A Lonely Fighter Defending Sprawl
Libertarian economist Randal O'Toole has become notorious for defending sprawl in recent years. This article from The Toronto Star wonders if he might have a valid point.
"For years now, most informed observers – doctors, as well as planners – say it's the suburbs that are making us sick, mentally and physically. They have led to epidemics of obesity and diabetes, and created feelings of isolation and loss of community."
"Not so, counters American libertarian economist Randal O'Toole. He believes the exact opposite. Sprawl, he argues, is good for us. It's not just what we need, it's what we want. And as for that daily commute, as long as it's not too long, he says, we enjoy it, even look forward to it."
"O'Toole, who's connected with two U.S. think-tanks, the Thoreau and Cato Institutes, has waged a lonely battle to make suburbia respectable. He claims the suburbs are popular because they respond to deep-seated human needs, including the desire for safety, privacy and a place of one's own."
"Though O'Toole's defence of sprawl is largely specious, the numbers are on his side; most North Americans do choose suburb over city. Of course, that doesn't mean they're healthy or desirable, let alone sustainable."
"According to a document released by the Ontario College of Family Physicians, 'Research shows that high impedance commuting has adverse affects on blood pressure, mood, frustration, tolerance, illness occasions, work absences, job stability and overall life satisfaction.'"
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
Related News Stories
Sprawl Can Work, It Just Needs Fixing - May 15, 2008
Phoenix Takes a Green Turn - May 14, 2008
Curing Ills in Suburban Melbourne - May 12, 2008
Candidates Sit Idly While Sprawl Thrives and Cities Die - May 09, 2008
Planning System Needs to Look at the 'Big Picture' - May 06, 2008
Correction
Wrong spot on thread
Suburbs Versus Projects
In an article meant to weigh Randal O'Toole's arguments, the reader is instead given meandering talk on how urban and suburban environments affect mental health. Note the first illustration of "urban life": Pruitt-Igoe and similar public housing projects. Something like a quarter of the article is devoted to that aspect of urbanism. Does this really represent the reality of urban life in North American cities?
There's a reason O'Toole is "lonely"
It's because hardly anyone believes his BS about how great suburban living is.
All the reasons people escaped the cities to the suburbs 50 years ago are largely being reversed in many cities. Cities are remaking themselves into high-density, vibrant places to live, in contrast to the crummy housing projects of the 1950s-1980s.
In my city, Portland, Oregon, real estate values are higher in Portland proper, generally speaking, than in its surrounding suburbs. Poverty is moving its way out to the suburbs; wealth is moving into the city. Of course, the challenge is how to retrofit the suburbs to increase density and improve the transportation connections.
Another Possibility
Lonely is relative and subject to perspective. Certainly O'Toole's arguments are lonely in the echo chamber that planners inhabit. In the greater realm of public opinion as expressed by both opinion and choice he is in the majority.
Fair point
Robert, I think you make a vaild point, to a large degree. I'm neither a planner nor anti-planner, as O'Toole describes himself. But, I don't think there is much doubt that most people in the planning profession and probably many of those that read and comment on this site lean heavily toward the government interventionist crowd. That is to say they lean that way much more so than the population at large.
In terms of liking or hating sprawl, the court of public opinion is both contradictory and chaotic in their thinking. What seem to be clear survey results yield socially desirable responses or answers based on the lack of known possibilities. Actual living arrangements are little help in figuring anything out because 1) people can only choose from what is available and 2) public policy influences those choices (for and against sprawl).
The only thing clear to me is that much like people hate Congress and love their Congressperson, they hate sprawl but like living in it and choose it over and over again. Like anything else, what that tells me is that people have a difficult time finding a connection between what they do on a daily basis or how they live to the bigger picture of any issue.
O'Toole is quite "lonely" in the greater urban planning discussion community, but we must remember (as you apparently do) that most people discussing something are doing so because they are dissatisfied with it and want change. There could be millions of people generally liking the status quo who would never bother to read anything on this site. Their only beef is build me more roads, I hate traffic or don't let the other guy build next to me, I like my view.
Probablities on the ground.
In the greater realm of public opinion as expressed by both opinion and choice he is in the majority.
I'd say the widespread, resounding defeats of the private property rights ballot initiatives, and the demographic shifts resulting in greater sales of condo-townhome (that is, results on the ground) make the italicized problematic. But perhaps you'd like to refine the hasty generalization to explain what majority wants to repeal zoning laws and other sundry libertarian minority dreams.
Best,
D
Realities on the ground
I'm not sure what data you are looking at or what part of the world you're living in (a Mid-Atlantic state perhaps?). Townhouses compromise only 5.8% of total housing types in the U.S.. When you compare that to 62.7% of Americans living in single-family homes, they don't seem to add up to "libetarians minority dreams". Even more telling is that fact that as family size has decreased, homes continue to grow in size. It's ok to deplore the situation but at least one should concede existing conditions before looking for a microtrend away from the housing norms to bolster a shaky case showing a shift in housing preferences.
