Hi all,

I'd love to hear from any female transportation/urban planners about their experience with sexism in the field. I (F23) recently started my first full-time job as a transportation planner, and I've had to deal with a lot of mansplaining and people not taking me seriously to the point where it's interfering with my work. I'm just trying to get a sense of whether my experiences are normal/whether I should try to find a new job in this market or not- I had another really bad experience with my previous boss in a similar field (economic development) but I have otherwise really enjoyed the experiences I've had and what I do, so I feel lost on where to go from here. Any advice you can give is much appreciated🥲

So recently I've been scouring for apartments in the town I've gone to school in, and some of them were rooms in single-family houses rented as one unit allotted for a certain number of tenants (say, 4-8). However, in many of these arrangements, the tenants often used dens, living rooms, or attics as bedrooms, despite those not being legally zoned as bedrooms.

It's really pissed me off, since at the time I was on my parents' paycheck, and when they found out I was to be living in an attic with roommates unwilling to really change around where they slept, they sort of had a fit, and in the end they ended up having the upper hand and forcing me to back out of the contract last-second and find a replacement tenant, citing fire safety concerns. It made me extremely distraught how insane they were about the law, or the likelihood of a house fire which could happen in any house regardless of arrangement.

The ordeal was utterly humiliating, and it coaxed my views on housing policy into more YIMBY, "build more + denser housing to solve the cost of living crisis" views. Despite my parents warning me about how hot or cold an attic room could be, it in fact made me want one more than ever. My previous housing arrangement gave me a lot of square footage for the price I paid owing to this (IIRC the room was legally a double or triple), and in that, 2 of my friends slept in the attic, using it as a room. They seemed to get along there really well, handling e.g. heat or cold using fans and space heaters. It felt like such a comforting nook, a shelter from the rest of the house, not to mention a very convenient spot in the house to isolate oneself from parties or activity downstairs.

I keep seeing redditors from the US talk about cities being nice because they have “very walkable downtowns”. The problem is, as soon as you leave many of these downtowns, you’re back to general American suburbia. This is not good city design.

In the best design cities of the world, there isn’t a single focal point that the entire city revolves around. Think Tokyo for example. You have Shinjiku, Ginza, Shibuya, etc. there isn’t a singular “downtown Tokyo”. Yet I keep reading redditors keep comparing how well designed American cities based how their vibrant/walkable their downtowns are. The mere idea is bad city planning. That’s all. Rant over

Im in urban planning, but I've mostly focused on transport infrastructure and high quality urban spaces. I dont know much about residential developments and the legal processes/financing opportunities/decisionmakers, but I am interested in it as a means of helping reduce inequality, and to increase asset (home) ownership among working class people - particularly young people, buying their first home, maybe to settle down and have kids. I imagine this is massively important for long term welfare and equality. It also may help alleviate many western cities' atrocious birth rates...

Do any one of you know how to work with it? How to approach it to make an impact? Who works with it? What are some interesting/promising/relevant studies and experiments and front runners?

Often on urbanist/transit youtube and discussion forms, most European and east Asian cities are idealized and Amercan cities are demonized, but people often ignore or forget how most people don't want to live in a 'shoebox', or certainly don't want to raise a family in one.

Tokyo prefecture for example is known for their world-class urbanism revolving around their train system, but said urbansim only exsits because they have such a high population density in some of the most cramped homes on the planet. The average home size in all of tokyo is ~450 square feet whereas in NYC the average home size is between 750-950 square feet and NYC is known for having tiny homes but still has larger homes, on top of people having the option to commute by rail from outside the city.

Cramped homes are really dehumanizing (from personal experience) but are also incredibly unattractive for the average American who has the option of living in a massive house (relative to the rest of the world) and an average commute under half an hour in their own air conditioned car.

Another point worth bringing up is families. Whilst it is easier for to attract young people to live in cities, families make up the bulk of America and its really unachievable to expect them to live in an apartment with people above them. This is one of my own personal theories on why Europe and east Asia is having such a significant birth rate decline, their homes are incredibly small and so unattractive to have children in.

Looking at American data, the cities with the highest birth rates are the car-dependent single family home dominant cities like Indiannapolis, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio and Fresno whereas the lowest birthrates are in Seattle, Portland, SF and Boston. Of course there are a million factors that come to birth rates i.e. the larger families live in municipalities outside of the city limits, the named west coast cities are sanctuary cities for non-heterosexual demographics, etc. I just think there is also a correlation that could be made between urbanism and birthrates.

