Your personal attitude, as a planner (real or 'armchair'), towards ever-expanding suburban areas

[Howl]

We're working on it: http://www.metrolinx.com/thebigmove/en/default.aspx


The growth plan has been in place for over five years now and it is obviously having a big impact on development patterns however the transit and transportation investments required to make it work are lagging behind. It takes a big investment from upper levels of government but no one will see sigificant improvments on the ground for another five to twenty-five years. Everybody is behind this plan but politicians are baulking because they could also spend the money on shorter-term projects that will give them a higher profile before the next election (the Mayor of Toronto is particularly guilty of this).

As a related sidebar the City of Toronto council just sat through a 24 hour session debating how to bring the budget under control. The mayor wants to slash services. The public are generally resigned to paying higher taxes in order to get a better City. In a recent survey transit was the number one service people were concerned about losing or not expanding fast enough, yet the mayor wants to cut transit services and use the money build a subway line that isn't needed.

(Survey PDF - http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2...file-39507.pdf)

(Newpaper article about council session - http://www.thestar.com/news/article/...l-meeting-ever)

edit: I also just came across this. http://www.citytv.com/toronto/cityne...ecommendations

CivicAction is headed by the former Conservative Party leader John Tory and is partnered with the Toronto Board of Trade. Here's their quote on transit:

TRANSIT

"There is no way to sugar-coat our transportation crisis," the report says, noting that the cost of congestion will soar (to $15-billion from $6-billion a year by 2030) and air quality will deteriorate if transit and transportation investments are not made. Recommendation: Governments should study and commit to long-term funding sources. Everything from parking levies to regional sales taxes to road pricing should be on the table. CivicAction will take a lead role to "broaden public and political support" for funding a regional transportation plan.

[Tarf]

As sad as it is to admit, I wouldn't be employed without the suburbs. Much as I hate them, suburbia is a fact of life in California. And as a private sector planner, I'm powerless to do anything to stop them... Best we can do is make good plans at the site level, and hope for the best at the community level.

[Gotta Speakup]

Some metros, like the San Francisco Bay Area, Philly and Boston, are probably over transitted.

Boston has too much transit? Really. Care to explain? What would you tear up and discard?

[Gotta Speakup]

Personally, i'm very libertarian on the subject. I feel that if a lot of regulations dictating what type of building could be placed in a given place, on how large of a lot were removed, and if developers were required to extend infrastructure through their developments on their own dime, that we would suddenly see the instant return of dense, urbanist, mixed use development.

Also, regarding trains: Can someone show me some examples of roadways which pay their full development and maintenance costs? Given that cars "pay their way" using fuel taxes, it has to either be fully private (not built with tax money) or non-toll. If the road advocates can show some profitable roads, then they can start talking about trains' cost vs profit.

One estimate is that the gas tax pays only about 25% of the cost of our road network. And that estimate did not include the cost of loss revenue of not being able to tax land under the roads themselves.

[Coragus]

You know, as I read through this thread, it occurs to me that around these parts, the suburbs haven't been "ever-expanding" for about three years now. All we see are approved and unbuilt suburbs asking permission to amend plans to replace SFR with townhomes.

[DetroitPlanner]

One estimate is that the gas tax pays only about 25% of the cost of our road network. And that estimate did not include the cost of loss revenue of not being able to tax land under the roads themselves.

Keep in mind that the gas tax also pays for the passenger trains and buses. Trying to figure out what gets subsidized by what is a very slippery slope. All I can tell you is that

1. we are not investing what we need to,
2. in some places we are investing it in the wrong stuff, and
3. we should not be using a gas tax because it conflicts with the national fuel economy policies. The more we use the less people pay!

[daftduck]

I'm hoping suburbs turn into high-density agriculture areas. Some of the large houses should be renovated to fit a couple families cozily. People with less money should be able to live in these houses for cheap as long as they work the land. Slave-communities.

Oh and they should keep the gates! Except put the code box or security guard on the inside of the gate not the outside.

[michaelskis]

I fear that there are so many factors involved regarding the urban v. suburban discussion we, as Planners, cannot make much of a difference unless we understand why people choose to live in the suburbs and address those concerns. The push and pull factors involved may revolve around social and cultural issues that are outside of the planning whelm. I know many people who would rather live in a house on a large lot, in a good school district, and that matches what we want our lifestyle to be.

