Why The Smart Growth Movement Will Fail

Mr. Louis raises some genuine concerns about Smart Growth, but misses some key points of analysis.

The first point: "Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB) will create scarcity of single family homes and drive their prices up. "

Most new subdivisions already practice discrimination by price, because developers tend to build homes of similar cost on the same street. Zoning laws that preclude any more than 1 unit of housing per 1.5 to 2 acres (common in many municipalities) encourage the construction of large homes on large lots, which many cannot afford anyway. Additionally, (and this is a point the Smart Growthers too often fail to make) the current housing stock which is overwhelmingly filled with single family homes is not going away.

Finally, on the housing cost front, the other expense that is rapidly pricing first-time and low-income buyers out of purchasing a home is transportation. See STPP's "Driven To Spend" report (www.transact.org) to see how much people are spending in sprawling metro areas on transportation and housing, and you will see that the cost of transportation is rising MUCH faster than the cost of housing. This is unfortunate for lower-income and first-time buyers because as real estate preserves equity, buying cars does not.

The key solution to defusing the UGB-induced price escalation Mr. Louis is rightly concerned about will be found in a banking industry that has lost all entrepreneurial sense. Look at my personal example: I quit a job last year where I reverse-commuted from a central city to an outlying town, 34 miles roudtrip each day. This year, I deliberately moved to a place 1.9 miles from my job, and now I bike to work most days.

Some quick math:

Discounting weekends and 2 week's vacation, I probably worked 251 days last year.

251 X 34 miles per day = 8,534 miles

My car's MPG, tilting towards highway driving: 28 mpg

8,534 miles divided by 28 mpg = 304 gallons of fuel

Cost of gas near where I lived: $1.40 per gallon

340 * $1.40 = $425.60

If you consider costs of insurance/repair/wear and tear/new tires/etc., which are included in the standard $0.37/mile cost per mile of auto ownership reimbursed by businesses, I saved (8534 * $0.37) $3157 in personal costs last year.

Lenders want to make the biggest loan they feel confident making to gain the most interest. However, standard mortgage lending ignores that my personal choices about where I live give me potentially 3000 above my income annually, and I cannot find a mortgage that respects my economically (not to mention environmentally) efficient choice. Even if the lender is not confident of the $3000 being completely redirected for housing, surely I could afford $100 more per month. Location efficiency is the answer. See the Center For Neighborhood Technology for more.

>>Will this movement support vouchers to allow parents to chose walkable schools with small class size?

Certainly, Smart Growth will, but vouchers have nothing to do with walkable schools. Living in a walkable community that has connectivity via sidewalks and safe crosswalks makes neighborhood schools a possibility again.

>>How about providing support to the successful concept of home schooling.

This is somewhat of a tangent, and I think most here would largely consider homeschooling a personal and not a societal decision. Home schooling, while having many merits, is not a "choice" for many parents who are from 2-earner households by necessity. That said, I can make a stretch and say the walkable community idea makes sense, especially regarding access to shopping. If a child is going to learn about money, transactions, math- a child who can walk to the corner store gets exercise and may gain independence and responsibility by being able to go buy a gallon of milk, receive change, and bring it home.

Smart Growth IS about enhancing choice. Housing choice. Transportation choice. The choice to live somewhere where the air is good without the help of machines.

Are moving away from cities?

The world went through a period in history were we went from no cities to an increasing number of cities (even to a point where it has been argued that we have more than a country/region can support). Is the movement away from larger cities into the suburbs (in the USA) a beginning of a movement back to more decentralized living patterns?

Any thoughts?

Development in the US (and probably elsewhere) is, among other aspects, a game of externalizing costs (usually in the name of keeping housing costs low). The long term result is that communities pay the costs for sprawl- added costs of utilities, travel, and social alienation and attenuation.

For sprawl to be properly managed, these costs cannot be externalized, but must be incorporated back into the cost of building, with full and fair costs borne by the purchaser. While it may be argued that this will make housing more expensive, the experience with the Location Efficient Mortgage shows that in fact much can be done to keep the overall cost of living within the same cost level- trading cheaper and more efficient transportation etc, for the increased cost of construction. Also, the current fad for mansionization/

super sized homes is in part traceable to the loss of public life, forcing more and more functions inside the house instead of a shared public realm.

Changing the cost structure for greenfields construction is the first duty of those who would promote "smart growth" - and the litmus test of whether they will succeed. In most cases, this is a matter of both state legislation and local political backbone, and neither will come easily.

While reading Hirschhorn’s article I was moved many times to respond as if I were listening to a Sunday morning preacher with whom I vehemently agreed…Forever saying amen….

