I've always felt that the best writing is re-writing. Likewise, I've never believed that great cities are built: They're rebuilt. To achieve greatness, cities have to be thrown up, torn down, and thrown up again. In the process, some things deemed worthwhile (properly or not) are kept, mistakes are bulldozed. That's why, IMHO, the world's most livable cities are in the oldest locations (Paris, Rome, London). Some older cities (Berlin) suffered such natural or manmade violence that this principle hasn't been able to take hold.

Most of our cities are too new to have aquired this patina of livability. That's starting to change in some profound ways. Boston is a good example. The Big Dig, for all its (generally overstated) problems, is a model that eventually be duplicated, driving stretches of road underground and replacing them with new architecture and open spaces. The container ship has already changed many East Coast cities (including Hoboken) by creating great tracts of open waterfront space that have now become oases of civilized living, buffering urban stress in much the same way that Central Park was intended to do. The proof of this success may be measured in the skyrocketing increase in value of once-worthless waterfront property on both sides of the Hudson in recent years.

Light Rail was derided (pun unavoidable) over 'ecological' concerns by perpetually wrongheaded antidevlopment types around here masquerading as environmental activists. Light Rail here has been broadly accepted, as it has elsewhere. However, this acceptance (here and elsewhere) takes time - until the circuit serves a certain number of areas, riders tend not to use it and critics point to low ridership. (These same critics call LR dangerous, noisy, and polluting - none of which have proven to be true.) An allegory is the relative value of the Internet when 100 people are using it, compared with one thousand, one million, one billion. The more who use it, the more it serves and the better it works, and the better it works the more it is then used. Again, the proof of concept is reflected in the soaring real estate values to be found along these light rail lines.

"Smaller buildings surrounded by acres of parking lots" of course, kills urban vitality. Cities are here people live, you say - I'd say cities are where people brush up against each other. I object to the dead areas caused by parking lots and long stretches of concrete-ramp garages, but not to cars, which are a fact of life. That's why these guys are one of my clients.

Having looked at those contrasting photos of the library and the old Carnegie building, I have to say that the Carnegie building has a look of greater distinction and beauty. Although I guess it had to be put somewhere.

I also agree that light rail here in Oklahoma City would add to the tourist attraction and restore some historical vitality that Oklahoma City once had.

As it happens, All Things Considered (NPR) did a piece on Light Rail in Denver yesterday. More evidence that Light Rail seems to be happening all over.

Light Rail essentially does nothing buses won't do - except get more people to use it. Buses have a stigma - they're noisy, they're relatively dirty - and are deemed a declassé mode of travel. Light Rail is (so far) clean, sleek and silent. And being on a bus route rarely increases anyone's property value. Bus routes can be changed on a whim, but those tracks have a way of seeming very permanent. (Although there are trolley tracks buried under the streets in Hoboken and other cities. Cars put them there, and now the trolleys have returned to 'bury' the cars, so we've come full circle. Of course, this time around they'll learn to co-exist.)

Light Rail focuses population clusters along its route. Besides raising real estate value, this builds community in all its aspects. Shopping, restaurants and cultural centers will gravitate around LR stops, as they have here.

That's what LR is - very pricey, fancy buses. (They even look like buses, not San Franscisco trolley cars.) There's one a hundred yards away from the (underground) PATH trains in Jersey City. Over the few years it's been there, I'm seeing an increasing number of people choosing it over the tunnel for local destinations.

During 9/11 we learned a valuable lesson around here about transportation and security: It's dangerous to have only one option. If everyone drives through a tunnel or over a bridge, you're paintng a bullseye on those bottlenecks. God forbid, but having a Light Rail system could be invaluable in an emergency.

Local rail proponents point to Dallas, where ridership has far exceeded expectations. The conventional wisdom here holds that no one who didn't already ride the bus will bother to ride the train; I'm not so sure. I suspect one factor is the perception that bus patrons tend to be creeps and/or weirdos.