With the consideration of the recurring theme and ideas of “New Urbanism” and “Regionalism” as a movement discussed in the documents provided, please write a short paper (approximately 1250 words) pro

There is no question that the wor ld's great cities exe mplify incrementa l urb anism and that sensit ive in terv ention s th at both res pect the existing urban st ructu re and advance evolving cul tur es over time co ntribut e to great place s. Much of the motivati on b ehind th is boo k is to encourag e more s uch in te r­ ven tio ns in suburba n areas. However, lo ve of incr emental urban ism can also l ead to indi scriminate dis dain fo r tha t w hich is per­ ceived as inau then tic. Large new urba nist proj ects in par tic u lar are oft en derided as "insta nt cities" and "fa ux downtowns . "2 Thi s kind of de sign critique appl i es to many subur ban retrofi t s, but often fails to distingui sh t he detriment al effects of "insta nt arc hitec ture " from th e pot e ntial be nefits of "in sta nt cit ies." A t a time when climate change and peak oil prices ca ll for vast swat hs of existing suburb an areas to be retrofitted on a scale and at a speed that is beyond the capacity of incremental urbanism, it is worth recogniZing when the kind of large-scale changes associated with "instant cities" might be welcomed rather than shunned.

The global urgency of reducing greenhouse gases provides the latest and most time-sensitive im­ perative for reshaping sprawl development patterns, for converting areas that now foster the largest per capita carbon footprints into more sustainable, less auto-dependent places.; The transforming of ag- ing and underperforming shopping centers, office parks, garden apartment complexes, and other pro­ totypical large suburban properties into more urban places allows new population growth to be redi­ rected from metropolitan greenfield edges into more central, VMT-reducing, greyfield redevelopment' It also allows for the development of an incremental metropolitan ism at a scale far more capable of con­ fronting the problems of sprawl than incremental urbanism is. This jump in scale is more relevant both to the realities of contemporary development prac­ tices and to the scope of the challenges confronting us. Ironically, at a time when well over 75% of U.S. construction is in the suburbs, the critiques of faux urbanism often betray more nostalgia for no-longer­ as-tenable development practices than the projects' des1gns do.

Later chapters document the before and after transformations of these low-density, auto-depen­ dent, single-use, suburban formats into urban places, and the roles of the public and private realms in ef­ fecting these changes. Some of the changes have in fact been incremental and indicative of both gradual demographic sh1fts and public efforts to induce change. For instance, every one of the original Levit­ towns has added not only countless additions to in­ dividual houses but also multiunit housing for seniors as inhabitants have aged. A decade after Boulder, Colorado, revised zoning and setback regulations along suburban arterials, new mixed-use buildings with sidewalk cafes appear cheek by JOWl with older carpet-supply stores set behind large parking lots.

Across the country those older stand-alone re­ tail buildings are also increasingly being adaptively reused for community-serving purposes. A dozen Wai-Mart stores were converted to churches be­ tween 2002 and 2005. As described in Chapter 4, La Grande Orange in Phoenix is a reborn strip mall whose locally owned restaurants and shops have become so popular that it has its own T-shirts and IS regularly mentioned as a selling point in real estate ads for the neighborhood. Daly Genik Architects made an L-shaped mini-mall into an award-winning elementary school in Los Angeles. The addition of sidewalks and pervious public green space figured into both Meyer, Scherer, and Rockcastle's elegant transformation of a grocery store into a public li­ brary in Texas, and The Beck Group's award-winning conversion of a Super Kmart into a megachurch in Georgia. Many other vacant big-box stores have been converted to call centers and off1ce space­ including the headquarters for Harmel Foods, which includes the Spam Museum in a former Kmart in Minnesota. There are countless additional examples of this kind of recycling that show welcome but minor improvements to the physical and social infra­ structure. 5 However, retrofitting's greater potential goes well beyond incremental adaptive reuse or renova­ tion. By urbanizing larger suburban properties with a denser, walkable, synergistic mix of uses and housing types, more significant reductions in carbon emissions, gains in social capital, and changes to systemic growth patterns can be achieved. On emis­ sions alone, new comprehensive research asserts that "it is realistic to assume a 30% cut in VMT with compact development."' The key to achieving this CHt\PHR I iNSTM~l ARCHiflCTURE. INS.!M·!T CITIES, 1\ND INCkEMENf1H IV1ETROPOLITI\NISM 3 4 THE ARGUMENT target is the app ropriate bal an cing of uses so that, once on-site, residents, shoppe rs, office workers, an d others can accomplish mult iple, everyday trips w it hou t getting back in their cars or back on t he road. This allows mixed-use new urbanist greyfield retrofi ts to routinely achieve projections of 25% to 30% interna l t rip captu re rates . In tu rn , thi s means t ha t such proje cts will gener ate 25% to 30% fewer net external trips on n earby road s than a proje ct of e quiva l ent densi ty but without the sa me urb an qual it ie s. Such cap turing of interna l trips is d epen ­ dent up on achiev ing th e critical m ass associa ted with instant cities, not with incremental changes to th e subu rb an pattern .