Finally nature, I'm an American living in Auckland, New Zealand and went backpacking in Japan for three weeks and found Tokyo to be unbearable. I was told stories by my dad who lived in Shibuya for 5 years about how he hated it for its cramped environment and lack of nature but I kind of brushed it off as him not being big into cities. I love big cities and am kind of tired of how small Auckland is, but after being in Tokyo for 12 days I realised how important nature is in a city. I guess my point is entirely anecdotal but access to shouldn't be given up for better urbanism and transit options. Whether that nature comes in the form of parks, easily accessible regional/national reserves, backyards, whatever, there needs to be some sort of greenery.

Having great urban fabic shouldn't come to the cost of people personal comfort. Most Americans really like having a separated house with some form of nature near them (like a backyard) and don't really care that they need a car for daily life. If urbanists want to move towards a more car-free America, the first people they need to think about is can a family be raised (happily) in the environment.

I think something like Chicago's or Philadelphia's row homes is a good middle ground, dense enough for small shops and frequent buses, and the occasional subway or regional rail line, but also gives enough space to have one's own house, a small front or backyard or a park nearby.

Would love to hear your thoughts! (This post kind of sounds like America glaze but i just wanted to point out that there are reasons why American's choose to live the way they do.)

I'm referring to Proposal 2026-01 as well as the Citizen's Research Council of Michigan, which, was established all the way back in 1916 to help guide policy for Metro Detroit as well as the state of Michigan, so, it's not just solely your typical Urban-advocacy nonprofit like Strongtowns. While the board of trustees and directors for the CRC might make hardline Radicals whinge, in my opinion, presenting and analyzing policy in Metro Detroit for nearly 10 years on Reddit as well as my own platform, the CRC is genuinely good at it's job and has created absolutely spectacular analyses that has served the interests of the Citizens of both Metro Detroit and Michigan as a whole.

"Okay, I don't care because I don't live in Michigan. What exactly are you bringing to the table as a self-described 'Hobbyist Urbanist'?"

While I'm sure that the corporate and civic leaders within the CRC will release more whitepapers on the topic, They have stated in the past as well as extremely recently (specifically on page 13) that Michigan's current constitution, which was adopted in 1963, has very vague and conflicting statutes on the books regarding local government and Metropolitan Governments, despite the radically pro-home rule jurisprudence is known as "the Cooley Doctrine" being the law of the land in Michigan.

For example: according to Article VII § 13 of the Constitution of Michigan, all it takes for two or more contiguous Counties within the state to merge is a majority vote in all affected Counties, which, despite never being acted upon (Michigan has had 83 Counties for ~135 years at the time of creating this post), this provision is very obviously in tune with the principals of the Cooley Doctrine. Yet, bizarrely in the same chapter but different section (Article VII § 27) it very explicitly says that the formation of Metropolitan Governments is solely within the jurisdiction of the state legislature, which, not only goes up against the jurisprudence set by the Cooley Doctrine, but also undermines the legal doctrine of home rule within the state of Michigan.

While I have been yelling into the great big void of the dying internet to promote the creation of a radically democratic Metropolitan Government within Metro Detroit, it seems as if the state's more influential big-wigs from the entirety of the political spectrum have come out against voting for a constitutional convention. The Michigan Chamber of Commerce, Michigan AFL-CIO, Detroit Regional Chamber of Commerce, Michigan ACLU, Americans for Prosperity Michigan, Voters Not Politicians, The Michigan Catholic Conference, and even the damn Metro Detroit Democratic Socialists of America (they're not a part of the official coalition, but, they oppose a constitutional convention as well) all oppose it, and, have formed an official pressure group to kill the proposal.

I'd posit to the skeptical locals among this sub and further afield that this "grand coalition" isn't a signifier of some inherent inferiority of the prospect of a constitutional convention, instead, in my view as a Citizen who just wants what's best for his home City as well as the rest of the state, this coalition represents every corrupted political organization that wishes to allow the residents of Michigan to play politics only on their terms. Mind you, if this proposal for a constitutional convention fails this year, according to the statutes laid out within the 1963 constitution, voters won't get the chance to vote on another constitutional convention until 2042. Do these people genuinely think that our current constitution is sturdy enough to go another 16 whole years without an amendment or even a general revision? I don't

So, I'm appealing to everyone here planner/policy maker and hobbyist alike: How would you elevate the importance of reforms on local government/Metropolitan Government in a scenario where you have little to no financial resources?

Old blog post from Nathan Lewis describing the roots of suburbanism in 19th century American town planning, with special attention to streets that were much wider than their European counterparts (even a century before the release of the Model T) and a preference for detached houses on quarter- to half-acre lots with setbacks on all sides.

Somerville, Mass., officials say their success is rooted in tried-and-true best practices for traffic safety.

