What do you think of so-called "Smart Growth?"

Whats the general thoughts here on “Smart Growth?”

It seems that the goals, while admirable in an idealogical sense, are being dishonestly represented as “a more intelligent pattern of growth” instead of the more correct “Opposition to expansion of suburban areas.”

It seems that a majority of Americans prefer to live in suburban areas with newer facilities, wider roads, and more open space (greenways, large yards, etc.) I, for one, do NOT want to live in a conjested urban area where there is not enough parking, few open green areas, and no easy access to retail outlets (Give me my supercenter please). This seems to be the desire of a good portion of our population.

What do y’all think?

On second thought, this may need to be moved to GD. Mods please?

Well, there’s long-term and short-term thinking at work here.

It’s pretty clear to me that the typical suburban development plan is a grossly inefficient way to house large numbers of people. Just the extra gasoline alone required by the layout probably cost justifies stopping it if there were some means to prevent it.

Caveat: I live in a rural area currently being run under a ‘smart growth’ policy under attach NW of Washington DC.

Other items worthy of mention are costs. Here in Loudoun County it’s not cost-efficient for the county to approve townhouses because what the county will make in taxes doesn’t cover the cost of new roads, schools, firehouses, etc.

So that means that if they were to approve townhouses taxes would have to increase for every other household to compensate.

With that in mind what gets approved in Loudoun are homes on many acres in the $500,000+ range. Hello gentrification.

Me, I wouldn’t mind approving the smaller houses if their tax rate is higher to pay for the average cost of providing services in the newly developed area.

As it is my assessment just shot up sharply and the county had to increase the tax rate to cover cost this month (we’re certainly not alone in having a deficit, God knows).

So I just got screwed both ways. My mortgage is going up $300 August 1 to cover the change. Crap.

In short I think we may well find that, while people WANT a suburban lifestyle it’s simply not sustainable from a cost-effectiveness approach. Not without substantially raising taxes on everything from property to gasoline to fees and services.

And American’s hate that.

How do you propose to continue a never-ending supply of “newer” facilities?

Also - please don’t assume that because you like a certain lifestyle that everyone will. Some love the city. Some hate it. The same goes for suburbia.

As far as “smart growth” goes - this sounds like the concept of “sustainable development” which has been gathering momentum over the last few years. There are some beneficial aspects to it, particularly that populations could be located more densely, leaving more land for “green space”, agriculture, etc. Conversely, a denser population brings issues of water supply, wastewater treatment, and transportation, which can be costly to deal with.

I personally haven’t formed an opinion on it yet. I am waiting to see how some of these developments work out.

The historical preservation lobbies essentailly sideline any attempts at repacing aging 75-50 year old buildings that make up many downtown areas… At the very least, the buildings could be gutted and replaced with modern facilities.

I fear that this could be the first step leading to a so called “Utopia” in which the personal automobile has been eradicated and we are all forced to ride public transit or walk. I don’t have a problem with communities like this being built, but not at the expense of the personal freedom granted by the personal automobile.

I don’t think anyone’s going to have to eradicate the automobile. I think economic forces will eventually make that happen. What happens when fuel prices start topping $2 or more over the entire country? Automobile’s as a personal conveyance die.

Simply put, the suburban lifestyle is predicated on a non-renewable resource (petroleum) the burning of which carrying unaccounted for costs leading to a subsidy of suburban living across all taxpayers. Should non-drivers pay taxes to support drivers?

At a minimum we’ll eventually see a non-petroleum fueled personal transport system. And current electric cars couldn’t really stand up to the amount of driving an average person does.

Hell, my commute is 100 miles round trip and I recognize that.

I think you’re seeing suburban living as some sort of entitlement (please correct me if I’m wrong) instead of the very recent development made economically feasible by the never-before-seen prosperity of post WWII America. It hasn’t taken on many places other than North America. In most regions the industrial revolution continues to require humans to live in apartments and city interiors to survive.

To expect an unheralded boom to continue indefinitely is usually a recipe for a nasty surprise.

If the planning is right, we won’t need the automobile.