A re these pro jection s to be trusted? Atlantic Sta tio n, an ex ample of compact mixed- use d eve lop ­ ment adja cent to midt ow n Atla nta on a former ste el mill site, is gene rating fa r greater reducti o ns in VMT than ini tial estimates project ed. In a reg ion whe re the aver age employed r esident dr ives 66 mi les per day, employees in Atlantic Sta t ion are d riving an av­ erag e of 10.7 miles per da y and r esidents an ave rage of 8 mile s per day . 7 The most drama tic and prevalent retrofits tend to be on dead mall sit es, ret rof its s u ch as Belma r in Lakewood , Colorado ; Mizner Park in Bo ca Raton ; a nd Cott onwoo d out side Sal t Lake City. The nu m er­ ous exam ples have each rep laced a typ ical low-rise enclosed sho pping mall surrounded by park ing lots with a mor e or less interconnected, wal kable st reet grid, lushly plan ted publ ic s paces, a nd grou nd-l eve l reta il topped by two to eight stori es of off ices and residence s. I n De nver alone, seven of the reg ion's t hir teen mal ls have closed t o be ret ro fitte d. There are also, howeve r, signi fica nt ret rof its on the land adjac en t to thriv i ng m all s. Retrofits su ch as Down ­ town Kend aii/Da deland outsi de Mia mi inc orporate a mall (the Dadeland Ma ll) and new twe nty- plu s-sto ry res identi al towers, as does Perimeter Pl ace adjac ent to Peri meter Center Ma ll in Atlanta. Both are examples of how thirty -year -old "edge cities," even bete noire Tys ons Corner, are being r epositioned by infilli ng and urb aniz ing .

Suburban offi ce and industr ial p a rks are also be ­ i ng re tro fitted. The parking lots of an Edward Durell Stone- d esigned office park of ten -story Kennedy Cente r -like buildi ngs in H yattsville, Mary la nd, are g et­ t ing infi lled with a ne w Main Street and mix of uses to become Uni vers ity Town Center. T he owners of a l ow -rise i n d ust ria l par k in Westwoo d, Massachuset ts, a re tak ing advanta ge of its locat ion on a commuter rail line to redevelop it as Westwood Sta ti on. a 4.5 - million-sq uare -foot, four-to -f ive -story live-work -sho p TOO and the large st suburban developmen t pro ject eve r in Massachusetts .

