OK, I am admittedly nowhere near an expert on the subject, but in the past couple of months I've had the opportunity to travel to two entirely different worlds. One of them, Pamplona, Spain to pass the Christmas holiday with family. The second, a few major metropolitan cities in the US, including Chicago, Atlanta, Phoenix, Los Angeles, and Houston. The stark contrariety of lifestyle and environment really surprised me. In fact it upset me. Though if I were asked, I'd say I generally lean to a conservative point of view, when it comes to the environment, I side with those who want to protect our natural surroundings and leave a better world to those who come after us - whatever party that may be. What I see happening in America at an increased pace every day is, in my understatement of the year, disappointing. These metro areas and their surrounding suburbia appear to be sprawling with no end in sight. Although in some cities there is a concentrated effort in revitalizing the metro center, there appears to be little else being done to manage our country's land resources. I use the word "appears" because like I said, I am no expert. I openly admit I could be very wrong - I am just throwing out an observation of a business traveler who flies into town one day and out the next. I really believe that the most effective environmental regulation that could be enacted today is legislation that would mandate effective land-use planning in every state, every city, and every town in the United States. Portland is the known leader in the US in land-use planning, and if you're interested in the subject, I'd invite you to take a look at their very good website on the subject: Portland Metro: Land-Use Planning Some of their more significant efforts in this area include - 40 year growth plan entitled the 2040 Growth Concept - Establishment of Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB) - Transportation Planning, specifically efforts in establishing mass transit - Natural Resource Planning - Establishment of Minimum Residential Density Standards - Preservation of rural reserves I think most of the benefits of good land-use planning are obvious, although some may be less apparent. Protection of natural resources - I suppose if you live in the middle of the desert - say Phoenix or LA - you don't care much about the immediate land around you. In fact, sprawl might be a more attractive option than the natural landscape around you. Unfortunately, whether you are cutting down old-growth forests or building houses on sand and Sonora Cacti, you are killing valuable resources. Suburban houses are more likely to be made out of higher percentages of relatively short-term building supplies. Supplies like lumber, particle board, et al that are simply not going to last as long as say a high-rise condominium complex. Effective use of energy - These are numbers of heard from random sources, so they could be off. But I am guessing they are close. The US makes up 4% of the world's population. The US uses 80% of the energy consumed in the world. 75% of that energy usage is in powering our automobiles. As long as cities in the US continue to sprawl, effective mass transit will never materialize. In Madrid or Barcelona, I can subway to anywhere I want to be within a 15 minute walk - because of the city's density. In Portland, if I happen to live close to a MAX line, I can park and then ride light-rail downtown. Not a perfect solution, but better than most areas in the US. Commuting times and commuting lengths are on the rise in the majority of the US. All that adds up to more energy usage, more reliance on oil, more pollution, and worst of all, more people having to listen to Jim Rome on their way to/from work. Social segregation - Racial and class segregation is greatly exacerbated by the ability of wealthier people in the United States to simply pick up and leave when there are problems in the hood. LA is the perfect example of the long-term consequences of sprawl. As I understand it, half the city wants to cut itself off completely - just to extract themselves of the problems in their own community. Those in the area, I am sure, can expound upon this more than I. I did happen to live in the Piedmont Triad area for a short time as a teenager, and I saw for myselft the absurdity of desegregation. I understand why my siblings were bused to the other side of the city, and why half of my school was composed of kids from the bad side of the tracks. But this expensive (in time and especially in dollars) system accomplished very little. Did white parents in the suburban town care any more about the black neighborhoods around the schools their kids were shipped to? Not at all. As long as their little kiddies were bused safely to school, were safe while in school, and were bused safely from school, parents thought nothing more of it. With strict urban growth boundaries, at some point you have to face the problems around you, because those problems live two blocks down or even right around the corner. Yes, I know that even in Spain there are less attractive neighborhoods, for example many streets are considred strictly gitano. London of course has its rougher areas. But there can be little dispute that a greater sense of community exists not because Spaniards are as a whole a better breed, but because it serves their self-interests to make sure the areas around them are well-maintained. OK, my ramblings have gone on long enough. I apologize for the length, but this is something I feel strongly about. My hope is that people more educated in this area than I can point out other pros and cons of land-use planning so that I can be a more informed constituent in my local community. Thanks for reading.
