Smart Growth Planning Produces Paradoxical Results

25 June 2006 - 11:00am

Economist Randal O'Toole argues that the contemporary smart growth movement, like past planning trends, ignores the inherent complexity of cities and produces paradoxical outcomes.

"[C]omprehensive urban plans in the United States, and the rest of the developed and developing world, have a nasty habit of costing far more than the planners project, producing far fewer benefits and causing all sorts of unintended harmful consequences."

"The reason is simple: Cities, like economies, are far too complex to scientifically plan. Rather than admit they can't do it, planners follow simplistic fads. In the 1950s, the fad was high-rise public housing projects, which proved disastrous all over the world. Today, the fad is 'smart growth'..."

"In 1992, planners promised to save the Portland region from becoming like Los Angeles, the most congested, most polluted and one of the most expensive urban areas in America. To do this, Portland planners decided to increase the region's population density by 70 per cent, build few new roads (because new roads encourage people to drive) and, instead, build lots of light-rail and streetcar lines."

"As an afterthought, planners compared other urban areas across America with their future vision of Portland. One area turned out to have the highest population density, the fewest miles of freeway per capita, and an expensive system of passenger rail lines. Which urban area was it? Why, Los Angeles, of course."

Full Story: A Plague of Planners
Source: The Globe and Mail, June 23, 2006

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Planners Follow Simplistic Fads

O'Toole writes: "planners follow simplistic fads. In the 1950s, the fad was high-rise public housing projects, which proved disastrous."

And the other simplistic planning fad of the 1950s was urban freeways, which also proved disastrous.

Charles Siegel

Enough with LA being the most dense

Why do these anti-planning pundits continue to trot out the 'LA is the most dense city anyway; so there!' nonsense? It's highly misleading. LA is only the most dense metropolis if the density for its 'urbanized area' is considered. Well, duh. For most cities, this would include relatively low density suburbs, bringing down the overall density, whereas in the case of LA it's all one broad 3 story mush. At least that's my understanding.

And I agree, Dano - rail advocates are all about curtailing freedom. I can just picture Randall O'Toole standing proudly on a rocky outcropping (overlooking a Bob's Big Boy) with an American flag waving behind him.

it's just a misleading use of statistics

He uses the US Census metro area boundaries to calculate population density. For instance, his definition of the New York metro area includes a vast area extending the eastern end of Long Island all the way to Pike County, PA. The average density over that area is not all that high, but of course this ignores the fact that 60-70%(?) of the population in the region lives within 20 miles of Manhattan. As they say, if you have your head in the oven and your feet in the freezer, on average you're feeling fine.

Good picture, sm

I can just picture Randall O'Toole standing proudly on a rocky outcropping (overlooking a Bob's Big Boy) with an American flag waving behind him.

...and waving his copies of the Constitution and Atlas Shrugged.

Best,

D

Compelling Randal: lather, rinse, repeat.

This is the little fear statement that Randal often injects in his little articles:

Rail transit, for example, is a simplification that limits, rather than expands, mobility, giving planners more control over people's lives.

Yup, that's it. Totalitarian, socialist, controlling...um...what else do these people use...oh, yes: dictatorial, freedom-sapping planners want to ruin everyone's lives.

Yawn.

Best,

D

Bookmark and Share
The decision to abandon a property is a symptom of the loss of confidence. And while abandonment certainly affects confidence among surrounding homeowners, the most important question to answer is not "how do we deal with abandoned properties?" but "what is the most cost-effective way to restore market confidence, and how do abandoned properties fit into that picture?"