I don’t have the answers, but many of the stereotypes regarding urban and suburban living do exist on some levels. It is frustrating when I see drunk, homeless people asking for money, and then a little later tossing bottles into people yards, trash and debris accumulating on the streets and sidewalks, gang related shootings, and groups of guys standing on the corners with their pants hanging around their knees. I often hear from families that they will not live in the City because of the quality of the schools are so poor. Some people also tell me that those who can afford to leave do. The pristine homes of the suburbs with families playing outside, nicely manicured lawns, and high quality schools, and low crime rates do have a particular allure.

We all know and understand the economics of one over the other but we, as a society, continue to build suburban communities. Gentrification does happen, but in many cases it is a displacement of lower income demographic groups which just move to another location. Perhaps social programs to improve their lives can improve their incomes, their opportunities, health, and could then result in improving the community. But I fear it would take a drastic shift away from our current programs into something that actually works. Right now, there is too much enabling that happens and it results in people staying where they are at in social and economic scale. But then again, by funding suburban expansion, that too is enabling.

But as I said before, I don’t have all the answers.

[Blide]

I'm in a place where it's a slightly different issue in that it's suburban vs. rural. Due to this state's extremely strict annexation laws most of the population is in unincorporated areas. The cities and towns that do exist here are relatively small as a result. This creates a situation where most of the suburban population are in the far less regulated counties. An interesting situation of urban vs rural arises in the planning jurisdiction where rural tends to win out. As a result there is often nothing in the way of zoning where the suburban development is actually occurring. This causes the development to be even more sprawled out than it should be since various developments are trying futilely to locate away from undesirable uses.

This situation has demonstrated to me that even bad suburban regulations are better than no regulations. The challenge lies in trying to implement regulations that are palatable to the no-regulation crowd. Some counties have tried partially zoning the counties to some success but that won't work where I'm at. Transects look more promising but we're in no position to do anything like that now.

[Howl]

I fear that there are so many factors involved regarding the urban v. suburban discussion we, as Planners, cannot make much of a difference unless we understand why people choose to live in the suburbs and address those concerns. The push and pull factors involved may revolve around social and cultural issues that are outside of the planning whelm. I know many people who would rather live in a house on a large lot, in a good school district, and that matches what we want our lifestyle to be.

I don’t have the answers, but many of the stereotypes regarding urban and suburban living do exist on some levels. It is frustrating when I see drunk, homeless people asking for money, and then a little later tossing bottles into people yards, trash and debris accumulating on the streets and sidewalks, gang related shootings, and groups of guys standing on the corners with their pants hanging around their knees. I often hear from families that they will not live in the City because of the quality of the schools are so poor. Some people also tell me that those who can afford to leave do. The pristine homes of the suburbs with families playing outside, nicely manicured lawns, and high quality schools, and low crime rates do have a particular allure.

We all know and understand the economics of one over the other but we, as a society, continue to build suburban communities. Gentrification does happen, but in many cases it is a displacement of lower income demographic groups which just move to another location. Perhaps social programs to improve their lives can improve their incomes, their opportunities, health, and could then result in improving the community. But I fear it would take a drastic shift away from our current programs into something that actually works. Right now, there is too much enabling that happens and it results in people staying where they are at in social and economic scale. But then again, by funding suburban expansion, that too is enabling.

But as I said before, I don’t have all the answers.

On that tack - I’m always struck by the difference between urban centres in places that have a “libertarian” ideology (e.g. USA) and those that have a “socialist” ideology (e.g. Denmark). Note the small “l” and small “s”.

In a libertarian society everyone is expected to look after themselves. When someone is down on their luck they need to live someplace where they can survive cheaply. Almost invariably that mean moving to a city center where you can live without a car, and where you can find more opportunities for work or other means of getting food and shelter. As a result poorer people tend to congregate in city centers meaning charities and services that look after these people also congregate there, which further makes the city center attractive to poorer people. The influx of poorer people tends to drive the richer people out to the suburbs.

