“…The correlation between land use and mobility within a two‐dimensional zone is reminiscent of early static location models linking concentric bands of productivity to proximity of transport, with explicit or implied gradients of density and urbanity spiralling out from a dense urban core to expansive rural areas, omitting rural‐urban hybridity and predicated on universal mathematical reasoning characterized by a disregard for local specificity (Barnes, ). Indeed, TOD is often proposed on the same generic terms of ‘boilerplate’ urbanism seen in older spatial templates such as the Radburn plan and the ‘neighbourhood unit’ (Banerjee and Baer, ; Girling, ; Newman and Kenworthy, ; Brody, ), a hierarchy of roads based on level‐of‐service norms (Meyer and Miller, ; Milam et al, ), and Euclidean zoning for what are presumed to be undifferentiated ‘greenfield’ sites (van der Ryn and Cowan, ). Articulated as it is in generic and reproducible terms, the TOD circle has been widely applied through policy, making it an exemplar of the mobility of planning strategies (Allen et al, ; Harris and Moore, ; Healey, ; Baker and Temenos, ; Ward, ).…”