grist.org

How dare you!  OK, anyway, Ryan:

You just made my day.

Thanks, at least I got that off my chest.

My pleasure.

Well written and intentioned, I find your suggestion  for the Federal government to be involved in local property rights to be quite problematic, if not unconstitutional. Unless the Fed owns the land it has little say-so as to the land uses, which are reserved to the states and local communities. Our country was founded on such a bedrock of reason, for good or for bad.

Then I had to smile thinking that we should rely on the Fed to solve such a complicated issue, as they would probably ruin everything, create another bureaucracy, charge people more taxes for little benefit, and claim they "solved" the problem.

Finally, there is a bit of "chicken and the egg" rationale about suburban sprawl. True, the Interstate Highway System did allow increased motor transportation throughout vast parts of the nation. However, what happened was that people took a detour down little two lane roads and built or bought houses. As these clumps of houses increased, the small dirt and two-lane paved roads had to become major arterials, often at the expense of the county and state. These improved highways allowed more access and volume, which in turn put stress on the Interstate Highways. See how that works? It is not as simple as "build it and they will come." Austin, TX is living proof.

That said, it's a shame Bill Richardson left the race. Good man.  

Onward through the fog

   Let's add to the demand part of the cycle.  Give huge tax credits to people who live in small square footage spaces and dense urban areas.  

   (If you like penalties, penalize those who don't by limiting the tax deductibility of their mortgages, and add luxury taxes to their property tax rates (with the money going to help pay for the tax credits)).

   Imagine if people who lived in urban small square footage housing got say $10,000 a year each.  (Strict rent control would have to be in place, or another penalty system to keep greedy landlords from gobbling it all up from those who rent.)

   A lot of people might think very hard about how they want to live.

   Now add similar credits for those who don't own cars.

   Spend money to provide good schools.  Make neighborhoods safer (the credits would help with that!).  Look at different models of density.  In Beijing, people build up, but have open space around the buildings, so it is dense, but doesn't feel so dense.

   If the government really got serious about this, there are lots of creative answers to the problems.

patrick in Beijing

Re: "The sun-belt shift has meant millions of new people in areas subject to extreme drought, wild fires, hurricanes, and flooding, at precisely the time when scientists expect such events to become less predictable and more severe."

Proper land use planning for disaster-prone regions, and having real free market insurance would help reduce sprawl into places like coastal Florida.  Stop the government (taxpayer)insurance subsidies for those who want to live in these regions and you will considerably slow or maybe stop some of this sprawl.

Great point about insurance and coastal areas. From Maine to southern Texas, insurance companies are dropping coastal properties like a rock. This became quite a trend after Katrina and continues today. Even government-back "insurers of the last resort" are finding it difficult to stay solvent. For example, Texas Windstorm policy only has enough cash for one minor hurricane in one or two seaside counties, and that's it (Rita, after Katrina, wiped them out).

I've blogged about this several times, noting that insurance increased in price although there were fewer coastal properties and no damaging hurricanes the last two years. Trust me, the effect of insurance is intense ... when something bad does happen, payments are based on value and not the actual policy limit. That is why so many houses in Louisiana and Florida still have those "Wal-Mart roofs" of blue plastic tarps.

I see opposing forces in the "Coastal Insurance Wars."  One is the states, which are trying to lower insurance rates and make them more available to existing consumers. The other are the federal agencies involved in flood zone mapping. Many coastal flood maps are being revised to reflect new datum (erosion, subsidence, better science) and failing infrastructure. My thinking is that the Fed will eventually win that war ...

Onward through the fog

I remember being told that a professor at Harvard whose name escapes me (I know, that's very helpful) explained that in order for NYC to have remained affordable in the last 20 years, there would have had to have been lots of large apartment complexes built, a la Hong Kong.  Patrick, I don't know if the apartment buildings being built in Beijing are well-designed -- you don't want wastelands between the buildings, for instance, but stores and lots of streetscape.

Manhattan has become ridiculously expensive, but in order to solve that mess, there really would have to be well-thought-out apartment complexes.  And the public schools near those complexes would have to be high-quality as well.  Right now, when an apartment building goes up, it inevitably seems to be "luxury", read, too expensive for the middle class.  I don't know if the city government, maybe with Federal funding, can work with developers to build enough new housing, which after all seems to be at the core of Ryan's narrative of why it's easier to sprawl than to build in cities.

jabailo, nobody will need global warming "as an excuse to take down the exurban lifestyle".  All they need is another 10-20 years when Peak Oil will become an undeniable reality, one barrel of crude will cost around $400, and the suburbs and exurbs will implode under the sheer mass of their oversized parking lots, 3500-square-foot homes, big box stores, and gas-guzzling SUVs.