At the endless stream ……of conferences there rarely is a speaker that is truly an opponent to the core principles of smart growth. AMEN

Smart growth advocates all too often ……….do not effectively address the issues and concerns of opponents. AMEN

Do smart growth advocates seriously examine what the opposition prefers AMEN

But what drew the ‘loudest’ response from me was the fact that someone understands the basic principles that drive success in America.

Ultimately, consumer demand will determine the degree of success for smart growth, not conferences, books [or a higher ideal]. AMEN AMEN

When smart growth serves selfish interests it will succeed on a large scale. AMEN AMEN

However, the final question is.

Can a movement that seeks to foster (or cram down our throats) a collective/public space ever succeed in the land of Capitalism (also read the land of me, myself and I)?

Stephen Louis wrote: "Public spaces such as mega theaters or an enclosed mall are packed with people. The air quality is superior and you can walk to over a hundred stores. All the while visiting with friends, meeting new people, eating or just relaxing".

In case you haven't noticed, malls are not public places. They are strictly private enterprises and certain rights of yours as a citizen, such as freedom of speech and right to public assmebly, do not apply there. Consider that the next time you wish to protest against the government or a corporation and your only option is to gather on the grass median surrounding the mall parking lot.

I also find it laughable that you consider 'Smart Growth', which is basically just the traditional city planning of the last 2000 years, to be in the same category as 1950/60s era social engineering. Look again and you'll see that its the Eisenhower era zoning laws that make the suburban sprawl you're so enamored of possible.

If a forced seperation of uses and requiring ownership of an automobile to fully function as a citizen isn't social engineering, I don't know what is.

Regardless of what Smart Growth has come to mean to you, the implementation of this social engineering program will be more far reaching than that of school busing in the 70's. That well meaning social experiment was to correct past injustices and create a more just society by forcing integration in city schools. These same schools are more segregated today and it accelerate the move by families of all colors to the burbs. So too will be the unintended consequences of Smart Growth.

Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB) will create scarcity of single family homes and drive their prices up. All well and good for those of us that are dug in already, but pricing homes out of the reach of many new and low income buyers. This is called elitism in most circles. Look at the neighborhood, Chevy Chase, the author makes a point of tell us he lives in out in the burbs. Not many low income or first time home buyers there. This is where the selfish interests of NIMBYism clash with SG.

Getting back to schools which we all agree should be of high quality, what does SG recommend doing to change decades of decline? Will this movement support vouchers to allow parents to chose walkable schools with small class size? How about providing support to the successful concept of home schooling. Results have been very good and transportation is not needed for most.

>> the fundamental tradeoff between private and public space that is at the core of the sprawl versus smart growth choice

Public spaces such as mega theaters or an enclosed mall are packed with people. The air quality is superior and you can walk to over a hundred stores. All the while visiting with friends, meeting new people, eating or just relaxing. If you're a parent, however, you know that you would never let your youngster under eight go and play in a public place out of your sight.

That's why responsible parents aspire to buy homes with big yards when they can. Smart Growth works against the family and choice by trying to deny this fundamental desire.

Peoples desire to live where and how they want is fundamental to our countries great heritage of freedom. This freedom is true Pro-choice. The smart growth movement is about denying choice by greatly limiting personal property rights and home ownership among other things. Smart Growth is properly seen by many as a group of people wanting to be Behavior Modification Police (BMP).

Stephan Louis

Cinn City

I am amazed at the apathy of some of the authors of recent op-eds, in particular Joel Hirschhorn, Anthony Downs, and Matthew J. Kiefer. Why have they given up?! They all sound like they are in favor of smart growth, yet they are completely apathetic about the prospects of making it happen.

If I ever sound like these guys, just encourage me to go back to selling stereos. I may just still be young and idealistic, but if you believe something is right, you should be willing to fight for it until the bitter end. I am still in the early stages of my career and my influence is limited, but I'm still trying!! These guys are older and in influential positions and yet they've given up. How sad.

Also, I would like to encourage David Green and Kenneth Cornelius to read "Suburban Nation" by Duany, Plater-Zyberk, and Speck. Your lack of understanding of smart growth is frightening, and if you are going to ridicule something, you should understand what you are ridiculing first.

Smart growth DOES work everywhere. People WILL walk three blocks when it is hot if it is along interesting tree lined streets and not through sweltering parking lots. They do it in Pasadena, they do it in Santa Fe, and they do it in Tempe. They do it in my neighborhood in Fresno, the Tower District, and summer temperatures here can get as high as 110 degrees. It is about design, not heat. Even if there are no new smart growth developments in an area, almost every town has a pre-WWII neighborhood that wasn't mutillated by urban renewal or traffic engineers. They are usually the most beloved places in a town, and they are excellent examples of smart growth. IT WORKS EVERYWHERE.

