The book came in extremely good condition. it came in the time I indicated. Amazon is easy to use and I will continue to purchase things from them.

This is a very well written and researched book. It highlights a topic that is very relevant in today's ever changing world. It explains the economic, social and political factors that have led to the development and flourishing of suburban living in America.

Anthony Flint has great experience in this subject. He has been a journalist for 20 years and has covered issues such as transportation, land use, planning and development, smart growth and sprawl. This lends authenticity to his analysis. He has tried to look at both sides of the issue in depth. At times, one feels that there is some repetition and concepts could have been explained somewhat concisely. But probably the amount of information that he uses and his effort to paint both the perspectives makes this kind of narration `

I am impressed by the author's commitment to the issue. He practices what he preaches and tries to live smart and incorporate his beliefs in his lifestyle.

His knowledge is tremendous and he goes deep into issues. The book has been divided into 11 chapters and each covers extensively the issue that it deals with. I was impressed by the details that he mentions and the personal accounts of people whose lives have been affected by the different styles of growth.

This is a thorough book and highly recommended for students of Architecture, and more so for those interested in urban planning. Even though, the author is a proponent of smart growth and against the development of suburbia, he does not try to influence his readers. He has concluded the book effectively, highlighting the disadvantages and the hurdles to urban living. As I read through the first few chapters, I thought that the author's opinions were biased favorably towards urban growth. The effects of 9/11 on urban growth and the challenges that it has posed came to my mind as I was reading the initial chapters. But when I read the last chapter about Planning and Disaster, I could understand how much justice the author has done to this topic. 9/11 had somehow caused a major setback to New Urbanism and this challenge was adequately handled in the closing chapter.


The author's wit is to be admired as he brings the subject to life. His choice of words and narrative is engaging. His passion for the subject, combined with rich details make his arguments believable but that doesn't seem to be his sole objective. The challenges to New Urbanism are also laid out very explicitly. And I truly admire his ability to accomplish this very effectively.

`This Land' covers a very complex and ever evolving issue, one that cannot be solved overnight. Anthony Flint has been true to his cause and laid down the issues very coherently and makes a very interesting case against suburban living. But at the same time, he admits the complexities of the issue and realizes that there is no overnight solution. People in America are not driven by ideology but rather they make practical choices. As the global economy changes- with the every increasing demand for green living and high fuel prices, Americans will soon realize the need for a major change in their lifestyles and that will surely change the public policies related to the issue.

I'm against sprawl. But I and the majority of U.S. citizens can't and should NOT accept Flint's outrageous portrayal (see pp 125-6) of those citizens who have examined and are deeply concerned with U.S. population projections for the next 50 years--120 million more, with a staggering 60% of those immigrant--as on the 'radical fringe' and as 'tree-huggers who agree with Pat Buchanan and Michael Savage.' This is idiotic McCarthy-like baiting at its finest. And dullest.
Flint appears to be clueless as to what democratic planning consists of. Perhaps he needs to research what U.S. citizens think 'building smart' for 72 million immigrants truly means. There SHOULD be a democratic debate about immigration and planning, and the sooner more Americans--and planners-- enter it, the better. But not for this author. Flint's biographical essay contains not a single reference to the impacts of illegal immigration (an estimated 12 million people)on municipal, regional and environmental planning practice. Is this acceptable to the majority of Americans? To planners? Instead we find Flint capitulating with this ridiculous reminder on how to 'deal' with the incoming masses (p 248):
"Remember those 100 million new people expected in the country by 2050? They're the reason we're going to need more compact places."

Just like that.


My other critique of this book (released in 2006) is the absence of ANY real discussion of the impacts of global warming on urban and regional development, planned or unplanned, smart or stupid. Flint covers planning issues for homeland security instead. But with popular coverage of planetary warming now a daily norm on the TV and in the media, you'd think writers steeped in planning issues would make the connection. Flint misses the boat in a rising sea...again. A LSU geoscience professor informs us on national news last night that coastal regions will be facing some serious threats in 40 years from melting ice caps. This book mentions nothing on the challenges of global warming for the planning profession, or for readers who happen to occupy the populated coastal areas of the country who'll see their populations soar from both legal and illegal population growth. Not to mention planning impacts of drought, flooding, urban heat islands, energy supplies for cities gong through hyper-growth, etc. Without population and global warming considerations (addressed in POPULATION AND CLIMATE CHANGE (2005) by O'Neill, and also see "Human Mobility in a Globalizing World: Urban Development Trends and Policy Implications" by Wm Clark and available online at the CA Center for Population Research), how smart can Flint's brand of American 'smart growth' really be?

