Smart Growth Agenda Seeking Less Home Ownership? View from Australia
Wendell Cox, From the Heartland, Chicago, Illinois
In his excellent blog, Wendell Cox, the author of War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life, discusses an article by Elizabeth Farelly in Australia’s Sydney Morning Herald. Her column, titled The End of the Great Australian Dream Cannot Come Soon Enough, condemns the suburban style of living (”the Great Australian Dream”) which parallels the lifestyle known as “the American Dream” in the United States. Cox analyzes the dream of home ownership and suburban lifestyle in a response to Farelly’s column, taking a scholarly eye to the situation in both Australia and America. He ultimately concludes that an anti-suburban stance is an elitist one, since it seeks to eliminate the lifestyle by which families can move up the economic ladder:

In Australia, as in the United States, Western Europe, Canada, New Zealand and Japan, the suburbanization for which Ms. Farrelly and those of her ilk have such contempt has been associated with the greatest expansion of broadly distributed wealth in the history of the world. In short, for the first time, prosperity has been democratized. …Ms. Farrelly may have emerged as the “Marie Antoinette” of urban consolidation or smart growth. “Let them eat cake” is her message and it appears to be the message (wittingly or unwittingly) of those who favor urban consolidation (smart growth).

Undevelopment: Is Shrinking Pittsburgh the Answer?
Sam MacDonald, AntiRust, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
This intelligent and often amusing blog, subtitled “In Pursuit of a New American Industrialism,” recently examined a redevelopment plan in Youngstown, Ohio that has been getting a fair amount of publicity. The New York Times article on the piece called the plan Creative Shrinkage, but Macdonald dubbed it “undevelopment.” The city is part of the “Rust Belt”—cities that reached their highest population during the height of America’s Industrial era, and have since shrunk. Youngstown now has less than half of the 170,000 residents it boasted when part of steel production, though the town retains its university, symphony orchestra, art museums, and other attractive features not found in normal towns of its size.

The “undevelopment” plan operates under a number of smart growth principles, chiefly in its attempt to consolidate the city, and in its efforts to renovate older buildings or redevelop brown- or greyfield land rather than create development in new areas. Unoccupied tracts will eventually be cut off from the city until needed, while smaller pockets will be turned into parks. MacDonald quips, “So this guy is saying that a city that has lost half its residents might do something other than encourage the construction of new housing? That it might make sense to rehabilitate existing housing stock? That it might make sense to build on strengths (affordability) rather than try to compete with Manhattan for residents? Go figure.” He suggests that some of the same principles might be applied to Pittsburgh, even though the two cities vary in size.

What’s So Smart About Smart Growth?
Laer, Cheat Seeking Missiles, Orange County, California
The author of this blog drops a self-described “logic bomb” on the concept of smart growth, which he views as an impractical theory. He agrees with Steven Greenhut’s article, Suburbs a Sin to Smart Growthers, and quotes Greenhut’s assertion that smart growth “so obviously stands athwart everything we see all around us. Who you gonna believe, your own eyes or the grandiose statements of ideologues?” (Greenhut, in his turn, quotes Wendell Cox, the author of our first blog this week. It’s a small land-use planning world after all). Laer sums up the situation as follows: “There is a lot of political power and will behind Smart Growth. Its supporters in government are happy to create no-growth zones around cities and forcing people to live downtown. The problem is, when you stifle the free market, the market bites back.”

Housing, Transportation, and Regional Success
Paul Mattessich, The Executive Summary, Saint Paul, Minnesota
Meanwhile, Paul Mattessich, the Executive Director of Wilder Research, passes on some fascinating hard facts in support of smart growth, which provide some substantiation for the purported benefits that detractors like to claim are mere ideology. For example:

• Half of Americans do not drive a car, for reasons of age, disability, or income; consequently, “the notion of the automobile as a “democratizer” [is] erroneous.”
• Car costs are part of housing costs; a person can afford to pay more for housing if they don’t need a car. For example, “if you pay $5,000 - $10,000 in expenses for your car each year, that costs you as much as adding another $100,000 or so to your home mortgage.”
• Cities can have much higher energy efficiencies than other types of land-use. “New York City, by any objective standards, may be the “greenest” (that is, most energy efficient) city in the country.”
• Preserving open space requires smart growth.

