matt_mcl wrote, re Arcologies:
First, they get rid of hydroelectric dams, and now, they get rid of Arcologies too?!
O foul accursed sequel!!
I apologize if my cynical one-liner offended anyone. I didn’t mean it that way exactly. Some of my best friends are humans.
Over the past year and a half several folks in our town organized to stop a Wal-Mart Superplex from being built on a nice little wooded lot near town. As a college student, I had hiked around that land many years ago, and was sorry when it was sold for development. Many good people worked long and hard to bring to the local media’s and public’s attention our perceptions on the danger to our community of this particular project. And, after all, we already had a decent sized Wal-mart in town, so why build another? To make a long story short, we won the battle for now. No Wal-Mart. However, rumors are currently circulating that the neighboring county may just be a bit more receptive to another mega-store, so the battle goes on.
North of here, between Washington D.C. and the small town of Warrenton, Virginia, Disney proposed a few years ago to build a history themed park in a very rural area. Many people objected to the destruction of Civil War battlefields that were to be replaced with a Disneyfied history site. Those in the area also knew what would happen if such a theme park was built. Wahington, which is still expanding rapidly, would sprout an arm of businesses, sub-divisions, and pavement that would swallow up most of the rest of area’s farmland left standing after the park was built. Another battle was waged, the park was stopped and the land is still somewhat preserved today…and maybe for the forseeable future.
So the good news is that a lot of people talking and thinking about sprawl can control it on a limited basis. Elected officials can work with the citizenry to protect the land. It ain’t easy, but it can happen.
In the long run however, I think the gist of my original post is true. Human population and consumption over the past 2000 years is truly mind-boggling. Consider that the “sudden” extinction of the dinosaurs may have taken up as much as 15,000 years to occur. One would be hard pressed to make an argument that humans have not been very, very, very bad for the planet in terms of its fragile ecosystems in an extremely short period of time. Looking at today’s victory against sprawl as minor roadblock in the mad rush of environmental demolition currently going on may somewhat dampen our mood, but there it is.
I’m not from Portland, but I did see a story about just this topic on the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer a few days ago. A transcript is available on line at http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/jan-june00/sprawl_5-30.html.
The executive summary is: they have a hard and fast urban growth boundary that is heavily supported by the public, and is very effective at preserving open space and community livability. However, there are some negative effects including increasing housing prices and lessened ability to support new jobs in the area.
I understand that some towns in the San Francisco bay area also have growth boundaries (Livermore, for example), but I don’t know the details.
I looked it over and I have to say that I am impressed by Portland. The law was enacted in 1973 and it is still holding up.
I think that the problems of rising housing costs and resultant homelessness can be dealt with. I am not sure how many of the builings are rent-controlled. Perhaps they need more. The traffic jam problem perplexes me. If people are closer together then why would they need so many vehicles? Are the services that people need still being built on the periphery of the city?
The problem with using taxes to impose upon suburbanites the true cost of their lifestyles is that few politicians have the courage to do that.
Example: Two of the worst air pollution offenders are outdoor grills and lawnmower motors. Do you think politicians are going to be foolhardy enough to impose heavy lawnmower/barbecue taxes?
Nor are politicians likely to jack up property taxes so that suburbanites pay higher rates than, say, condominium dwellers.
Suburbanites have enourmous political clout. They have a nasty tendency to hold meetings, and petition local governments, and attend public hearings en masse when their interests are threatened. You just try raising their taxes, and watch what happens.
I still say that one of the biggest obstacles to large-scale planning is all the local governments involved. In the east, we have counties that are often tiny. Why? When they were created, they had to be of such a size that no citizen of a county was more than a day’s horseride from the county courthouse. That worked fine in its day, but these tiny political units are a terrible hindrance nowadays to planning for the good of the larger community. They really should be done away with, or at least consolidated into much larger units. I’m sure that is a political impossibility.
Reply to Enginerd…
The cluster developments may be a hard sell, but it may be time for governments to get tough. What would happen if that were the only type of development allowed by zoning authorities?
Who says the suburbanites aren't paying their fair share? The cities in the suburbs charge for utilities, they pay for their own roads, most of them operate their own school districts, and most of them have their own emergency services. All of this is paid through their tax dollars.
As far as your lawnmower theory goes they've already started making them burn cleaner then they have in the past. And so far as grills go I suppose if they taxed the coal people might be encouraged to get a gas grill.
Marc
I do.
