1. Okay, I've been looking for the quote off and on all night because I know I'm not crazy and didn't imagine it. I found it. On pages x and xi of the foreword to
Suburban Nation -- I keep wanting to call it "Suburban Nature", which is a very good album by Sarah Jaffe -- it says "...if only there were some third choice available other than
bad growth and
no growth, the former being difficult to stomach and the latter being difficult to sustain for more than a few years at a time. Obviously, that third choice is good growth, but is there really such a thing?" They then go on to talk about great places humanity has created and finish it off by saying "They, too, are examples of growth, but they grew in a different way than the sprawl that threatens you now."
So, not "sprawl the right way", but "good growth". Same idea, just a bit more sanitized language. In essence, they're not against building at the edges when it's considered a TND.
Also, I'm glad your copy is well-worn. But mine has a sticker on the front that says "Donated to the Kentlands Library By Andres Duany & Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk July, 2001". So there.
2. Okay
3. Then you shouldn't hate CVCs so much. Curse them a little bit maybe, but don't hyperbolically imply they necessarily result in blight. The truth is that they result in whatever gets built or not built. And we can still encourage/direct development in these corridors in many ways.
4. The forces at work behind those places were that they were/are boom-towns. D.C. has some of the most restrictive height restrictions of anywhere on the planet, and I can understand why. View corridors would be a good middle-ground compromise. My point in talking about these cities was to show that smaller doesn't automatically mean blight.