I just don't want to see those ex-urbanites come crying to me about their $12/gallon gasoline.  Sure, they'll be mad as hell and looking for somebody to blame.  But heaven forbid that anyone should blame their dilemma on their own behavior.

I vote for tax breaks for those who consume less, drive less, and have fewer children.

jabailo is famous in Grist's comments section for regularly vomiting up the most ridiculous theories on climate change that are to be found on the internets.

It defies me why Grist allows him to post here, as each of his postings contain a link to his blog, containing ever more of his drivel. And of course his blog asks for donations from readers, should someone feel intellectually enriched enough to pay jabailo for his trash.

The most neglected part of the environmental movement in available $$ terms are the local groups attempting to restrain additional sprawl. These are the organizations with the lowest overhead and the least resources. They are also on the front lines of the land use battles. They are continually belittled as nothing more than NIMBYs.

During the "Death of Environmentalism" book selling campaign (that's all it was, really), I was struck by how easily people who should know better were willing to buy into a paradigm where the environmental movement consisted entirely of large "inside-the-beltway" mega-organizations. Instead of discussing how funding could be better distributed, or how the large orgs could actually work in concert with the local groups, the discussions focused mostly on how the large orgs could be more effective at what they were already doing, ignoring structural changes in the environmental movement that could make the movement itself more effective.

This article points out some of the basics: remove the subsidies for sprawl. Many of the most apparently intractable environmental problems stem from these subsidies. I include development subsidization by the tax codes here, also.

NIMBY
NOPE

NOT IN MY BACKYARD & NOT ON PLANET EARTH

Steve E. Whidbey Environmental Action Network

Perhaps you underestimate the very vocal groups that have mounted campaigns against large developments, such as in the inter-mountain area, coastal resorts, and even offshore in the Bahamas and Panama.

But those are not campaigns against sprawl, a critical distinction. Nope, those are campaigns against uber-rich living quarters, or middle-income developments so large as to baffle the imagination.  Key tools are requirements that mini-environmental impacts for clean air, water, and soil.

We lose a bunch of the battle but the recent downturn in the economy has really given us some breathing room - nice!  /sammie

Onward through the fog

Calling for Federal or State regulations to rein in sprawl might not be the best strategy. (Recall the Fed's handling of food safety regulations.) The pro-development forces where I live briefly attempted to dissolve our town government. Why? State and county regulations are far less strict than the town's ordinances.

Do you really want it to be possible for single political party -- such as the current incarnation of the Republican Party -- to acquire control of all three branches of our Federal government and elminate restrictions on use of land in one single sweeping piece of legislation... or by not funding enforcement of Federal laws?

I think it is much better to leave local government in control of such matters. It permits a diverse array of policies to be tested and adopted by different communities, based on local concerns and environmental issues. Others can observe the economic benefits -- or not -- of such policies and create their own plans. Perhaps most important, it permits some communities to adopt strict measures that would never see the light of day if the Federal government was left to handle it.

Please focus on repairing you OWN communities, persuading YOUR neighbors to rein in sprawl, or develop strategies for minimizing sprawl's harm to the environment and share them with the rest of us.

  Jon,

     Most new housing developments here consist of a group of ten or so high rises clustered in a circle around an open area (mixture of park and playground) often with some street parking, and more underground.  The spaces between the buildings (in a compound) are usually grass and bushes.  Between the compound and the street there is usually a fairly large setback area which stays open (some of it may contain cars parking from time to time, but a lot of it is open with trees, lawn, benches, bushes, walks, kind of a mini-park).  

    The ground one to two levels of the outside building is usually retail (though frankly, it seems that some of the recent ones are having trouble attracting retail tenants, rents may be too high).  There will be restaurants, supermarkets, all sorts of stores and services.  So, even for people who drive, there are usually many services within walking distance.

    The style is very different from both Hong Kong and New York City.  The streets are generally wider with lots of open space around tall buildings.  It is dense, but not thick (smile).

    Are there issues and problems??  Affordability is certainly one.  