I have grave doubts that the biologist E. O. Wilson, who has watched the planet get chewed to hell in his lifetime, would've given this book such high praises had he actually READ the book.



Addendum:
For a thoughtless and perhaps unethical critique of my book review by a Boston planner (academic?), click on 'Comments (2)' below. In summary and with my embellishments, this Flint supporter appears to be implying

1) The illegal immigration issue has nothing significant to do with land use planning (again: 60-72 million plus according to Flint added to the US population, and certainly the greater proportion arriving in violation of Federal immigration law). Focus uncritically on planning for the millions who are here legally and can afford to own planned developments. Aging baby boomers will need "young" people (who cares about their status) to do the menial work and pay into SS. The non-unionized undocumented will help build and maintain the compact habitats only aging boomers can afford. Like the sprawl they are constructing right now. How else will we keep some of our lawless and immoral regional economies humming w/out lots of young, undocumented, eager, and poverty stricken individuals? Who cares if this intensifies America's two-tier society?

2) You're xenophobic if you call attention to this demographic and planning challenge for the projected 60-72 million immigrants (note: her finger-pointing mirrors perfectly Flint's accusations of 'radicalism' mentioned in my book review. If you're not for unlimited population increase you're 'on the fringe'). Planners should not be concerned with what the majority of American citizens have to say about future land use in their own country.

3)Any voiced concerns with current failures of urban and regional planners to address the planning impacts of 12 million undocumented (in less than 12 years) or consider future planning demands for 60-72 million individuals are irrelevant; it's not what land use planners do. Remember: you're a xenophobe like millions of other Americans for even thinking that. Planners don't think this way. Just focus and push for legislation and regs that result in 'smart growth'.

4) Global warming is for env. science books, not land use planners who already know that stuff. Drought, urban runoff, regional flooding, building for a warmer climate, urban heat islands, energy and watershed water supplies for cities and regions, and the rise of sea level in urbanized coastal regions have NOTHING to do with American land use.

5) Flint's de facto and uncritical support for 60-72 million more individuals of unknown status entering this country in the next 50 years is not the point of the book. Good planning is simply a social challenge. We need enlightened planning laws. So to hell with immigration laws.

6)Repeat daily the 'smart growth' mantra.

I'm against sprawl. But I and the majority of U.S. citizens can't and should NOT accept Flint's outrageous portrayal (see pp 125-6) of those citizens who have examined and are deeply concerned with U.S. population projections for the next 50 years--120 million more, with a staggering 60% of those immigrant--as on the 'radical fringe' and as 'tree-huggers who agree with Pat Buchanan and Michael Savage.' This is idiotic McCarthy-like baiting at its finest. And dullest.
Flint appears to be clueless as to what democratic planning consists of. Perhaps he needs to research what U.S. citizens think 'building smart' for 72 million immigrants truly means. There SHOULD be a democratic debate about immigration and planning, and the sooner more Americans--and planners-- enter it, the better. But not for this author. Flint's biographical essay contains not a single reference to the impacts of illegal immigration (an estimated 12 million people)on municipal, regional and environmental planning practice. Is this acceptable to the majority of Americans? To planners? Instead we find Flint capitulating with this ridiculous reminder on how to 'deal' with the incoming masses (p 248):
"Remember those 100 million new people expected in the country by 2050? They're the reason we're going to need more compact places."

Just like that.


My other critique of this book (released in 2006) is the absence of ANY real discussion of the impacts of global warming on urban and regional development, planned or unplanned, smart or stupid. Flint covers planning issues for homeland security instead. But with popular coverage of planetary warming now a daily norm on the TV and in the media, you'd think writers steeped in planning issues would make the connection. Flint misses the boat in a rising sea...again. A LSU geoscience professor informs us on national news last night that coastal regions will be facing some serious threats in 40 years from melting ice caps. This book mentions nothing on the challenges of global warming for the planning profession, or for readers who happen to occupy the populated coastal areas of the country who'll see their populations soar from both legal and illegal population growth. Not to mention planning impacts of drought, flooding, urban heat islands, energy supplies for cities gong through hyper-growth, etc. Without population and global warming considerations (addressed in POPULATION AND CLIMATE CHANGE (2005) by O'Neill, and also see "Human Mobility in a Globalizing World: Urban Development Trends and Policy Implications" by Wm Clark and available online at the CA Center for Population Research), how smart can Flint's brand of American 'smart growth' really be?