I agree with you re. Portland. Most reformers advocate strengthening the concept of regional planning. Land use has traditionally been regulated by local town boards. The answer may lie in increasing the planning power across a metropolitan area. Something larger than a county board but less than a state board. Such regional planning may cut down on corporate tax breaks used to encourage businesses to move to the next town or city. Robert Caro's Power Broker is a great book on how poor planning can negatively impact an area. Robert Moses was the chief urban planner for NYC from the 1930's through the 1960's. His views on urban planning impacted how every New Yorker lives his or her life every day. That book is a stunning reminder of how a few individuals can have a disproportionate impact on how everyone else lives.
"Most reformers advocate strengthening the concept of regional planning. Land use has traditionally been regulated by local town boards. The answer may lie in increasing the planning power across a metropolitan area. Something larger than a county board but less than a state board. Good point. The Portland Metro land-use plan is working as well as it is because the surrounding communities are participating voluntarily. It is generally something people around here care about so there is pretty strong community support. I'll check into Caro's book. Apparently there isn't a lot of interest in this subject here on BS, which honestly doesn't surprise me much. I have a hard time understanding why more of the democratic party does not embrace these ideas and start acting on them. SUV taxes? Good idea, but an incomplete plan. Gas taxes? Again, incomplete, and very punishing on the huge majority of your population. I can tax gases heavily if 90% of the population can walk or mass transit anywhere they need to be. Otherwise I am helping to cripple the people I am simply trying to help. Social legislation? Very mixed reviews. Maybe it is because any politician is afraid to touch two of America's deepest love affairs - their cars and their tiny little piece of land surrounding their home. But take a look around cities and countries who are managing land resources wisely, and you can see that all of the goals of that planning have either been met or are well underway.
Interesting and important topic. It's been a few years, but I read a pretty good book on suburbia, land use, and politics. It was illustrating how Toronto is becoming the Orange County of Canada. I'll check the bookshelf after work tonight, maybe glance at the TOC and see if it jogs my memory any. I'll provide a title and author, too.
You think Democrats have a hard time in the south now? Taking up the case for urban/regional planning would be killer. "Democrats think they know where your family should live better than you do!" I agree with your previous post Nutmeg and think that better planning is a huge concern but I just don't see it as a great political cause for Democrats to take up. I think that Segroves is an urban planner of some sort. Maybe he'll have a quip for us.
People need to be educated about planning issues. Planning is going right now behind closed doors by unelected officials. In fact, the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation is currently deciding the fate of lower Manhattan. Zoning laws came into existence at the beginning of the 20th century because certain individuals felt regulation was necessary. Reforming the process and broadening the geographical scope of regulatory bodies is a natural progression to meet the changing times. BTW Nutmeg, Caro's book is a classic but it is 1500 pages! Quite a read. I used to work for a federal judge and he said that it was the one book to read if you wanted to understand New York City and its politics.
A good op/ed piece on the undemocratic nature of the LMDC. His views can be expanded to most land use planning in the USA. http://slate.msn.com/id/2077010/
Atlanta is a classic example of the disasters of lack of land use planning with teeth. Its the only city inthe US with no boundries (state line, ocean, river, mountain range), and thus is sprawling in 360 degrees. The loss of trees, habitat, parks etc. is horrible.
Well, apparently I failed to get that reference I owed this thread. Just sent myself an email reminder - I'll take care of that tonight. I'm off to the public library web site to see if I can find any interesting reading on the topic to further edumacate myself...
Here in North Carolina, we have these massive swine farms down East. And they generate lots of pigsh**. Even among the very, very conservative folks down there, they suddenly saw the light on zoning issues when they couldn't leave their houses without wretching. Now, that's an extreme example. But as more and more people are personally affected by bad zoning/sprawl, there's an opening for either party to have an impact and start being more sensible.
