Robert Cole One of the most signficant problems associated with sprawl are market subsidies. In some respects, conservative views about "Smart Growth", including the assertion that associated policies attempt to remove freedom of choice, might be best solved by enabling markets to operate more efficiently. For instance, sprawl development is largely enabled - and subsidized - by signficant public infrastructure investments. If the subsidies were removed and both developers and their customers were required to pay full freight for their decisions, development patterns would likely be much different moving forward and, in effect, much smarter. The problem, though, is that few would accept a change in the way economic outputs from our nation's largest metro areas are redistributed in that scenario. Thus, it may be best for all involved to identify ways in which we can achieve and support prudent development patterns without unleashing the power of a true free market. Given a true free market, people could still live anywheree they like. Development couyld still occur in rural - or even remote - locales. The difference would be that costs associated with supporting infratstructure - roads, water and sewer, utility access, etc., would be directly borne by those requiring the amenities, thus making per capita costs extraoridnary in some cases. There are still places where this is the case - very remote areas - but even rural america benefits from dollars shifted to their locales in support of essential infrastructure - subsides by any other name. That does not, however, make the practice "socialistic" any more than supporting "smart growth" does.

23 Dec 2010

Sung-Man Kim I do not disagree with Mr. Cole on local investments eventually subsidizing sprawl. In many cases it is true near metropolitan areas, which rural land prices are already compatible with urban land prices. In such cases, infra devleopments outside of urban will obviously encourage urban developments in rural areas. In other cases, for example, if total cost of use and infra devleopments are still smaller than redeveloping or infilling urban areas, developers will pay the cost to convert rural areas. To limit infra investments outside of urban is also difficult when infra services are provided by private companies. We surely need to monitor and, if it is needed to protect public welfare, to control land uses as well as investment plan. Considering recent Tea Party movements and free market system, which will impact on planning practices anyway, it probably is essential for us to approach the issue from multi-perspectives of Smart Growth that covers land use restrictions, general policy developments, real estate preparation for free market system, and political/social lobby actions. It seems that we all have some resolutions to prevent sprawl and encourage smart growth and it probably is the time to digest those in a comprehensive manner. I am learning from this conversations and actually enjoying this group chat. Happy holiday season everone.

27 Dec 2010

Robert Cole Urban sprawl is someone's fault - and everyone's fault. The issue at hand is not so much one of making money, as good development can make money, but rather how investment decisions are made amidst a variety of market distorting influences. If, for instance, the broad spectrum of costs of sprawling development were properly reflected in sales transactions, then patterns of development would be much different and likely more sustainable along multiple dimensions. The recent housing downturn reflects not only on banking practices, but also the underlying problems with sprawl, particularly those associated with "drive 'till you qualify" auto-reliance and associated costs. CNT's work on the Housing/Transportation Affordability Index illustrates the linkage between transportation and housing costs.

22 Dec 2010

Barry Crook . . . or be able to afford the kind of housing you want for your family? . . . not everyone is going to see dense, inner city housing as THEIR solution . . . there will continue to be a mix of options that meet everyone's needs and desires -- not just today's chic design solution.

22 Dec 2010

Robert Cole One of the most attractive homes I have ever seen sits on the Brule River bodering Michigan and Wisconsin. It's all by itself at the edge of a designated wilderness area. Would I love to live there? Yes. Can I live there? No. There aren't any nearby places of employment, the road to it is a forest access road paved only with gravel in an area that gets very heavy snow, and I don't have a clue how far the nearest school is. Someone can and does live there, though. If Wisconsin decided to put a new highway within a mile or so, committed resources for snow removal for every snow event, built a new state-of-the-art school for my kids to attend, and offered development incentives to attract essential services by the highway exit nearest my prospective home, then I might actually be able to buy that home and live there without diminishing my current standard of living and without the "hardships" caused by the absence of ssignficant public infrastructure. Of course, once public investment ameliorates those hardships for me, the neighborhood might change to something that I moved away from. My secluded wilderness home site might become an Iron Mountain, MI, suburb, or something . . . part of a growing megalopolis. Yes, people should always be able to live where they choose, provided they are willing and able to accept the cost/benefit trade-offs; however, public infrastructure investments should not be what enables the choice, particularly where existing infrastructure already exists and is underutilized. Choice is central to the American way of life, but sometimes the best choices are not made because the cost/benefit calculation is artificailly skewed in favor of the wrong choice. Few of us knowingly and willingly make bad choices. Bad choices generally arise from not properly evaluating alternatives. That is what causes sprawl . . . and a plethora of other undesirable outcomes.