Not happening here. The City of Jackson is now undergoing revitalization which includes the renovation/removal of older buildings and emplacement of new businesses and services. Your view seems to be rather narrow.

As I said previously, some people enjoy the city. My sister lives in NYC and has not owned a car for 20 years. She loves it. Your key word here is “forced”. Are you afraid that Big Brother is going to dictate where you live?

Smart Growth as I’ve run into the concept is focused on the idea that the community is forced to respond to the needs of its residents, so it’s a good idea to have developers place the homes, stores, etc., that those residents want in places where the infrastructure is either already present or easily expandable.

Given a town with water, sewer, etc., there will be a few vacant lots or unused structures there which can be used for infill, at no net cost to the community for new infrastructure. If somebody builds new homes and a shopping center on 200 acres adjacent to the town, only a little new infrastructure is needed. On the other hand, if somebody builds a development fifteen miles out in the slashin’s and then petitions for it to be annexed to the town, they need to run fifteen miles of water and sewer lines, improve the highway to carry the extra traffic over those fifteen miles, make sure that there’s adequate fire and police coverage for the new development. From a benefit-to-the-public standpoint it makes all the sense in the world.

I’ve worked in municipal government in the past. Most Smart Growth scenarios I’ve seen simply fail to take into account the simple fact that people change jobs every so often, and the location of those jobs change, and the work they can do that makes them money is often NOT located anywhere near where they live.

As an avid cyclist, I would love to live in a communithy where I can get to most places I need to be via bike paths. But I don’t think it’s gonna happen anytime soon. Most Smart Growth communities either start out as or turn into retirment villages, where job location is not a factor.

… because the community is sprawled all over the place?

Do you know much about the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards? I’m not completely familiar with them, but I’ve worked with an architect and a planner who were. There is an enormous amount that you can do with adaptive reuse of a building while remaining completely true to the historic nature of the structure. And not every building is a candidate for historic preservation – only those that are themselves historically important to the community or are parts of a coherent historic district where the great majority of the structures date from the same time and architectural style(s).

I’m inclined to agree with you. In some particular areas – NYC being one of the most obvious – it’s quite possible to live a full life without ever making use of a personal car. In most areas, a car is a necessity. Raleigh will never be suitable for mass transit – the residential, retail, and employment areas are too dispersed. Other towns, with functional downtowns, commercial and manufacturing areas that are integrated, and principal arteries along which mass transit can be situated, lend themselves to minimizing automobile use.

For three years, I lived in a pleasant apartment four blocks from my work, with a corner grocery two blocks away. I walked to work except in the worst weather, when I took a cab, my wife took a cab to the supermarket every other week, we walked to church (a block closer than work), went to the mall for a shopping expedition once every four to six weeks, and took cabs to and from restaurants. We chose not to maintain the expense of a car.

Now we live in a lovely rural hamlet 25 miles from Raleigh. When I was working in the city (my present job is a subcontract that I can do from home) I commuted daily. We are still within walking distance of a general store and a farm supply/hardware store that supplies many of our needs, but the supermarkets and the drug stores are six miles away, our church is 23 miles from where we live (there are other churches of other denominations closer, but the one we want to go to is there). A car is a necessity for us.

You gots it.

My take on Smart Growth is to build housing around a centerlized commercial district which had limited parking and encourages people to walk from their nearby homes.

This IMHO is exactly what the masses DON’T want. People who go to the suburbs want a nice environemt away from the hussle and bussle of the comercial zones. They want services within a short car ride but far away as not to bring traffic in to their nieghborhoods. They want a short commute to their place of work. For this reaSON I think Smart Growth will only serve to turn the suburbs into the city, which will attract people who perfer the city dweller lifestile. The people who crave the suburbs will be forced further away.

Wow! I posted this as a respose to the IMHO topic, when I replied it was in GD. The wisdom of the hamster will never cease to amaze me.

Urban economist / commercial real estate guy checking in.

We’re kind of all over the place here, but the central concept seems to be a limit on suburbanization. This is slightly contrary to my own experience, usually when people tell me about “smart growth” they mean opposing whatever development they don’t particularly like :stuck_out_tongue:

Well, it’s obvious that suburbanization is not indefinitely sustainable. Total land area in the world is absolutely limited, and the amount that is “useable” is even more so. Set aside more dirt for producing food and we’ve got a pretty limited selection.