    Beijing will probably double in size in the next 20 years.  The planning is for a lot of that doubling to take place along mass transit corridors.  Also, for institutions like universities (a big chunk of Beijing), housing is provided for students, faculty and workers mostly within the campus or right next to it.  This works because the university offers subsidized housing at certain locations, which encourages people to live close to their co-workers (and usually the job).  So, even when they need to travel to classes, there are school buses which move people (some of my co-teachers own cars but would never think of driving to work when there is a free convenient bus).

    Which helps.  Again, the model is very different form other cities I have seen.

Dear Wiscidea,

    There is one problem with what you are saying.  Which is that sprawl is usually a regional issue, and needs regional planning and solutions.  Local governments mainly push it out past their own small city limits and claim to have done something.  Unfortunately what they have done is satisfied their own within the limits populace, while making the regional problem worse.

patrick in Beijing

Dear Patrick,

You wrote..

"There is one problem with what you are saying. Which is that sprawl is usually a regional issue, and needs regional planning and solutions. Local governments mainly push it out past their own small city limits and claim to have done something. Unfortunately what they have done is satisfied their own within the limits populace, while making the regional problem worse."

There is one problem with what you are saying.

There are  local governments that are not only trying to satisfy their own populace. They are trying to preserve a history of environmentally friendly land use policies, trying to preserve farms that have been in the same family for over a century, trying to preserve natural areas they find valuable, trying to preserve local traditions. Their own populace might have invested financial resources and volunteer labor in preserving and restoring natural areas. It does not seem reasonable that a regional planning organization, perhaps not even familiar with the local culture, can step in an erase that overnight just because the town happens to be close to an expanding area and the regional planners decide to sacrifice it to save another area.

There is not even any certainty that the regional organization will base their decision on sound reasons. Perhaps powerful and influencial business interests decide where they would like to see development and "greenwash" it by saying it is best for the environment.

I reget that other areas might feel pressure because developers are forced to go around islands of resistance, but I really believe it is up to local commmunities to decide what they want to see happen around land and homes they might have invested their lives in.

It would be very depressing to see a regional organization approve development of areas my neighbors have worked so hard to manage or restore -- by liberating oak savannas,  planting native grassland, or cleaning up streams -- to protect endangered ecosystems.

It would be far better for communities to unite and form regional compacts to resist pressure from developers and investigate ways to minimize harm to the environment that occurs when people do construct homes and businesses beyond urban areas.

I'm confident that our town board has done something to minimize sprawl. They are setting an example for others to follow, not pushing the problem onto someone elses shoulders.

Sounds like they're trying, and it also sounds like bikes would work well in that situation -- the only problem with not having "thick", as you say, is that it sounds like it increases some distances, although I guess good mass transit would take care of that.  I just hope they don't muck it up with too many cars.

With electric assistance (like bio-d's bike)and a comfortable ride and more lanes and trails.  And some safety and weather ability.  These would most likely transport the bulk of the world's population not served by mass transit.

1/2 hp of human power, plus 1/2 hp of electric power, all wrapped up in a plastic bubble cocoon.  Recumbant design with three wheels for the really safety conscious.  Two wheel recumbant or regular bike design for the young and/or adventurous.

It's one possible wave of the future.  A very green wave of healthy exersize and renewable kwh powered transport.  The three wheeled bikes have plenty of carrying capacity for extra cargo too.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

Bookerly wrote: Imagine if people who lived in urban small square footage housing got say $10,000 a year each.  (Strict rent control would have to be in place, or another penalty system to keep greedy landlords from gobbling it all up from those who rent.)

How could a landlord, without committing the crime of conspiracy, charge more than the going rate and expect to retain any customers?

Jon,
my understanding is that in the new high-scale residential buildings just built by Donald Trump on the West Side of Manhattan south of 72nd Street between Lincoln Center and the West Side Highway, a certain number of units were required to be put up for sale for a much lower price, in order to attract residents of different income levels.  I wonder if that is the established arrangement now for new buildings of a certain size.

I do not know how exactly Patrick distinguishes between "dense" and "thick."  Here in Morningside Heights, where Broadway is like the Nile, I usually avoid walking with Little Dog on Broadway because there are so many pedestrians, and we too easily get in one another's way; so we usually walk on Riverside Drive.  I would consider the number of pedestrians on Broadway to be definitely dense during the day, but not thick.

On New Mexico: I lived in Santa Fe in 1993, and revisited Santa Fe and Taos a couple of times recently, the last time this past summer.  Santa Fe has been growing, but I do not recall noticing any kind of new light rail service in operation, or even just being built.  Possibly it is there, but I missed it -- but in that case, could it be all that big a thing?