In a socialist society people are expected to join together to look after each other. When someone is down on their luck there are opportunities for getting help spread throughout the community. In addition, these cities tend to have better transit systems and cycling infrastructure so living without a car is easier in the outlying areas. As a result poorer people generally don’t congregate in city centres. City centers become the “high-rent” area, where the richer people want to be.

If these observations are true then the conclusion might be that “fixing” American city centres is more about changing the political landscape than changing anything physical.

[Linda_D]

On that tack - I’m always struck by the difference between urban centres in places that have a “libertarian” ideology (e.g. USA) and those that have a “socialist” ideology (e.g. Denmark). Note the small “l” and small “s”.

In a libertarian society everyone is expected to look after themselves. When someone is down on their luck they need to live someplace where they can survive cheaply. Almost invariably that mean moving to a city center where you can live without a car, and where you can find more opportunities for work or other means of getting food and shelter. As a result poorer people tend to congregate in city centers meaning charities and services that look after these people also congregate there, which further makes the city center attractive to poorer people. The influx of poorer people tends to drive the richer people out to the suburbs.

In a socialist society people are expected to join together to look after each other. When someone is down on their luck there are opportunities for getting help spread throughout the community. In addition, these cities tend to have better transit systems and cycling infrastructure so living without a car is easier in the outlying areas. As a result poorer people generally don’t congregate in city centres. City centers become the “high-rent” area, where the richer people want to be.

If these observations are true then the conclusion might be that “fixing” American city centres is more about changing the political landscape than changing anything physical.

Blasphemy!

[Cismontane]

Boston has too much transit? Really. Care to explain? What would you tear up and discard?

None... but there are probably quite a few possible frequency of service issues.. the 2 minute (sometimes 30 second) headways on entirely empty kissing buses in many parts of the city can be rather hilarious.

[Cismontane]

I think it's important to be clear that there is no such thing as "libertarian" urban development in US housing. There hasn't been a true private market in US housing for half a century. When government-financed housing (through the GSEs) is about 60% of the market in the best of times, and now closer to 95%, you can't really argue that there is such thing as a private sector in US housing at all. Just crony privatization: the government pays the banks to make artificially cheap money available to homeowners (after those banks get their generous cut) and builders to buy/sell millions of single family detached homes at absurdly inflated prices, based on absurdly low interest rates. It's not quite socialist. More fascist...the best system lobbyists can buy. But it's certainly not free enterprise.

Unfortunately, the central planners of America have long believed that single family homes in automobile-only suburbs for all but the poorest Americans are the only way to go.

[steel]

That third option in the pole is a cop out - It also makes an unsupported assumption that people do want sprawl

[Howl]

I think it's important to be clear that there is no such thing as "libertarian" urban development in US housing. There hasn't been a true private market in US housing for half a century. When government-financed housing (through the GSEs) is about 60% of the market in the best of times, and now closer to 95%, you can't really argue that there is such thing as a private sector in US housing at all. Just crony privatization: the government pays the banks to make artificially cheap money available to homeowners (after those banks get their generous cut) and builders to buy/sell millions of single family detached homes at absurdly inflated prices, based on absurdly low interest rates. It's not quite socialist. More fascist...the best system lobbyists can buy. But it's certainly not free enterprise.

Unfortunately, the central planners of America have long believed that single family homes in automobile-only suburbs for all but the poorest Americans are the only way to go.

The term "libertarian" wasn't used in relation to housing development, but as a relative term in relation to social programs.

[JusticeZero]

I think it's important to be clear that there is no such thing as "libertarian" urban development in US housing. There hasn't been a true private market in US housing for half a century.

My point exactly. Cut all of the regulations and zoning (well, not all of them - houses need to be built to a safety code, but I care not a lick about setbacks and the like) and tell the city, state, etc. that they are not to fork over a dime for any infrastructure expansion whatsoever under any circumstances - developers must pay the full cost.

I assure you, high density, high efficiency centralized living will come back into fashion by the end of the year, and your brownfields will be teeming with new development and revitalization.

[Linda_D]

That third option in the pole is a cop out - It also makes an unsupported assumption that people do want sprawl

It's not an "unsupported assumption". It's an historical fact.