Because the supply is limited and suburban areas are a more desirable good, the natural response is pricier housing, relatively speaking (or, more accurately, pricier residential land). Urban areas, on the whole, are generally less expensive. These are where the slums are. This doesn’t really hold in areas like NYC, of course… a wholy different beast. I’m speaking primarily of newer urban areas, my particular experience is in Texas, Oklahoma and Missouri (Dallas is the prime example of suburbanization).

I’m actually not sure where I’m going with this, it’s hard to summarize my life’s work.

I do have one particular concern: Jonathan Chance mentioned a reluctance to approve townhomes, justified by lower property tax revenues not covering city/county costs to provide services. I absolutely do not understand this reasoning, because townhomes take up less land area, such that you’ve got relatively more people in a given acre of land than you would with two half-acre estate homes. In my experience appraising real estate, this almost always translates to more property value per given stretch of land than a typical subdivision. Hell, if you give me a few days I can come up with all kinds of evidence of this in Oklahoma (property tax assessments are public information here).

Well, I agree that I approach that question locally (one of the fastest growing communities on earth here).

While a higher density leads to more properties per square acre (and therefore a potentially higher property value though I would dispute that here in my area) it also leads to more people who require more services. More services like schools, fire departments, police, water and sewer services (neither of which I have, actually), etc ad nauseum. The money for that has to come from somewhere. And at the moment it’s not being made up by the taxes coming in from the new developments.

The highest assessed residences here in Loudoun are single family homes on acreage. Of which my home is one…though mine is atypical (being more than 100 years old).

Normally I would approve of higher density as leading to greater efficiency but it doesn’t seem to be happening here.

The acreage is the important bit here. Let’s say you’ve got a property worth $5 million, sitting on five acres. I’m not at the office, so I don’t have my data handy, but let’s say five acres can support 100 higher-density housing units, like apartments. Nice, Class A apartments around here are worth at least $60,000 / unit, so you’ve got $6 million in property taxes. The fact of the matter is, for just about every multi-million dollar acreage, there’s a nice, new garden apartment complex worth tens of millions. I know 'cause I appraise 'em.

Okay, so your community thinks it has a problem with the higher amount of people residing in relatively less expensive homes. My question is, just how much housing do you think a person needs to consume to justify their public services? Is someone in a $90,000 townhome in Loudoun County (or whatever the market value of such homes is there) not paying enough in taxes? I mean, just looking at the Census Bureau’s figures for median home values in Loudoun County ($200,000 versus $125,000 for Virginia) it seems to me that either there’s a lot of money being wasted, or you’ve got a lot of people paying significantly less taxes than they would otherwise be if the assessed value were truly based on fair market values.

What’s more, you’ve got the fact that by having a larger amount of people on the same amount of land, that same amount of land is generating more in city sales taxes and consuming more water and sewer services, which are of course paid for.

Now, all of this is a function of how the local area handles these situations. You may have a case where there’s been a large number of property tax abatements for multi-family / townhome type development, for example. I could personally verify just what’s going on in property tax assessments in Loudoun County, except this website doesn’t seem to be working at the moment.

Incidentally, although Virginia apparently doesn’t both with “assessed to market” ratios, which I wholeheartedly approve of, the county expresses taxes in terms of dollars per $100 of assessment, which is absolutely infuriating to guys used to working in terms of millages :stuck_out_tongue:

I’m all for cars walking and public transportation being so viable that private cars are unneccesary for in-town trips. I wouldn’t support a government ban or anything. But what could possibly be wrong with a city that promotes a lifestyle that is cheap, healthy, doesn’t pollute, contributes to "neighborlyness’ and gives transportations options for people of all ages and income levels? Is your car so important that you resent other viable methods? Should all cities be required to be “car friendly”?

Besides, I just don’t really care what “the masses” want. We all have to live on this rock. Our children are going to have to inhabit the cities we are planning now. There are some really big problems is the current suburban model.