I have grave doubts that the biologist E. O. Wilson, who has watched the planet get chewed to hell in his lifetime, would've given this book such high praises had he actually READ the book.



Addendum:
For a thoughtless and perhaps unethical critique of my book review by a Boston planner (academic?), click on 'Comments (2)' below. In summary and with my embellishments, this Flint supporter appears to be implying

1) The illegal immigration issue has nothing significant to do with land use planning (again: 60-72 million plus according to Flint added to the US population, and certainly the greater proportion arriving in violation of Federal immigration law). Focus uncritically on planning for the millions who are here legally and can afford to own planned developments. Aging baby boomers will need "young" people (who cares about their status) to do the menial work and pay into SS. The non-unionized undocumented will help build and maintain the compact habitats only aging boomers can afford. Like the sprawl they are constructing right now. How else will we keep some of our lawless and immoral regional economies humming w/out lots of young, undocumented, eager, and poverty stricken individuals? Who cares if this intensifies America's two-tier society?

2) You're xenophobic if you call attention to this demographic and planning challenge for the projected 60-72 million immigrants (note: her finger-pointing mirrors perfectly Flint's accusations of 'radicalism' mentioned in my book review. If you're not for unlimited population increase you're 'on the fringe'). Planners should not be concerned with what the majority of American citizens have to say about future land use in their own country.

3)Any voiced concerns with current failures of urban and regional planners to address the planning impacts of 12 million undocumented (in less than 12 years) or consider future planning demands for 60-72 million individuals are irrelevant; it's not what land use planners do. Remember: you're a xenophobe like millions of other Americans for even thinking that. Planners don't think this way. Just focus and push for legislation and regs that result in 'smart growth'.

4) Global warming is for env. science books, not land use planners who already know that stuff. Drought, urban runoff, regional flooding, building for a warmer climate, urban heat islands, energy and watershed water supplies for cities and regions, and the rise of sea level in urbanized coastal regions have NOTHING to do with American land use.

5) Flint's de facto and uncritical support for 60-72 million more individuals of unknown status entering this country in the next 50 years is not the point of the book. Good planning is simply a social challenge. We need enlightened planning laws. So to hell with immigration laws.

6)Repeat daily the 'smart growth' mantra.

I'm against sprawl. But I and the majority of U.S. citizens can't and should NOT accept Flint's outrageous portrayal (see pp 125-6) of those citizens who have examined and are deeply concerned with U.S. population projections for the next 50 years--120 million more, with a staggering 60% of those immigrant--as on the 'radical fringe' and as 'tree-huggers who agree with Pat Buchanan and Michael Savage.' This is idiotic McCarthy-like baiting at its finest. And dullest.
Flint appears to be clueless as to what democratic planning consists of. Perhaps he needs to research what U.S. citizens think 'building smart' for 72 million immigrants truly means. There SHOULD be a democratic debate about immigration and planning, and the sooner more Americans--and planners-- enter it, the better. But not for this author. Flint's biographical essay contains not a single reference to the impacts of illegal immigration (an estimated 12 million people)on municipal, regional and environmental planning practice. Is this acceptable to the majority of Americans? To planners? Instead we find Flint capitulating with this ridiculous reminder on how to 'deal' with the incoming masses (p 248):
"Remember those 100 million new people expected in the country by 2050? They're the reason we're going to need more compact places."

Just like that.


My other critique of this book (released in 2006) is the absence of ANY real discussion of the impacts of global warming on urban and regional development, planned or unplanned, smart or stupid. Flint covers planning issues for homeland security instead. But with popular coverage of planetary warming now a daily norm on the TV and in the media, you'd think writers steeped in planning issues would make the connection. Flint misses the boat in a rising sea...again. A LSU geoscience professor informs us on national news last night that coastal regions will be facing some serious threats in 40 years from melting ice caps. This book mentions nothing on the challenges of global warming for the planning profession, or for readers who happen to occupy the populated coastal areas of the country who'll see their populations soar from both legal and illegal population growth. Not to mention planning impacts of drought, flooding, urban heat islands, energy supplies for cities gong through hyper-growth, etc. Without population and global warming considerations (addressed in POPULATION AND CLIMATE CHANGE (2005) by O'Neill, and also see "Human Mobility in a Globalizing World: Urban Development Trends and Policy Implications" by Wm Clark and available online at the CA Center for Population Research), how smart can Flint's brand of American 'smart growth' really be?

