Is it time to give up fighting sprawl?
Is it time to stop fighting sprawl and learn to live with it? That was one of the provocative suggestions that came up today during "Humane Metropolis Baltimore," a day-long workshop on how to make the metro area greener, safer, healthier, more equitable and more "neighborly."
"We have reached a point where sprawl is almost a moot issue," said Rutherford H. Platt, an emeritus geography professor at University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and one of the organizers of the workshop, the fourth in a series of regional workshops held around the country, sponsored by the Lincoln Institue of Land Policy in Cambridge, Mass.
Despite decades of planners and environmentalists decrying suburbia's spread, "we have now exploded," Platt said. "The battle to control sprawl is basically lost."
The numbers seem to bear him out. Ever since the end of World War II, the outward spread of communities has been phenomenal. By 1960, half of all Americans lived in suburbs, with the other half in cities. By 2000, city dwellers had become a distinct minority.
Platt, director of the Ecological Cities Project, argued that it's time for civic-minded folks to shift their energies from fighting sprawl to making the existing fabric of their communities - whether urban or suburban - as green and "humane" as possible.
His larger message - that people should work together on improving wherever they live - resonated. But not everyone agreed that it's too late to stop sprawl - or rather, that there's no point in fighting it anymore.
Donald C. Outen, Baltimore County's natural resource manager, pointed out that the county had effectively limited sprawl to the north of the city, establishing an urban development limit that squeezed 90 percent of the county's residents onto about a third of the land. Much of the county from the Baltimore Beltway north to the Pennsylvania line is still rolling countryside. (Some would argue that suburban home shoppers simply swerved into Harford and Carroll counties, or kept heading north into Pennsylvania.)
"Don't stop stopping sprawl," urged Dru Schmidt-Perkins, executive director of 1000 Friends of Maryland. She argued for preserving as much of the state's remaining farmland as possible to boost production of locally grown food.
What do you think? Is it time to stop fighting sprawl and focus on making the suburbs more diverse and walkable, and linking them via transit more effectively with the city? Has the economy essentially put an end to sprawl, or is that just temporary?
Comments
This is a classic conflict between planners and consumers. Some people prefer to live in urbanized areas (including urbanized suburbs). Other people prefer to live in more rural areas. I have friends who moved "farther out" when development started to spring up along Seminary Avenue. They don't value walkable neighborhoods and transit links to the city as much as they value breathing room and privacy. Whether the planners like it or not, different people are comfortable in different settings, and will find ways to live where they're most comfortable.
Posted by: Lizzie | June 11, 2009 5:12 PM
Fighting sprawl isn't a moot issue. There is still plenty of land out there, and zoning, to allow a lot more sprawl if the economy and the energy situation allows it. The real question that the professor highlights is what is the best way to 'fight' it.
Based on last session's legislation the administration seems to think the answer is to keep local governments busy measuring growth rather than to develop decent plans to control it. It is an effort to talk the remainder of the development community to death by creating a bureaucratic maze that strangles growth everywhere, whether sprawl or not. After all, if we can measure everything, maybe the Sun can write more editorials blaming local government (rather than the State)and the Administration can 'speachify' things to death. The recent 'Smart Green and Growing' legislation makes the 1992 Act look like a T-Bone steak rather than Senator Winegrad's 'nothingburger'.
Meantime, suggestions like the professor's that we make existing communities more liveable are supported by rhetoric and precious little else. The history of Smart Growth here is to fail to provide infrastructure and amenities in most growth areas, to oppose development proposals in areas with water and sewer (the Administration's first environmental victory on Kent Island is an example) and to spend a great deal of money preserving acres that make sprawl development on neighboring parcels all the more attractive.
The Professor is correct on his primary point. If we continue in the direction of current Administartion policy, then fighting sprawl is very much a moot point.
Posted by: Jim Noonan | June 11, 2009 10:29 PM
I believe that sprawl needs to be severely discouraged and limited. Just as important is mandating energy efficient building practices and changing the mindset that aspires to the "bigger is better" culture. Let's realize the significant importance of "Less is More." Our culture promotes wants over needs, which is so invasive and toxic.