Mr. Mattessich, himself, remains objective about the facts, and makes himself neither proponent or opponent of smart growth; the facts were presented to him by Douglas Foy, former head of the Office for Commonwealth Development, a Massachusetts office created to promote smart growth. For more information, you can also take a look at the Office for Commonwealth Development’s Website, in addition to the full article on The Executive Summary.

Development Through Smart Growth
Corey Sipe, Deep River, Connecticut
The author of this piece values the configuration of Deep River’s downtown, whose many independently-owned businesses are within walking distance, enabling residents to check errands off of their lists without driving from location to location. But upcoming development has made residents nervous by plans for new chain-businesses with footprints between 3,700 and 10,000 square feet. In an effort to avoid what Sipe describes as “sprawl characterized by large shopping centers filled with chain restaurants and stores surrounded by seas of macadam with little or no landscaping,” the Citizens for Deep River group created a workshop, featuring Jim Gibbons, Land Use and Natural Resource Program Coordinator for the University of Connecticut. Gibbons spoke at length about how smart growth principles could be implemented and enforced in their community, which are catalogued in detail in Sipe’s full article.

If Washington-area Smart Growth advocates were serious, they’d want to fix this first
C.P. Zilliacus, American Dream Coalition
Not surprisingly, the American Dream Coalition promotes the idea that those who want to live in the suburbs should be able to. The suburbs of Washington D.C. house no small number of smart growth supporters—but clearly they support high-density neighborhoods for other people, and not for themselves. There is an inherent hypocrisy, the article suggests, in proponents of smart growth who live in the suburbs. C.P. Zilliacus argues this week that it is unfair to expect people to live in urban rather than suburban areas if they have children attending the local public schools. Smart growth, of course, advocates mixed neighborhoods precisely so that a more equitable division of resources will go to area schools, but the argument that the schools need to be improved first in order to make the urban environment an appealing one is fair.

Act Locally: Ten Steps Toward Sustainability — Step 5: Enact Environmentally-Friendly Land Use Laws
Steven Filler, GreenCounsel, New York
GreenCounsel’s list of ten ways in which communities can approach a greater sustainability most recently listed smart growth and related land-use laws as the fifth on its list. The article advocates the use of zoning laws to preserve environmentally sensitive areas, limit the footprint of development, and to provide incentives for developers who build with environmentally-friendly energy and substances.

“Smart Growth?”
Around Natick, Natick, MA
This blog has an ongoing discussion of a proposed smart growth development in Natick; many of the features of smart growth are perceptively analyzed through the lens of of these specific plans. The author of the blog proposes on a number of occasions that the new development may have more to do with tax revenue than community consciousness. In this particular post, the situation in Natick is contrasted with that of the nearby town Weston. Also take a look at the post Smartgrowth from Pulte.

Sprawl–what is it good for?
My Left Nutmeg, Connecticut
Conversely, author ‘commonweal’ suggests that the tax structure in Connecticut is what is responsible for suburban sprawl. Reliance on property tax for municipal expenditures, such as the public education system, creates a pressure to develop all available land for funding. Consequently, land is purposely developed inefficiently so that it will yeild a larger tax revenue. The author puts forth a sharp, suprising analysis of Connecticut’s suburban sprawl, asserting that “far from being the result of a free market system, urban sprawl is the direct consequence of government subsidies, intense corporate lobbying and manipulation through the legalized bribery we call campaign contributions, and stifling zoning regulations that have limited the choices Americans have when it comes to where we live and how we get from place to place.”

Smart Growth is Still Vital
RiteOn.org, St. Charles County, Missouri
RiteOn.org’s “Independent Conservative Voice” assesses the importance of smart growth to constituents and politicians of its local Missourian community. Recent electoral results might suggest that smart growth was of no concern, but a meeting of the County Council proved otherwise. The author notes that politicians have the choice to serve self interests, in which case they will pander to developers and their possible monetary support, or community interests, in which case they will support smart growth, which has a high showing amongst voter concerns. “Self interest on the part of politicians is common and we might even say legitimate in many instances, no question,” the article asserts, “but in this case, in a county where traffic congestion, water pollution problems and inadequate roads are noticeably impacting the quality of life, it makes more sense to set self interest aside and, among other things, take precautions to protect water quality.”

