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
- Portland's Long-Term Transportation Plans Include a Downtown Subway
- Mapping the Tools of Discrimination
- Overcoming Density Opponents by Listening to Them
- Is This Really Penn Station?
- It's Too Hot to Fly in Phoenix Today
- Surveying the Suburban Office Market
- No Cars Allowed on Portland's New Street
- A Rap Song About Bike Safety? Yes Please.
- Google to Buy 300 Modular Apartments for Employees
- Urine Trouble: MARTA Station Elevators to Get Pee Alarms
- Tri-Cities Emerging as a Solar Demonstration Hub for the Pacific Northwest
- Business Owners Vote to Fund Sacramento Streetcar Operations
- The New Apple Store in Chicago Looks a lot Like a Laptop
- Invasive Fish Encroaching on the Great Lakes While Army Corps Study Languishes
- Bamboo Regulations Almost as Popular as Bamboo in New Jersey
- Los Angeles Councilmember Chooses the Side of Traffic Safety
- Cap Park Planned for I-579 Near Downtown Pittsburgh
- Will Alaska Return Millions of Dollars for Bike and Pedestrian Projects to the Feds, Again?
- Can Planning Offer a Line of Defense Against Terrorism?
- San Diego, Marin County Heading the Opposite Direction on Housing Policy
