Michael Lewyn is an assistant professor at Touro Law Center in Long Island.
Last week, I was busy trying to turn my paper on sprawl in Canada (available at http://works.bepress.com/lewyn/65/) into a speech. In my paper, I define sprawl in two ways: where we grow (measured by growth or decline of central cities, controlling for municipal annexations) and how we grow (measured by modal shares for cars and transit). As I was proofing, I asked myself: why these particular measurements? What presuppositions underlie defining sprawl based on, say, modal share as opposed to the growth of a urban area's land mass?
Wednesday, May 18, 2011 - 7:24am PDT
Friday, April 22, 2011 - 1:53pm PDT
I recently finished reading Foreclosing the Dream, by William Lucy. The most interesting parts of this book are the first chapter and the last appendix, both of which tell us where foreclosures are (or at least were in 2008, before the foreclosure crisis morphed into an international economic downturn). These figures seem to me to debunk at least a couple of the more popular explanations of the foreclosure crisis, such as:
Myth 1: "Its all the fault of too much lending to the urban poor."
Monday, March 21, 2011 - 3:03pm PDT
Census data is already in for a couple of dozen states, and already blogs are starting to speculate about their lessons for American cities. Some commentators look at the continued decline of Rust Belt cities like Chicago and St. Louis, and suggest that suburban sprawl continues (and will forever continue) unabated. But reality is not quite so simple.
Thursday, March 3, 2011 - 3:13pm PST
My sense is that most new urbanists and smart growth advocates were happy to see Barack Obama elected President two years ago. While John McCain opposed Amtrak and had not been overly supportive of local public transit, Obama created an Administration full of advocates for transit and urbanism, and high-speed rail is one of his Administration's signature programs. So the Obama Administration will slow sprawl, and will make our cities more transit-oriented, prosperous and walkable. Right?
Sunday, February 13, 2011 - 6:46pm PST
I spent the last two weeks of December in Atlanta, living (mostly) with my parents. My life in Atlanta is much more car-dependent than my life in Jacksonville; in the latter city, I live a block from a bus stop, while in Atlanta, I live at least a mile from the nearest bus stop (and more importantly, near no sidewalks to take me to said bus stop). So naturally, I drove everywhere in Atlanta.
And while driving, I noticed a couple of unusual things. First, I noticed that unlike in my Jacksonville neighborhood, bicyclists actually tried to ride on the street rather than on sidewalks.* Second, I noticed that I was beginning to get annoyed with bicyclists- to a much greater extent than I have ever been annoyed with pedestrians while driving.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011 - 11:43pm PST
As Congress begins to draft transportation legislation next year, fiscal scarcity
may induce a fight between transit and highway advocates over federal funding,
rather than the cooperation of the last few years. And if highway advocates seek to tear down federal support
for other forms of transportation, they will probably rely heavily on
federalism considerations, arguing that highways are inherently an interstate
concern while transit and non-motorized forms of transportation are a
For example, Alan
Pisarski writes: “If sidewalks and bike paths are federal then everything
There are two flaws in this argument. First of all, highways are not always
primarily an interstate concern
Tuesday, December 14, 2010 - 9:15pm PST
In a recent blog post,(1) highway expert Alan Pisarski suggests that highway-oriented sprawl development is somehow necessary for the development of modern labor markets.(2) Pisarski writes that regional job markets are jobs are more specialized today than they were in his youth, and labor markets are thus "of immense size because many [highly specialized] employers need a market of hundreds of thousands of potential workers to reach the ones they need. The Atlanta region of 26 counties is not a great economic engine because it is 26 charming adjacent hamlets, but rather because the market reach of employers, suppliers, customers and job seekers spreads over several million residents."
Tuesday, November 16, 2010 - 12:53pm PST
While critiquing one of my blog posts, Prof. Randall Crane asked: "Is any parking regulation a net social burden or only 1.75 spaces per Jacksonville, Florida apartment?" This question in turn is an example of a broader question: how do we resolve an issue when we don’t know, and perhaps have no way of knowing, the ideal empirical answer?
Parking regulation presents a classic example: looking at environmental harm alone, it seems to me clear that minimum parking requirements create some environmental harm by on balance encouraging driving, but also reduce environmental harm from "cruising" (motorists wasting time and fuel searching for parking spaces).*
Tuesday, October 26, 2010 - 8:15am PDT
Every so often, I read something describing defenders of sprawl as "contrarians", implying that they are underdogs fighting against the elitist, anti-sprawl Establishment. For example, when I did a google.com search for sites including Robert Bruegmann (author of one of the better defenses of the status quo) and the word "contrarian" I found over 1400 "hits." Similarly, a search for websites using the terms "smart growth" and "elitist" yielded over 6000 hits.
But realistically, most of the U.S. built environment is sprawl by any concievable definition. So how can it be "contrarian" to defend the status quo?
Wednesday, October 13, 2010 - 11:11am PDT