I have grave doubts that the biologist E. O. Wilson, who has watched the planet get chewed to hell in his lifetime, would've given this book such high praises had he actually READ the book.



Addendum:
For a thoughtless and perhaps unethical critique of my book review by a Boston planner (academic?), click on 'Comments (2)' below. In summary and with my embellishments, this Flint supporter appears to be implying

1) The illegal immigration issue has nothing significant to do with land use planning (again: 60-72 million plus according to Flint added to the US population, and certainly the greater proportion arriving in violation of Federal immigration law). Focus uncritically on planning for the millions who are here legally and can afford to own planned developments. Aging baby boomers will need "young" people (who cares about their status) to do the menial work and pay into SS. The non-unionized undocumented will help build and maintain the compact habitats only aging boomers can afford. Like the sprawl they are constructing right now. How else will we keep some of our lawless and immoral regional economies humming w/out lots of young, undocumented, eager, and poverty stricken individuals? Who cares if this intensifies America's two-tier society?

2) You're xenophobic if you call attention to this demographic and planning challenge for the projected 60-72 million immigrants (note: her finger-pointing mirrors perfectly Flint's accusations of 'radicalism' mentioned in my book review. If you're not for unlimited population increase you're 'on the fringe'). Planners should not be concerned with what the majority of American citizens have to say about future land use in their own country.

3)Any voiced concerns with current failures of urban and regional planners to address the planning impacts of 12 million undocumented (in less than 12 years) or consider future planning demands for 60-72 million individuals are irrelevant; it's not what land use planners do. Remember: you're a xenophobe like millions of other Americans for even thinking that. Planners don't think this way. Just focus and push for legislation and regs that result in 'smart growth'.

4) Global warming is for env. science books, not land use planners who already know that stuff. Drought, urban runoff, regional flooding, building for a warmer climate, urban heat islands, energy and watershed water supplies for cities and regions, and the rise of sea level in urbanized coastal regions have NOTHING to do with American land use.

5) Flint's de facto and uncritical support for 60-72 million more individuals of unknown status entering this country in the next 50 years is not the point of the book. Good planning is simply a social challenge. We need enlightened planning laws. So to hell with immigration laws.

6)Repeat daily the 'smart growth' mantra.

I'm against sprawl. But I and the majority of U.S. citizens can't and should NOT accept Flint's outrageous portrayal (see pp 125-6) of those citizens who have examined and are deeply concerned with U.S. population projections for the next 50 years--120 million more, with a staggering 60% of those immigrant--as on the 'radical fringe' and as 'tree-huggers who agree with Pat Buchanan and Michael Savage.' This is idiotic McCarthy-like baiting at its finest. And dullest.
Flint appears to be clueless as to what democratic planning consists of. Perhaps he needs to research what U.S. citizens think 'building smart' for 72 million immigrants truly means. There SHOULD be a democratic debate about immigration and planning, and the sooner more Americans--and planners-- enter it, the better. But not for this author. Flint's biographical essay contains not a single reference to the impacts of illegal immigration (an estimated 12 million people)on municipal, regional and environmental planning practice. Is this acceptable to the majority of Americans? To planners? Instead we find Flint capitulating with this ridiculous reminder on how to 'deal' with the incoming masses (p 248):
"Remember those 100 million new people expected in the country by 2050? They're the reason we're going to need more compact places."

Just like that.


My other critique of this book (released in 2006) is the absence of ANY real discussion of the impacts of global warming on urban and regional development, planned or unplanned, smart or stupid. Flint covers planning issues for homeland security instead. But with popular coverage of planetary warming now a daily norm on the TV and in the media, you'd think writers steeped in planning issues would make the connection. Flint misses the boat in a rising sea...again. A LSU geoscience professor informs us on national news last night that coastal regions will be facing some serious threats in 40 years from melting ice caps. This book mentions nothing on the challenges of global warming for the planning profession, or for readers who happen to occupy the populated coastal areas of the country who'll see their populations soar from both legal and illegal population growth. Not to mention planning impacts of drought, flooding, urban heat islands, energy supplies for cities gong through hyper-growth, etc. Without population and global warming considerations (addressed in POPULATION AND CLIMATE CHANGE (2005) by O'Neill), how smart can Flint's brand of American 'smart growth' really be?

