The reality is that most of the pro-urbanism people are people who are young and don't have children.

For the rest of America, the desire to live in a suburb has actually *increased*: https://www.homeinspector.org/Newsroom/Articles/Pros-and-Cons-of-City-Living-vs-Life-in-Suburbia/15880/Article

The average person looks at the crime and homelessness in places like SF and thinks "yikes".

This situation won't change until the real problems are addressed:

1. Bad schools in the cities

2. Visible homelessness- it doesn't matter if you point to murder statistics, it makes people *feel* unsafe, and frankly a lot of property crime goes unreported.

3. Public transit sucks due to low buildout and crime, which makes people use cars, which suck in cities

4. High housing prices

5. High prices in general in cities

To be clear, I think that cities can be awesome, but I think that there's a huge amount of groupthink in urbanism circles and a perception that anyone who prefers suburbs is obviously dumb, which just isn't true.

This is something inspired by a recent TikTok I’ve seen of a scooter rider yelling at people to “get out the way” on the Beltline in Atlanta. Sure, it’s a bit to rude to yell at people like that on a shared trail but there were groups that were literally stopping in the middle of the trail to solicit. The Beltline is not a boardwalk. It’s a transportation corridor. There’s a disconnect between what the people in the city use it for and the suburbanites that are using it as a tourist destination and it’s causing major conflicts in Atlanta over the true purpose of the trail.

In cities like Tokyo and Hong Kong, transit systems are deeply integrated with urban real estate development, which creates a self-sustaining model that could transform Canadian cities for the better. This not only enhances transit availability but also promotes walkable neighborhoods and reduces the financial burden on taxpayers. Here’s how these systems work, their advantages, and what Canada could learn from them:

Examples of Transit-Integrated Development

1.	Japan (Tokyo - JR East)
•	JR East operates one of the world’s largest rail networks but also owns and develops shopping malls, office spaces, and residential buildings near its stations.
•	The company generates substantial revenue from rents and retail sales, allowing it to reinvest in transit infrastructure and reduce dependence on public subsidies.

2.	Hong Kong (MTR Corporation)
•	MTR Corp. follows a “Rail + Property” model, where it acquires land near stations, develops high-density, mixed-use complexes, and leases or sells properties.
•	Around 30%-50% of MTR’s income comes from real estate, ensuring financial stability and facilitating frequent, high-quality service.

Pros of These Models

1.	Livability
•	High-density, mixed-use developments encourage walking and cycling, reducing reliance on cars.
•	Transit becomes the core of vibrant, well-connected urban centers.

2.	Cost of Living
•	By increasing housing supply near transit hubs, these models can help alleviate housing shortages and stabilize rental prices.

3.	Political Stability
•	Revenue independence reduces transit agencies’ vulnerability to political decisions favoring roads over transit investment.

4.	Sustainability
•	Walkable, transit-oriented communities lower carbon emissions by minimizing car use.
•	Compact urban growth preserves green spaces and reduces urban sprawl.

5.	Cost to Taxpayers
•	With self-sustaining revenue from real estate, transit agencies require fewer taxpayer subsidies, enabling public funds to be directed elsewhere.

How This Could Transform Canadian Cities

1.	Walkable, Transit-Oriented Communities
Instead of sprawling suburbs, Canadian cities could develop dense neighborhoods around transit hubs, enhancing livability and reducing commute times.

2.	Improved Transit Availability
Financially robust transit agencies could afford more frequent service and expanded networks, making public transit a more viable option for residents.

3.	Economic Growth
Development near transit hubs would boost local economies by attracting businesses and creating jobs.

4.	Climate Action
By integrating transit and urban development, Canadian cities could make significant strides toward sustainability goals.

5.	Lower Transit Costs for Taxpayers
A diversified revenue stream could reduce reliance on government funding and make transit agencies more resilient to economic and political fluctuations.

Barriers to Implementation in Canada

•	Policy and Governance: Canadian transit agencies often lack the legal authority or expertise to engage in real estate development. This of course is easily changed through a simple bill. 

•	Land Use Regulations: Zoning laws and fragmented municipal jurisdictions make large-scale, transit-oriented projects challenging. This has changed as most Canadian cities have eliminated single family zoning restrictive zoning in the past few years. 

