As stated in a previous post, Kunstler proposes that Portland, Oregon is the exemplar of an efficient, healthy, and satisfying cityscape.  In the chapter, “Three Cities,” Kunstler proposes that Portland is anomalous because of a certain consciousness and intelligence: 

“[Portland] seems to defy the forces that elsewhere drag American urban life into squalor and chaos.  It has accomplished this with a lot of conscious, intelligent planning, plus a little geographical luck.” (200) 

Here, as previously mentioned, Portland is an anomaly because of intelligent planning.  Portland is distinguished from other areas by the consciousness and foresight of the city’s planners.  Interestingly, as Kunstler’s discourse on Portland continues, he suggests residents of Portland realize the importance of “connectedness;” they realize the significance of a certain connectivity that is reminiscent of Deleuze and Guattari’s emphasis on multiplicity in A Thousand Plateaus. 

“They understood that the city was only as good as its connections, that urban ingredients treated in isolation had no meaning.” (201 – 202)  

 Kunstler posits that it is by means of the importance placed on connections that the people of Portland are able to maintain their city life.  Throughout the text, Kunstler continually suggests the importance of connecting with others.  He criticizes buildings which refute public interaction (specifically, the hotel with its inconveniently located entrance), and zoning restrictions which perpetuate distance (those ordinances which maintain that a building must be a certain distance back from the road.  Kunstler humorously insists that this is an effort to give drunk drivers more room to navigate).   Although it is unlikely that Kunstler intended it, the city of Portland evidences Deleuze and Guattari’s emphasis on multiplicity and the rhizome.  The city of Portland could, itself, be considered a multiplicity.  According to Deleuze and Guattari, multiplicities are inherently rhizomatic (Deleuze 8).  The rhizome functions by a similar means of connectivity.  Deleuze and Guattari emphasize the importance of a work’s connections over the object of the work.  In this way, it seems that Kunstler, Deleuze, and Guattari are all emphasizing the importance of connectivity.  In consideration, it seems possible to read Kunstler’s suggestion that ingredients treated in isolation have no meaning, in conjunction with Deleuze and Guattari’s discussions of the rhizome and multiplicities.  What might this suggest?