I couldn't find anywhere else to post this, but since transportation and urban growth are closely related, I thought it would be ok to post here:

 

This is a very interesting and timely Op-Ed from Albuquerque as the region debates how best to plan for growth in the coming years.  Someone raised the heretical question:  Is it even possible for us to grow much more? 

 

http://www.abqtrib.com/news/2007/oct/12/vb-price-thinking-ahead/

 

Why are we planning for growth when we need to cut back?

 

By V.B. Price

Friday, October 12, 2007

 

Population predictions for greater metro Albuquerque over the next l8 years seem delusional. If we top a million people by 2025, it will be a double-edged miracle.

 

On the good side, it will mean New Mexico had done something no place in the country has managed to do - solve its water, energy, transportation and sustainable agriculture issues. It also means that global warming and peak oil declines had somehow reversed themselves...

 

 

 

NICE!                 

 

All cities (STATES) SHOULD have some sort of SubUrban Boundry where the building would stop going out.               

The funniest thing about it is the fact they live in a DESERT.         

 

"Uh, where did all the water"

 

 

I fixed the title:

When should urban suburban sprawl stop?

 

:-D

London, England, attempted to limit suburban sprawl with a "green belt" strategy.  Could something similar work here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Belt_(UK)

 

What if we create a greenspace buffer zone near county borders and linked or merged it with the ring of Metroparks.  The choice to live beyond the buffer zone might be discouraged by limited routes through the buffer zone and the resulting increased congestion. 

 

It might not work.  Sounds good though.

:-D

I think it would have to work!

There are few things that would cause me to want to go to war, but if areas outside the watershed of the Great Lakes want our water then it really will be over my dead body.

^Totally agree.

^Ditch the "don't ask, don't tell" and I'd sign up!

Hmmm. People settle in the damndest places...like the desert Southwest. Then they dam the Colorado so they can have greenery everwhere. Places like Ohio have paid for their water and highway projects for years. This is one reason why Ohio is a donor state and now they want our water??? Fuggheddabouddit!!!

Additional thought: I liked Bill Richardson until he suggested going after our water. Now? Hah! :x

The water concerns aren't just in the desert Southwest - check out this graphic (give it time to load/process):

 

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/images/graphics/droughtmap_0823.html

 

As we approach the era of growing scarcity of fossil fuels, it's going to become less and less possible to move water from the Great Lakes to the arid regions west of the 100th meridian and beyond to the far side of the continental divide.  The west has to learn to live within its local/regional water budget.  That means it can only support so many people.  Period.

 

Back to the subject of growth here's a great excerpt from the book One Life at a Time, Please , by Edward Abbey (published in 1978) p. 60:

 

"If progress means change for the better-- and I'll support that-- then growth as we have come to know it means change for the worse.  Let me try out another new fangled maxim here:  Growth is the enemy of progress.

 

"Look around and see what growth has done for your city.  "A city not growing is dying" says San Francisco mayor Dianne Feinstein.  Really?  You sure?

 

"Why not consider the possibility that a city, like a man, woman, or tree should grow until it reaches maturity-- and then stop?  Who wants to live forever under the stress and strain and awkwardness of adolescence?  Life begins at maturity.  A human who never stopped growing would be a freak, a mutant, a monster, a sideshow geek eating live chickens for supper and toppling dead of diabetes and kidney failure into an early grave.  We passed the optimum of urban growth and population many decades ago.  Now we live in the age of accelerating growth and diminishing returns.  Think of it this way Miss Feinstein. When a city stops growing its citizens can live.  In peace.  Security.  With a modicum of domestic tranquility. "

I'm surprised cities have not instituted urban growth boundaries. Fayette County, Kentucky (Lexington) has a UGB, with the parcels denoted as urban service area (USA) and rural service area (RSA). No differentiation in services, but suburban growth is capped within the USA. Outside, in the RSA, the minimum land size was 10 acres for years, until stupid landowners began plopping McMansions and doing nothing else with the acreage. It's now set at _40_ acres minimum, which effectively solves the issue.

 

We've let the voters decide in the past if we should expand the USA, and the voters have soundly voted NO. Comon, other cities need to do this. It's effective, although it has its side effects, which include --

 

1. Pushing land values up. Median home prices in Lexington, versus surrounding counties, are $30-$40,000 more on average.

2. Development goes elsewhere. As land in the USA runs out here in Lexington (we have ~10 years of land left), the development pushes out into other counties. All but one of the counties have county-wide zoning, and the one county that doesn't, has a hodgepodge of crap developments (i.e. 1 house per acre, trailer lots) scattered throughout and its really quite bad.

 

Benefits include --

1. Dense development. The subruban development we tend to have is literally shotgun housing in the suburbs, or apartments/condos/townhomes. Still not healthy. Our mayor has an urban infill landbank, TIF financing for new projects, many incentives, which is a great step.

2. Etc. you probably know the rest.

Not to throw cold water on this, but the fact Ohio is a "home rule" state and also has many growing townships makes it difficult to put such limits into effect.... much as they are needed.  Those townships that are growing are clustered around the outer ring suburbs that surround Ohio's major urban centers.  So how does one institute growth boundaries without prompting a string of lawsuits from these townships?

Home rule does make things difficult, but ask Greater Ohio and they will tell you that other home rule states have found ways to regulate growth.  Perhaps not with growth boundaries, but other means.  Unfortunately, I can't recall what the Greater Ohio person who said this during a radio interview I heard a year or two ago what those things were... 