Americans have been spreading out in a haphazard, hit-and-miss, use the best land first pattern since colonial times. The Atlantic seaboard sure wasn't filled up in 1763 when the colonists got their noses bent out of shape because the Brits declared the first growth boundary -- also known as the Proclamation of 1763 -- that prohibited settlement beyond the Appalachian Mountains. Settlers were streaming into the Ohio River Valley while vast areas of Upstate NY and western PA were virtual wildernesses. Americans also ignored the Great Plains until the late 1880s to settle Oregon, California, and the Rockies because they thought the Plains were a desert.

Sprawl is us.

[bsteckler]

My point exactly. Cut all of the regulations and zoning (well, not all of them - houses need to be built to a safety code, but I care not a lick about setbacks and the like) and tell the city, state, etc. that they are not to fork over a dime for any infrastructure expansion whatsoever under any circumstances - developers must pay the full cost.

I assure you, high density, high efficiency centralized living will come back into fashion by the end of the year, and your brownfields will be teeming with new development and revitalization.

Yet who (ironically enough) goes around proclaiming that dense development is government coercion and an attempt to form a Socialist state?

[Cismontane]

Yet who (ironically enough) goes around proclaiming that dense development is government coercion and an attempt to form a Socialist state?

True, but that doesn't change the fact that he may very well have something of a point.

[JusticeZero]

Yet who (ironically enough) goes around proclaiming that dense development is government coercion and an attempt to form a Socialist state?

I'm not sure. Who? It doesn't sound like anything i've ever said..

[JusticeZero]

None... but there are probably quite a few possible frequency of service issues.. the 2 minute (sometimes 30 second) headways on entirely empty kissing buses in many parts of the city can be rather hilarious.

I see an awful lot of empty roads, and most of the cars that are using them are at 25% capacity or lower. That seems like a complete waste of capacity and public resources to me...
...No, you say? You might need to go down one of those roads at an odd time someday, you say? Hmm.

TRANSIT NETWORKS FUNCTION LIKE ROADS! You find your way along them by connecting the lines, and you don't always do it to get to a 9 to 5 job.
Also, you buy a bus, and the thing starts depreciating. You might as well put the thing on the road. Why not use a little teeny bus? Well, maybe that big bus WAS being used on an arterial route earlier, and it WILL be on one later, but right now it's cheaper to use it on the Podunk-BFE route for a run or two in between than it is to invest in a small bus so that they can both be sitting parked for part of the day to keep people with ridiculous double standards of how ONE transport mode absolutely has to be full at all times but the OTHER one can be completely empty or at minimal capacity without raising an eyebrow happy.

[jswanek]

This is probably going to turn into a multi-parter with a few stream-of-consciousness posts. I don't want the message to get lost in a hundred-line thesis of TL/DR.

First off, personally speaking, my preferred living environment is an older streetcar suburb; someplace platted in the 1920s with an overall density of about 6 du/ac (15 du/ha). These areas tend to have a connected street network, a variety of housing types, a commercial area within a reasonable walking distance, and a diverse range of household types. As the transect crowd would say, something between a T3 and T4. Kind of like the neighborhood in suburban Cleveland where I used to live ...















I'm a champion for the SmartCode in the community where I work, but my recommendation comes with several caveats.

* A SmartCode needs extensive calibration to fit in with the demographic, topographic, cultural, and environmental character of the community; and work its way around larger legal constraints. Just as with conventional zoning, it should not be a one-size-fits-all solution. New York State is fashionably late to the form-based code party, and much of what's in the uncalibrated SmartCode and its modules just isn't possible here due to the state's environmental laws and building codes. The community where I work is collectively smart, open-minded and with a high "planning consciousness", but they don't want a built environment that will be too polished or Disney-esque, so the calibration of the internal working draft has to take that into account.

* Making the SmartCode mandatory throughout an entire community will be a political and legal nightmare. (I'm recommending it be mandatory for new development in some areas.)

* The SmartCode has a steep learning curve compared to conventional zoning, even though the code is more concise than most typical zoning codes.

Also, I make it clear to stakeholders that "I don't drink the New Urbanist kool-aid." The SmartCode is just one tool in my toolbox, and I think it's an ideal solution to a few issues we are facing. It's not a cure-all.

