Bhandare). 64. The Loneliness of the Indian Woman -- Episode 259 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Shrayana Bhattacharya). 65. Films, Feminism, Paromita — Episode 155 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Paromita Vohra). 66. The Kavita Krishnan Files — Episode 228 of The Seen and the Unseen. 67. Manjima Bhattacharjya: The Making of a Feminist -- Episode 280 of The Seen and the Unseen. 68. I, Lalla: The Poems of Lal Dĕd -- Translated by Ranjit Hoskote. 69. Lal Ded's poem on wrestling with a tiger. 70. Anarchy is a likelier future for the west than tyranny -- Janan Ganesh. 71. The Better Angels of Our Nature -- Steven Pinker. 72. The Ferment of Our Founders -- Episode 272 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Shruti Kapila). 73. Rukmini Sees India's Multitudes — Episode 261 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Rukmini S). 74. A Life in Indian Politics -- Episode 149 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Jayaprakash Narayan). 75. The Gita Press and Hindu Nationalism — Episode 139 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Akshaya Mukul). 76. Gita Press and the Making of Hindu India — Akshaya Mukul. 77. Manohar Malgonkar, Mulk Raj Anand and Kamala Das on Amazon. 78. Kanthapura -- Raja Rao. 79. India's Greatest Civil Servant -- Episode 167 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Narayani Basu, on VP Menon). 80. Private Truths, Public Lies — Timur Kuran. 81. Alice Munro on Amazon. 82. The Bear Came Over the Mountain -- Amit Varma's favourite Alice Munro story. 83. The Median Voter Theorem. 84. The Ice Cream Vendors. 85. Mohammad Zubair's Twitter thread on the Dharam Sansad. 86. The Will to Change -- Bell Hooks. 87. Paul Holdengraber, Maria Popova, Rana Safvi and Rabih Alameddine on Twitter. 88. The hounding of author Kate Clanchy has been a witch-hunt without mercy -- Sonia Sodha. 89. Democrats have stopped listening to America's voters -- Edward Luce. 90. From Cairo to Delhi With Max Rodenbeck -- Episode 281 of The Seen and the Unseen. 91. The Indianness of Indian Food — Episode 95 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Vikram Doctor). 92. GN Devy. 93. The Art of Translation -- Episode 168 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Arunava Sinha). 94. Alipura -- Gyan Chaturvedi (translated by Salil Yusufji). 95. Tomb of Sand -- Geetanjali Shree (translated by Daisy Rockwell). 96. Writer, Rebel, Soldier, Lover: The Many Lives of Agyeya -- Akshaya Mukul. 97. Ashapurna Devi, Agyeya, Saadat Hasan Manto, Ismat Chugtai, Qurratulain Hyder, Amrita Pritam and Girish Karnad on Amazon. 98. The Adventures of Dennis -- Viktor Dragunsky. 99. Toni Morrison on Amazon. 100. Haroun and the Sea of Stories -- Salman Rushdie. 101. The Penguin Book Of Indian Poets -- Edited by Jeet Thayil. 102. These My Words: The Penguin Book of Indian Poetry -- Edited by Eunice de Souza and Melanie Silgardo. 103. The Autobiography of a Goddess -- Andal (translated by Priya Sarrukai Chabria and Ravi Shankar). 104. Ghachar Ghochar — Vivek Shanbhag (translated by Srinath Perur). 105. Amit Varma talks about Ghachar Ghochar in episode 13 of The Book Club on Storytel. 106. River of Fire -- Qurratulain Hyder. 107. The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas -- Ursula K Le Guin. 108. The Left Hand of Darkness -- Ursula K Le Guin. 109. Mother of 1084 -- Mahashweta Devi. 110. Jejuri -- Arun Kolatkar. 111. The Collected Essays of AK Ramanujan -- Edited by Vinay Dharwadker. 112. The Collected Poems of AK Ramanujan. 113. Folktales From India -- Edited by AK Ramanujan. 114. The Interior Landscape: Classical Tamil Love Poems -- Edited and translated by AK Ramanujan. 115. The Essential Kabir -- Translated by Arvind Krishna Mehrotra. This episode is sponsored by CTQ Compounds. Check out The Daily Reader and FutureStack. Use the code UNSEEN for Rs 2500 off. Check out Amit's online course, The Art of Clear Writing. And subscribe to The India Uncut Newsletter. It's free! The illustration for this episode is by Nishant Jain aka Sneaky Artist. Check out his work on Twitter, Instagram and Substack.