Golf cours e s, car deale rship s, park -and-r i des, garden apart m ent comp l exes, residential subdiv is io n s, and entire comme r cial st rip c orr ido rs are b eing retro ­ fitted in ways that integrate rather th an isolate uses and rege nerate underperformin g aspha lt into urban neigh borh ood s. Wha t's d rivin g all this? Sev e ra l fac tors : reduced percentages of households with child ren and a grow ing ma rket for mult iuni t ho using in the sub­ u rb s,8 cont inued growth in the percenta ge of jobs i n suburban locations; region al growth patterns that are giv ing leapfrogged su burban areas a new centrali ty; rising gas prices making hous ing on the peri phe ry less affo rdable ; l engt hen ing c om mutes ma king leapf rogged sub urban locations mo re at­ t racti ve; and local smart -g rowth policies and trans it investments that a re li m iting s pra wl and red irectin g g rowt h t o ex isting i nfr ast ructure. Risi ng land values ; the dear th of good, cheap, undeveloped sites in increasingly built-ou t s ub urba n ma rkets; and aging greyf ie ld pro p ert i es with a n abundance of sur face parking lots are all factoring 1nto a changed subur­ ban market. Collectively, these market forces and polictes are enabling implementation of the principal benefit of proJects like these: the retrofitting of the underlying settlement structure itself so as to change unhealthy suburban patterns and behaviors into more sustain­ able ones. Incremental infill within as-of-right zon­ ing in most suburban municipalities is simply not a feasible path toward achieving diversification or densification. The larger, denser, and more urban the redevelopment, the more ability its designers have to change the existing development pattern and reduce vehicle miles traveled and improve public health by creating a transit-served or transit­ ready mix of uses in a walkable street pattern connected to adjacent uses reduce land consumption and per capita costs of public investment by absorbing growth that with­ out alternatives would otherwise expand in sprawl and edgeless cities tncrease the feasibility and efficiency of transit increase local interconnectivity increase permeable surfaces and green space increase public and civic space increase choice in housing type and affordability increase diversification of the tax base establish an urban node within a polycentric region The key design challenge to altering the suburban settlement structure is internal and external integra­ tion of the parts over time and over multiple parcels. This research has yet to uncover built examples of connected culs-de-sac (a long-standing holy grail of suburban reform) or other perfectly seamless transi­ tions between properties. But designers are produc­ ing innovative adaptations to zoning and subdivision regulations to overcome suburban fragmentation. Michael Gamble and Jude LeBlanc have proposed trading the right to build liner buildings within the front setback along arterials for giving up half the width of a new street on the side setback as a means to gradually establish a finer-grained street and pe­ destrian network on suburban superblocks. Similarly, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, Victor Dover, and Joseph Kohl have developed a unique strategy for linking open spaces within Downtown Kendaii!Dadeland's 324 acres. Working for Miami-Dade County on new Zon­ ing across numerous parcels, they devised a system of points at the corners of property boundanes to which each owner's mandated 15% of open space had to connect. Their suggested, rather than man­ dated, shapes of public space have been substantially followed by property owners and are far more appro­ priately sized to the development as a whole than a series of uncoordinated 15% bits would have been.<:~ Internal integration of parts is indeed far easier to control on single-parcel sites-especially sites of 30 or more acres. Projects as small as 15 acres, such as San Diego's Uptown District on the site of a former Sears store, can transform the character of suburban areas and excite local imagination about further change. But larger parcels can more easily justify the inclusion of public space, decked park­ ing, and a fine-grained street network on suburban superblocks. 10 Large sites are also more likely than small ones to be able and/or required to include housing for a mix of incomes. This has not been uni­ versally achieved-witness the exclusively high-end residences at Santana Row or exclusively lower-end apartments at CityCenter Englewood-but projects like Mizner Park, Belmar, and Perimeter Place provide a range of housing types, tenures, and costs. While they do not contain the social and physical diversity of incremental cities, the degree of internal integra- CHAf 1HR l INSTANT l\RCHIHCTURF, INSTMiT CITIES, AND aJCRFrv![NTAI. METHOPOI .. ITI\N!Sf 1 5 6 THE ARGUMENT tion, diversification, and densif ication of these "instant cities" deserves commendation. Large, single-parcel projects also foster integra­ tion external to the property. By forcing municipali­ ties to address rezoning and use tax-inc rement financing to provide infrastructure upgrades for the new dens ity, large r projec ts are gradually refor m­ ing the regulat ions and financ ing practices that otherwise continue to favor sprawl. Large projects in particular incr ease a municipality's experience with and capability to further perm it mixed use, m ixed incomes, shared parking, form- based codes, context -sensitive street standar ds, transfer-of-de­ velopment r ights, and othe r tools, standards, and regulations that f oster urban devel opment pat­ terns. As a result, one successfu l retrofit tends to breed another. At the sam e time, the financing and develop ­ ment communities are gaining experience w ith eva luat ing mixed-use public-p rivate deal s. Gradual l y, the financial performances of large projects are pro­ vid ing the predictable metrics that lenders require to offer the most competitive rat es not only to conven ­ t io nal suburban development but also to urbanizing redevelopment (increas i ng the f eas ibility of incl udi ng affordable housing). Evidence of the magn itude of c hange in the rules of th e game is that the big play­ ers have now stepped onto the field. As deta iled in Chapter 7, General Growth Prop­ erties, the secon d-largest ma ll owner in the coun try and the second- largest U.S.-based pub licly traded REIT, is retrofitting the Cottonwood Mall outside Salt Lake City as a test case for reposit ioning it s underperforming and/or redundant properties into mixed-use town cente rs. Recognit ion of the changed market has also led many of the country's high-production single-family home resident ia l builders over the past two years to start "urban" divisi ons offering lofts, yoga studios, and billiards lounge s. '' It should not be surpris ing that these di visions have been the best perfo rmers when the rest of the housing market h as tanked. 12 INSTANT ARCHITECTURE, INSTANT PUBLIC SPACE On the one hand, th e urban divisions by K. Hovna ­ nia n Homes, KB Homes, Toll Brothers, and Centex Homes, a long with sma ller "urban" reta il for mats by Wai-Mart, Targe t, and Home Depot (their "neighbor ­ hood format" is approximately 30,000 square feet i n two stories instead of 115,000 square feet on 1 0 acres, and it incorporates more "do it for me" than "do it yourself" home decor) are a promising indica­ t ion that even the big guns are recognizing both the ma rke t for and the benef i ts of urbanism. 13 The imp act could be enormous if the new divisions perform well enough to shift these companies' focus away from spreading unwalkable, singl e-use suburban formats across the country. Comb ining affordabi lity with ur­ banism in new construction, wh ether in new develop­ ments or r edevelopments, has been difficult. and th e expert i se of these companies in provid i ng affordable products should be welcomed. On the oth er hand, their mass-produced "instant archi tectu re," seemingly dropped from a catalog on to l and scraped and flattened of dist ingu ishing features, is high ly unwe lcome. Nor is this a problem lim ited to the big production builder s. The retail and resident i al buildings of many retrofi ts are engineered t o opt imize sales and parking rather than des igned to fac ilitate synergistic interaction between uses and respond to the nuances of place or th e complexi- ties of m ixed-use building. The time and energy tha t goes into coordinating the high ly var i ed ground floor footprints for d iffe rent retailers and restaurateurs with Figure 1-1 A. compsriso11 of from "L897 anci \9Ei illustrai:c the ::Jston,shing pdce oF ckveloprnent h the In !897, when the develop1ncn! .. of the ;Hij Rockville Town Center 8 Reston Town Center •••••• ••• •• Tysons Corner ••• ••• •• Street Grids ····· ... , ....•. Tysons Corner Center : Metro West Feirfax THE WASHINGTON AREA ..6.. Downtown • Suburban Retrofits • Planned Suburban Retrofits Downtown Columbia fj) 5 MILES 8 KILOMETERS Figure 1-4 hue. ·Nhere Wcd1irw1 on. DC, is one of t!v,, rno'.it fXOliftc: rniJXket', for s~;burban rett·oh l's a~ shown are mapped in relation to the Metro sysTem. The presence or promise of mass 1 'dn- ~,u. tather ihan new hkhw""' ,'52 predominantly located at the intersection of exist­ ing or proposed DC Metrorail stations and suburban arterial corridors. While Garreau's maps of edge cit­ ies promised the benefits of a polycentric metropolis, their extreme auto dependency and lack of local or larger interconnectivity other than highways resulted in lengthened commute times, overcrowded roads, reduced access to jobs by those most in need, and a suburban privileging of private space. Washington, DC's retrofits are far better po­ sitioned to deliver on that original promise. Their internal urban structure minimizes auto dependency and values public space and shared commitments to the common good. As important (rf not more), their location on transit vastly improves the metropolis's efficiencies. Transit systems also benefit: those in single-center regions are far less efficient than those in polycentric regions, where suburban stations are destinations throughout the day, not only for the evening commute.

