I received this email the other day (not going to share the name because I don't have permission):

In skimming your mission page, I spotted this:

"[A Strong Town] relies on small, incremental investments (little bets) instead of large, transformative projects."

This would make tremendous sense in a world starting from scratch. However, the country put trillions into sunk investments in unsustainability over the past 70 years. We are in big trouble as a result. Incremental change just perpetuates the dysfunction.

I see this aspect of the Strong Towns approach as fundamentally unsuited to a time calling for paradigm change. I can’t see how incremental change can possibly be appropriate in a time where we are marching rapidly towards the tipping point of climate change. (I nonetheless recognize the importance of this stance in combatting planner hubris.)

I appreciate a lot of your analyses, Chuck. You’ve got a lot to offer. I choked, however, on your density writing that implicitly or explicitly criticized transit-oriented development. I now see this incrementalist theme as the heart of what I was reacting to.