I have grave doubts that the biologist E. O. Wilson, who has watched the planet get chewed to hell in his lifetime, would've given this book such high praises had he actually READ the book.



Addendum:
For a thoughtless and perhaps unethical critique of my book review by a Boston planner (academic?), click on 'Comments (2)' below. In summary and with my embellishments, this Flint supporter appears to be implying

1) The illegal immigration issue has nothing significant to do with land use planning (again: 60-72 million plus according to Flint added to the US population, and certainly the greater proportion arriving in violation of Federal immigration law). Focus uncritically on planning for the millions who are here legally and can afford to own planned developments. Aging baby boomers will need "young" people (who cares about their status) to do the menial work and pay into SS. The non-unionized undocumented will help build and maintain the compact habitats only aging boomers can afford. Like the sprawl they are constructing right now. How else will we keep some of our lawless and immoral regional economies humming w/out lots of young, undocumented, eager, and poverty stricken individuals? Who cares if this intensifies America's two-tier society?

2) You're xenophobic if you call attention to this demographic and planning challenge for the projected 60-72 million immigrants (note: her finger-pointing mirrors perfectly Flint's accusations of 'radicalism' mentioned in my book review. If you're not for unlimited population increase you're 'on the fringe'). Planners should not be concerned with what the majority of American citizens have to say about future land use in their own country.

3)Any voiced concerns with current failures of urban and regional planners to address the planning impacts of 12 million undocumented (in less than 12 years) or consider future planning demands for 60-72 million individuals are irrelevant; it's not what land use planners do. Remember: you're a xenophobe like millions of other Americans for even thinking that. Planners don't think this way. Just focus and push for legislation and regs that result in 'smart growth'.

4) Global warming is for env. science books, not land use planners who already know that stuff. Drought, urban runoff, regional flooding, building for a warmer climate, urban heat islands, energy and watershed water supplies for cities and regions, and the rise of sea level in urbanized coastal regions have NOTHING to do with American land use.

5) Flint's de facto and uncritical support for 60-72 million more individuals of unknown status entering this country in the next 50 years is not the point of the book. Good planning is simply a social challenge. We need enlightened planning laws. So to hell with immigration laws.

6)Repeat daily the 'smart growth' mantra.

I'm against sprawl. But I and the majority of U.S. citizens can't and should NOT accept Flint's outrageous portrayal (see pp 125-6) of those citizens who have examined and are deeply concerned with U.S. population projections for the next 50 years--120 million more, with a staggering 60% of those immigrant--as on the 'radical fringe' and as 'tree-huggers who agree with Pat Buchanan and Michael Savage.' This is idiotic McCarthy-like baiting at its finest. And dullest.
Flint appears to be clueless as to what democratic planning consists of. Perhaps he needs to research what U.S. citizens think 'building smart' for 72 million immigrants truly means. There SHOULD be a democratic debate about immigration and planning, and the sooner more Americans--and planners-- enter it, the better. But not for this author. Flint's biographical essay contains not a single reference to the impacts of illegal immigration (an estimated 12 million people)on municipal, regional and environmental planning practice. Is this acceptable to the majority of Americans? To planners? Instead we find Flint capitulating with this ridiculous reminder on how to 'deal' with the incoming masses (p 248):
"Remember those 100 million new people expected in the country by 2050? They're the reason we're going to need more compact places."

Just like that.


My other critique of this book (released in 2006) is the absence of ANY real discussion of the impacts of global warming on urban and regional development, planned or unplanned, smart or stupid. Flint covers planning issues for homeland security instead. But with popular coverage of planetary warming now a daily norm on the TV and in the media, you'd think writers steeped in planning issues would make the connection. Flint misses the boat in a rising sea...again. A LSU geoscience professor informs us on national news last night that coastal regions will be facing some serious threats in 40 years from melting ice caps. This book mentions nothing on the challenges of global warming for the planning profession, or for readers who happen to occupy the populated coastal areas of the country who'll see their populations soar from both legal and illegal population growth. Not to mention planning impacts of drought, flooding, urban heat islands, energy supplies for cities gong through hyper-growth, etc. Without population and global warming considerations, how smart can Flint's brand of 'smart growth' really be?