•	Cultural and Political Will: There’s resistance to high-density development in many Canadian cities, stemming from a preference for single-family homes and car-centric infrastructure. This is the major issue, the cost of living has skyrocketed, yet why is there still this political drive to empower NIMBYs, despite there being no tangible benefit to taxpayers? It’s an extra layer of regulation that stifles cities (Canada does seem to love red tape which strangles innovation or development to everyone’s detriment). 

Adopting the integrated transit-development model would require regulatory changes, political commitment, and public buy-in. However, the long-term benefits for Canadian cities—economic resilience, environmental sustainability, and enhanced quality of life—make this a compelling path forward.

Canada is obviously quite a bit larger than either of these countries, that’s not as big of an issue, given how the population is concentrated in a few select cities. Making public transit less political would be a great thing.

Why has there not been the slightest push in Canada towards this model, or even a more sustainable transit model? Do you think this approach to public transit should happen in Canada? It’s actually extremely simple to change the way we approach it, given the recent love of P3s, just give private companies even more of an incentive to get on board and it would happen.

Canada welcomes the world to move within its borders, yet it seems reluctant to adopt the best practices needed for improvement.

I hope you have read Robert Putnam's book from 2000 that discusses the downfall of social capital and the effect it has on us as individuals. i last read it in 2003 and can't believe how much more change has happened in our society regarding out human connections since then.

Of those who have read it, what do you think of it vs where we are now? Where should we be going? Ive recently gone through a very serious tragedy in my personal life and Ive been doing okay and when people ask how, I am constantly stating that i have kept up with many social connections - professionally, community, friends, family. I think maybe more than is typical, so when everything happened i had a community to lean on, both for logistical life help and for emotional support. I think most people dont have that....i also think most people dont have a natural tendency to build those connections; they need to have those connections facilitated for them, and so the social norms of the past that did that for them really helped.

social media now exists that didnt in the decades past or at the time this book was written, which is a big wild card that i cant decide if it helps or hurts or maybe can do both. Id love to see an update to this book for now. but without that i wonder what everyone here thinks?

I'm a journalist covering a proposed development near a train station that would be the largest thing the town I cover has seen in 100 years. The impact would be massive and I'm trying to put things in context for readers as much as possible. Here's is the story on the unveiling of the proposal:

https://www.redbankgreen.com/2024/12/red-bank-400-apartments-green-plaza-new-streets-in-train-station-plan/

My questions for urban planning experts are these:

All up and down NJ's train corridor a plan to encourage more density around train stations has resulted in a lot of same-looking, boxy, walled off housing. I think some residents in this town were hoping this developer was going to come up with something different, more unique, more ambitious architecturally, creative. So my question is, basically, what are other options? What else has been done elsewhere that might be repeated here? Are there examples out there in the world besides what NJ seems to be doing around all the train stations? Any help providing context would be great.

I’ve been wondering this. Here in America we mostly passed on the idea of squares and the Main Street is obviously seen as the gathering place. Does the design of a Main Street work as well as a traditional square? I know squares give the brain a secure feeling of being enclosed, something a Main Street might not provide. Does anyone have a preference? What are your thoughts?

Yes it’s true you can build denser in central cities, but the demand will be too high to ever be affordable en masse. Look at NYC, its satellite cities are not doing much (except Jersey City and Hoboken)

I’m currently still an urban planning student and I’m curious as to how much you guys make in your European country as a planner and whether this is in the public or private sector.

Perhaps Colombia is a good example. But several problems do arise such as developing light rail which takes a long time to build and very expensive. The city near my place has wide sidewalks and very walkable. But bike lanes share with bus lanes, but then buses are rare to come by. There are also motorcycles that keep on stealing bike lanes whenever there is a traffic jam.

Basically the title. Is there any European city which had grid Urban Planning before, say, 1940?

This monthly recurring post will help concentrate common questions around career and education advice.

Goal:

To reduce the number of posts asking somewhat similar questions about Education or Career advice and to make the previous discussions more readily accessible.

I'm a mid-senior level career professional in urban planning consulting and I'm trying to access if it's worth my time and my firm's resources to attend the TRB conference in DC. What are the benefits of attending the conference itself? What are the pros of getting involved in the subcommittees, etc.? Can you get the benefit of TRB by attending ancillary events? I was hoping to attend the Transportation Camp, but unfortunately they're not organizing it in 2025. Do you recommedation for similar events?