Unfortunately, most potential suburban retrofit sites are not on transit lines. And while they can still enhance local conditions, many dots ·remain to be connected if they are to achieve the benefits of a more sustainable metropolis. There are two prin­ cipal strategies on the horizon. The first is to add transit to improve access, encourage even greater differentiation between nodes, and reduce VMT. The planned extensions of DC Metrorail through Tysons Corner is an example of this strategy and reveals the high cost and design difficulties of inserting stations and TODs into an edge city not planned for them. The hope is that densification of enough retrofitted sites will make suburban transit feasible. However, the track record so far indicates that more often transit in the suburbs is what makes densification feasible. In fact, examina­ tion of over eighty retrofits reveals that the arrival of a rail system is one of the strongest triggers for CH!iPHP 1 lliSTANl ARCH!HCTURE INSTANT ClllrS, liND INCRfMfiHAf lvlfTRIIPOLITMIISM 11 12 THE ARGUMENT large-scale suburban redevelopment. In addit ion to the examples of Washington, DC, and Denver, the availability (or cons truction) of rail transit in Boston, Dallas, Los Angeles, and Phoenix has stimu lated suburban retrofitting at exist ing and proposed rail stations . 20 The second strategy for connecting the dots is to retrofit corridors thems elves. Thi s is discussed in more detail in Chapter 4. The genera l a rgument is that if commerc ial strip corridors are made more attractive and safer to pedestrians, they can better attract redevelopme nt. Where nodal development is preferred, transfer of development rights can be used to downzone thoroughfares between intersec­ tions and concentrate development at intersect ions. Wh i le th is strategy is not in pra ctice yet, there are seve ra l examples of pub lic agencies retrofi tting corridors either through rezon ing or throug h new streetscaping. In the most ambitious examples, commercial strip corridors are reco nstru cted as urban bouleva r ds capable of both hand ling high traffic volume, i nclud ing streetcars or buses, and attracting dense urban hous ing, offices, and retail stores . 21 Ca thedral City, Ca liforn ia, converted four blocks of wha t had become a commercia l str ip cor ­ r id or back into it s downtown by retrofitting it into a multiway boulevard. Palm-lined media ns separate the high-speed traffic from slower loca l traffic and wide sidewalks . Now serving as the town's Main Street, the retrofitted corr idor has att racted upsca le hotels, shops, and housi ng to join the new city hall on a site that would not previo usly have been con­ sidered attractive .

