This book relates primarily to Atlanta's infrastructure, namely the beltline and its integration of LRT into the public transportation repertoire, alongside a case study of how that enhanced the wellbeing of residents. What I found most helpful about this book as a Canadian reader in Ontario is that it illuminates the relationship between hard infrastructure (roads, sidewalks, transportation routes, etc.) and soft infrastructure (social infrastructure, community development, the capacity for the development of community hubs, etc.). It's definitely not a definitive guide, but for someone looking to explore a case study that demonstrates some possibilities, I highly recommend this.
One thing the book fails to mention is how gentrification plays a role in improving infrastructure for some, but simultaneously making it inaccessible to those it pushes out, whether by physical land appropriation or the cost of living being affected by real estate prices/speculation. The absence of this perspective definitely sheds light on the privileges the author came into writing the book with (white, cisgender, male, heterosexual, middle-class, grad school educated). It made it hard to see past some parts of the book because I felt like the guidelines offered for better infrastructure are platitudes that don't necessarily make room for the realities that equity seeking groups face on the margins when gentrification takes place under the guide of a more "livable" city. I think about "Capital City" by Samuel Stein in the context of this book, or "How to Kill a City" by Peter Moskovitz and it becomes clear that Gravel's book is a positivist rendering of gentrification under the auspices of improved infrastructure. It certainly alludes to issues and provides great language to describe it, but the guidelines it offers didn't quite address the specific character of racialized displacement in areas affected by sprawl that an updated version, or the original version may have done.
One of the best quotes from the book, despite my misgivings about its overall contents, relates to sprawl. I found this quote profoundly relevant as someone who was born in the sprawl outside of Toronto, and raised in the sprawl of Brampton, Ontario where development exploded after 2005, with seemingly little consideration for the need for neighborhoods whose infrastructures support the wellbeing of their residents, while relying less on car-centric visions of the city.
"In sprawl, by sharp contrast, the kneejerk reaction has been to solve the problem by "fixing" the public realm- by adding more lanes to roadway. Of course this asks even more of the public sector, which must now fix the problems that the unregulated private market has created. And since the solution of more lanes, unbound from stringent land-use regulations, only promotes more sprawl, the problem can only get worse. The public sector is always in a defensive position, always playing catch up, and always paying more. Citizens wonder why the costs of maintaining free-flow on all these roads is growing so much and blame government ineptitude rather than the freeloading consumer market.
It is not only the public sector that loses however. Private land and property are often devalued by traffic congestion or by new competition down the road. The only consistent winners are those who play the game: (1) Make a quick investment in cheap land and inexpensive buildings; (2) Sell before their life cycle is over; (3) Move down the road and repeat.
The kind of blight that can be found in the wake of this cycle is most often associated with the devastated town centers and urban neighborhoods that were left behind late in the last century. But sprawl also indiscriminately cannibalizes older sprawl, decimating the economies that once supported early commercial strips and their companion postwar neighborhoods. As it turns out, compared to urban neighborhoods, early sprawl has even less protection than that. In response to new sprawl, old sprawl has a much harder time adapting." (pp.72-73).
I don't think I would read it again, but I am grateful that I had the chance to read this particular perspective as it's given me much to think about.