"American homes are getting bigger — at least when measured by the number of bedrooms they have — according to a new analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. In 2005, one in five occupied homes (20 percent) had four or more bedrooms, compared to 17.7 percent in 2000.
Single-family homes were the most common housing type (62.7 percent), and comprised more than eight out of 10 owner-occupied units (81.3 percent).
Apartments with 10 or more units were the second-most common housing type overall (12 percent). The District of Columbia had 42.4 percent of housing units in this category. Hawaii and New York had 22.1 and 27.7 percent, respectively. Among cities, about half of all housing units in Alexandria, Va., were in apartment buildings with 10 or more units; Miami Beach, Fla., had approximately 75 percent; and New York City had 54.2 percent.
The category comprising mobile homes or other type of housing (RV, houseboat, etc.) (6.5 percent) was the third most common. Nearly one in five homes in New Mexico and South Carolina were mobile homes (17.4 percent and 18 percent, respectively). Regionally, three-fourths of the nation’s mobile homes were found in the South (56.1 percent) and West (20.2 percent). The remaining quarter were in the Midwest (16.2 percent) and Northeast (7.5 percent).
Townhomes were the fourth most common housing type (5.8 percent). The highest percentages of townhomes could be found in Washington, D.C. (26.4 percent); Maryland (20.1); Pennsylvania (18.1); Delaware (13.4) and Virginia (10.3). Approximately half of all housing units in the mid-Atlantic cities of Baltimore (49.7 percent); Camden, N.J. (54.8); Philadelphia (61.3); Reading, Pa. (58.5); and Wilmington, Del. (52.2) were this type."
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/american_commu...
I don't think it makes sense
I don't think it makes sense to equate single-family homes with sprawl, nor does it make sense to equate townhouses with smart growth. There are plenty of walkable 1920s single-family neighborhoods in this nation, and there are also plenty of apartment complexes and townhouses in sprawling suburbs (I should know- I live in one of them!)
Prof. Michael Lewyn
Florida Coastal School of Law
Jacksonville, FL
Trends on the ground.
[updated below]
What are the trends on these numbers, fy? Is the % of HHs with children going down? Yes. Is the population of cities changing and increasing? Yes. Is the number of TH-Condo permits going up? Yes. Are the projected number of new SFD going to be far less than now? Yes.
Secondly, does demand meet supply? No. I think Nelson, AC 2006. Leadership in a New Era. JAPA 72:4 pp 393-409 does a good job of visualizing the gap, where tbls 4-5 show increasing demand for SFA, and his spinoff article 'The next 100 million' further elaborates:
In 2006, roughly 35 percent of all households had children, while another 26 percent were single-person households. By the time the next 100 million people can be counted, only about 27 percent of households will have children, and single person households will remain at about 26 percent. In other words, among the next 100 million Americans, only about three million, or 12 percent, will have children.
There will be more children and more households with children as the U.S. adds another 100 million people, but the net change in associated housing demand will be small. In contrast, 88 percent of the net change in households will be attributable to those without children. Single-person households will account for about 38 percent of the net change.
Third, housing preferences appear to be changing. Aging, empty-nester, and single-person households will dominate America's future housing markets. It seems unlikely that their housing preferences will conform to the child-friendly zoning template that has dominated America's suburbs for two generations.
Where demographic changes will move folk out of their large-lot SFD into different, more diverse housing types. Does Leinberger see a trend toward this already in his Atlantic article? Time will tell. But times are a' changin', as the demand for TND-NU developments and smaller lot SFD shows, and surveys show that [added] the market says it wants* more walkability closer to amenities.
Best,
D
*
Some studies have controlled for self-selection by including survey data on individuals’ lifestyle and travel preferences (Bagley and Mokhtarian, 2002). However, some experts have pointed out that there is currently limited choice in the housing market, and surveys in many U.S. cities have shown a latent demand for denser developments with multiple transportation options. Individuals who would like to walk, bike, or take public transportation may be prevented from doing so because of their location in contemporary car-dependent developments. If that is the case, then densification and expansion of public transportation in urban areas would affect travel behavior, but only until this latent demand is satisfied (Ewing et al, 2007).
Statistical manipulation
Any trend must be measured by its size, scope and duration. It this case, any increase in townhouses is bound to appear large because the baseline of around 6% is quite small compared to the around 63% who now live in SFDs. It reminds of all the speculation with the presidential campaign. If a candidate goes from winning to 6% to 9% of the vote, a headline could read, "Candidate has 50% increase in votes." That's correct but the candidate would still be trounced nonetheless if the opponent won 60% of the vote. The scope of the trend varies widely by region as my census data shows so choosing a few success stories is of local interest and can be balanced out in other parts of the country. As far as duration goes, there isn't much historical data on condo sales. The article partially backs you up with condos as an indicator but there are some caveats noted as well. http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/18/real_estate/condo_prices_reveal_trends/i...
