(1) I do believe there’s one aspect to modernism that is useful, though, and that is the fact that it’s critical of existing conditions. Modernism isn’t content with things as they are. Unfortunately, it’s an alienated criticism, full of distance and emotional separation —in contrast to earlier movements that aimed for constructive change. Where older varieties of reformism wanted to take what exists and try to improve it, modernism just wants to throw away the past—lock, stock, and barrel.

(2) The avant-garde has built and built and built on the idea of the alienated artist. If you engage the reality of what people truly need in a building, you’ve “sold out.” If you haven’t fought bitterly with your client, you’ve failed as an architect. This is inscribed in the minds of students by academics who very often are themselves failures as practitioners. That’s a nice game, except what’s happened is that, as this has overtaken all the schools, the best architectural talent has been removed from action.

(3) [N]eo-traditionalism is more than just an attempt to revive something that has lapsed. It’s a juncture between the new and the traditional.

(4) There are some people who want to live downtown where the action is. They wanna live in a loft. Others like row houses. Others need single-family houses. Yet others seek space in the country. I insist that all of these should be available.

One problem is that fanatics like the rabid environmentalists only recognize one or two of these options as legitimate. Environmentalists want to green everything. Environmental law at this moment prevents the construction of authentic urbanism. You couldn’t build any great traditional city today if you apply the environmental laws on open space, separate uses, and so forth. One of the things I’m trying to do is to get environmentalists to accept that Americans have a right to the full range of habitats, from country living to high-density urbanism, and that the laws must be different in every type of environment. But environmentalists are so arrogant they won’t even engage in this conversation.

(5) There are two interpretations of nature. One places humanity apart from nature. The other says that humans are part of the natural order. Environmentalists favor the first definition, and that’s the source of many problems. I believe humans have rights to habitats that are paved over. Humans have rights to places like London and New York.

Because most humans like to live in relatively high density, they actually end up leaving most of nature alone. Not because some regulator forbids people from building a house where they want—preventing people from going where they want will never hold in a free society. Mandated urban boundaries will never hold, because Americans have rights, including a right to the pursuit of happiness. It’s actually market drive—wanting to live near services instead of in the woods—that brings people to cities. Since Americans have a right to live wherever they please, if we want to keep them out of the wheat fields we’re going to have to make cities so attractive that people don’t want to leave.

In any case, contrary to environmentalist claims and common perceptions, America is not running out of land. You could give every single American household one full acre of land, and it would only consume 4 percent of the acreage in the continental U.S. Four percent. And that doesn’t include Alaska.