Although he has pointed out some neat ideas towards building leaner greener cities, I think in part, it is mainly wishful thinking, because some of his approaches wouldn’t work long-term. For instance, he brings up an interesting point regarding transportation and demobilization. By restricting the amount of space for driving (taking away something of value), this will force drivers to look to other forms of transit that is less harmful and less destructive on the environment. Well this seems reasonable; however, his next argument goes against his first approach. He suggests we build poly-centric cities composed of “compact, multifunctional, pedestrian-scale neighborhoods interconnected by efficient transportation and telecommunication links” (Mitchell 150). Why build more roads when he specifically said to demobilize them? Even if neighbourhoods are interconnected by efficient transportation systems, when you build a new road, instead of reducing congestion (which may occur in the short term) rather it leads to long-term congestion, as people will switch to this new system, if it is faster and more efficient. Then as this road becomes congested, a new road is built, etc. until that one becomes congested. By decentralizing locations, this leads to what we call the suburb and urban sprawl, and encourages the use of private automobiles. I like the ideas about intelligent management, but I’m not sure if his ideas regarding the placement of transportation systems will likely lead to a long-term effective solution in terms of conservation.