 

In Ohio, until we make changes to our transportation policies, we're not going to stop auto-centric suburban sprawl. 

Good point, but I don't think we can simply throw up our hands and say it can't be done.  I would bet that in some  townships they are anxious about retaining their rural character.  They don't want to developed and Big-boxed.  They might welcome an agreement that gave them a reason to set 40 acre minimum parcel sizes.

 

We'd need a regionally-recognized leader to define a rough boundary and then approach the boundary townships about raising their minimum parcel sizes to 40 acres.  Doing so as a way to maintain a rural community might be incentive enough.  What could Cleveland and the FirstSuburbs Consortium of inner-ring suburbs offer as an incentive?

 

 

That's a good start !

My dad told me, back in the '80s, about plans for a Super Outerbelt that was to be 20 miles or so outside of 270. Wouldn't that be a mess?

I dont have time to read the thread but I think urban growth should be expanded when growth boundaries cause prices to make urban living unobtainable by middle class and poor residents. Wasn't that the problem with Ft.Collins, CO?

I don't really believe that an urban growth boundary is a solution to anything.  Oregon has enough problems with it as it is, ugly  court fights.  Really its not where we live and what we live in but how we live.  We live too far from work in places with no walkability and public transit.

 

I don't particularly like suburbs but I am not one for restricting people's options of housing, its their choice and a freedom not available in many other countries and should be preserved.  Lets build better suburbs instead of forcing people into higher density urban areas.  I'm not saying don't encourage a certain level of density but many times the view points are urban or bust.  The suburbs once provided a valuable asset of less business but today, in many places, this is untrue due to poor design and society clutching to highly auto dependant lifestyles.

I don't particularly like suburbs but I am not one for restricting people's options of housing, its their choice and a freedom not available in many other countries and should be preserved.  Lets build better suburbs instead of forcing people into higher density urban areas.  I'm not saying don't encourage a certain level of density but many times the view points are urban or bust.  The suburbs once provided a valuable asset of less business but today, in many places, this is untrue due to poor design and society clutching to highly auto dependant lifestyles.

 

I'm sure that most people agree, that's why so many people choose to move to ever-more-distant suburbs. 

 

How do you propose we preserve the suburban way of life for those who choose it without an auto-dependent lifestyle?  With half-acre minimum lot sizes, segregated residential, industrial, commercial, retail, and special purpose uses, where everything is spread out -- do you know of a carfree or car-light suburban community? 

 

In the suburbs we have today, the people and the businesses are spread thin, so cars are the most convenient way for those people to travel to the businesses that they might want to engage.  If we take away the cars, how do we get the dispersed population to the dispersed businesses they need and that need them?  Mass transit doesn't work that well with such a diluted population.  Do you have any suggestions? 

 

This suburban model just doesn't seem to make much sense.  At some point Ohio will be one continuous suburb, unless we plan differently or auto-dependence becomes impossible. 

 

In my opinion, saying that we should just let people make their own choice is a failure of government to provide for the health, safety and welfare of the people. 

According to the CDC,

 

Accidents and adverse effects resulting from the accidents is the leading cause of death for people under 45 to 1 year of age.  Of all the causes of death due to accidents, the leading cause is motor vehicle accidents.

 

http://www.disastercenter.com/cdc/

 

 

If you say our suburbs are poorly designed, I agree.  Government can and should encourage better designs.  Reducing car use would save a lot of lives, and coincidentally also save a lot of energy and reduce pollution.

 

Moreover, Ohio is struggling to maintain its existing infrastructure, our population is decreasing, and I for one am all for not adding to the inventory that we will have to maintain.  If people want to make the choice to move further away, they should pay the full cost of making that choice.  One way to do that is to stop building roads and water lines and sewer lines beyond a certain point, ten miles from the sewer treatment plant, for example.  Anyone who chooses to live further out should pay the full cost to build and maintain that infrastructure.  We aren't taking their choice away, but we all must take responsibility for the choices we do make.

 

If you say our suburbs are poorly designed, I agree.  Government can and should encourage better designs.  Reducing car use would save a lot of lives, and coincidentally also save a lot of energy and reduce pollution.

 

In new communities, it's hard to set aside land for commercial uses when it's not going to be developed for ten years.

I can't wait for the day when I can walk on a sidewalk from Cincy to Dayton.  Will it be possible??

 

If you say our suburbs are poorly designed, I agree.  Government can and should encourage better designs.  Reducing car use would save a lot of lives, and coincidentally also save a lot of energy and reduce pollution.

 

In new communities, it's hard to set aside land for commercial uses when it's not going to be developed for ten years.

 

Ah, you're too pessimistic!  It will be hard to give up my car too, but that doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be done.  If a developer plans for it she can put commercial development space in the plan for future development, perhaps left as greenspace until the development has grown to the point where it can support the commercial development. 

I'm not pessimistic, it's just a reality. Believe me, I wouldn't be caught dead living somewhere like that. I talked to my friend who does planning in the southwest region and he said having it as greenspace in the meantime is still lost revenue and a liability for developers. I guess we could try and get government to make up for the difference.

Greenspace is a liability for developers.

 

 

 

That says a lot about our society, doesn't it?  :drunk:

 

I bet it would be a lot of fun to develop some land -- without having to deal with a "real" developer or a bank.  Fat chance of that happening.