Now, back to Smart Growth
Kevin Kronk, Community Voice, Daytona, Florida
Mr. Kronk counters opponents of suburban development by noting how important growth is for the local economy. If growth were halted or severely checked, the economic infrastructure of the region would collapse. “Healthy growth is not a bad thing,” he points out. “The problem is the lack of planning for growth.”

Smart Growth in Somerville
William C. Shelton, The Somerville News, Somerville, Massachusetts
A hot discussion between businessmen and residents follows Shelton’s piece advocating smart growth. He examines the 20th century’s shift to suburban rather than urban development from the Somerville perspective, citing the Somerville of his forefathers as a prime example of smart growth principles.

Smart Growth is Not Green
Peter Cresswell, Not PC
Cresswell asserts that smart growth is, quite simply, not the solution its proponents believe it to be. He quotes another article which states that the amount of land consumed by urban sprawl is a small percentage of the land mass required to support human habitation, and consequently the form of the urban environment is irrelevant to sustainability. Furthermore, he deplores the segregation of rural and urban areas that high-density plans encourage, arguing that smart growth only drives up prices, destroys the growth of the economy, and adds to air pollution.

What the Roy/Brewer Run-Off Teaches Us About Alexandria
Lamar White, Jr., CenLamar, Alexandria, Lousiana
The recent election has inspired the author to contemplate the implications of the public’s choice, just as this local example is resonates with a nationwide situation. Alexandria, says Mr. White, is a prime example of suburban sprawl, as the town has tripled in size while the population remains constant—a problem that could be partially solved by annexing the surrounding neighborhoods that currently remain outside of the city’s zoning laws and tax liability.

Dense Thinkers
Randal O’Toole, Corruption in Surfside Florida?
Though currently teaching economics at Yale University, Randal O’Toole’s roots in Oak Grove, Oregon, have led him to ponder smart growth through the model of Portland, Oregon. In his comprehensive, articulate article, he systematically lays out the problems he foresees for Portland’s current smart growth plan. His detailed, precise predictions for the failure of smart growth and new urbanism have heated up a discussion that is nearly as exhaustive.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recognized cities and states whose urban development has emphasized coalescing communities and safeguarding the environment. Their 2006 National Award for Smart Growth went to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the cities of Chicago, Illinois, Wichita, Kansas and Winooski, Vermont.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts won the award for “Overall Excellence.” The state’s creation of the Office of Commonwealth Development (OCD) garnered it this recognition. The OCD influences development locations through management of developmental policies and spending, in addition to instituting programs to promote innovative development and simplify private investments in worthy projects.

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania won the “Policies and Regulations” award for the Pennsylvania Fresh Foods Financing Initiative (FFFI), which provides funding to help supermarkets set up stores in underserved neighborhoods. This provides a healthy, local food source to needy communities, consequently increasing the attractiveness of the area and fostering further development. It also provides incentives against the continued development of supermarkets in low-density areas.

The “Built Projects” recognition went to the city of Wichita, Kansas, for the redevelopment of brownfield land. An abandoned warehouse district was redeveloped and renovated into a pedestrian-oriented neighborhood now called “Old Town;” 100 businesses and 315 housing units are now tucked within the brick warehouses, which date from 1870 to 1930. The city encouraged private investment via its own use of public funds, rejuvenating the entire area with brick sidewalks and antique lampposts.

The city of Winooski, Vermont also revitalized its downtown area using smart growth precepts, winning the “Small Communities” award as a result. The renovated city center incorporates housing, offices, stores, and several new public parks. The street grid obliterated in the 1970s was restored, with larger sidewalks. The new RiverWalk, providing a boulevard along the Winooski River, also promotes the new pedestrian nature of the center.

Finally, for “Equitable Development,” the city of Chicago was recognized for the “green” development of Bethel Center in the flagging West Garfield Park neighborhood. The Center, built upon a former brownfield site, contains child care facilities, employment services, retail space, banking, a technology center, and, most importantly, an anchor for transit-oriented development in the neighborhood.

The awards were presented by Lyons Gray, the Chief Financial Officer of the EPA. EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson said of the ceremony, “It is a pleasure to recognize the innovative efforts of these award-winning communities, who are responsibly building toward a healthier, brighter future.”