Suburbanites descend on the inner city in droves on workdays, or to take advantage of the nightlife. They produce garbage here. They burden the decrepit sewer system here. They contribute to air and water pollution here. They utilize the police force here. They take advantage of various other services provided by the city. And then they go back to their suburban counties and towns without paying for the services they have utilized.
Who does pay for those services? The folks who live in the city, through their property taxes. You don’t think so? Compare the taxes paid on a house owned by a city-dweller with those paid on a comparably valued house in the suburban counties.
Solution: Eliminate county and local governments. Tax from the state level only, and distribute tax revenues to address infrastructure problems.
This solves two problems at once. First, it distributes the tax burden more fairly. Second, it decreases the tax burden created by living in urban areas, making it less expensive (and therefore more attractive) to live in those areas. In theory, this could promote the environmentally desireable result of concentrating growth in urban centers (as opposed to the sprawl caused by people forced to look to the suburbs to find affordable housing).
It’ll never happen, but…
How bout a huge additional tax on gas? Maybe $5 a gallon? That way, if someone wants to pave over a farm, and drive their gas guzzler ungodly distances to their job/school/shopping/etc., they pay the price. Folks will be encouraged to live near where they work, and where they enjoy spending their time. Use the tax revenue for reliable public transportation and housing subsidies for low income persons.
The defense of sprawl as provision of economical housing relies upon the fact that with cheap gas, purchasers are externalizing the costs associated with those homes. The community at large provides a greater proportion of road construction and maintenance, tolerates more than their share of pollution, etc.
For the sake of the OP, how exactly are we defining “sprawl?” I was discussing this with a friend the other day, and he asked me that question. I was surprised that I was not instantly able to come up with a response. We both live in well-established “middle-ring” suburbs of Chicago. But of course, all existing suburbs, and even much of the city as it now exists, were at one time “sprawl.” And I walk to the commuter train, my kids walk to school, etc. So is that undesirable sprawl? Telecommuting also may alleviate some portion of the concerns in the OP.
I came up with a couple of elements that I believe suggest that a specific development is undesirable “sprawl,” tho they do not seem adequate to constitute a definition -
- the paving over of currently undeveloped land on the ouside periphery of the local/regional population/business center.
- development of communities with no provision for public transportation. On a related tack, building homes where you are dependent on your car for everything - school, store, recreation, work, etc. Lack of sidewalks might fit in there too.
What are your requirements?
I also question the necessary correlation between population growth and sprawl. Have you support? While Atlanta and Sun Belt cities are definitely growing, I understood sprawl to be pretty universal, even in comparable stagnant rust belt burgs.
Also, in many metropolitan areas there may be vacant land within the metropolitan periphery which could be used for housing of increased population. Factories could be rehabbed, instead of paving farms. Currently there is considerable coversion to residential units in downtown Chicago - an exciting development. But they keep building homes further and further away.
Spoke:
Depends which regulators. If one city/county disallows any other development, then all development moves to adjacent jurisdictions where the standard development is allowed. If none of the local governments within the suburbs of a major city allow anything but cluster development, then it’s a non-issue. The reason that it is a hard sell is that there are alternatives, and those alternatives are more attractive to the target market. Take away the ability to build a three bedroom house on a two acre lot, and the 1/4 acre lots in a cluster jump in value, provide a better return on the original investment, and are a better prospect for development than they are right now.
On the other hand, it won’t happen. The best solution that I can see to suburban sprawl is redevelopment of existing urban areas. In order for this to work, the involved governments need to give developers credit for trying to do this. Developing a city lot, working with the restrictions of existing infrastructure (which is more often than not already overloaded) is more expensive than building a similar project in the suburbs. A lot of cities are moving in the right direction on this issue - offering tax credits for redevloping land within the city limits, putting aside public funding to subsidize some of the additional expenses on these projects, etc. In addition to these cities, the federal government has a program called the Brownfields Redevelopment Initiative, encouraging the redevelopment of urban property that is unused because of environmental contamination, either real or perceived. There’s a lot more on this program at www.brownfield.org (from Portland again - they seem to deal with this on a more active level than anywhere else).
I also agree that suburbanites aren’t paying their fair share. The suburbs may pay for the additional costs of maintaining the necessary utilities (although I doubt that this is true too), but they very rarely pay their share of the original cost of these items. I’d also like to add that Spoke is absolutely right about the lawnmowers, but it just mushrooms from there. Worse than a lawnmower is a 2 cycle engine - your weedeater, hedge trimmers, chainsaw, etc. I used to work for a landscaping company located just outside Baltimore, and I never once worked in the city. On the other hand, I was in the suburbs 6 days a week, running those engines 10 hours a day. There aren’t any emissions controls on them either; your car exhaust is probably cleaner than chainsaw smoke.
