Joel Kotkin and Ali Modarres argue that environmentalists go too far in demonizing suburban sprawl, since cities contribute to global warming, too -- though not as much as car culture does -- and, after all, most Americans prefer to live in suburbs. The solution, they say, is "smart sprawl" planned suburbs such as Reston, Virgina and Columbia, Maryland. Both of those affluent, faux-bohemian communities are the subjects of highly irritating advertising campaigns inside the D.C. Metro touting chain store luxury shopping, "artist style lofts," and other manufactured features of "downtown" living. Kotkin and Modarres never mention the need to move affordable, low-income housing into such suburbs, nor the relative homogeneity of the Restons and Columbias of the world compared to their nearby urban centers. And the authors refuse to acknowledge that the reason only 10 to 15 percent of Americans "choose" to live in cities is because the federal government subsidizes suburbanization through prioritizing highways and office parks over public transportation and mixed-used neighborhoods. Not to mention the disparities that make urban schools such a gamble. We should, of course, be encouraging green suburban design and less car use in our suburbs. But we shouldn't pretend that cities aren't a major part of the global warming solution. --Dana Goldstein