The Standard Approach vs. the Strong Towns Approach

We started Strong Towns because we realized that the standard approach to growth and development was not working. We know there is a better way—a way to build our cities that cultivates community wealth, not debt and bankruptcy; a way to build our places that responds to the needs of the people, not the desires of distant decision makers; a way to take small steps and test out ideas, instead of going all in on expensive projects.

Put simply, here's the difference between the standard approach and the Strong Towns approach:

Which would you choose for your town?

Related stories

Featured
Why Building in San Francisco, D.C. and NYC Will Never Solve Our Housing Problem
Charles Marohn
Why Building in San Francisco, D.C. and NYC Will Never Solve Our Housing Problem
Charles Marohn

I want to draw two insights relating human development to the way cities evolve. These insights are critical to understanding America’s housing crisis and our response to it — and why building housing in major cities can't meaningfully address the housing crisis.

Charles Marohn
What an Old Bus Terminal Can Teach Us About Building a Strong Town
Ben Abramson
What an Old Bus Terminal Can Teach Us About Building a Strong Town
Ben Abramson

Some of the best arguments for historic preservation are not aesthetic or sentimental, but economic. Here are some examples of how the preservation and reuse of historic buildings can increase an area’s productivity.

Ben Abramson
How Creative Design Can Turn Strict Zoning Codes Into Success Stories
Edward Erfurt
How Creative Design Can Turn Strict Zoning Codes Into Success Stories
Edward Erfurt

Regulatory reform doesn’t always mean replacing or changing zoning codes. Great designers are experts at working within existing codes to increase housing options, and this method is often more attainable and scalable than actually changing the code. Here’s one such example of using existing code to create incremental housing.

Edward Erfurt
Top StoryStrong Towns