The challenge facing the nation's infrastructure is massive in scale, requiring ambition lacking since the New Deal and Eisenhower eras. Building on those historic models, the following op-ed suggests a "WPA 2.0" approach to infrastructure.
Measure S gives city leaders a moderately satisfying smack across the face. As satisfying as that may be, Measure S is remarkably bad planning and development policy at the expense of the vast majority of Angelinos.
Many households spend more than they can afford on housing and transportation, but the latest International Housing Affordability Survey is wrong to recommend sprawl as the best solution. Real solutions must reduce both housing and transport costs.
While Oakland is by no means an easy place to develop real estate, the often maligned East Bay city of over 400,000 residents may very well be the Bay Area’s best place to embrace much-needed development.
After plans to create a transit-oriented, pedestrian-friendly district in the Austin suburb of Leander fizzled due to the recession, the city has cut back minimum height and density requirements in the hopes of attracting more investment.
The successes of Arlington, Virginia as a suburb have been discussed by planners and urbanists before, but the model has taken on new meaning as the current urban boom send ripple effect out into nearby suburbs like Long Island and Palo Alto.
Many studies have measured and compared the sprawl of U.S. metropolitan areas. A recent study tracks the rate at which the same cities grew either less compact or more compact for the decade between 2000 and 2010.
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio announced the details of the "Housing New York" plan this week. The plan will guide the de Blasio Administration toward its goal of creating 200,000 affordable housing units in the city.
Sure, it's a subjective question. Where I live, it's anything taller than four stories, at least in the local media's eyes. But from a real estate perspective, there really is a minimum number, and they are being built in record numbers in the U.S.
What is the best height to promote good urban living? It needs to be high to attain necessary density but not so high that it detracts from the quality of life, particularly for existing residents. In short, what is the Goldilocks height level?
The cautionary tale of “a very suburban kerfuffle” in Blaine, Minnesota: residents of a “large, multi-builder housing development” who once opposed a multi-family residential development in the neighborhood now lament a lack of retail.