And smart growth does NOT advocate forcibly relocating anyone. It is about giving people housing and transportation choices that they currently don't have, and about constructing our cities and regions in a more efficient, less destructive way. If you give people good choices, they will relocate willingly all on their own. Does everyone want a rowhouse in a dense inner-urban neighborhood? No, but many do and they don't have the choice. Does everyone want a flat downtown? No, but many do and they have to settle for a suburban condoplex instead. And EVERYONE in a city benefits when some people are allowed to choose urban rowhouses and downtown flats through cleaner air, less congestion, and less infrastructure spending.

As a professional planner in Tampa Bay, I have found few potential buyers interested in higher density developments. Most wish to continue living in suburbia. Smart Growth may work in places where there is currently no growth or in places with already existing higher density (NYC, Atlanta, Washington DC) and true mass transit.

In areas where there is no density, mass transit is a joke. (Yes, I ride a bus from the suburbs to downtown. Today in Tampa, we have rain. The bus was leaking so badly, we used umbrellas inside.)

Proponents of Smart Growth are those who push for neo-Traditional developments and pedestrian friendly development. Not too many people are interested in walking three blocks in 92 degree weather with 100 percent humidity. Smart Growth may work in some places, but not all.

Finally, how does sprawl contribute to mega-schools? If we were all living in high rises, where would the kids go to school? Build a neighborhood school every quarter mile? That argument is tired and old and needs to go away.

I thoroughly agree with the criticisms of Smart Growth and applaud Mr. Hirschhorn for saying what needed to be said.

The U.S., in general, is plagued by a self-perpetuating pathological point of view that equates 'cities' with 19th century crime-ridden squalor and 'density' as some socialist plot to force everyone into Soviet style tenement housing. That view is reinforced and prolonged by the developers, bankers, road builders, and automobile manufacturers that profit off the suburban growth machine.

As Christina Riddle pointed out, we now have whole generations of Americans who have grown up with nothing but suburban sprawl. They love to talk about community, but as best the 'community' they long for is an abstract concept based around intangible 'values' and not grounded in any sort of physical reality. Communities are more than just an abstract construct, they are a physical manifestation of the 'values' of the community as a whole expressed in the form of civic buildings(schools, courthouse, city hall, etc) and the amount of attention placed on the importance of the public realm(trees, street furniture, lighting, building facades/setbacks, etc).

In order to make Smart Growth planning policy the de facto norm we must debate and deconstruct the arguments of our opponents head on. We must work harder at effectively communicating what Smart Growth really means to the public as a whole. Finally, we need to 'sell' Smart Growth not just in terms of the enivironment, but in terms of the 'quality of life' issues that so many Americans are concerned about these days.

-Matt Lyons

Interesting points of view. I would assert the need however to maintain focus on the "noble big-picture benefits." The free market segment of a community doesn't generally wave this flag on its own without some help from the public sector. At the same time, I whole-heartedly embrace the need to expand the focus on "markets, housing consumers, and the supply-demand equation" because players in these areas are often secondary when it comes to smart growth.

One area where communities would benefit is adopting policies (or at least a mindset) that encourage businesses associated with sprawl to locate within higher density areas of cities. This is not usually done, partly due to myths that they will crush the local home-grown businesses rather than enhance the business mix. It also requires convincing retailers to locate there as well. Their market research is usually based on data collected from suburbia. Branching outside of suburbia, including inner cities, requires risk. Getting them to make additional concessions that adapt their product to design and parking standards of higher density areas is also a daunting task.

Some retailers are however, beginning to find a place within smart growth. A few are actually showing flexibility in their location strategies and designs that allow them to adapt to areas that more closely fit the smart growth bill. Target and Safeway are examples. Safeway has located in many urban areas in the DC metro area devoid of seas of parking and is also adapting stores in neighborhoods in Portland, OR. Target made its first two-story store in the Washingtonian Center in Gaithersburg, MD. This Target utilizes a shared parking structure across the street (the parking structure has street-level retail space oriented to the street as well) and has also shed the sea of parking that plagues communities receiving traditional big boxes. At the same time, in these cases, both Safeway and Target also accommodate the pedestrian and transit user well.

The desire of people to shop at chains typically found in sprawling suburbia will not go away. In my own example, I lived in "smart growth heaven" in North Bethesda, MD next to a transit station and still found myself making auto trips further outside of the DC metro area to shop in Gaithersburg and even Germantown. Many of the establishments I shop at were not allowed to locate much further south due to a combination of policies and negative public sentiments. Just the mere thought of a big box sends shivers down the spines of many people in southern Montgomery County and DC. Yet disallowing or protesting their inclusion in the mix does not contribute to a diverse market--one necessary element of making smart growth palatable to the average consumer.