T he more incremental approach for retrofit ­ t in g corr idors is to use form-based codes to re­ qu ire more urban sidewalk s, build-to-l in es, and pedestrian-orie nted treatment of ground floors . As discussed in Chap ter 4, Arlington County, Virgini a, is using form-based codes, fast permitting, and the promise of a streetcar as incentives for its ongo ing redevelopment of low - rise supermarkets and strip malls on Columbia Pike into six-to ten -story mixed­ use buildings . HOW SUSTAINABLE? HOW URBAN? So how well do instant cities and suburban retrofits live up to their susta inab le asp irations? Wh ile we are op tim is ti c, each case is un iq ue and mer its conside r­ ation of at least the follow ing questions. At metropolitan and r egiona l scales, does the proje ct make it easier for people to have access to JObs, affo rdab le hous ing, and affordable trans­ portat ion whi l e simu ltaneou sly reducing VMT and carbon footprints? Or is it gent r ifying an important remnant of an affordab le l andscape and/or dra ining an exist ing downtown?

Are the re tang ible means, s uch as transfer of deve lopment rights , to link densification at tar­ geted nodes with equally targeted land conser­ vation elsewhe r e? Or are deve lopers getting a free ride as loca l communities get overbu rdened with traffic and di splacement and the region as a who le benefit s little? At the local scale, does t he settlemen t have an urban structure that supports interconnect iv i ty, dens it y, t ransit, and walkability? Has it tr igge r ed fur ther redevelopment? Will its design and mix of uses imp r ove with age and endu re, o r will it remain a fragment of drive­ t o walkable "product" with a life span driven by i t s retail and limited to the fashiona bility of it s scenography? At the building scale, does it offer a variety of housing choices to accommodate a diverse population with varied needs and ideas about public and private space, or are the choices too similar and the expectations of behavior too conformist? These are difficult to answer, but they will be at the heart of local and metropolitan politics as we move beyond debates of sprawl versus smart growth and tackle the thorny specifics of imple­ menting real change. In many respects, the even more difficult as­ sessment is determining how well instant cities and suburban retrofits live up to their urban aspi­ rations. It is easy to compare them to "real" cities and find them lacking the culture, excitement, di­ versity, conflict, grit, and suffering that coexist in core cities. But this misses the point. Instant cities and suburban retrofits are not core cities. They are urban nodes within a new polycentric metropolis that simultaneously complement the core city's downtown and serve a predominantly suburban population. They are hybrids and reflect aspects of both centeredness and decentralization.

