Smart growth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Smart Growth is an urban planning and transportation theory that concentrates growth in the center of a city to avoid urban sprawl; and advocates compact, transit-oriented, walkable, bicycle-friendly land use, including mixed-use development with a range of housing choices.

Smart Growth values long-range, regional considerations of sustainability over a short term focus. Its goals are to achieve a unique sense of community and place; expand the range of transportation, employment and housing choices; equitably distribute the costs and benefits of development; preserve and enhance natural and cultural resources; and promote public health.

Contents

[edit] History

Transportation and community planners begin to promote the idea of compact cities and communities in the early 1970s. The cost and difficulty of acquiring land (particularly in historic and/or areas designated as conservancies) to build and widen highways caused some politicians to reconsider basing transportation planning on motor vehicles.

Architect Peter Calthorpe promoted and popularized the idea of urban villages that relied on public transportation, bicycling, and walking instead of automobile use. Architect Andrés Duany promoted changing design codes to promote a sense of community, and to discourage driving. Colin Buchanan and Stephen Plowden helped to lead the debate in the United Kingdom.

Government subsidies for infrastructure have disguised the true cost of sprawl. Examples include subsidies for highway building, fossil fuels, and electricity.

[edit] Electrical subsidies

With electricity, there is a cost associated with extending and maintaining the service delivery system, as with water and sewage, but there is also a loss in the commodity being delivered. The farther from the generator, the more power is lost in distribution. According to the Department of Energy's (DOE) Energy Information Administration (EIA), nine percent of energy is lost in transmission[1]. Current average cost pricing, where customers pay the same price per unit of power regardless of the true cost of their service, subsidizes sprawl development. The cost of infrastructure required to service a new unit in a greenfield (undeveloped) neighborhood is $50,000 to $60,000 per unit, wheras it costs $5,000 to $10,000 per unit in a brown (abandonded industrial or commercial parcel) or grey-field (abandoned retail or commercial site)[2]. With electricity deregulation, some states now charge customers/developers fees for extending distribution to new locations rather than rolling such costs into utility rates[3].

The state of New Jersey has a mandated State Plan that divides the state into five planning areas, some of which are designated for growth, while others are protected. The state is developing a series of incentives to coax local governments into changing zoning laws that will be compatible with the State Plan. The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities recently proposed a revised rule that presents a tiered approach to utility financing. In areas not designated for growth, utilities and their ratepayers are forbidden to cover the costs of extending utility lines to new developments--and developers will be required to pay the full cost of public utility infrastructure. In designated growth areas that have local smart plans endorsed by the State Planning Commission, devleopers will be refunded the cost of extending utility lines to new developments at two times the rate of the revenue received by developers in smart growth areas that do not have approved plans[4].

[edit] Rationale for Smart Growth

Smart growth is an alternative to urban sprawl, traffic congestion, disconnected neighborhoods, and urban decay. Its principles challenge old assumptions in urban planning, such as the value of detached houses and automobile use.

[edit] Economic

Big-city mayors, downtown business groups, and individual investors interested in gentrification see smart growth or regeneration as a useful tool to revitalize town centers or neglected urban neighborhoods. Rural politicians support it to deter in-migration and change to rural open spaces, although their constituents may work in towns and cities.

Locating people near each other, near jobs, and near shopping, reduces travel time and transportation infrastructure costs. Policy-makers sometimes try to provide financial incentives to developers to encourage different land use choices, often in combination with changing legal requirements.

Smart growth considers the total long-term economic costs of development decisions, rather than merely the short term profits. Engineers often use life cycle cost analysis to evaluate trade-offs, while investors and proprietors may be more interested in the "bottom line" of profitability.

[edit] Climate protection

Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels launched an initiative in 2005 to advance the goals of the Kyoto Protocol, through leadership and action by at least 141 American cities. As of October, 2006, 319 mayors (representing over 51.4 million Americans) had accepted the challenge.[5]

Under the US Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement, cities must commit to three actions to meet the Kyoto Protocol in their own communities--one of which is adopting certain smart growth principles.[6]

"Cities for Climate Protection", under ICLEI [7], has 150 U.S. cities and towns participating, and 600 municipalities worldwide. Like the U.S. Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement, communities use a 5-step methodology to reduce global warming and air pollution emissions [8].

[edit] Environmental protection

Environmentalists promote smart growth by advocating urban-growth boundaries, or Green belts, as they have been termed in England since the 1930s.

[edit] Public health

Transit-oriented development can improve the quality of life, and encourage a healthier, pedestrian-based lifestyle with less pollution. The United States Environmental Protection Agency suggests smart growth to reduce air pollution.

[edit] Elements

Growth is "smart growth", to the extent that it includes the elements listed below.[9] [10].