I found a few interesting books that are now on hold for me. * The experience of place / Tony Hiss (ISBN: 0394568494) * City : rediscovering the center / by William H. Whyte (ISBN: 0385054580) * Resource guide for creating successful communities / [by] Michael A. Mantell, Stephen F. Harper, Luther Propst. (ISBN: 1559630159) * The American city : what works, what doesn't / Alexander Garvin (ISBN: 0070229198) * Urban sprawl : a reference handbook / Donald C. Williams (ISBN: 1576072258) One or two of those should be available for pickup today. I'll try and remember to share what I learn with the group.
Land-use planning is only as good as those that oversee the laws; I have seen the toughest suburban zoning law skirted by a housing developer who later built an olympic size swimming pool in the back yard of the Zoning Board president! Dollars talk and zoning laws walk! You want the toughest land use law? Buy the land yourself and don't develop it. You want to know how bad land use is in this nation? I have seen portions of historical battlefield land (American Civil War) which was once categorized National Park property and designated "historic" (the toughest land use category) sold to developers before the public knew about it. The Zoning Board President in this case later took an extended vacation so he wouldn't have to answer public scrutiny during land development... Then, once the bulldozers unearthed the land, the property's desination changed from "historic" to "commerical".... Dollars talk and zoning laws walk! You want land use planning....buy the land yourself and don't develop it! IntheNet
That's really a horrible solution, and underscores the real problem with land ownership in this country. Land should be managed in the best interests of the community, not of whomever has the most money. That said, I bought 13 acres in rural-suburban (ie, mostly rural, but high growth area) Columbus at auction. We intend to fence the land for horses, put in a barn and house, and encourage forestation in unused areas. The only other bidder was a developer who likely intended to put in high density condos or houses. Not that I have a problem with high density housing (I live in a condo now), but there really is no justifable reason to put that stuff that far outside the city, other than the fact the municipality the land is located in is a currently desirable suburb.
I couldn't agree more with the premise of this thread, but I am pessimistic that anything can be done. We are a land of excess. We use too much fuel. We waste other natural resources like water. We use land foolishly creating all the problems you noted above. Chicago is a great example. You can see the difference in the "footprint" of the metropolitan area by looking at the recent addition of I-355 -- a beltway that was constructed because the old beltway was too close in and didn't serve the sprawling suburbs. Anyone that came into town for a Fire game in Naperville knows what I mean. It's considered an ordinary suburb of Chicago, and yet it is a good 45 minutes to an hour with no traffic. Unlike Chicago, most midwestern cities have downtowns that are nothing but business districts. That has a huge impact on sprawl. No one lives downtown, and as a society, we lose a lot from that urban experience. I also lived in SF which is interesting. No doubt, they have experienced a huge jump in population as well, BUT the whole bay area is limited by the geography. There are certainly suburbs exploding east towards Concord, but If you drive the same distance from downtown SF going North as Naperville is from Chicago, you would pass through some little towns, a largely rural area, and finally end up in Napa. No one would consider Napa a suburb like Naperville. I'm not sure where I am going with this, but it is an interesting comparison.
Thank God, a topic not dealing with the election or Iraq. There are so many subtopics -- sprawl, zoning, eminent domain, and historic preservation, off the top of my head. My wife works in this field, and she thinks that Robert Moses was the devil incarnate because projects like the Cross-Bronx and the BQE literally tore neighborhoods apart with no consideration for what it would mean to the economy, environment, or safety of the affected residents. The biggest problem with sprawl and poor land use is that people don't even realize that there is an alternative. There's a reason why Charleston SC is such a popular tourist destination and frequently makes lists of America's "prettiest" cities - it's because they heavily regulated the city to look that way. And without those regulations, lots of old buildings and historic districts would have been torn down to build something different. But as it is all the Wal-Marts, the sports arena, the auto dealerships are all on the outskirts of town. And it works for them -- you know the rules when you move in, and you choose to live under them. As a result you get the value of maintained high property values.
