Last Thursday I debated the merits of smart growth with ‘Anti-planner’ Randal O'Toole at a community forum in Langley, a rapidly-growing suburb of Vancouver, British Columbia. A recording of the Debate and presenters' slide shows are available at www.southfraser.net/2012/02/smart-growth-debate-media.html. At the end more than three quarters of the audience voted for a pro-smart-growth resolution. This may reflect some selection bias – people concerned about sprawl may have been more likely to attend – but I believe that given accurate information most citizens will support smart growth due to its various savings and benefits. Smart growth sometimes faces organized opposition by critics. It is important that planners respond effectively and professionally. Here is my critique of O'Toole’s claims and some advice for planners who face similar critics.
Last Thursday I debated the merits of smart growth with ‘Anti-planner' Randal O'Toole at a community
forum in Langley, a rapidly-growing suburb of Vancouver, British Columbia. A recording of the Debate and presenters' slide shows are available at www.southfraser.net/2012/02/smart-growth-debate-media.html. At the end more than three quarters of the audience voted for a pro-smart-growth
resolution. This may reflect some selection bias – people
concerned about sprawl may have been more likely to attend – but I
believe that given accurate information most citizens will support smart
growth due to its various savings
and benefits.
Smart growth sometimes faces organized opposition by critics. It is important that planners respond effectively and professionally. Here is my critique of O'Toole's claims and some advice for planners who face similar critics.
Major Themes
Smart growth deprives people
of freedom.
O'Toole claims that sprawl gives people
freedom to live and travel as they want, which reflects simplistic and
inaccurate assumptions about what people want and the constraints they face. Smart growth does not force everybody to live in high-rise apartments (one of O'Toole's claims), nor does it eliminate automobile travel. Sprawl
may give some people more freedom to develop urban-fringe land and marginally reduce the per-mile costs of driving, but it
reduces our freedom to walk, bike and use public transit, and
therefore deprives non-drivers of freedom. Sprawl reduces financial freedom by increasing transport and infrastructure costs, and by increasing traffic casualty rates (four times higher in sprawled than smart growth areas) and medical problems associated sedentary
living (try explaining to a car crash spinal cord injury victim that driving represents freedom), and therefore the need to subsidize medical and disability expenses. Although smart growth may restrict some
activities, such as conversion of farms to housing, it increases
freedom for other types of development by reducing restrictions on density and
mix, and excessive parking and setback requirements.
Smart growth reduces
housing affordability.
O'Toole frequently argues that sprawl reduces housing costs,
based on comparisons of the costs of a single-family house in coastal cities
such as Portland and Vancouver, and sprawled cities such as Houston. This
analysis ignores important factors: the coastal cities are popular places to
live (Vancouver is frequently rated as one of the most livable cities in the
world), have higher average incomes (which drives up housing costs), and fewer
residents live in large-lot single-family houses (that is a constraint that
residents accept for living in such cities). Even more important, O'Toole
ignored the higher transport costs faced by residents of sprawled locations. Analysis of actual household expenditures
shows that residents of more compact, multi-modal neighborhood tend to spend
less on housing and transport costs combined than residents in sprawled locations.
These costs are likely to increase as oil prices rise in the future, and are
even greater if you include indirect costs such as the additional road,
parking, congestion and accident costs associated with sprawl.
This is not to ignore the importance of housing affordability. It is true that smart growth policies can increase unit land costs (dollars per acre), which will tend to increase housing costs unless implemented
with policies that allow more
compact and affordable residential development, including allowing more density and mix, and reducing parking and setback requirements, as discussed in my recent blog, Smart Growth and Housing Affordability
O'Toole cited a 2002 study, The Impact of Zoning
on Housing Affordability as proof that smart growth increases housing
costs, but this misrepresents the research. Although this study did indicate
that zoning increases housing costs, it is regulations that prevent more compact, infill development and require generous minimum parking
supply in areas with growing housing demand that reduces housing
affordability. The study found little correlation between lot
size and price, as would be expected if consumers all want large-lot housing;
instead it found that restrictions which make it difficult to subdivide parcels, and therefore prevent larger-lot single-family parcels from being converted to
smaller-lot and multi-family developments in existing urban areas, cause excessive housing costs. Smart growth policy reforms are
exactly what is needed to increase housing affordability in such circumstances.