They drop their money at those downtown businesses, who would not even be there to pay taxes were it not for the suburbanites.
As for anti sprawl legislation and a $5 gas tax, both would make it impossible for lower income families to survive. Limiting growth artificially makes the cost of housing skyrocket. What happens if you have a city of 1.2 million with 1 million homes?
Part of the reason that sprawl occurs is the cost of housing close to where the work is. nobody wants to spend 45 minutes in traffic everymorning, therrefore there is a greater demand for housing close to teh city, ergo, housing in close is very expensive. So a lower income family is forced farther out of town to find affordable housing.
Imagine the financial burden of $6/gallon gas on a family who has to live 17 miles from work.
The solution is to create more urban centers around the city to decentralize it.
Contrary to the OP, sprawl is not significantly decreasing farm land. For every person who moves to the city, there is one less person where they came from.
Mr. Z.
Why does an increased gas tax make it impossible for lower income families to survive? Especially if coupled with improved public transportation. And perhaps a gas guzzler exchange tied to subsidies for purchase/lease of fuel efficient cars. Add in subsidies for car pools, and encourage businesses to either locate near public transportation or provide shuttle service to train/bus routes. Or businesses in hard to reach places might have to offer higher pay to compensate for increased commuting costs. And lets not forget support for alternative fuel technology.
I agree entirely with all who have observed that a major cause of sprawl is the failure to address development/zoning/transportation/planning issues cohesively on a regional basis.
Mr. Zambezi wrote:
Flawed logic, there, Mr. Z. I can see the farmland disappearing before my eyes. Are you seriously arguing that for every acre getting paved over in the suburbs, somebody somewhere is tearing up an acre of asphalt to put in a farm? I don’t think so.
Mr. Zambezi wrote:
Hah! We have several “satellite” urban centers around Atlanta. The effect of those centers is to encourage people to live even farther out, and then commute in to the satellite centers. Result: exponential increase in sprawl.
All decent and extremely expensive ideas. THere currently are few cities with good public transportation from the 'burbs. SO how is the family living out in the cheaper outskirts of town going to handle $15/day in fuel costs? I mean, without the government throwing million of dollars at them.
Then your problem is not sprawl, it is an increasing population. If you have more and more people (and businesses) coming to Atlanta (which you do) they are going to require more space. Either that or you are going to have to stack them up on top of each other.
Again I will ask, what will you do when you have 1.2 million people and 1 million home and you can’t build any new ones? Do you just tell the 200,000 people without a place to live to mocve elswhere? Or do you start tearing down buckhead and stone mountain houses and build High rises?
Denver has the same problem, and we have a number of people who agree with you. Ironically, most of them live out on the edges of town and are outraged that someone else had the nerve to ruin the prairie around their house…as they did 5 years earlier.
Hey, sounds like a good idea to me. Just extend the rail line to serve those high rises. What’s wrong with that? What alternative are you proposing, Mr. Z? (And please don’t talk about multiple urban centers, because that just spreads people out more, the very problem we’re trying to solve.)
I’m suprised noone has even mentioned the racial component of sprawl. A significant protion of sprawl is and was caused by school integration, school busing, fear of race based crime, etc…
The same problem applies to mass transit systems. People used to tell a joke about the MARTA train system in atlanta.
MARTA=moving africans rapidly through atlanta
This joke is racist, but it tells you alot about how people feel. “I don’t want to be the only white person on the subway.” (full disclosure-there is no subway within 250miles of where i live)
The solution to urban sprawl won’t be easy.
**
That's odd. I always thought the cities **wanted** us to descend upon their businesses and pump money into their economy. And really if us coming into the city is a problem all you have to do is tax the businesses. Of course once they flee the city you'll miss the revenue they generated.
**
The property taxes in Allen, Plano, and Richardson (suburbs of Dallas} are on average higher then they are in the city. Maybe that's just a Texas thing.
**
Great, more centralization. I kind of like having a local government that will deal with my immediate needs. Thanks though.
**
Some people might not like living in the urban blight that is the city.
