Posted Oct 23, 2015, 7:34 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 863
|
|
I also didn't get too far into it, before becoming embarrassed.
Along with the multitude of criticism above, I'd add that a lot of the smart growth and "spatial containment" influences come from urban and spatial economics. Going through some of the references, it didn't appear that really any of that research was acknowledged.
But without getting all academic and theoretical and expanding the peer comparison beyond the insular North American borders, all a person has to do is look to Vancouver. Empirically, they basically prove his entire premise incorrect (the longer commute part). Here is what they didn't do - "invest" in more and more road capacity, save for a few big projects (failing, incidentally).
In any case, it's worth investigating the director of that particular school a little further. Generally, without getting too conspiratorial, it's suggestive when the director also sits on the board of directors of a rather large oil company. The tend to slant "laissez faire".
|