For some reason, defenders of the sprawl status quo are often referred to as "contrarian." For example, if you google "Joel Kotkin" and "contrarian" you get 449 hits. By contrast, if you google "Andres Duany" (a leading New Urbanist architect) and "contrarian" you only get 78.
But what the heck is contrarian about defending the status quo, especially when that status quo is defended by the wealthiest, most powerful forces in this country? Who benefits from sprawl? A big chunk of the Fortune 500: Auto companies, oil companies, tire manufacturers. And at the state and local level: developers and road builders. (Representatives of most of these groups are on the board of the American Highway Users Alliance, a leading pro-road group).
And against these groups, who? A few environmentalists, and a few architects and planners who've been persuaded by the environmentalists, and, um, um....
Saying that sprawl defenders are "contrarian" in America makes about as much sense as saying that it is "contrarian" to be Muslim in Saudi Arabia.
