Strong Towns presenter: 'Our cities are broke' and town planning should 'start small'

Chuck, a planner and engineer from Brainerd, Minnesota, told a Nantucket panel on [date not specified] that many North American cities cannot pay to maintain the infrastructure built during post‑World War II growth and that towns should prioritize small, observable fixes over large, grant‑driven projects. "Our cities are broke. They are financially insolvent," he said during a presentation that compared historical downtown patterns with suburban growth.

Chuck said that before the Great Depression most cities matured incrementally — small wooden buildings replaced over decades by denser brick structures — producing neighborhoods with high value per acre. He argued that the post‑war “cookie‑cutter” growth model was designed to grow population quickly but left municipalities with far more pipes, roads and hydrants per resident than earlier patterns required. "Where is the wealth that we are going to tap into to pay for that investment?" he asked, pointing to a block in his hometown where half a million dollars of public infrastructure exists but the adjacent parcels no longer produce the same tax base.

The presentation used maps and examples from Brainerd, Fresno, Lafayette (La.), Buffalo and other cities to show how pre‑Depression downtowns and neighborhoods often produce higher tax revenue per acre than sprawling post‑war development. Using an analysis done for Lafayette, he said the city had grown in population but its ongoing service liabilities had grown much faster; he cited a road maintenance backlog that had increased from about $40 million to roughly $160 million and a median residential contribution the city would need to collect rising from about $1,500 to $9,200 a year to maintain existing commitments.

Chuck said Strong Towns — the organization he represents — recommends a four‑step, low‑risk approach: observe where people struggle using existing public space; make the smallest feasible improvement; implement it quickly without extensive delay for studies; then repeat, gathering rapid feedback. "Go out and humbly observe where people in the community struggle," he said. "Then ask the question, what is the next smallest thing we can do right now to address that struggle?"

Panelists and attendees responded by discussing how that approach might apply to Nantucket. Several panelists agreed that small, visible projects can build public support and provide rapid feedback; others stressed the need to combine incremental work with longer‑term planning for sea‑level rise and infrastructure decline. Rachel Freeman, executive director of the Land Bank, described the Land Bank’s role as evolving and said the agency’s authority stems from state law and local votes. Beth Anne Meehan, a loan officer and Nantucket Housing Authority commissioner, said her "dream is to maintain our year round community" and urged bravery on zoning changes to support affordable housing.

Chuck also cautioned that places like Nantucket are not constrained only by acreage; rather, he said, better use of existing land (for example, more housing units on the same footprint without excessive sprawl) can increase overall productivity. "Without going over two stories, if you want to keep it that, you could triple the number of housing units you have just by using space better," he said.

Panelists and audience members asked how to reconcile small steps with larger visions and major projects. Chuck and others urged that a shared community vision can guide prioritized small steps, and that iterative, low‑cost experiments provide faster feedback than long consultant studies.

Ending: The session closed with a reminder to stay engaged in planning processes and to balance short‑term, low‑cost improvements with long‑range infrastructure planning.