I have grave doubts that the biologist E. O. Wilson, who has watched the planet get chewed to hell in his lifetime, would've given this book such high praises had he actually READ the book.



Addendum:
For a thoughtless and perhaps unethical critique of my book review by a Boston planner (academic?), click on 'Comments (2)' below. In summary and with my embellishments, this Flint supporter appears to be implying

1) The illegal immigration issue has nothing significant to do with land use planning (again: 60-72 million plus according to Flint added to the US population, and certainly the greater proportion arriving in violation of Federal immigration law). Focus uncritically on planning for the millions who are here legally and can afford to own planned developments. Aging baby boomers will need "young" people (who cares about their status) to do the menial work and pay into SS. The non-unionized undocumented will help build and maintain the compact habitats only aging boomers can afford. Like the sprawl they are constructing right now. How else will we keep some of our lawless and immoral regional economies humming w/out lots of young, undocumented, eager, and poverty stricken individuals? Who cares if this intensifies America's two-tier society?

2) You're xenophobic if you call attention to this demographic and planning challenge for the projected 60-72 million immigrants (note: her finger-pointing mirrors perfectly Flint's accusations of 'radicalism' mentioned in my book review. If you're not for unlimited population increase you're 'on the fringe'). Planners should not be concerned with what the majority of American citizens have to say about future land use in their own country.

3)Any voiced concerns with current failures of urban and regional planners to address the planning impacts of 12 million undocumented (in less than 12 years) or consider future planning demands for 60-72 million individuals are irrelevant; it's not what land use planners do. Remember: you're a xenophobe like millions of other Americans for even thinking that. Planners don't think this way. Just focus and push for legislation and regs that result in 'smart growth'.

4) Global warming is for env. science books, not land use planners who already know that stuff. Drought, urban runoff, regional flooding, building for a warmer climate, urban heat islands, energy and watershed water supplies for cities and regions, and the rise of sea level in urbanized coastal regions have NOTHING to do with American land use.

5) Flint's de facto and uncritical support for 60-72 million more individuals of unknown status entering this country in the next 50 years is not the point of the book. Good planning is simply a social challenge. We need enlightened planning laws. So to hell with immigration laws.

6)Repeat daily the 'smart growth' mantra.

I'm against sprawl. But I and the majority of U.S. citizens can't and should NOT accept Flint's outrageous portrayal (see pp 125-6) of those citizens who have examined and are deeply concerned with U.S. population projections for the next 50 years--120 million more, with a staggering 60% of those immigrant--as on the 'radical fringe' and as 'tree-huggers who agree with Pat Buchanan and Michael Savage.' This is idiotic McCarthy-like baiting at its finest. And dullest.
Flint appears to be clueless as to what democratic planning consists of. Perhaps he needs to research what U.S. citizens think 'building smart' for 72 million immigrants truly means. There SHOULD be a democratic debate about immigration and planning, and the sooner more Americans--and planners-- enter it, the better. But not for this author. Flint's biographical essay contains not a single reference to the impacts of illegal immigration (an estimated 12 million people)on municipal, regional and environmental planning practice. Is this acceptable to the majority of Americans? To planners? Instead we find Flint capitulating with this ridiculous reminder on how to 'deal' with the incoming masses (p 248):
"Remember those 100 million new people expected in the country by 2050? They're the reason we're going to need more compact places."

Just like that.


My other critique of this book (released in 2006) is the absence of ANY real discussion of the impacts of global warming on urban and regional development, planned or unplanned, smart or stupid. Flint covers planning issues for homeland security instead. But with popular coverage of planetary warming now a daily norm on the TV and in the media, you'd think writers steeped in planning issues would make the connection. Flint misses the boat in a rising sea...again. An LSU geoscience professor informs us on national news last night that coastal regions will be facing some serious threats in 40 years from melting ice caps. This book mentions nothing on the challenges of global warming for the planning profession, or for readers who happen to occupy the populated coastal areas of the country who'll see their populations soar from both legal and illegal population growth. Not to mention planning impacts of drought, flooding, urban heat islands, energy supplies for cities gong through hyper-growth, etc. Without population and global warming considerations, how smart can Flint's brand of 'smart growth' really be?