Posted by: NotableM | June 12, 2009 9:41 AM
Tim --
Similar thoughts from UMBC ecologist Erle Ellis:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ftf-ellis-1/
His studies in densely populated Chinese farming villages have been a big influence on his worldview.
He lives in Western Maryland; just had 5,000 trees planted to put his principles into practice in his own backyard.
thanks,
cr
Posted by: Chip Rose | June 12, 2009 11:03 AM
Jim,
It seems your major complaint is that local and state governments need to spend more of everyone's tax dollars to supoport such growth, not less.
Why? Because that makes a few rich and a few happy for the choices they'll get to make. Lovely!
"Failing to provide infrastructure..." is a just a nifty way of saying "you folks pay more of your money for roads, sewer, water, police, fire protection, schools and so much more, so someone else can have a great choice" in what someone (usually a developer) declares to be a "most growth area."
Sprawl costs in many ways. But, you can start there if you're looking for reason to slow it down.
But I suspect you're not because in some way in benefits your pocketbook.
Posted by: Simone | June 12, 2009 1:36 PM
Simone,
The point I tried to make is that when the giovernment defines an area as suitable for growth they need to provide the services and infrastructure needed to make that growth area work.
As for sprawl, to the extent that sprawl is going to be an issue in the current economy, it can't be controlled merely by spending money on land preservation. There are simply too few dollars and too much land (even in Maryland) for that to work.
If the environment is the issue than the State has the regulatory authority to require better functioning septic systems. Until they do that it is disingenuous at best to blame local planning practice.
As for making money??? Are developers really doing that? When they start making money again, maybe I will get in line. Meantime I will argue for increasing administartive and plannig capacity at the local government level and for dedicated infrastructure funding to implement existing plans.
Posted by: Jim Noonan | June 12, 2009 7:17 PM
Simone,
Google jim noonan planning maryland and you will see how incorrect your assumptions about Mr. Noonan are. Mr. Noonan is one of the few members of the public that actually has a better grasp on MD's Smart Growth laws than every elected official in the state.
IMHO, the problem in MD is that we are relying on county gov'ts alone, instead of developing a coalition of county, state, and regional solutions. When one county does well at controlling growth, the developers simply skip on to the next county. What's more, it seems that we have a "one-plan-fits-all" model for all of our counties. Howard County is located between two major metropolitan areas, but we spend TONS of money preserving its open spaces, only to have the development skip to Frederick, Carroll, and Harford. We should designate growth counties in addition to growth areas in each county. Then we could designate rural counties that are protected even further.
As for the question of whether we should give up on Smart Growth and just beautify our own neighborhoods instead? I think that is rediculously naive as a strategy for change. We all SHOULD be doing this in our neighborhoods, but we can still fight for better efforts from our elected officials.
Posted by: C G | June 13, 2009 12:51 PM
Glad to have stimulated some debate about sprawl -- My book and remarks at Humane Metropolis Baltimore do not urge abandoning efforts to save farmland and open space -- far from it as I have devoted much time and print to those issues.
THE POINT IS -- that it is time to focus on making existing cities and suburbs more green, equitable, and "humane" --that was the thrust of the conference. And in terms of social and environmental equity -- a major theme of Humane Metropolis--the action is in older cities and suburbs -- not at the urban fringe which is still predominantly middle class white territory.
Posted by: Dr. Rutherford H. Platt | June 15, 2009 10:09 AM
Debate is always useful.
Farmland preservation and preservation of open space have values of their own and should alwys be pursued for those reasons. Unfortunately,. as techniques to control sprawl, they are over rated and ineffective.
Your second point (or THE POINT as you put it) is much more to the point of controlling sprawl. However from a long term perspective, do not overlook the value of small communities on what you call the urban fringe. They also have values for the future development pattern that should be recognized and respected.
Posted by: Jim Noonan | June 15, 2009 8:56 PM