Hey everyone, does anyone have any idea how Brightline was able to be built so quickly? Obviously the juxtaposition with the California HSR isn't quite accurate seeing as it is so much slower, but still they seemed to build it in record time facing minimal litigation. Was just wondering if anyone could offer more insight into that? Thanks!

Hi all,

I'm very happy that the parks department in my area is doing a 4->2 road diet. The final plan has two 10' lanes and a 3' shoulders. I'm worried that they will effectively be 13' lanes (especially when the paint wears away after a year) which could negate much of the traffic calming effect. It seems me that curb to curb distance is big psychological driver of speed. The parks department wants people to drive 25 mph or less.

At the public meeting the engineer cited emergency vehicle access the reason for the shoulders (i.e. cars pull over and amblance drives down the center). Indeed it is a main route for nearby hospital. The department won't consider raised crossings/speed bumps.

The plans are at 90% but there is still time for public comment. Do you guys know of any relevant studies/examples? Should the shoulders be textured, striped more agressively, changed to center median etc ? Am I worrying over nothing?

Thanks

Would you say you learned the most from school, experience in other fields, or on the job? I have been wanting to go in to urban planning since high school and am worried I won’t know enough or have the proper skills

Thanks!

24. Accepted a job offer for an aviation-focused planner role at a fairly large engineering/ planning firm. Without divulging too much, I’ll be assisting with sustainable airport development and how to incorporate community and stakeholder input into the process.

As someone who has flown extensively and has enjoyed transportation planning projects in grad school, this job was right up my alley. I’m particularly interested in the economic impact aspect of airport development and how the surrounding community can benefit from expansion.

Experienced planners, could you share what your job title is and what your career progression was like?

Additionally, what motivated you to pursue your specific sub field of planning?

Hi! :) I hope this doesn't count as rule 8 "career plannning" - I think it's helpful to learn about other ways people have broadened their experience in this way to avoid burnout and stay excellent planners.

I've been at my first urban planning job post college for almost two years now at a county p&d department. I've been promoted twice and really enjoyed it at first, but due to a combination of personal life struggles and overwork/local issues I am getting to the point of being REALLY burned out. I am pretty confident I'll be attending grad school in September 2025, but I definitely can't last until then at my current job and maintain sanity - I've probably already lost it and can't tell lol.

Does anyone have any ideas for jobs, even volunteer positions, etc. that would be pragmatic to take on for perhaps 6-8 months between leaving my current role and starting grad school? I'd love to hear others' experiences. I have been offered a couple positions at other municipalities, but a) the start date timing is off and I'd end up not giving 2 weeks to my current employer, which I'd hate to do and b) I don't want to waste their resources on onboarding/training for 6 months while knowing I'm planning on leaving. I'm young and willing to move if need be!

There's certain things that are part of planning and societal laws like the absurdly loud sirens, loud tailpipes, and train noises, but the bulk of the issue with noise pollution is the rate at which air passes through walls in American construction. The alternative is to put more air between you and the noise source - sprawl.

This guy does a good job of explaining what the standards for construction are for energy efficiency in Europe vs the US https://youtu.be/KDXjSpoOQmQ?si=EfDeOlluziexY3KZ . Everything for insulation doubles as noise reduction, and the US has shockingly low standards.

One of the things that baffles me about urban planners is that they failed to realize how something as simple as dense environments being noisy as crap with no building codes to mitigate would be why people want to ditch the city and move out.

I moved into one of those brand new 5 over 1s box apartments in Altanta and after that, I swore I'd never live in multi unit living like that again in my life. It was beyond maddening to have noise constantly, from the train, the neighbor downstairs, neighbor upstairs, dog outside... To be frank I turned to edibles to help me fall asleep and that's not healthy. I moved out to a small town rural setting and love it so much more cause I control the noise in my life now (while paying less for a nicer constructed new house). The 'luxury' apartment was frankly built like shit, and 50% of the new construction in the US is exactly those crap 5 over 1s. I had my mind blown when I visited Germany and experienced a house there where it was dead silent despite my brother yelling (to test) in the room next door.