I'll tell you one thing that would help the NYC area from sprawilng, an increase in the quality of education within the inner cities. I can't tell you the number of friends of mine that have had to move out of neighborhoods that they love and have put their heart and money into so their kids may receive a quality education. These people end up moving to NJ or LI and perpetuate the problem. Investment in inner cities may not be the whole answer, but would definately help. The disinvestment in them during the 50's and 60's certainly started the ball rolling in the wrong direction.
The beauty of zoning and land-use planning is that it doesn't have to be an in-your-face issue. I'm not advocating closed-door politics, but just look at the traffic this thread has failed to generate since it was started almost two years ago. People don't think long enough about how it applies to them, so they basically take a pass. Try talking about this over dinner with friends. Again, I don't see this is a Dem v Reep issue at all. Besides, Dems think they know better than I do how to invest for retirement, how my income should be redistributed through taxes and social welfare programs, whether an unborn child really in fact does have a right to life, etc. What's one more thing? I kid.
A lot of people are. It is insanely difficult to get people to think that daily life that doesn't involve a 7,500 sq ft lot, 2 cars, and a commute can be rewarding and fulfilling. In the end, I think a few things will make effective land-use planning a priority and a long-term fact of life. First, as we're already seeing here in Portland, once you establish that you can make good money developing this way, more and more people get involved. Second, word of mouth and trendiness. There's no place cooler to live in Portland than the Pearl or in a loft closeby. The hottest properties are now urban, followed closely by suburban areas with high density construction very close to mass transit stations. People love the lifestyle, and property values reflect that. Third, and most importantly, pain will drive this more than anything. As somebody who spent a few years commuting and tallied up the annual hours spent in my car, I can attest to this. After a point, you just don't accept it anymore, and look for alternatives.
This is a biggie, too. Most people purchase homes in part as an investment, with a hope that there will be a return someday. People in Charleston, a beautiful town, have no concerns about their property values 5, 10, or even 30 years from now. If you live in a rural area that requires a large percentage of your community to commute medium to long distances (anything over 35 minutes) to where they work, you'd better consider what rising gas prices and increased taxes are going to do to your property value. 10 years from now, it's going to matter, and it likely won't work in your favor.
Ah yes, that book I promised two years ago. A bit tardy, but... Lost in the Suburbs, by Stephen Dale. Not so much about land-use planning as much as the side effects of sprawl on neighborhoods and politics. So, kind of a "here's what happens with poor land-use planning" story. Compares Orange County CA with southern Ontario.
According to Mapquest napa is 46 Miles from SF Naperville is 30.7 from chicago I think examples more fitting to the Chicago area would be Sugar grove and peotone. Sugar grove is at the fringe of suburbia but it is still seperated from aurora by cornfields and still is somewhat small towny while Peotone is 43 miles but is definitly not suburbia... yet.But if Jesse jackson Jr and his band of swindlers have their way family farmers will be evicted and an unwanted Airport will pop up and Peotone will not only be Suburbia.. it will be pretty much urban. The real problems lie with local townships.They need to slap down real impact fees on the developers.the 5 K per house doesnt work and doesnt fit the real bill of development.In my area the increased cost of road improvements, school expansion is no where nearly covered by the fees.The current tax rate is also not enought to cover costs.The only way is to increase taxes on everyone. So not only is our standard of living reduced by development our cost of living is increased. In the County I live in (Kane, just west of Chicago) there has been talk of Rural townships in the western part of the county banding together with the County board and enacting a standard -across the board impact fee.I have heard some folks talk of numbers as high as $60,000 per house.This would dramatically raise the cost of new homes in this area.. and would likely put a halt to development. I personally have thought it odd that a new home in my area costs less then an older home.A nice three bedroom home built in the 20's in Elgin proper costs an average of 50K more then giganto 4-5 bedroom card board houses at the edge of town.It makes no sense .
BTW.. I am pretty much against Planning commisions and things of that sort.They just waste $$ and come up with the same tired old crap. I think the best answer to protect rural areas is to enact Real Impact fees on anything built on less then Five acres.