Your quote about the decrease in percentage of kids in the population echoes what I said about the trend toward smaller families but ignores the reality that SFDs grew in size anyway.
"Aging, empty-nester, and single-person households will dominate America's future housing markets. It seems unlikely that their housing preferences will conform to the child-friendly zoning template that has dominated America's suburbs for two generations."
I saw the future yesterday when I went to a huge age-restricted development next another one in my county. Small look-a-like homes on small lots with a guarded gate. Despite the sidewalks and good weather, I saw one woman walking around the community. I'm not sure if these places pay taxes for schools since most the retired folks don't want to pay for kids' education. Maybe I missed them but I haven't read any articles about age restricted communities on this website.
"surveys show that the market wants more walkability closer to amenities"
See if that translates into action when people actually put up the money. Surveys say people want more gas efficient cars but they don't buy them as much as they claim. They want shorter commutes but shun certain parts of the city closer to work. There's more infill now but it has to offset 60 years of growth in the suburbs.
Trendy to say statistical manipulation.
Any trend must be measured by its size, scope and duration. It this case, any increase in townhouses is bound to appear large because the baseline of around 6% is quite small compared to the around 63% who now live in SFDs.
I take this as saying there is a trend away from SFD. Thank you.
Best,
D
What People Want And What Is Built
The census figures about the predominance of single-family houses reflect what has been built over the last 60 years or so, partly because of what the zoning laws allow in most places.
We have no grounds for saying the census figures reflect what people want. In fact, the price comparisons in Leinberger's article at http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/subprime show that many people want to live in walkable neighborhoods, but not enough walkable neighborhoods have been built; clearly, it is the zoning laws that have prevented them from being built.
The census figures also don't distinguish between walkable neighborhoods of single-family houses and sprawl neighborhoods.
In the location of that huge, age-restricted development, would the zoning laws have allowed town houses and apartment buildings? And would the zoning laws have allowed mixed uses?
As I have said before, it is odd that conservatives complain about planning to stop sprawl but are totally blind to the long history of planning that requires sprawl.
Charles Siegel
False Premises Yield Typical Planner Confusion
More than two thirds of the States passed limits to eminent domain in the wake of the 2005 Supreme Court decision and Dano from behind the cloak of anonymity has the false courage to judge those reactions to be "widespread, resounding defeats of the private property rights ballot initiatives."
Not content with being merely incorrect Dano proceeds to torture innocent data until it is so twisted and distorted it says anything he wants just to make him go away. I empathize. When discussing sprawl Dano is reduced to unverifiable correlations involving condo sales supposedly driven by demographic shifts. There is no refuting such a vague assertion. Note, there is no justification for making such an assertion as well but that doesn't stop Dano nor stop him from using his own made up metric to attack a verifiable comment that suburban housing patterns are the overwhelming expressed and reveal choice of the populace.
Not content with being wrong and diverting it just wouldn't be a Dano post without a nasty bit of personal denigration and insult by association. "Hasty generalization" projection, equating private property protections with repealing zoning laws, and handwaving away any who dare oppose the planner progrom as libertarian minority dreamers.
The vast majority of planners who read these pages needs to understand that Dano has in large part become the face of planning that the public sees and his tactics and behavior are yours unless you speak up for yourselves.
No confusion rhetoric.
Dano from behind the cloak of anonymity has the false courage to judge those reactions to be "widespread, resounding defeats of the private property rights ballot initiatives...yada
Please. O'Toole is all about eliminating zoning and planning. Just because some zoning-repeal ballot measures were conflated with eminent-domain in their campaigns (esp I-933 [I was there, listened to them conflate eminent domain and zoning repeal, and used their conflation to frame the discussion]) doesn't mean that you can conflate them here in your hasty generalization rhetoric (Dano is x therefore all planners are x) and expect to have play.
And I note that to have play, you must state I made up a metric; this only because I didn't provide a link to said metric. Thank you for that transparent tactic. Better would have been to do some work to show how this isn't true. As I can't now find the chart from the Denver Post for 2008 Front Range/Interior West markets that I was visualizing, I'll get back here and link to it.
Best,
D
I'm all for having a well
I'm all for having a well rounded discussion, but it appears we are being overwhelmed in our website by planner-haters. No longer are there friendly constructive discussions, but mud-slinging and constant disapproval of anything posted here.
Robert Cote, Contrarianplanner (sorry to lump you in here contrarian, I do find your comments to spur good conversation rather than mud-slinging like the others), freeyoke...why are you here?
