Robert A.M Stern–who is a fairly traditional architect (stylistically) and Dean of the Yale School of Architecture–recently coauthored a book called “Paradise Planned: The Garden Suburb and the Modern City.” It’s over 1,000 pages. I haven’t read it yet and I likely won’t, but I did just read this op-ed piece in the New York Times by Allison Arieff and I wanted to comment.

In the book, the authors argue that the solution to our suburban problems is to return to a “tragically interrupted, 150-year-old tradition” known within urban planning and architectural circles as the Garden City movement. Here’s how Arieff describes it:

The garden suburb is — because it still exists in many places — a planned, self-contained village located usually outside a major city. Ideally, it features a variety of housing types, though by variety, we’re talking single-family homes and a few low-rise multifamily buildings.

In contrast to the suburbs we’ve come to be most familiar with, these featured homes are situated in a comfortably dense, highly walkable environment designed around a public center or square.

But in addition to being more dense and walkable, the big difference for me is that the garden city (to use the original terminology) was initially intended to be self sufficient economically–rather than just serve as a bedroom community for the central city.

It was all incredibly rational. As one garden city reached its population and employment projections, the next garden city node would be created and connected to the network via road and rail. And by using land relatively intensely, it meant that more of the countryside could be preserved as undeveloped land.

But while I would agree that the suburbs aren’t going to go away (I’ve said this before) and that we should be making them more dense and walkable, the book (well, the article) got me wondering to what extent the Garden City model applies from an economic standpoint. Should we be trying to create poly-centric cities with tidy little self-sufficient pockets of employment? Or should everything primarily feed a central city?

The irony of the decentralized information economy is that it appears to be encouraging centralization across and within cities. But even before the rise of the internet and other technologies, there have always been real economic benefits to firms clustering in cities. Known as agglomeration economies, it’s one of the reasons cities even exist in the first place.

Certainly, there’s a lot we can learn from the way we used to build and plan our cities and towns (they were designed around people as opposed to cars). But something doesn’t sit right with me in terms of the way the Garden City movement thinks about cities, economically. It seems idealistic.

I was watching this talk with Albert Wenger of Union Square Ventures last night. He was recently in Toronto for a Wattpad board meeting (USV is an investor).

It’s an interesting discussion that touches on education, healthcare, Canada’s tech ecosystem, as well as a bunch of other things. But one point that Albert made that I particularly like is the comparison between industrial and internet scale.

In both cases, it’s all about growth and scale. The bigger a firm can get, the better.

But with industrial production, scale is all about driving down the marginal cost. This is also known as economies of scale. As firms increase in size, efficiencies are found that allow the unit of production to drop in price. This, in turn, creates defensibility, because smaller firms simply can’t compete in the market.

With internet platforms the situation is different. Sure, there are still economies due to scale, but their competitive advantage is often derived from the fact that, on the margin, every new user increases the value for every other user on the network. This is called a network effect.

A perfect example of this is Facebook. People use Facebook because all of their friends are there. And as more and more friends join, it becomes increasingly more valuable. Without friends, a social network has little value. This make starting one fairly difficult. However once started, network effects are incredibly difficult to dismantle. This is their defensibility.

Another network effect example that Albert mentions is search (i.e. Google). This one isn’t so obvious. It may not seem like there are network effects with search, but there are. As a search user, you enter a query and then select from a list of results. In doing so you’re actually helping the search engine figure out what the best and most relevant results are for the keyword(s) you just entered. Again, in the end, everybody benefits.

I found this interesting because, in the case of internet platforms, scale is directly related to value proposition. The bigger something gets, the more useful it becomes. Now, you could maybe argue that the same is true for industrial production, but it’s a bit more tenuous. The direct link is cost.

Robert A.M Stern–who is a fairly traditional architect (stylistically) and Dean of the Yale School of Architecture–recently coauthored a book called “Paradise Planned: The Garden Suburb and the Modern City.” It’s over 1,000 pages. I haven’t read it yet and I likely won’t, but I did just read this op-ed piece in the New York Times by Allison Arieff and I wanted to comment.

In the book, the authors argue that the solution to our suburban problems is to return to a “tragically interrupted, 150-year-old tradition” known within urban planning and architectural circles as the Garden City movement. Here’s how Arieff describes it:

The garden suburb is — because it still exists in many places — a planned, self-contained village located usually outside a major city. Ideally, it features a variety of housing types, though by variety, we’re talking single-family homes and a few low-rise multifamily buildings.

In contrast to the suburbs we’ve come to be most familiar with, these featured homes are situated in a comfortably dense, highly walkable environment designed around a public center or square.

But in addition to being more dense and walkable, the big difference for me is that the garden city (to use the original terminology) was initially intended to be self sufficient economically–rather than just serve as a bedroom community for the central city.

It was all incredibly rational. As one garden city reached its population and employment projections, the next garden city node would be created and connected to the network via road and rail. And by using land relatively intensely, it meant that more of the countryside could be preserved as undeveloped land.

But while I would agree that the suburbs aren’t going to go away (I’ve said this before) and that we should be making them more dense and walkable, the book (well, the article) got me wondering to what extent the Garden City model applies from an economic standpoint. Should we be trying to create poly-centric cities with tidy little self-sufficient pockets of employment? Or should everything primarily feed a central city?

The irony of the decentralized information economy is that it appears to be encouraging centralization across and within cities. But even before the rise of the internet and other technologies, there have always been real economic benefits to firms clustering in cities. Known as agglomeration economies, it’s one of the reasons cities even exist in the first place.

Certainly, there’s a lot we can learn from the way we used to build and plan our cities and towns (they were designed around people as opposed to cars). But something doesn’t sit right with me in terms of the way the Garden City movement thinks about cities, economically. It seems idealistic.

I was watching this talk with Albert Wenger of Union Square Ventures last night. He was recently in Toronto for a Wattpad board meeting (USV is an investor).

It’s an interesting discussion that touches on education, healthcare, Canada’s tech ecosystem, as well as a bunch of other things. But one point that Albert made that I particularly like is the comparison between industrial and internet scale.

In both cases, it’s all about growth and scale. The bigger a firm can get, the better.

But with industrial production, scale is all about driving down the marginal cost. This is also known as economies of scale. As firms increase in size, efficiencies are found that allow the unit of production to drop in price. This, in turn, creates defensibility, because smaller firms simply can’t compete in the market.

With internet platforms the situation is different. Sure, there are still economies due to scale, but their competitive advantage is often derived from the fact that, on the margin, every new user increases the value for every other user on the network. This is called a network effect.

A perfect example of this is Facebook. People use Facebook because all of their friends are there. And as more and more friends join, it becomes increasingly more valuable. Without friends, a social network has little value. This make starting one fairly difficult. However once started, network effects are incredibly difficult to dismantle. This is their defensibility.

Another network effect example that Albert mentions is search (i.e. Google). This one isn’t so obvious. It may not seem like there are network effects with search, but there are. As a search user, you enter a query and then select from a list of results. In doing so you’re actually helping the search engine figure out what the best and most relevant results are for the keyword(s) you just entered. Again, in the end, everybody benefits.

I found this interesting because, in the case of internet platforms, scale is directly related to value proposition. The bigger something gets, the more useful it becomes. Now, you could maybe argue that the same is true for industrial production, but it’s a bit more tenuous. The direct link is cost.