23 Dec 2010

Robert Cole "Thorough regional planning" is essential; however, land-use decisions remain the exclusive right of local jurisdictions in many places. Thus, while a regional plan - typically shaped by planning professionals without the majority of municipal government effectyively engaged - sets the stage by providing generally agreed upon goals and strategies, funding mechanisms constitute the leverage point. A thorough regional plan includes explicit equity considerations, including access to education, public health, and employment - not just transportation, and not merely the step above that, like an effort to more effectively link land-use and transportation. Increasingly, mandated regtional plans are becoming wholistic regional comprehensive plans rather than the tradition long-range transportation plan feds direct MPOs to prepare. Check-out thee Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning's recent endeavor, GoTo 2040 - the region's first comprehensive plan, which includes aspects like education, local food, etc. [Impartiality disclaimer: I sit on the CMAP Land-use Committee :-)] CMAP did a great job engaging the public and examining a wide range of regional concerns. That written, their implementation authority is non-existent and diret influence marginal. They do, however, have an implementation plan that will endeavor to help interested municipal governments apply regional goals in their local context. That's a superior alternative to the "long-range transportation plan", but continues as a work in progress.

23 Dec 2010

Barry Crook somehow I can't share that vision of apocalypse -- and I think it undermines the vision of smart growth to suggest it as an alternative.

22 Dec 2010

Bernie Slepkov You don't have to believe in the apocalyptic version of the peak oil scenario, but at the very least it should give one pause to consider how it is likely to affect communities and the residents who work, live and play within them. I can't agree with you, Barry, that it undermines the vision of smart growth. It justifies and enhances the vision all the more. Consider that this: Everything we produce, consume, build, maintain, import, export, buy, sell, eat, drink, prescribe, wear, view, hear, touch, read, ride, drive, drive on and waste, needs oil from start to finish. Therefore, if communities are not embracing smart growth, they should, at the very least, be looking at how they can achieve greater resiliency. And let's not forget how extreme weather events and shifting weather patterns could affect communities.

22 Dec 2010

Barry Crook . . . many people share that vision and desire, but many don't -- the feeling that "you (the people in our community) just don't know what you want" can come across as insulting and paternalistic . . . we should advance the good things that smart growth can bring to the community without suggesting that those who actually want to live in the suburbs are uninformed or incomplete in their view of the world. I know some of those people and they do have a sense of community about where they live. There is a distribution of what people seek in their housing solution -- we should make sure that smart growth is part of that, not try and impose it as the only solution.

22 Dec 2010

Robert Cole Seems that a builder's conception of what people want is defined along one dimension: What can be sold at the necessary level of profit given anticipated risk? Thus, the challenge is in properly loading costs on decision-making to encourage profit-minded folks to properly evaluate investment decisions while at the same time influencing proposals that come our way to incorporate - to the greatest extent feasible - elements most supportive of community vision. Along with that comes the tandem requirement of introducing or reinforcing predictability in the development process.

23 Dec 2010

Barry Crook remember that price affects the demand side as well . . . its not just an influence on what developers will build, but what consumers will/can afford to buy . . . if the cost to the consumer becomes unaffordable it has to be considered as part of the community vision too . . . is it done with purpose in mind or an unintended consequence?

23 Dec 2010

Robert Cole Intersting, though, that the bug caused a little more discourse than usual. What does that mean? :)

23 Dec 2010