Blog post
Smart Growth and Australia
As managing editor of Planetizen, I'd like to make a quick note on today's op-ed, Resisting Dickensian Gloom by Tony Recsei. Mr Recsei asked for a chance to respond to a recent criticism of his work by Planetizen regular Michael Dudley. It is our policy at Planetizen to allow points of view that are critical of the status quo in urban planning, so I agreed to run the piece. I did ask Mr. Recsei to tone down some of the more personal attacks on smart growthers so that his points could be presented more clearly to our audience, and I believe he has done that.
As managing editor of Planetizen, I'd like to make a quick note on today's op-ed, Resisting Dickensian Gloom by Tony Recsei. Mr Recsei asked for a chance to respond to a recent criticism of his work by Planetizen regular Michael Dudley. It is our policy at Planetizen to allow points of view that are critical of the status quo in urban planning, so I agreed to run the piece. I did ask Mr. Recsei to tone down some of the more personal attacks on smart growthers so that his points could be presented more clearly to our audience, and I believe he has done that.
I did do one bit of fact-checking, because I was interested in the work of the Australian Conservation Foundation, which Mr. Recsei cites. His interpretation is that inner-city residents of Australian cities create more greenhouse gas emissions than those who live in suburban areas. I asked Charles Berger, Director of Strategic Ideas at the ACF, if that was the case. Here is his response:
The findings are quite challenging for some environmentalists. In particular, they suggest that merely increasing urban densities and using public transport will not necessarily reduce total or per-capita ecological footprints. In Australia, wealthy inner city residents are driving less than others, but have increased consumption in nearly every other category of goods and services. Whatever savings are being achieved by bicycling and walking are being more than counterbalanced by increased airplane flights, food, clothing, and much else besides.
We are aware that some commentators have used these findings to encourage unsustainable peri-urban developments, and we categorically reject their conclusions. Eco-footprints in suburban areas in Australia are lower than in the urban core in spite of, not because of, lower residential densities. What the pro-urban sprawl groups also miss is that fact that Australian ecological footprints are across the board far higher than any reasonably sustainable level. Neither inner urban nor outer suburban development patterns are currently anything like sustainable.
Neither consumption-intensive inner city lifestyles, nor vehicle-dependent suburban lifestyles, are compatible with ecological imperatives. The main finding of our Consumption Atlas is that both need to change, and change dramatically.
Regards
Chuck Berger
Topics
- Seattle Plans Remodel of World’s First Freeway Cap Park
- Meme Urbanism 101
- Friday Funny: What Your Cocktail Says About Your Planning Politics
- Replica, a New Tool from Sidewalk Labs, Takes Trip Data to the Next Level
- California's 'Aggressive' Housing Bill Dies Quickly, Not Quietly, in Committee
- Mapping the Decline of the New York City Subway
- Scooter Mania in San Francisco
- Could Boston Join Seattle in Proposing Congestion Pricing?
- Trends Show Lower-Income Millennials Driving More
- Free Public Transit for Chicago?
- How SB 827 'Cleaved the California Environmental Movement'
- Game-Changing 'Bus Action Plan' Announced in New York City
- Public Space Arms Race
- BART's Transit-Oriented Development Bill Sets Disturbing Precedent, Says APA
- Cars Banned in Central Park
- Roads for Residents Only
- Opinion: A Surprising New Foe in the War Against Pedestrians
- America Has Nowhere Near Enough Extremely Low-Income Housing
- Dallas Housing Proposal Aims for Equity, Finally
- Study: Climate Change Concerns Taking a Toll on Home Values in Miami
