Subsidizing Urban Growth: A Colorado Chronicle

Urban modeling is a field that can provoke both a sense of solid satisfaction and tremendous frustration. The satisfaction arises from continuing theoretical development and increasingly sophisticated modeling efforts. The frustration arises from the seeming lack of any real impact on decision making. Savas [Savas, E. S. 1975. New directions for urban analysis. Interfaces6 (1, November) 1–9.] has noted that when an analyst does manage an implementation, it will most likely be in the less glamorous and ultimately less critical area of operations, rather than a broader policy question. This state of things is not without its champions [Fein, L. J. 1969. Proximate planning and urban theory. Jim Chard, Jon York, eds. Urban America: Crisis and opportunity. Dickenson Publishing Co., Belmont, California, 62–73.], who envision with horror an analyst's cost-effective city. However, this is small comfort to the professional who sees the same mistakes repeatedly made, and who seeks a cure. Is it simply that similar vested interests are always at play, overwhelming the dispassionate view of the planner and social scientist? Here is the tale, an illustration of the rare happy marriage of rational analysis and political pressure.