[edit] Compact neighborhoods

Compact, livable urban neighborhoods attract more people and business. Creating such neighborhoods is a critical element of reducing urban sprawl and protecting the climate. Such a tactic includes adopting redevelopment strategies and zoning policies that channel housing and job growth into urban centers and neighborhood business districts to create compact, walkable, bike and transit friendly hubs. This sometimes requires local government bodies to implement code changes that allow increased height and density downtown and regulations that not only eliminate minimum parking requirements for new development, but establish a maximum number of allowed spaces. Other topics that fall under this concept include:

[edit] Transit-oriented development

Transit-oriented development (TOD) is a residential or commercial area designed to maximize access to public transport, and mixed-use/compact neighborhoods tend to use transit at all times of the day. Many cities striving to implement better TOD strategies seek to secure funding to create new public transportation infrastructure and improve existing services. Other measures might include regional cooperation to increase efficiency and expand services, and moving buses and trains more frequently through high-use areas. Other topics that fall under this concept include:

[edit] Pedestrian-friendly and bicycle-friendly design

Biking and walking instead of driving can reduce emissions, save money on fuel and maintenance, and foster a healthier population. Pedestrian-friendly and bicycle-friendly improvements include bike lanes on main streets, an urban bike trail system, bike parking, pedestrian crossings, and associated master plans.

[edit] Others

  • preserving open space and critical habitat, reusing land, and protecting water supplies and air quality
  • transparent, predictable, fair and cost-effective rules for development
  • historic preservation
  • Setting aside large areas where development is prohibited, nature is able to run its course, providing fresh air and clean water.
  • Expansion around already existing areas allows public services to be located where people are living without taking away from the core city neighborhoods in large urban areas.
  • Developing around preexisting areas decreases the socioeconomic segregation allowing society to function more equitably, generating a tax base for housing, educational and employment programs.

[edit] Policy Tools

[edit] Zoning Ordinances

The most widely used tool for achieving smart growth is the local zoning law. Through zoning, new development can be restricted to specific areas, and additional density incentives can be offered for brownfield and greyfield land. Zoning can also reduce the minimum amount of parking required to be built with new development, and can be used to require set-asides for parks and other community amenities.

[edit] Environmental Impact Assessments

One popular approach to assist in smart growth in democratic countries is for law-makers to require prospective developers to prepare environmental impact assessments of their plans as a condition for state and/or local governments to give them permission to build their buildings. These reports often indicate how significant impacts generated by the development will be mitigated - the cost of which is usually paid by the developer. These assessments are frequently controversial. Conservationists, neighborhood advocacy groups and NIMBYs are often skeptical about such impact reports, even when they are prepared by independent agencies and subsequently approved by the decision makers rather than the promoters. Conversely, developers will sometimes strongly resist being required to implement the mitigation measures required by the local government as they may be quite costly.

A typical outcome in a community governed by those advocating smart growth is that developers will comply with the required measures, since building the community's trust over the long term through open dialogue is also in their long term interest and may help in recruiting and retaining staff, investors and perhaps customers with a genuine interest in social and environmental quality.


[edit] Communities Implementing Smart Growth

The United States Environmental Protection Agency [11] has recognized these cities for implementing smart growth principles:

The Smart Growth Network has recognized these cities for implementing smart growth principles.[16]

  • The Kentlands; Gaithersburg, Maryland, United States (for live-work units)
  • East Liberty; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States (establishing downtown retail)
  • Moore Square Museums Magnet Middle School; Raleigh, North Carolina, United States (for being located downtown)
  • Garfield Park; Chicago, Illinois, United States (retaining transit options)
  • New Jersey Pineland; Southern New Jersey, United States (for transfer of development rights away from undeveloped land)
  • Imperial; California, United States (for use of smart growth principles)

[edit] Criticism

Wendell Cox is a vocal opponent of smart growth policies that ration land and restrict mobility. He argued before the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works that, "Smart growth strategies tend to intensify the very problems they are purported to solve." [17]. Cox and Joshua Utt analyzed Smart Growth and sprawl, and argued [18]:

Our analysis indicates that the Current Urban Planning Assumptions are of virtually no value in predicting local government expenditures per capita. The lowest local government expenditures per capita are not in the higher density, slower growing, and older municipalities. On the contrary, the actual data indicate that the lowest expenditures per capita tend to be in medium- and lower-density municipalities (though not the lowest density); medium- and faster-growing municipalities; and newer municipalities. This is after 50 years of unprecedented urban decentralization, which seems to be more than enough time to have developed the purported urban sprawl-related higher local government expenditures. It seems unlikely that the higher expenditures that did not develop due to sprawl in the last 50 years will evolve in the next 20--despite predictions to the contrary in The Costs of Sprawl--2000 research. It seems much more likely that the differences in municipal expenditures per capita are the result of political, rather than economic factors, especially the influence of special interests.

The phrase "smart growth" implies that other growth and development theories are not "smart". There is debate about whether transit-proximate development constitutes smart growth when it is not transit-oriented. The National Motorists Association[19] does not object to smart growth as a whole, but strongly objects to some of its components, such as traffic calming, and other tactics intended to reduce automobile usage.

Libertarian groups, such as the Cato Institute, criticize smart growth on the grounds that it leads to greatly increased land values, and people with average incomes can no longer afford to buy a detached houses. A detailed commentary by Randal O'Toole can be found here. (link to PDF file)

[edit] See also

Related Topics

Organizations

[edit] External links

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/m/a/Smart_growth.html"
In other languages