Possibly there is something new down around Albuquerque, a city which is also growing, but which I do not know so well.

So if that is true, is it fair to criticize Bill Richardson, for talking the talk but not walking the walk?  Generally I like him, and hope he will serve in the next Democratic administration, so I am loath to criticize him.  Nevertheless we should ask him what he has done to promote rail service in his sprawling state.

Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.

   Dear Jon and CanisCandida,

      I should explain a bit better.  Sorry for not being clear (at some point, I hope to get my far behind web site up, then I will publish pictures, alas I can't do so here).

      Most housing developments are fairly large (by American standards).  They consist of a number of tall buildings of various thickness (not huge blocks, usually a little larger than the skinny scrapers of Vancouver).  The buildings sit back from the street forty or fifty yards (varies) thus giving some open space along the street corridor and preventing the solid wall effect we see in cities like Hong Kong, Tokyo and New York.  Each building has open space around it (say 20 yards or so at the closest, and more otherwise) so that while they are tall, they don't feel quite so dense (again, no solid wall effect).  Ground and maybe second floor retail and amenities.

     There is also (so far as I know), no zoning that prohibits business and residential from sharing the same space.  I worked for a television production company that was on the same floor as several apartments (and recently did some recording in a small studio that was basically an apartment converted to office space.)  This helps reduce commuting.

     Many of the buildings contain underground housing which is cheaper and available for workers in the complex.  Fancy, no? (But remember that this is a developing country, and it is often better than workers get in other developing countries, most of them don't complain, the price is right!)  But not terrible, either (and often free with the job, or very very cheap).

     There are already too many cars (IMHO), but bikes still outnumber them (smile).  Many of the cars are quite small, and there are also lots of little motorized three wheelers which people take for short distances (which is more efficient than taking a taxi a short distance).  Plus, there are lots of bicycle delivery and manual carts (three wheel carts without engines), plus carts with engines, electric bikes, motorcycles, and mule drawn wagons are all in use.  The wider range of available services encourages efficiency.

     The government is also investing heavily in new subway lines.  Which are quite lovely, and cheap (they also reduced the price of bus tickets and subway tickets to encourage ridership, as near as I can tell, it mainly means my students set out more often!).

     Things are not always so close (though I can bike most places I need to go in less than 1 1/2 hours), but there are services very close by mostly (within walking distance).  And people do walk a lot.

     Interestingly, in the time I have been here, the government has changed its ideas about how to develop as it saw how things were working out.  I like cities, and feel that it is quite livable (except on bad air days), but some people don't like cities.

     And there are still many small open air markets where you can get goods and services cheaply (I got the $2 bicycle chain instead of the $1.6 the other day, I suspect my old one will be repaired and sold for 50 cents or so).

     The two cities I have seen with the most refreshing approaches to density are Vancouver and Beijing (IMHO).

patrick in Beijing

  Dear Wiscidea,

      Basically, I disagree with you.  My experience in working on land use and planning issues is that local governments always adopt a NIMBY approach.  And that by doing so, the practical effect of their decisions is to push the problem out beyond their city (or town) limits.  Many of the small towns in America are quite small, and use zoning to protect their class interests (the San Francisco Bay Area, and the Boston area are two examples with which I am intimately familiar).

      I am all in favor of preserving open space and farmland, but the way to do so is through regional planning.  Otherwise, you end up preserving the open space and farm land in the wealthier areas, and not in the poorer areas (good regional planning should preserve more overall).

      The wealthier areas protect their own interests, but show no concern for what happens beyond their town borders.  This means the poorer areas (that have less power) are more easily ravaged by developers.

       If sustainability is to have any meaning, it must be regional.  And must include both wealthy and poor communities.

patrick in Beijing

   Where there are housing shortages, there is no such thing as "the going rate", rather there is only what the market will bear.  If we give poor renters subsidies for living in small units, then the most likely reaction of landlords is to raise the rents by almost the same amount, thus transferring the money to their pockets.

   It doesn't require a formal conspiracy to do this.  But most landlords do belong to landlord associations, which provide them the venue for conspiring if they need to do so.

   The "market" does not work for rental housing for a number of reasons.  It needs to be controlled to protect poorer families.  Otherwise, they will be forced out of denser urban areas, and will have to commute longer and longer distances (which is not environmentally friendly at all).

patrick in Beijing