This hybridity rs revealed in rnany ways, in- cluding the following: suburban parking ratios and urban streetscapes ambiguous "public" spaces developed in pub­ lic-private partnerships and privately owned or leased urban building types filled mostly with subur­ ban chain retail outlets new, single-ownership parcels deliberately masked to look old and multi parceled urban qualities delivered at suburban costs transit orientation and automobile depen­ dency the appearance of self-contained village/town centers and reliance on larger networks of shoppers, workers, and visitors local placemaking by national developers and designers Hybrid network nodes are neither suburban nor urban. As a result, they are prone to critique from the advocates of both better understood categories. But are cities and suburbs really so drfferent in the polycentric metropolis? The old dichotomy of suburb versus city as the separa­ tion of home and work was always oversimpli­ fiedn Today it is further complicated by contin­ ued metropolitan decentralization, new forces of recentralization, the replication of national retailers throughout, and the extended networks afforded by global communications. Over 40% of U.S. office space is now in the suburbs," but many of the same metropolitan regions seeing the most retrofitting in suburban contexts are also seeing population growth in their central cities. 24 Postwar suburbs originally built at the edges of the metropolis have been so surpassed by new growth (often losing property value in the process) that they now enjoy relatively cen­ tral locations. New instant cities exploit those centralities and activate them as metropolitan nodes in a network increasingly reinforced by mass transit. Retrofitting ushers in networked urbanity rn which living, working, shopping, and playing are no longer separated (but neither are they entirely conjoined). The networked urbanity of metropolitan ism reinterprets the Aristotelian ideal of the city~living together well~at the larger scale. This bodes well for confronting the challenges of economic and environmental sus­ tainability but is less promising for dealing with entrenched social inequity. CHM)lt.R l iNSTf\NT ~\RCHiTECTURE, INSfi\IH CITit.S, t\ND INCl\EMl:.Nrt\L ME"l'RUPOlii"MJISfVI 13 14 THE ARGUMENT Although instant cities and suburban retrofits are neither as sustainable nor as urban as older es­ tab lishe d cities, they are more sustainable and more urban than the condit ions they have rep laced and, as such, have g reat potent ial to shape the metropo­ l is. They also have many cha llenges, n ot the least of w hic h are constructing the infrastruct u re to support them and addre ssing gentr ification. Perhaps mos t important, they need to recognize the signif icance of their leadership in t h e new me tropo l is and t he accompanyi ng expectat ion of r epresent ing large r cultura l aspirations .

T oday, instant cities and suburban retro fits are for the most part more exc iting programma tic ally t h an architecturally . Serving as conventiona l back ­ gro und build in gs to the outdoo r p ub lic rooms of t h e streets they foregrou nd, their buildings express a far gre ater va lua tion of p lacema kin g and public space than did the private ob jed bui ld ings they r eplaced. This is a good thing, but too often, as at Perime ter Place near Atlanta, ban al contemporar y bui ld i ng s are aggregated into quasi-urban istic con­ f i gurat ions but are utter ly lacking in mean in gful architectura l exp r ess ion . At other times, as in many of the project s featured in the pages to come, in­ stead of be ing instant architec tu r e, the bui ldings are very we ll detailed, even with in t igh t bu dgets, and thoughtful l y sca led to trans ition from the exist- ing context to greater density with careful attentio n to susta inabili ty. While many critics fault traditio nal styling as no stalg i c, it shoul d be respected when it is done we ll an d converts a community's fear of change in to as­ p irations for u rba nism. Some of us wo u ld li ke to see more stylistic diversi ty and exper imentat ion explor ing hybr idity in the arch itect u re of suburban retrofits.

And this may come as retrof its be come more com­ mon and communit i es less fearful of change. But d iscussions of a rchitectura l sty le m i ss the point. The point is urbanism. Americans have an opportunity to retro fit the suburbs into more urba n places that reduce VM T, expand public space, dive r sify hou sin g choices, and co nserv e undeveloped land at the pe riphery . We need both incremental ch anges and in st ant cities in orde r to res hape so c ially and environmentally destructive s pra wling patterns in to heal th ie r, po lycent ric me ­ tropolises. We need to better understa nd the myriad dynam ic systems of mo re s ustai nable regions, pl aces, and buil di ngs. Above all, we need in forme d imagi ­ nation s that can look at ent re n ched pattern s and q uestion alternat i ve poss ib ilities - wh ile wo rking wit h communities. Thi s is an exc i ti n g agenda for all of the profession s invo lved with the built environment. We wou ld do we ll to heed M ic h ael Sork in's w ise adv i ce to see "th e good city as an evo lving pro je ct. "1 5