"Dano from behind the cloak of anonymity..."
Couldn't you say the same of yourself? Aren't you just trolling for hatred in the anonymity of the internet by going to a website dedicated to certain ideas which you disagree with?
These persons represent what I am beginning to see as a good generalization of libertarians: short-sightedness towards defending their ideal of freedom of choice.
When it is said that the majority of Americans are choosing single-family homes and suburbia, is it truly because that is what they want? or just what is mostly available, what is constantly shoved down their throats, what is perceived as the best option given the alternatives? Just because up to recent times construction and purchase of single-family homes in suburbia has been incentivized over anything else leading to far greater numbers of them in the housing stock doesn't make it the preferred housing option by the majority. I think before that can be determined there needs to be construction of more quality housing in developments more dense than what has been provided up till now. To make a choice, one has to have options to choose from.
For over a half-century our country has focused mostly on constructing spawling housing and automobile infrastructure to the point where thats all many people have to choose from. The collective we may or may not want to live outside of sprawling suburbia, but it is clear that there are some who do. If you are truly for freedom of choice, then what is the problem with providing options? Why all the hatred towards evening out the playing field of the housing market? It is time the construction of dense housing in walkable environments is allowed to play catch-up with sprawl in auto-environments.
Planner plan thyself
Before lumping various posters as "planner haters" and demanding to know why they chose to post here, I wonder if you know where you are. This website doesn't exist to reinforce your views and suppress dissenters.
"Planetizen prides itself on covering a wide number of planning, design, and development issues, from transportation to global warming, architecture to infrastructure, housing and community development to historic preservation. We provide a forum for people across the political and ideological spectrum, ensuring a healthy debate on these and other important issues."
Please read the "About" section of this website since you clearly haven't read it before. If you think this forum is unduly harsh in tone among posters, you may want to read almost any other Internet forum to see some real fistfights.
Leveling the playing field
As a quasi-libertarian I'd love to see the playing field leveled. Only I think the best way to do that is to loosen zoning restrictions (a lot), and streamline the permitting process, and doing away with many of the regulations that inhibit supply (affordable housing mandates, UGBs, architectural review boards, citizen oversight commitees, etc.). I agree that many folks are searching for an alternative to post-WWII suburbia (I happen to prefer suburbs from the early part of the twentieth century - which, gasp, were built without zoning, design review, neighborhood acceptance, oh my), but the current rules of the game doesn't allow the alternative to get built. Loosen the process and people will get the alternative they desire. Unfortunately, you'll get some stuff you may not like as well...as there's no accounting for other people's tastes.
The problem I think O'Toole has with things like smart growth is that many planning and government types feel one can just mandate infill/sprawl-alternatives by forbidding outward, suburban growth. He's not so much defending sprawl as poiting out the negative effects of simply mandating against sprawl (increased housing prices, leaapfrog development, increased traffic) without changing the status quo of zoning, permitting, etc. that lead directly to the above negative effects (in the harshest possible way of course). At least that's my interpretation.
I don't feel like crawling
I don't feel like crawling through past garbage produced by O'Toole, so forgive me for using someone else's quote of his (from the article this forum is in response to).
"Even if most planners pretend not to understand," he has written, "...most Americans are fully aware of the benefits cul-de-sacs, separated uses, and visible parking have for their security. Neighbourhoods strongly resist efforts by planners to connect cul-de-sacs or insert bike paths or commercial uses in their midst."
I don't think people have a problem with him because he questions the way in which we respond to turning around post-WWII growth. The problem, I believe, people have with him is the blatant representation of garbage stats to defend a lifestyle we've solely been offered for far too long. I don't believe him to be a defender of choice, but rather a defender of his choice.
As for the way in which we respond to changing our current plight, namely fixing the last half-century/leveling the playing field: any guess as to the best way to do that is exactly that, a guess. Your belief that loosening up development regulations is as good as the most restrictive planner. Only time will tell which places do the best, whatever the indicators of "best" might be. My guess is that people's ability to move to the place that best suits them will end up sorting everything out. For example, you won't catch me living in automobile oriented cities, neighborhoods, streets..etc. How about that for freedom of choice =D. If O'Toole wants his culs-de-sacs, he has already got it. Those of us that want dense walkable neighborhoods should be left up to our own devices in our jurisdictions. You don't see me rolling into Texas (or wherever it is they have those covenant alternatives to regulations) and telling them they need development regulations. I choose to live in cities where, for the most part, most the people tend toward wanting regulations that encourage the construction of an environment we like rather than leaving it up to chance/the whim of a developer/trend.
for more on how to deregulate without promoting spraw
Look at my article at
http://works.bepress.com/lewyn/41/
Prof. Michael Lewyn
Florida Coastal School of Law
Jacksonville, FL