First off, the constant desire for “new” as well as “affordable” surban housing leads to some pretty shoddy construction and a very fluid houseing. The rich people move on to newer bigger houses and these poor constructed houses turn into ghettos pretty quickly. I lived in Sacramento CA (Which will one day sprawl from San Francisco to Lake Tahoe) and I saw yesterday’s ritzy suburbs turn into today’s slums over and over again almost overnight.

And although you are fine and happy in your car, millions are not. Sprawl forces seniors, those with poor eyesight, the young, those who have lost their licenses to DUIs and others to either live without jobs and vital services or else drive illegally and dangerously. Those that are unable to afford cars are forced to take jobs within walking distances, severly affecting their upward mobility. The jobs availabe within walking distance in a suburb are almost always low-paying service work. Don’t forget how expensive cars are. I worked it out, and my post-rent living expenses are actually just about the same as I would be paying to buy, maintain, and insure a car. In other words, if I got a car my expenses would double. Bad urban planning keeps the poor poor. Maybe you think this is a good thing, I do not.

I won’t even get in to the physchological implications of suburban living. The practicle issues provide enough evidence for why we should look towards new models. The suburbs are a new concept- stemming from post WWII veterens- and are quickly growing to be an outdated one. I see no reason why we need to pretend that they are the end-all and be-all of neighborhood planning, and why we can’t expect new models better suited to modern times to emerge.

There are some things that are good to leave to suppy and demand. But city planning is forever. A poorly designed city will stay that way for generations, and everyone will have to live with the consequences. We need to look towards the future, and the needs of everyone in our cities. When no planning is done, bad things emerge. I really don’t want to bash any particular city, but look at the Los Angeles area for example. There was little central planning there, and a strong emphasis on suburban living, and the place is a freaking mess. The communte times are legendary. It can take hours to go just a few miles. This could have been avoided. But it wasn’t and there is little we can do about these problems now. Even with the most competent planning, Los Angeles will face huge traffic issues for decades. But it didn’t have to be that way.

Or if not now, soon. Sooner than we like to think.

The basic problem is, since WWII, we Americans have built the most automobile-dependent society in the world. Every suburban housing pod, strip mall and office park is built around the assumption that the people who live and work and shop there will own their own cars, and have access to an unlimited supply of cheap fuel, forever. As a result, other alternatives are squeezed out. Going anywhere on foot is inconceivable. Mass transit wouldn’t be economical: No matter how many rail lines you run out to the 'burbs, you can’t build enough so that everybody lives within walking distance of a rail stop. The pattern is too dispersed and low-density. Most people would have to drive to the nearest rail stop – and once you’re in your car, why get out?

It all seemed like a good idea at the time, and in some ways it seems like a good idea still. But it’s become so much a part of the air we breathe that anything different – e.g., building high-density, mixed-use, pedestrian-scale neighborhoods – has become inconceivable. We’re like people who keep an elephant in the bedroom and for some reason never talk about the smell or the wastes or the creaking floorboards.

Kane Holtz Kay, in her book *Asphalt Nation[?I] did a good job of describing all the problems auto-dependency causes – the obvious ones, such as air pollution, but a great many other problems as well, which would remain even if somebody developed a technology for running cars on some non-polluting, renewable fuel, such as (in theory) hydrogen. Some of these – e.g., the social isolation and placelessness of the suburbs – are not things that everybody would agree at first are problems; some would say they’re just choices, and valid ones. But the total picture is rather overwhelming.

An even better source is James Howard Kunstler, and his website, www.kunstler.com, and his three books, the Geography of Nowhere, Home From Nowhere, and The City In Mind. Here is an excerpt from the last, published in 2001 – the chapter on Atlanta, pp. 60, 73-75:
A current popular belief in America is that “alternative fuels” could replace gasoline in the vehicles we use and that the system could merrily roll along without petroleum as if nothing had happened. This a dangerous delusion. The truth is that no known “alternative technology,” including hydrogen, fuel cell, electricity, nuclear, or alcohol from biomass, can take the place of gasoline in the way we have organized our lives, especially where cars and trucks are concerned. None of the touted alternative fuels is as versatile as gasoline, or can be produced for anything close to the cheap price of gas we’ve been accustomed to, or can be stored or transported as easily. The electric car is not going to save Atlanta.


