..according to the SmarthGrowth review,They warn that if sprawling development continues to fuel growth in driving, the projected 59 percent increase in the total miles driven between 2005 and 2030 will overwhelm expected gains from vehicle efficiency and low-carbon fuels. Even if the most stringent fuel-efficiency proposals under consideration are enacted, notes co-author Steve Winkelman, "vehicle emissions still would be 40 percent above 1990 levels in 2030 - entirely off-track from reductions of 60-80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 required for climate protection."

Now if we could just cut back on livestock -- hey, sounds like land use is the hot topic! (no pun intended)

LOL, funny juxtaposition of quotes there ... but yeah, by wife has been after me to stop all MY methane emissions.  Can't help it, green peppers give me gas.  Moo!

As to New Urbanism, it is a wonderful concept although what troubles me is that many of those downtown units are priced so high only a few can afford them - those "yuppie lofts" and stuff like that.  As long as there is a fairly constant 2-3 percent growth in population, people will head out into new suburban frontiers.  That's a scary thought, and I doubt New Urbanism works really good unless it is done in areas having low or negative growth.  However, economics and the housing slump might fix some of that ...
-sam

Onward through the fog

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

There's an easy explanation for why some New Urban developments cost more than otherwise comparable ones: More people want to buy them and are willing to pay a premium. There's a bunch of research backing this up, but one of the first studies was Valuing the New Urbanism, by George Washington University profs Mark Eppli and Charles Tu. Their most recent research shows that New Urbanist homes not only sell for a premium when they're new, but they also hold their premium values over time because there's such a small supply.

The problem is that New Urbanist developments are often hard to build because existing subdivision regulations and other land use rules dictate that low-density sprawling neighborhoods be built. So it's illegal to build in the New Urban way, unless an enterprising developer is willing to go through the time-consuming and costly rigmarole to get special approvals and variances. Today's rules were written during the mid-20th Century, when we were trying to make room for a country full of families with kids (in 1960, about half of our households had kids). Now we've got aging Boomers and empty nesters, Gen Xers who aren't as crazy about the 'burbs, and lots of one-person households. Only about one-third of households have children, and the percentage is declining.

We ought to make the rules of development more flexible to allow for more compact neighborhoods. That would make a lot more American homebuyers happier.

Our nation is growing. As we build to accommodate newcomers, we ought to make both the houses and the neighborhoods greener.

I'm concerned that projects built under the mantle of Smart Growth don't live up to its goals. Are they located near transit that residents find useful to ride? Do they provide pedestrian amenities like local shops and cafes, rich architectural detail, and public plazas and parks that we enjoy in traditional cities?

Too often I'm seeing big boring residential boxes only accessed by car. At best they may reduce car commuting distances; at worst their increased traffic and poor design can create a backlash by neighbors against higher-density development.

I doubt New Urbanism works really good unless it is done in areas having low or negative growth.

That is a sloppy, unsubstantiated claim.  New Urbanist developments have thrived in high-growth areas, such as Raleigh-Durham, parts of California, outside of D.C., and so forth.

I'll take the "what Don Chen said" route as a reply to the affordability part of your comment.   It's true most zoning and other municipal regulations prohibit New Urbanist developments, but the New Urbanists have proactively sought to replace obsolete codes with those of their own design.

Not that I don't have qualms with NU.  Its roots are primarily in architecture and urban design, and only some environmental connections are a priori.  There are more and less eco-friendly NU developments; it depends on several dimensions such as brownfield/greenfield, nonporous/porous pavement, natural features, transit-oriented (almost all have at least some transit connection), etc.

In the rust belt, the cities became the industrial centers of the area, filled with low-price housing densely packed.  Today, with most industry having moved to China, these cities have a few industrial areas releasing pollution, a lot of dilapidated or abandoned low-price, densely-packed housing, and crime and drug problems.  Aside from expensive lofts in the high-rise districts, people aren't moving downtown -- they're staying in the suburbs, as far out as they can afford.  So are businesses:  most of the new, high-growth business has abandoned the city center for outlying suburban business centers along freeway exits near rich suburbs.  Most people can't afford to live in the rich suburbs, so they commute.      How can you live close to your job in this situation?  You can't.  The only solution is better transit.

David, thanks for this interesting link.

Design will be an integral part of building sustainable alternatives.  We suffer with terribly fatal designs at all levels of our communal and technological order.  

The entrenched interests in maintaining the current track of sprawl have their grips firmly on the wheel and will not be easily wrested of control.  These interests have big money from investors and from our tax dollars steering the system.  This can only be maintained if they can keep the political system corrupted in Washington and in the state capitals (I own this land here and I'd like to see an interchange built near it.)
Our broken democracy is not working in our favor. I see a lot of apathy in people, including myself, getting more involved to fix it.  

...that the "rustbelt" cities have suffered terribly by the exodus of manufacturing.  I know this might sound utopian at this stage, but it shows that a holistic anti-sprawl strategy needs to include a strategy to keep or rebuild manufacturing in or near cities as a way to build an economically sustainable dense city.

I think the question is more how to control rural development rather than to promote downtown revitalization, the latter of which is fairly easy but very, very expensive.  We can argue about net population increases and decreases and New Urbanism later - I think my case is even stronger now.

Remember, suburban land doesn't exist until you have vast rural acreage of perhaps 500 acres to develop with roads, houses, and businesses.  Check with the first four suburban developments, the most famous being Levittown, Long Island - they built on potato fields and no, you didn't get a basement.  This was like 1948 or so.

Nothing has really changed, since nobody is going to stop them operating in rural areas.  But perhaps I have a jaundiced view...

Onward through the fog