Strong Towns

Strong Towns

Strong Towns is an advocacy organization advocating for resilient, financially sustainable urban development and transportation policy. It engages municipal leaders, planners, engineers, and community activists through research, publications, training, and local campaigns. The organization blends analysis of municipal finance with critiques of postwar suburban development and promotes incremental, place-based interventions in cities, towns, and neighborhoods.

History

Founded in the late 2000s by Charles Marohn—a practicing engineer and planner influenced by debates involving Jane Jacobs, Lewis Mumford, Peter Calthorpe, Jan Gehl, and Rachel Carson—the organization emerged amid discussions sparked by the 2008 financial crisis, Great Recession, and growing attention to urban fiscal stress. Early work intersected with conversations led by Congress for the New Urbanism, Smart Growth America, American Planning Association, Brookings Institution, and Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Strong Towns built on historical critiques of mid‑20th‑century development such as the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, the GI Bill (United States), and the expansion patterns studied in works like The Death and Life of Great American Cities and Crabgrass Frontier. As municipal infrastructure debates intensified after events like Hurricane Katrina and policy shifts at agencies such as the Federal Highway Administration and U.S. Department of Transportation, the organization expanded its audience through events, blogging, podcasts, and partnerships with actors including Locality, C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, National League of Cities, and International Downtown Association.

Philosophy and Key Principles

The organization frames its philosophy around fiscal prudence, incrementalism, and localism, drawing conceptual influences from Adam Smith to Elinor Ostrom and urbanists such as William H. Whyte and Kevin Lynch. It emphasizes the financial liabilities of low‑density suburban models associated with Levittown, New York, postwar suburbanization in the United States, and automobile dependency highlighted by critics like Donald Shoup and proponents such as Robert Moses (as a historical foil). Strong Towns advocates prioritize compact, mixed‑use development patterns familiar to practitioners in Portland, Oregon, Minneapolis, Boston, New York City, and San Francisco, while recommending tactical urbanism strategies used in projects around Copenhagen, Barcelona, Melbourne, and Curitiba. Central tenets include advocating revenue-neutral reforms comparable to proposals discussed at Urban Land Institute conferences, reallocating street space in ways similar to initiatives championed by Janette Sadik‑Khan and agencies like New York City Department of Transportation, and rethinking subsidies critiqued in analyses by Peter Gordon and Harry Richardson.

Activities and Programs

Programming includes a mix of publishing, training, advisory services, and local campaigns. The organization produces content formats similar to those used by The Atlantic, CityLab, Vox, and The New York Times urbanism coverage, and hosts podcasts in the style of 99% Invisible and Freakonomics Radio. Its training courses echo curricula from Harvard Graduate School of Design, MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning, and continuing education programs at University of Pennsylvania Stuart Weitzman School of Design, offering workshops for municipal staff, elected officials, and consultants akin to sessions at Congress for the New Urbanism conferences. Local chapters and affiliated projects coordinate tactical interventions modeled after Better Block and Open Streets initiatives, and the group partners with civic actors such as Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, TransitCenter, Bike League, and neighborhood associations in cities including Cleveland, Milwaukee, St. Louis, Raleigh, Atlanta, Chicago, and Denver.

Impact and Criticism

Supporters credit Strong Towns with influencing municipal budgeting conversations, street design debates, and reform efforts in places like Davenport, Iowa, Bismarck, North Dakota, and metropolitan regions studied in reports by Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and Brookings Institution. Its work frequently appears in local reporting alongside coverage by outlets such as Governing (magazine), The Guardian, Reuters, and NPR. Critics—ranging from academics at University of California, Berkeley, University of Michigan, and University of Toronto to professional associations like American Society of Civil Engineers—argue the organization sometimes underestimates regional planning, affordable housing imperatives discussed in analyses by Shelterforce and HUD, and complexities highlighted in studies from RAND Corporation and National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Debates have involved practitioners and commentators including Allan Jacobs, Enrique Peñalosa, Andrés Duany, Jeff Speck, and economists cited by outlets like The Economist. Policy pushback has appeared in city council proceedings, state legislative hearings, and professional forums hosted by Institute of Transportation Engineers.

Organizational Structure and Funding

Structured as a nonprofit advocacy organization with a board and executive leadership, its staffing model resembles other civic nonprofits such as Urban Institute and National Trust for Historic Preservation. Funding sources include individual donations, membership fees, paid trainings, grants, and revenue from events and publications—financial models comparable to Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, The Pew Charitable Trusts, and foundations like Kresge Foundation and Ford Foundation. Partnerships and collaborations extend to academic centers such as Center for Neighborhood Technology and Transportation Research Board, while fiscal transparency and nonprofit governance practices are discussed in the context of standards promoted by Charity Navigator and GuideStar.

Category:Urban planning organizations