I started this chapter by asking the question, does Edge City have a future? My answer is a plain NO. In Atlanta they are constructing a giant misbegotten organism that will almost certainly not be able to function far into the future. Suburbia, more than being a set of things, might be described more accurately as a set of behaviors. They were behaviors made possible only under the extremely abnormal conditions of late-twentieth-century life in the U.S.A.: unprecedented political and economic stability, extraordinary immunity to the consequences of bad decisions (really, the ability to mortgage the present against the future), and cheap oil, cheap oil, cheap oil. All these things are apt to change in the years directly ahead.

In the public debates about suburbia, the idea is almost always put forward that suburbia exists because Americans like it and want it. That may have been so. But if so, it may have been a poor choice. What’s more, that people like a way of living, or are accustomed to certain behavior, does not mean that circumstances will necessarily allow them to continue that way of living. Junkies like their heroin, too, but after a while their veins collapse, their immune systems switch off, and their organs begin to shut down. I’m convinced that circumstances in the twenty-first century will compel us to live very differently.

The next economy will be the Repo economy when, for example, amazing numbers of “Ditech 25 percent dream loans” will be labeled NONPERFORMING and seedy-looking men armed with repossession notices show up in the circular driveways of the defaulted-upon chipboard-and-vinyl McMansions in places like Cherokee County, Georgia, to change the locks on the putative collateral. I see this unwinding of credit and presumed wealth evolving into a tremendous political fight over the table scraps of the cheap-oil economy and the dubious material artifacts it produced, pitting neighbor against neighbor, group against group, and region against region.

I believe the world is entering a long era of chronic instability in oil markets that no amount of wishing or pretending will hold back. By the time this book is publised – a year from now – I shall be surprised if we are not experiencing the initial effects. The two oil-producing regions that allowed America to postpone this reckoning for twenty-five years, the Alaskan North Slope fields, and the North Sea fields (belonging to Britain and Norway), are scheduled to pass their production peaks this year, and after that, most of the oil in the world will be controlled by people who don’t like us, or contained in regions to chaotic to engage in the complex business of oil extraction. The Middle East regions containing the greatest reserves will be the last to peak, but long before they do, the oil markets will destabilize. In the current American mood of narcotized inattention, the point can’t be emphasized enough that it is not necessary for oil reserves to run out before world oil markets are severely destabilized. And when that occurs, industrial economies will be painfully compromised.

We Americans cherish a set of delusions to minimize or deflect the seriousness of this. As already touched on, we believe that we can run a drive-in civilization on some fuel other than petroleum. The actual prospects for this are dim, but we base our belief (a wish, really) on the spectacular cavalcade of technological achievements that occurred in the previous century, one astonishing novelty after another: airplanes, movies, radio, TV, antibiotics, Teflon, computers, automobiles themselves. (The lingering “victory disease” from our great triumph in World War Two still stokes our delusions of invincibility.) Alternative energy sources such as natural gas, biomass, coal, nuclear power, solar power, fuel cells, and so forth, will fall far short of compensating for disrupted oil markets. It will be a hard lesson. The world’s fleet of eleven thousand jet airplanes will not run on coal or plutonium. Massive disruptions to transportation and business will occur. The “global economy” as touted in recent years – meaning the long-range transport of enormous quantities of cheap goods virtually everywhere – will join mercantile imperialism in the history books. Food production, which depends heavily on oil-based fertilizers, will be affected by oil market disturbances. The Caesar salad that travels twenty-five hundred miles from California to somebody’s table in Atlanta will become an object of nostalgia. Farming will have to become much more labor-intensive, will have to be practiced on a far smaller scale, and done much closer to market. Half a million other products, from medicine, asphalt, paint and detergent to plastic trash bags, are also derived from oil. As the oil markets destabilize, shortages and fluctuating prices in oil will hinder industry from even addressing the problem from converting societies to other forms of energy.

That’s why we need “smart growth.”