I described our own family's experience: because we live in a compact and multi-modal neighborhood our household saves $5,000 to $10,000 annually on automobile costs compared with a sprawled, automobile-dependent location, providing savings that finance our children's university education – that is real freedom!
Smart growth fails to
reduce driving, energy consumption, air pollution emissions and infrastructure
costs.
O'Toole claimed that there is little evidence that smart
growth can reduce vehicle travel and associated costs. In recent years an extensive body of research
has identified how land use factors such as density, mix, connectivity,
transit accessibility and parking supply affect travel activity. Although individually
many of these impacts may seem modest, their cumulative impacts are can be large
– smart
growth community residents typically drive 20-60% less than they would if
located in automobile-dependent sprawl.
Smart growth and transit
critics tend to use regional mode share (portion of total trips by walking,
cycling, public transit and automobile) as their main indicator of transport
system performance, ignoring the facts that more compact development and high
quality transit tend to have leverage
effects (so there are often several automobile vehicle-miles reduced for
each additional passenger-mile of high-quality public transit), that transit
service is concentrated on a few corridors, and conventional travel surveys
tend to undercount non-motorized travel. For these reasons, per capita
vehicle-mileage is a better indicator of smart growth effectiveness, and mode
share on corridors with high quality public transit is a better indicator of transit
investment effectiveness. O'Toole claimed that Europeans drive almost as much
as North Americans, citing national mode share data, but Europeans
drive about half as much, and automobile mode share in
European cities is much lower, than in North America.
O'Toole misrepresented research (The National Association of Home Builders made similar claims, which I analyzed in my blog, An Inaccurate Attack On Smart Growth). He
cited a study indicating that city center residents consume more total energy
per capita than suburban residents, implying that denser development increases energy
consumption, although the effect actually reflected city center residents' greater wealth. He also cited a study indicating that energy use per
square foot is higher in multi-family than single-family housing, but that
simply reflects the effects of energy consuming activities (refrigerating food,
cooking, watching television) in more compact housing, which increases energy use per square foot although energy use per capita declines. In fact, there is
plenty of good
research indicating significant per capita energy savings from more compact
development.
O'Toole claimed that research indicating that smart growth
reduces infrastructure costs is "theoretical" and "ambiguous." In fact, there
is abundant evidence that more compact
development can provide significant savings and efficiencies.
Public transit is
inefficient.
O'Toole argued that public transit – particularly rail
transit – is more costly and less fuel efficient than modern automobiles, and showed
a video about self-driving cars, with the implication that this will eliminate
the need for public transit to provide basic mobility for non-drivers, or people
out drinking.
But this analysis
misrepresents the issues. Public transit is costly and fuel inefficient in sprawled
areas where demand is low, but is cost and energy efficient if implemented with
smart growth strategies such as bus lanes, walkable neighborhoods and efficient
parking management. Self-driving cars may be appropriate for some users, but
they only address one problem – inadequate mobility for non-drivers, and they
exacerbate other traffic problems such as congestion, consumer costs, energy
consumption and pollution emissions.
Everybody (or at least
most "normal" people) want single-family homes and automobile travel.
O'Toole claims that surveys indicate that more than 80% of
households want single-family homes, and that only a minority, mostly young
people, want to live in smart growth communities and rely significantly on walking, cycling
and public transit. That miss-represents the research and its implications for
smart growth. It is inaccurate to imply
that smart growth eliminates single-family housing, and although most people say
that they want to live in a single-family home at some points in their life,
particularly if they have children, this represents a declining portion of
total households – in fact, the number of families with children is not
expected to grow significantly in North America, so the current stock of
single-family homes is sufficient to meet that demand. Demographic growth will
primarily consist of younger singles and childless couples, and seniors, groups
that tend to prefer smaller homes. A major portion of consumers say that they want
to live in a walkable neighborhood with nearby services, and many would accept
compact housing options (small lots or multi-family) in exchange for improved accessibility
or financial savings. The real estate
industry sees growing
demand for smart growth.
Farmland preservation is unimportant
O'Toole argued that farmland preservation is an unnecessawry planning objective since there is no shortage of farmland in the world. But the Fraser River Valley lands are unique and serve a variety of economic and environmental functions including food production, wildlife habitat and beauty.