Addendum:
For a thoughtless and perhaps unethical critique of my book review by a Boston planner (academic?), click on 'comments below'. In summary and with my embellishments, this Flint supporter appears to be implying

1) The illegal immigration issue has nothing significant to do with land use planning (again: 60-72 million plus according to Flint added to the US population, and certainly the greater proportion arriving in violation of Federal immigration law). Focus uncritically on planning for the millions who are here legally and can afford to own planned developments. Aging baby boomers will need "young" people (who cares about their status) to do the menial work and pay into SS. The non-unionized undocumented will help build and maintain the compact habitats only aging boomers can afford. Like the sprawl they are constructing right now. How else will we keep some of our lawless and immoral regional economies humming w/out lots of young, undocumented, eager, and poverty stricken individuals? Who cares if this intensifies America's two-tier society?

2) You're xenophobic if you call attention to this demographic and planning challenge for the projected 60-72 million immigrants (note: her finger-pointing mirrors perfectly Flint's accusations of 'radicalism' mentioned in my book review. If you're not for unlimited population increase you're 'on the fringe'). Planners should not be concerned with what the majority of American citizens have to say about future land use in their own country.

3)Any voiced concerns with current failures of urban and regional planners to address the planning impacts of 12 million undocumented (in less than 12 years) or consider future planning demands for 60-72 million individuals are irrelevant; it's not what land use planners do. Remember: you're a xenophobe like millions of other Americans for even thinking that. Planners don't think this way. Just focus and push for legislation and regs that result in 'smart growth'.

4) Global warming is for env. science books, not land use planners who already know that stuff. Drought, urban runoff, regional flooding, building for a warmer climate, urban heat islands, energy and watershed water supplies for cities and regions, and the rise of sea level in urbanized coastal regions have NOTHING to do with American land use.

5) Flint's de facto and uncritical support for 60-72 million more individuals of unknown status entering this country in the next 50 years is not the point of the book. Good planning is simply a social challenge. We need enlightened planning laws. So to hell with immigration laws.

6)Repeat daily the 'smart growth' mantra.

I'm against sprawl. But I and the majority of U.S. citizens can't and should NOT accept Flint's outrageous portrayal (see pp 125-6) of those citizens who have examined and are deeply concerned with U.S. population projections for the next 50 years--120 million more, with a staggering 60% of those immigrant--as on the 'radical fringe' and as 'tree-huggers who agree with Pat Buchanan and Michael Savage.' This is idiotic McCarthy-like baiting at its finest. And dullest.
Flint appears to be clueless as to what democratic planning consists of. Perhaps he needs to research what U.S. citizens think 'building smart' for 72 million immigrants truly means. There SHOULD be a democratic debate about immigration and planning, and the sooner more Americans--and planners-- enter it, the better. But not for this author. Flint's biographical essay contains not a single reference to the impacts of illegal immigration (an estimated 12 million people)on municipal, regional and environmental planning practice. Is this acceptable to the majority of Americans? To planners? Instead we find Flint capitulating with this ridiculous reminder on how to 'deal' with the incoming masses (p 248):
"Remember those 100 million new people expected in the country by 2050? They're the reason we're going to need more compact places."

Just like that.


My other critique of this book (released in 2006) is the absence of ANY real discussion of the impacts of global warming on urban and regional development, planned or unplanned, smart or stupid. Flint covers planning issues for homeland security instead. But with popular coverage of planetary warming now a daily norm on the TV and in the media, you'd think writers steeped in planning issues would make the connection. Flint misses the boat in a rising sea...again. An LSU geoscience professor informs us on national news last night that coastal regions will be facing some serious threats in 40 years from melting ice caps. This book mentions nothing on the challenges of global warming for the planning profession, or for readers who happen to occupy the populated coastal areas of the country who'll see their populations soar from both legal and illegal population growth. Not to mention planning impacts of drought, flooding, urban heat islands, energy supplies for cities gong through hyper-growth, etc. Without population and global warming considerations, how smart can Flint's brand of 'smart growth' really be?

