Most housing debates get stuck in the weeds of zoning codes and NIMBY objections, but this conversation with Congressman Jake Auchincloss makes a startling pivot: the solution isn't just reforming existing cities, but building entirely new ones from scratch. Works in Progress reports that the discussion moves beyond the familiar "missing middle" housing argument to a bold vision of state-led urbanism that treats land not as a scarce resource, but as a canvas for experimentation. For busy listeners tired of incrementalism, this offers a rare glimpse into a policy framework that could actually unlock the stagnation plaguing American economic growth.
The Case for New Foundations
The piece argues that the United States has forgotten a fundamental engine of its own prosperity. "Much of the story of the 19th century was that Americans would go south or west and they would bump into a river and they would found a new city wherever they hit a river," Auchincloss notes, reminding listeners that dynamism was once a default setting, not a policy goal. The editors highlight three specific reasons to revive this practice: affordability, agglomeration, and the ability to experiment with new modes of living.
Auchincloss suggests that the current car-centric infrastructure has led to a "stultification and homogeneity" that harms civic cohesion and public health. Instead of trying to retrofit decades of sprawl, the proposal is to create spaces centered on the human, not the vehicle. This is a compelling reframing of the housing crisis. It shifts the question from "how do we fit more people in this broken box?" to "how do we build a better box entirely?" Critics might note that building new cities is a massive, capital-intensive undertaking that risks becoming another white elephant if not anchored to real economic demand. However, the argument gains traction when it insists these new hubs must exist within a "30 minute transit envelope of existing labour centres," ensuring they are satellites of opportunity rather than isolated dormitories.
"There is actually no more efficient way to get human beings to live together than with a city. It's by far the most efficient way – from an energy and land perspective – for humans to live."
Breaking the Veto Points
The conversation tackles the political reality that often paralyzes urban planning. The piece identifies the core obstacle not as a lack of money or land, but as a "vetocracy"—a system where too many small actors have the power to block progress. "What actually strangles this concept is not capital, it's not developable land, it is vetocracy – the number of veto points webbed throughout the network of operations," the congressman explains. This diagnosis is sharp; it explains why well-intentioned local reforms often fail against entrenched interests.
The proposed solution involves a "public private dance" where state governments take the lead. Works in Progress notes that the strategy requires a governor or state official to "pick a couple of the righteous fights" and zone state-owned land, effectively bypassing local municipal gridlock. The plan involves de-risking initial infrastructure costs to attract private capital, then opening the site to mixed-use development with a strict vision for car-free zones. This approach acknowledges that organic, town-level change is often too slow to solve a crisis of scale. It suggests that the federal or state government must act as the primary catalyst, issuing "advanced market commitments" to signal demand and reduce risk for developers.
The Human Element of Design
Perhaps the most distinctive part of the coverage is the focus on the quality of life in these new developments. Auchincloss challenges the American obsession with automobiles, asking listeners to "close your eyes and imagine where you would want to go on your vacation... Now open your eyes and tell me whether there are any vehicles around you." The answer, he argues, is almost always a pedestrian or car-free scene. The piece uses this psychological insight to argue that our current urban design is not just inefficient, but deeply unfulfilling.
The editors note that this vision is already being tested by firms like Cul-de-sac in Tucson and projects like California Forever. The argument is that we need to embrace "new modes of living" that have been absent since World War II. While the idea of a master-planned city can sound dystopian to some, the emphasis here is on human-scale design and the return of small business development and civic cohesion. The piece suggests that the "unpopular opinion" of being anti-car is actually the most pro-human stance a politician can take.
"I think it's been much to our detriment over the last 70 years on a host of different sectors, how much we rely on the car... humans don't realise this because we are so used to and inured to the reality of vehicles in our life, we don't realise how delightful it is to actually have a pedestrian only or a cycling only landscape."
Bottom Line
The strongest part of this argument is its refusal to accept the status quo of American urbanism as inevitable, offering a concrete path to bypass local gridlock through state-level intervention. Its biggest vulnerability remains the sheer political courage required to override decades of local zoning norms and the risk that top-down planning could miss the organic vibrancy of naturally evolved cities. Readers should watch for how state governments, particularly in Massachusetts and California, begin to operationalize these "advanced market commitments" in the coming legislative sessions.