I started my presentation with a series of slides showing
the route from my home to our local pub. I consider walkability to local
drinking establishments a good indicator of a smart growth community. This lead
to a discussion with the audience of the benefits of having a local pub where residents
can walk rather than drive when going out for a drink. Together we identified several
benefits of this type of community design: reduced drunk driving, financial
savings (you can afford to drink more), improved public fitness and health (you
can drink more without gaining weight), reduced traffic and parking congestion,
more connection among neighbors ("community cohesion") and resulting increases
in neighborhood security, reduced noise and air pollution, and more enjoyment,
to name a few.
I then showed three slides that illustrate how sprawl could result
from residential development in currently agricultural land near Langley, and
the impacts this would have on residents
travel patterns, local traffic problems, infrastructure costs, and
environmental impacts.
I then discussed research on the various costs of
sprawl and the economic, social and environmental benefits of smart growth. Although
we had insufficient time to discuss these impacts in detail, I was able to show
some highlights and mention some sources for more information about them.
Recommendations for
good debates
Critics often try to make debates personal: they accuse
smart growth advocates and professional planners of being selfish and elitist. If
your opponent makes a personal attack, respond by saying, "Let's focus on the
issues."
Speak to the audience, not your opponent. Focus on people's concerns:
wealth, health and happiness.
Don't be afraid to acknowledge when your opponent raises a legitimate point, for example, that housing affordability is an important issue, but show how smart growth can reconsile that goal with other planning objectives.
To a general audience, planning issues often seem theoretical and complex; use stories and examples to illustrate how specific policies and planning decisions affect people's futures.
Be prepared to back up your statments with references (I've provided some useful ones below).
Please share your suggestions for effectively responding to smart growth critics in public debates.
For More Information
Robert Burchell,
et al (2000), The Costs of Sprawl –
Revisited, TCRP Report 39, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org); at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_74-a.pdf.
CMHC (2006), Tool For Costing Sustainable Community
Planning, Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca); at www.dcs.sala.ubc.ca/UPLOAD/RESOURCES/links/CMHC_CostingToolUserGuide.pdf.
DVTPC (2008), Smart
Transportation Guidebook: Planning and Designing Highways and Streets that
Support Sustainable and Livable Communities, Delaware Valley Regional
Planning Commission (www.dvrpc.org); at www.dvrpc.org/asp/pubs/publicationabstract.asp?pub_id=08030A.
DVRPC (2008), Making the Land Use
Connection: Regional What-If Scenario Analysis, Deleware Valley
Regional Planning Commission (www.dvrpc.org);
at www.dvrpc.org/asp/pubs/reports/08059.pdf.
Reid Ewing (1996), Best
Development Practices: A Primer for Smart Growth, Planners Press (www.planning.org); at http://epa.gov/dced/pdf/bestdevprimer.pdf
Reid Ewing,
Keith Bartholomew, Steve Winkelman, Jerry Walters and Don Chen (2007), Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban
Development and Climate Change, Urban Land Institute and Smart Growth
America (www.smartgrowthamerica.org/gcindex.html).
ITE (2010), Smart
Growth Transportation Guidelines, Recommended Practice, Institute of
Transportation Engineers (www.ite.org); at www.ite.org/emodules/scriptcontent/Orders/ProductDetail.cfm?pc=RP-032A.
JRC (2011), Location Efficiency and Housing Type-Boiling it
Down to BTUs, Jonathan Rose Companies for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (www.epa.gov); at www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/pdf/location_efficiency_BTU.pdf.
Jonathan Levine, Aseem Inam, Richard Werbel and Gwo-Wei
Torng (2002), Land Use and Transportation Alternatives: Constraint or
Expansion of Household Choice?, Mineta Transportation Institute, Report
01-19 (www.transweb.sjsu.edu); at http://transweb.sjsu.edu/MTIportal/research/publications/documents/Land_Use%20HTML/Land%20Use%20and%20Transportation_Levine.htm;
also published as "A Choice-Based Rationale for Land Use and Transportation
Alternatives," Journal of Planning
Education and Research, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 317-330, 2005 (http://jpe.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/24/3/317).
