The house in the suburbs in which I grew up.

Joel Kotkin’s latest book, The Human City: Urbanism for the Rest of Us, poses some serious challenges to those of us who focus on urban revitalization, downtown development and the improvement of public spaces. In essence, he asks the question: “What about the suburbs” and using persuasive data argues that it is where most people want to live – and not just here in the United States, but in most developed and developing places around the world. Kotkin’s point is that most people want an affordable place to live, where they can bring up their children, have a yard, a sense of community and good schools – and that means places outside the urban core.

Kotkin distinguishes his analysis from that of Richard Florida, New urbanists and such-like, by saying that while it may be true that over the last couple of decades people are moving back Downtown, and that this may be a good thing, the data shows that it is rather a limited phenomenon and most people still want to live in the ‘burbs. But he goes much further than that. He argues that because of limitations put on housing unit expansion in desirable cities, and the resulting increased density, they are becoming too expensive for any families but the most wealthy. As a result, fertility rates in urbanizing countries are beneath replacement level. Kotkin says that in many/most major cities around the world, since having kids is so expensive, people have stopped having them. His ultimate argument is that in order for countries to grow and remain economically healthy, they need to create policies to encourage affordable housing creation on the peripheries of cities; and those homes should be detached, with yards and a sense of neighborhoods and have good schools. In his final chapter he demonstrates that there are plenty of resources and space to accomplish this.

His point that urbanists are attempting to impose their aesthetic and life-style choices on people who don’t share them is an important one and needs to be taken seriously. According to Kotkin, the data just doesn’t support the proposition that there is something environmentally or socially better about dense housing. My personal example of this kind of flawed thinking is the bike. New Urbanists and folks in the place-making community like to bike. I, actually, don’t. Bike advocates argue that there is something important and virtuous about promoting bicycling in cities. In my experience city biking is just plain dangerous; the roads are crowded and rough and the parks are full of pedestrians. Many urban bikers are irresponsible. And then there is Amsterdam – where bikes have been given preference over pedestrians, transit and cars. As a result, walking in central Amsterdam in recent years has become scary – with phalanxes of bikes coming at pedestrians at corners from all directions. Those of us who are concerned about improving economic conditions and the quality of life should be wary of turning our personal preferences into policy without hard data to support them – and The Human City makes a good case for that.

But just as Florida over-reads the data about the return to the city, Kotkin takes his argument too far. There is little doubt that residential real estate in Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn has become priced for an elite world market. My guess is that Manhattan, for the most part, is destined to become the Île de la Cité, of New York City; the preserve of the international wealthy – and probably relatively childless. I doubt there are policies that can be adopted that can stop or even slow this process. But there are family friendly, relatively affordable neighborhoods all around the city – for example all of southeast Queens. There are beautiful homes in St. Albans, Laurelton and particularly Addisleigh Park that are relative bargains (http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20160819/jamaica/jamaica-offers-homebuyers-affordable-prices-despite-rapid-changes-data?utm_source=Forest+Hills+%26+Rego+Park&utm_campaign=5b9efac4f6-Mailchimp-NYC&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6c3609dc85-5b9efac4f6-132251565) I suspect such neighborhoods exist in London and Paris as well. As I wrote earlier, the northern residential neighborhoods of Buffalo are affordable and beautiful. I’m not persuaded by The Human City that housing density, housing costs and fertility rates are directly related. The world isn’t going to hell in a hand basket because some parts of New York City and Mumbai are expensive.

But it is true that most Americans like their yards and cars and are going to continue to choose and buy (or rent) them. And just because some people like me prefer not to return to the suburbs in which they grew up, that doesn’t mean that those suburbs are deadly swaths of anomie and environmental degradation. In recent years designers, planners and others concerned with the urban environment have given a good deal of thought, and had a good deal of success, in revitalizing downtowns and public spaces However by doing so we’re not saving the world – only a small part of it about which we care. It would be important to give thought as to how to make suburbs more livable, how to maintain aging first ring suburbs, and how to promote less dense sustainable development beyond the urban core in order to expand the supply of housing and thereby make it more affordable.

In the book, Kotkin raises a number of unconventional and important issues. He notes that world cities are becoming more and more homogeneous – with the same retailers, food options and design choices to be found from San Francisco to Shanghai. This results from the globalization of the world’s wealthy and reflects the internationalizing of elite consumer preferences. But a big part of what makes those cities attractive are the things that make them distinctive – their food, their buildings, their art and their geography. The placemaking movement has an essential role to play in preserving those differences and maintaining the distinctive diversity of place; not only to enrich the lives of the rest of us – but to maintain what made those cities desirable to the global wealthy in the first place. There is an important balance to be maintained here and placemakers can do much to keep it.

Also, Kotkin points out that open space preservation in the US and UK reflects the personal preferences of the owners of adjacent rural and other undeveloped land – as well as other wealthy folks who want to keep their views and privacy; while at the same time constraining the ability to build new communities to accommodate growth. Here, too, there is a balance required, between preserving valued open space, while being careful not to limit the availability of land for new development and driving housing costs upward. Kotkin points out that the United States is a big country with a huge amount of undeveloped land. Other countries, he says, are similarly situated. The Human City is valuable for making this case.

Kotkin is a contrarian – and as such is an important voice. It is essential to have our preconceptions and policy preferences challenged; and not to be overly caught up with the replication of the youthful, expensive and childless wonderland of Williamsburg, Brooklyn. His arguments are data-driven, for the most part, and don’t simply reflect Kotkin’s tastes or ideology. He tells us that there are important places outside the urban core. For planners, urbanists, placemakers and developers it is an important reminder.