'This Land' by Anthony Flint is written by a journalist in a journalistic style. The core of this book is devoted to the battle of ideologies over land use in America: the smart growth movement advocating for control on suburban growth, the new urbanists insisting on the need to rethink our zoning laws currently favoring inefficient sprawl, and property right advocates and lobbyists fighting to gain full control over what can be developed on their property. This story spanning over essentially half a century is told using a myriad of anecdotes and examples from all across America. One such story relates how land owners request compensations for lost revenues (equated to governmental takings) resulting from the restrictions on development outside urban growth boundaries. Flint remains critical and objective, avoiding an overt endorsement of anyone in particular. Many of the themes discussed in books such as `Suburban Nation' or `The Geography of Nowhere' are covered, but with a journalistic tone and restraint.

Beyond merely covering the familiar arguments, he suggests, somewhat surprisingly, that smart growth is itself a `conservative idea'. Our current growth practices are not truly a reflection of the free market; they are highly subsidized by way of highway investments and the costly expansion of public services by local governments (e.g. roads, sewers, schools, fire and police departments). Instead of building on brown sites and urban infills, cities expand on greenfields further and further away stretching tax dollars up to a point of imminent bankruptcy.

This book's strength is in providing a non-partisan account of the political and economical battles over land use in America. Its weakness may be an overabundance of short anecdotal stories found in the middle part of the book. Some suggestions are made in the very last chapter as to what can be done to improve our public space and reduce the wastefulness of our current growth practices. Those seeking a severe and incisive criticism of modern urbanism may be better served by reading `Suburban Nation'. However, this book presents the multitude of conflicting positions that other authors are essentially arguing for or against.

'This Land' by Anthony Flint is written by a journalist in a journalistic style. The core of this book is devoted to a battle of ideologies over land use in America: the smart growth movement advocating a control on suburban growth, the new urbanists insisting on the need to rethink our zoning laws currently favoring inefficient sprawl, and property right advocates and lobbyists fighting to gain full control over what can be developed on their property. This story spanning over essentially half a century is told by a myriad of anecdotes and examples from all across America. Flint remains critical and objective, avoiding an overt endorsement of anyone in particular. Many of the themes discussed in books such as `Suburban Nation' or `The Geography of Nowhere' are covered, but with a journalistic tone and restraint.

Beyond merely covering the familiar arguments, he suggests, somewhat surprisingly, that smart growth is itself a `conservative idea'. Our current growth practices are not truly a reflection of the free market; they are highly subsidized by way of highway investments and the costly expansion of public services (e.g. roads, sewers, schools, fire departments) by local governments. Instead of building on brown sites and urban infills, we expand on greenfields further and further away stretching tax dollars up to a point of imminent bankruptcy.

This book's strength is in providing a coherent story of the political and economical battles over land use as a non-partisan account. Its weakness may be an overabundance of short anecdotal stories found in the middle part of the book. Some suggestions are made in the very last chapter as to what can be done to improve our public space and reduce the wastefulness of our current growth practices. Those seeking a severe and incisive criticism of modern urbanism may be better served by reading `Suburban Nation'. However, this book presents the multitude of conflicting positions that other authors are essentially arguing for or against -- hence a book of notable journalistic worth.

I find Anthony Flint very balanced and insightful in this book. I like the fact that this book's author, in addition to explaining how and why sprawl came about in the first place, the drawbacks of sprawl, and the solutions to it, also explains the reasons why there is so much resistance to the alternatives to sprawl, and the solutions to that resistance.

Anthony Flint does a great job of enlightening us about the history of sprawl in America and how we got to where we are today. It sure surprised me. He also offers solutions to the problems of sprawl, so the book provides hope. This Land is well written and easy to understand.

THIS LAND: THE BATTLE OVER SPRAWL AND THE FUTURE OF AMERICA charts the evolution of development in America: a process which holds political, social and economic clashes and influences throughout the process. From the roots of the anti-sprawl movement in the 1960s to issues of property and personal rights, developer rights, finances and more, THIS LAND comes from a journalist who covered planning and housing for the Boston Globe for sixteen years. His background lends to a wide-ranging survey of defenders and contenders of sprawl.

Diane C. Donovan
California Bookwatch

Fascinating treatment of the burgeoning struggle of urban sprawl (now exurban sprawl) vs. planned development in 21st century America. Another "inconvenient truth, blending the source of the energy crisis, "green" concerns, local food production, and legal armageddon over eminent domain.
Lively writing from a former Boston Globe reporter.