Todd Litman
(2005), "Evaluating Transportation Land Use Impacts," World Transport Policy & Practice, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 9-16 (www.eco-logica.co.uk/worldtransport.html);
updated version at www.vtpi.org/landuse.pdf.
Todd Litman
(2005), Land Use Impacts on Transport,
Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org);
at www.vtpi.org/landtravel.pdf.
Todd Litman
(2005b), Understanding Smart Growth Savings: What We Know About Public
Infrastructure and Service Cost Savings, And How They are Misrepresented By
Critics, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org);
at www.vtpi.org/sg_save.pdf.
Todd Litman
(2008), Recommendations for Improving
LEED Transportation and Parking Credits, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/leed_rec.pdf.
Todd Litman (2009), Where
We Want To Be: Home Location Preferences And Their Implications For Smart
Growth, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org);
at www.vtpi.org/sgcp.pdf.
Todd Litman (2010), Affordable-Accessible
Housing In A Dynamic City: Why and How To Support Development of More
Affordable Housing In Accessible Locations, Victoria Transport Policy
Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/aff_acc_hou.pdf.
Todd Litman (2011), "Why and How to Reduce the Amount of
Land Paved for Roads and Parking Facilities," Environmental Practice, Vol. 13, No. 1, March, pp. 38-46; http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=ENP.
Todd Litman (2011), "Can Smart Growth Policies Conserve Energy
and Reduce Emissions?" Portland State University's Center
for Real Estate Quarterly (www.pdx.edu/realestate/research_quarterly.html),
Vol. 5, No. 2, Spring, pp. 21-30; at www.vtpi.org/REQJ.pdf.
Also see, Critique of the National
Association of Home Builders' Research On Land Use Emission Reduction Impacts,
Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org);
at www.vtpi.org/NAHBcritique.pdf.
RMLUI (2008), Sustainable Community
Development Code, Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute, Strum College of Law (http://law.du.edu); at www.law.du.edu/index.php/rmlui/sustainable-community-development-code-main.
SGN (2002 and
2004), Getting To Smart Growth: 100 Policies for Implementation, and Getting
to Smart Growth II: 100 More Policies for Implementation, Smart
Growth Network (www.smartgrowth.org)
and International City/County Management Association (www.icma.org).
TransForm (2009), Windfall
For All: How Connected, Convenient Neighborhoods Can Protect Our Climate and
Safeguard California's Economy, TransForm (www.TransFormCA.org); summary at http://transformca.org/files/reports/TransForm-Windfall-Report-Summary.pdf.
USEPA (2009), Essential
Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (www.epa.gov); at www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/pdf/2009_essential_fixes.pdf.
SGN (2011), What
is Smart Growth?, Smart Growth Network and US Environmental Protection
Agency (www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/about_sg.htm).
Thanks to Charles Montgomery for his insights.
Seattle Legalizes Co-Living
A new state law requires all Washington cities to allow co-living facilities in areas zoned for multifamily housing.
NYC Officials Announce Broadway Pedestrianization Project
Two blocks of the marquee street will become mostly car-free public spaces.
Denver's New High-Rise Integrates Vertical Canyon in Architectural Design
Unlike other new builds in Denver, Colorado, a new high-rise reveals a unique “sculptural canyon” running vertically through the facade to foster a sense of community and connection to nature.
Central Ohio Leaders Form Regional Housing Partnership
A new coalition will seek to address growing housing needs and improve affordability by supporting new housing development across the region.
California E-Bike Rebate Program Launches — Again
After a series of fits and starts, CARB says the program will begin accepting applications this month.
Analysis: Localized Upzoning Less Effective
Changing zoning rules for a small number of parcels can increase land values and housing costs without boosting the housing supply.
Urban Design for Planners 1: Software Tools
This six-course series explores essential urban design concepts using open source software and equips planners with the tools they need to participate fully in the urban design process.
Planning for Universal Design
Learn the tools for implementing Universal Design in planning regulations.
Caltrans
Heyer Gruel & Associates PA
Caltrans
American Planning Association, Sustainable Communities Division
HUDs Office of Policy Development and Research
HUDs Office of Policy Development and Research
City of Cambridge, Maryland
Newport County Development Council: Connect Greater Newport
Rockdale County Board of Commissioners