One thing planners advocating the SmartCode need to make clear is that there's a place for everything, and the SmartCode accommodates lower-density single-household development. Proper calibration and assurances that the code doesn't force change in established neighborhoods should address any concerns that planners are "forcing people to live in little apartments. I promote it as something that will better fill in a "missing middle" -- the gap between large lot subdivisions and low-mod income/student apartment complexes we now have -- than 1970s/1980s-style planned unit development.

Everyday working planners also need to begin to take ownership of the SmartCode. I think all too often, communities adopting the SmartCode fall back on the "acolytes" of New Urbanism, those that found themselves in the inner circle early on, to do most of the heavy lifting. The people behind the SmartCode do deserve a lot of credit and accolades for crafting and promoting a brilliant document, and making it open source. However, I feel that as a regular working planner -- and the owner of a Web site that the NU crowd doesn't hold in high regard -- there's no room at the table for me, nor for other everyday working planners. Planners are often seen as part of the problem, not the solution. We don't need to convert to Duanyism to add NU/SC to our toolboxes. Besides, if we take ownership of NU, we might be able to revive what some see is a dying profession.

Consultants definitely have their place, of course. Like I said, SC and FBCs has a steep learning curve; for planners it's like learning a new language, and some of us could use some help from those who are fluent. However, should it be their jobs to remake a community in their desired image? I like the "planner as city doctor" analogy. If I go to the doctor with a problem, they may be blunt about my issues, and recommend some strong prescription medicines and lifestyle changes, but they're not going to tell me that I'm an inherently bad person.

Next up: suburban mythbusting, suburbia ≠ sprawl, and the ongoing battle between New Urbanism and Landscape Urbanism.

.











.

[zach2187]

We talk about choices. Giving people transportation and housing choices. And that is how I view my role. I am not a fan of anyone government or corporation telling me that I have to live in a certain place and travel a certain way. But the fact of the matter is that we are facing an ever changing demographic profile here in the US that wants more and more to live in more compact urban neighborhoods and not be dependent on a car to get around. Now it is foolish to think that this is what everyone wants. But it is what some want. And they should be allowed to live that way.

[hobo]

It's not an "unsupported assumption". It's an historical fact.

Americans have been spreading out in a haphazard, hit-and-miss, use the best land first pattern since colonial times. The Atlantic seaboard sure wasn't filled up in 1763 when the colonists got their noses bent out of shape because the Brits declared the first growth boundary -- also known as the Proclamation of 1763 -- that prohibited settlement beyond the Appalachian Mountains. Settlers were streaming into the Ohio River Valley while vast areas of Upstate NY and western PA were virtual wildernesses. Americans also ignored the Great Plains until the late 1880s to settle Oregon, California, and the Rockies because they thought the Plains were a desert.

Sprawl is us.

You keep stating this like it's some inalienable fact of life in America. Americans aren't some monolithic hivemind where immigrants stepped onto Ellis Island and suddenly desired a Toll Brothers home with a three car garage.

Would you like to know why the Proclamation of 1763 was protested against? Hint: 90% of the population farmed back then, not because they wanted a vinyl victorian. Today, 2% of Americans of employed in farming.The best farming land was limited in that space and had been claimed for years by the connected and wealthy - if the survival of your family depended on the land, you'd want to go west too. It wasn't some hate of density or cities that drove those people west, it was economic survival.

In case you didn't notice, as soon as those people could they urbanized in droves and got away from all that. In fact it stayed this way until something changed - federal policy. driven by developers, bankers and industry who wanted nothing more than a housing boom aided by sprawl and consumer spending. Federal rules and regulations on housing made greenfield development cheap and profitable, while inner city neighborhoods became no-go's, supported by redlines making investment next to impossible. The same types of policies continued right up until today.

Like everywhere else, people respond to government regulation and marketing, it just happens ours were biased towards greenfield suburbs. I'm not sure where this mindset that Americans innately desire sprawl comes from. I assume it ties into a combination of libertarian fantasy and a warped frontier myth.

Edit: Realized this was an old post, just came upon this thread in hobby research. Apologies for dead posting!

[Luca]

Not SO old.

Re. the previous post: while I agree with much of what you say, I DO think that even without 'gummint' involvement, a lot of people desire living on a large lot, in a country villa, in "utter sylvan fastness" (c). The issue is that they cannot, practically. In the same way that we cannot all drive as fast as we'd like and survive.