What Makes Good Urbanist "Content"?
Three suggestions from the Strong Towns/CNU conference in Cincinnati
I’ve meant to write a lot more touching on/inspired by the double conference I went to in Cincinnati in May. I’ve just had other ideas come easier or take precedence in the news (though I don’t chase newsiness). But I wrote down and have thought a few times about something Charles Marohn, the founder and head of Strong Towns, said.
His talk was about writing or producing actually effective “content” (I dislike the word “content” but it covers the different formats—video, writing, social media, etc.) And his three criteria were:
Will an elected official feel comfortable sharing it?
Will it be credible to a technical official?
Will it resonate with people?
These seem pretty straightforward and obvious or almost obvious. However, covering all three is tricky! I’m curious, if you subscribe to or follow other urbanist writers/publications/orgs, what you find effective, and/or how frequently you come across material that you think checks all three of these criteria. Or whether you have other criteria!
I find this list tricky mostly because of #3. In fact, it’s tough to imagine something that a technical official would find worth their time that would also mean anything to a normal person. It makes me think of think tank white papers and reports full of graphs, numbers, charts, statistics. An enthusiast for the particular policy area might find that engaging, even if not a trained professional in it, but otherwise, probably not.
On the other hand, the stuff that I think of as engaging or “resonating with” people tends to be more like storytelling—I think of it almost like fiction writing on a nonfiction topic.
I remember reading once (it might have been by Gracy Olmstead) about gardening and housework as liturgy: finding a way to enliven boring routines, turn them into rituals, breathe metaphysical significance into the workaday rhythm of running a home. That doesn’t stand up to feminist or economic analysis, maybe. It’s not analysis. It’s part description, part opinion, part persuasion. And part mentally brute-forcing beauty into boredom and hoping it materializes.