Smart growth isn’t the solution to sprawl, says Owen McShane of the Centre for Resource Management Studies; it is merely just one more form of “carpet sprawl,” i.e., “urban expansion across the countryside in an endlessly and seamless repeated pattern.” McShane thinks that ordinary sprawl can be better because it creates a more diverse landscape.
Which has more biodiversity: this . . .
At the Preserving the American Dream conference, Owen extolled the virtues of low-density exurban development, which in the U.S. is often called “rural residential.” The area in which Owen lives, north of Auckland, is made up of 5 to 10 acre lots. Since the climate is similar to that of southern California, many of the residents grow olives and other Mediterranean crops.
. . . this . . .
With the optical transceiver, all obstructing elements are eliminated, ensuring smooth and efficient relay of messages. 100mg viagra Who Should Not take this medicine? Children and women should never take purchase levitra online Propecia. In case any deafness is detected by the OAE test, then other tests like- BERRA/ASSR, etc are also prescribed to ascertain the exact degree of deafness. cheapest cialis The physical disorder that it brings is levitra without prescription not as horrific as the mental stress it bestows upon a person.
He calls his neighborhood a “park” and, because the densities are so low, it does look park-like. Owen argues convincingly that the biodiversity of such exurban development is much higher than industrial farms or dense cities.
. . . or this?.
So Owen argues that urban-rowth boundaries are not really necessary (1.1MB Word document). I don’t believe he mentioned it at the conference, but it is interesting that many towns in Europe look much like his rural residential area: houses mingled among the farms. While Americans tend to believe that farms need hundreds or thousands of acres to be economically viable, the average size of farms in the European Union is less than 50 acres, and many are only a handful of acres — rural residential.
Owen’s PowerPoint show, which has some photos not found in his papers, can be downloaded from here (29MB file).
Oh, No, You can’t let people be free – they might do something that the planning elite doesn’t like.
Thanks
JK
Obviously we all aspire to live in the middle picture and find the bottom repugnant. What we really want is a 500 sq. ft. condo for our family of 4. (Of course, only a planner could believe such crap.)
Thanks
JK
JK – How dare you suggest that you have a family of four: the planners have mandated otherwise!
JK –
I do believe it’s a safe assumption that sarcasm does nothing to bolster one’s argument unless the point of the argument is to rile up those with opposing views. Either way, it doesn’t really accomplish anything.
Try this again:
First, this is the proper link to the .doc file.
Second, I’d like nothing more than to have towns surrounded by small farms tended by yeoperson farmers, as this is attractive for a number of reasons. However, industrial corporate agriculture in this country won’t allow it to happen (esp. as we keep passing these egregious Farm Bills) – it’s not a matter of Americans “believing†something or not.
And we’ve known for some time that biodiversity is higher in wealthier neighborhoods in cities, and biodiversity is higher by definition in just about any ecosystem when compared to the industrial monoculture of American farms.
Third, Smart Growth is far more economically efficient than 2 ha lots spread across the land (besides, where is the condo-loving market in, say, Houston going to go for amenities?).
Lastly, everyone knows that not everyone wants to live in Smart Growth, just as everyone knows that not everyone wants to pull weeds and mow on a 2 ha/10,000 sf lot – and prune shrubs, and trim trees, and water, and lay mulch, and and and. That’s why some are moving back into cities and some are moving to exurbs. One size does not fit all, despite the wishes and assertions of ideologues.
DS
Jim, you know I am not for planning but your comments are a stretch. I would absolutely hate living in either the upper or lower photo. Give me Manhattan, San Francisco, London, Milan, or even good old downtown Portland any day. I would sooner raise my family in a 1000 sq ft condo than live in a 5000 sq ft house in the burbs or exurbs. I just don’t think the government should force others to live like I like to live.
Dan, you are right on. Why not just let it be than?
In answer to your Houston question:
http://www.urbanliving.com/developments.cfm
This one would cost $400-$500,000 in Portland, it is $240,000 in Houston.
http://www.urbanliving.com/homefinder_moreinfo.cfm?BackURL=%2Fdevelopments%5Fdetail%2Ecfm%3Fdevelopment%3D215%26st%3DHOMES&mlnum=5773404&st=picture&picpage=1#mid
I would sooner raise my family in a 1000 sq ft condo than live in a 5000 sq ft house in the burbs or exurbs. I just don’t think the government should force others to live like I like to live.
I agree jg – Smart Growth is about removing government zoning restrictions to allow market forces to operate; that is: getting rid of overly restrictive Euclidean zoning to allow mixed-uses and different housing types. This generally results in more compact development for infill, and still results in SFD on green-brownfields (but with walkable destinations as the market demands).
DS
something from the E.U. link that might have been useful to mention…”the E.U. is the world’s largest importer of agricultural products” they have a small land base, which explains why they can only have small farms in large part. So obviously we cant all do what the E.U. does. Unless Mars or Jupiter have some good produce for sale?
And this idea of super sprawl or whatever you want to call is not new. One of the greatest american architects advocated it for decades as the so-called broadacre city, Frank Lloyd Wright. Of course, I think later in his life his tune changed when he battled against a development near his home when the sprawl finally reached his backdoor!
â€Âthe E.U. is the world’s largest importer of agricultural productsâ€Â
The EU does quite a few odd things. One is livestock movements. The UK exports sheep to France. France exports sheep to the UK. Why? Because where the animals are slaughtered determines the country of origin of the meat.
The French really like their small farms – especially since they aren’t paying for them.
I’m going to go with Dan (#5). There should be a choice, and this should be the priority.
It’s also worth stating what may be obvious – that what works in one country may not work in another – although there is definitely an incestuous and uncritical copying of ideas across the globe. In Ireland, a much smaller country that the US, they relaxed controls on planning – to the extent that Ireland has urbanised the countryside, something that many people in Ireland now regret.
DS said
“I agree jg – Smart Growth is about removing government zoning restrictions to allow market forces to operate; ”
D S You have to be kidding!
Smart Growth is about Government Planners deciding how my property should be zoned and the market has to follow the Governments plan. Me and my neighbors, who own the property can complain, but we have little say how Our Property should be zoned.
If it was market driven we would not have to subsidize any Smart Growth project.
If it was Market driven we would not need Government Planners changing our zoning
without the permission of the property owners.
Portland
There’s also an interesting post by Litman yesterday that indicates that sprawled areas have higher accident rates than compact areas.
DS
My general theme was that we should put an end to “determinism”. In my day we promoted architectural determinism which claimed that if you put trash people into nice housing they would become nice people. Instead they trashed the housing. Architectural determinism is now an embarassment.
But instead we have many people promoting spatial determinism – the theory that were you live determines how you behave whereas in reality how you behave determins where you live. Litman’s argument is classic spatial determinism. He argues that Smart Growth makes people safer drivers. Actually the people with those safer driving habits tend to live in those locations.
I like to walk and garden so I chose to live in the countryside. When I was young I used to like to dance drink and generally live the high life so I lived in the central city. Spatial determinists would argue that the location shaped my behavior. It’s nonsense. Try old age.
The research question is whether people self-sort to particular locations. The answers that have come recently is “it depends on the metric”. Of course we know many young people are attracted to cities and a fraction of them then age and move to quieter locations.
A likely reason for higher accident rates is that some areas lack enclosure, which tends to make drivers lift their foot off the gas and pay more attention. Newer areas also tend to have road designs that are context-sensitive and don’t solely privilege cars and instead have non-motorized facilities.
DS