Article from Governing: https://www.governing.com/infrastructure/this-new-england-city-hasnt-had-a-traffic-death-in-three-years

Seeking advice from other Planners- how do you deal with the stress from such a high level of public scrutiny? Every report and typo is forever on record, every stumble or accidental misspeak at a board hearing is recorded and lives online forever, every email and Teams chat can be used in a public records request. Today I had a resident berate me over a recorded phone call and was threatened that he would take us to court. This is local government obviously. I like working with people but the stress of following all the laws perfectly, and the consequences if I misinterpret and make a mistake is getting to me.

I’m hoping someone familiar with zoning can help me understand a situation in a small town in Florida.

A one acre parcel is listed in the county property assessors’ records as Property Use: Single Family. It’s surrounded on both sides by single‑family homes. But the City says the parcel is zoned MU‑1 (Mixed Use)

Here’s where I’m confused:
The city’s rules say you cannot operate a business from your home ( one that leaves equipment in the front yard and has customers coming and going) if you’re in a residential district. At the same time, the city has classified it as MU‑1 which allows some commercial activity — but I’m not sure how that applies when the parcel is still classified as “single family” in the property use code.

The owner wants to open a food truck park( like have 4 food trucks ) on the one acre parcel. The lot faces a busy commercial street, but the neighboring parcels are residential.
So my questions are:
Does the property use code (Single Family) limit what can be done, even if the zoning is MU‑1?

Would the owner need to apply for a zoning change, a conditional use permit, or something else?

How do cities typically handle parcels that are zoned mixed‑use but still classified as single‑family in the property appraiser records?

Trying to understand how these two designations interact and what the owner would need to do. Like apply for a land-use change?

Thanks in advance to anyone who knows how this works.

--

There seems to be a lot of hate for them. It’s not as if is single family houses for owner occupancy, even newly constructed ones, are going to disappear. These houses can provide some of the larger rental units that are in short supply. Is it just about bad symbolism?

Looks like the 2026 bipartisan housing act has become law today, without the President's signature or veto.

I don't see anything bad reading through the APA's analysis of the act. Excited that it recognizes code innovation - to include single stair permitting - as needed.

Thoughts, comments, concerns?

I'm currently visiting Las Vegas for work. It feels so artificial and manmade/ brand new, a city built in the middle of nowhere around tourism, "luxury", and consumerism. In some sense, it's an urban development marvel for how quickly it's boomed.

The new era of remote work seems to me like an opportunity ripe for building a new place with this in mind. Build up an entire city designed around community, walkability, outdoors things to do (lakes/ rivers/ hiking, communal spaces, coffee shops and dog parks) that accomplishes many things -- mainly being a new build and hub for young people with fully remote jobs to move. We've seen a ton of cities try to incentivize people who work fully remote to move to them... perhaps this can be done on a major scale.

To me, this is a major investor's dream. Get in early and build everything/ own the land. Prioritize affordable housing and walking everywhere. Save on car costs, start public transit from the inside out, and then build as it grows.

This also goes hand-in-hand with an eventual tourism industry, IMO. A new area like that attracts people to move/ invest there if there are lots of things to do that go hand-in-hand. Similar to how Denver has seen a major growth point around their outdoorsy vibe, another city could market and build all of these things within driving distance/ in the area.

This screams Michigan to me. Grand Rapids/ Holland/ Grand Haven. Build up Grand Rapids as the hub, make Holland and Grand Haven more the vacation destinations, and see the area boom. Maybe I'm too much of an urban dev novice for something like this, but I really think a city that is designed around remote work (or the service industry jobs that boom from mass migration), quality of life/ walkability, and eventual tourism could work

Detroit seems to have been the Rust Belt’s newest “comeback kid” over the last decade, arguably stealing the title from Pittsburgh who had it for most of the aughts-mid 2010s. But the momentum seems to be slowing.

Average home values still remain extremely low at $76,466 and have now started declining quite steeply again, down 4.6% year-over-year, according to Zillow. That’s the second steepest decline among principal cities of the top 50 metro areas. Detroit housing experts recently expressed concern that they’re approaching a “day of reckoning”.

At the metropolitan area level, it’s the only major Great Lakes/Upper Midwest metro that isn’t a seller’s market.

Economically, the metro area currently has the second highest unemployment rate among the 56 largest MSAs and some of the largest job losses YoY among major metros. And the outlook isn’t too rosy for the auto industry.

Quite a few major developments announced over the last decade have fallen through or been drastically downsized. The Midtown Target project was cancelled. Both the Alamo Drafthouse and Emagine movie theaters fell through. The downtown aquarium never happened. Monroe Blocks plans significantly scaled back, District Detroit is practically nonexistent, and now half of the RenCen is going to be demolished.

The QLine doesn’t seem to have any plans for expansion. There hasn’t even been much BRT talk since the 2016 RTA vote failed.

What do you think the future holds for the city and broader region?