What the original article doesn't emphasize enough is that because the project isn't close enough to the density and viability and desirability of a vibrant and dense town center, it will not evolve into to one, but rather evolve in the other direction, toward a strip mall.
They do touch on this with a few quotes:
"As a result, these places tend not to hold their value over time, and to feel very dated after a couple decades."
"these places are also liabilities from a public-finance point of view because their drive-to, drive-away nature means that huge amounts of the land must go to roads and parking, which require maintenance but generate no direct value, and no tax revenue for the local government."
The Strong Towns website likes to emphasize urbanism from a city-accountant point of view: would you like your town/city to attract people and have a rising tax-base (aka value) so that you can afford to maintain the infrastructure, rather than lose value to the point where you can't afford to maintain it, and it deteriorates and becomes even more undesirable.
This place might be attractive for a while, but if it is only superficial with ice cream shops and brewpubs, it's just another place to drive to, not live in. When they build a Walmart and Home Depot and food court 10 miles away, people will drive there for cheaper stuff. If people live close enough to walk here, it may develop a small hardware store, some clothes shopping, and maybe a thrift store. If the people who live nearby have to get into their car anyway, it will be just a destination among many, not a livable place.
I think that is the criticism of this project: it is not good enough to become what they want you to think that it is.
They do touch on this with a few quotes:
"As a result, these places tend not to hold their value over time, and to feel very dated after a couple decades."
"these places are also liabilities from a public-finance point of view because their drive-to, drive-away nature means that huge amounts of the land must go to roads and parking, which require maintenance but generate no direct value, and no tax revenue for the local government."
The Strong Towns website likes to emphasize urbanism from a city-accountant point of view: would you like your town/city to attract people and have a rising tax-base (aka value) so that you can afford to maintain the infrastructure, rather than lose value to the point where you can't afford to maintain it, and it deteriorates and becomes even more undesirable.
This place might be attractive for a while, but if it is only superficial with ice cream shops and brewpubs, it's just another place to drive to, not live in. When they build a Walmart and Home Depot and food court 10 miles away, people will drive there for cheaper stuff. If people live close enough to walk here, it may develop a small hardware store, some clothes shopping, and maybe a thrift store. If the people who live nearby have to get into their car anyway, it will be just a destination among many, not a livable place.
I think that is the criticism of this project: it is not good enough to become what they want you to think that it is.