Marc
For those interested in libertarian thinking:
Interview with Peter Gordon, professor of planning and economics at the University of Southern California’s School of Urban Planning and Development
QUOTE: “New Urbanism is heavy on intervention, and it’s tied into the “civil society,” or communitarian, discussion. It dances around defining whether there’s a problem with the way we live and says, “There’s a problem–automobile use–and we have a solution.” I’m not sure we all agree there’s a problem. And it’s a long shot to say that there’s a design fix and we know what that design fix is.”
New Urbanism article, focusing on Portland
QUOTE: “Reduced congestion, better air quality, lower taxes. No wonder Portland has gotten great national press and praise. There’s only one little problem: Metro’s own data say the plan is doomed to failure.”
Article about battles against Wal-Mart
QUOTE: “Although superstore opponents talk as if the distinction between sprawl and vitality is obvious, that’s far from the case.”
-VM
Spoke, you like the idea of tearing down houses and putting up high rises. I agree that this seems like a more efficient use of land; VP Gore proposed high rises clustered around public transportation a few months ago in a speech he gave about urban and suburban sprawl.
The problem with this idea is economic. Condos are simply not as good an investment as standalone houses. Even if you assume that monthly condo fees are equivalent to single family home expenditures (the cost of a new roof spread over ten years, utilities, etc), condos simply do not appreciate in value like single family homes do. Granted, this depends a lot on your local real estate market. But ask around among the condo owners you know. Chances are the majority either broke even or lost money when they sold.
Condos prices here in DC are much more vulnerable to market up- and downswings, and it’s not unheard of for condos to lose 40% of their asking prices. I’m thinking of the Fairlington and Parkfairfax areas, for those of you in DC. I used to live in San Diego, and I also know of condos losing 40% or more in value there.
In case you can’t tell, I just bought a rowhouse in Washington DC after considering condos–at least I was able to get an old but renovated house, and not a “tract mansion” in the 'burbs. I wanted to be a good citizen of the earth and take up a small footprint with my living quarters–but I didn’t want to make a bad investment. Other home buyers won’t want to, either.
So Spoke, since you live in Atlanta, I assume that you have a standalone house with a lawn of some sort–my apologies in advance if this is incorrect. I’m just speaking based on the living quarters of my friends in Atlanta and their comments about available housing. Would you be willing to move into one of these new high rises, knowing that you’d probably get soaked when you try and sell it? I don’t mean this in an attacking way–it’s just a corollary of astorian’s post about suburbanites wanting their neighbors to take public transportation so they can drive.
“Sprawl” is a buzz word that translates to “Yeah, I have my place, but I don’t want anyone else moving in around me to spoil it.”
How dare people want to live in the community of their choice–the noive of 'em!
I sometimes wonder if suburbanites ever actually come into the city neighborhoods they so cavalierly dismiss. City living doesn’t have to mean blight. I live in a nice, intown neighborhood, where I have tree-lined streets, great neighbors, lots of greenspace nearby (parks and bike/walking trails), and I can walk to the grocery, the drug store, or any number of nice restaurants.
What is wrong with the idea of building new developments on this pattern? That used to be the standard mode of development, and is found in many of Atlanta’s older neighborhoods: Houses on small lots, with small commercial areas and parks nearby. It is only since the late 40’s/ early 50’s that we have gone in another, car-centered direction. We need to re-think our current paradigm.
(And yes, MHM, I am walking the walk, and not just talking the talk. I live in a multi-family unit, which I own. I live in one of the units and rent out the rest.)
You know, I recognize the appeaal of the suburbs, I really do. I understand the property rights arguments as well. I also realize that many posters here live in the suburbs, and are maybe a little defensive about that choice. All I’m asking is that people step back, take a look at where we are, and where we are headed if we keep going in the same direction. We can enjoy green spaces without having big sprawling suburban lawns. All we have to do is preserve some parkland.
As an aside, parks are a great place to meet and get to know your neighbors. One of the common complaints I hear from suburban dwellers is that they really don’t know any of their neighbors. That’s a problem a shared green space and corner grocery stores quickly solve. So, as a side benefit, this mode of development might help to rekindle a lost sense of community.
Mjollnir, what do you propose? Do you recognize that we have a problem? If so, should we just ignore it, and hope it works itself out?
Smartass, thanks so much for dropping by to hand out your usual fistful of libertarian tracts. Just curious: do you ever have an original thought? If so, I’d love to hear it. What is your solution to the problem? I’ll wait for your reply while you sift through your various libertarian treatises… :rolleyes: