tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7011655232093163642.post2363172723793656484..comments2024-01-14T06:16:50.475+13:00Comments on Cities Matter: Why compact cities aren't so smartPhil McDermotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06869744647213369964noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7011655232093163642.post-62751438785491338302012-03-19T09:26:08.835+13:002012-03-19T09:26:08.835+13:00I will have to agree with Todd on his arguments - ...I will have to agree with Todd on his arguments - I really don't find sprawling cities with their associated long commutes and often complete lack of walkability charming at all. Cities should be as compact as possible, that way they are easy to get around, a lot of services will be available nearby (the whole point of a city, actually) and dense cities are even healthier to live in - just see US statistics showing that residents of a city like New York (where you walk to public transport) vs. residents in Houston (where you walk to your car) are considerably fitter. Preferably cities should be built as ultra compact cities, as described here: http://wildrocketsledgeride.com/?page_id=42bluesteelhttp://wildrocketsledgeride.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7011655232093163642.post-19518807559944200862011-06-17T06:44:05.229+12:002011-06-17T06:44:05.229+12:00Mr. McDermott's criticisms of compact developm...Mr. McDermott's criticisms of compact development misrepresent key issues. I will respond to a few of them here, and I invite anybody seriously interested in these issues to review the extensive academic literature on the costs of sprawl and the benefits of smart growth.<br /><br />"A focus on centralisation guarantees congestion." This depends on specific conditions and how congestion is measured. Increased density tends to increase congestion intensity, particularly if an area lacks grade separated public transit, but as described in "Driven Apart: How Sprawl is Lengthening Our Commutes and Why Misleading Mobility Measures are Making Things Worse," (www.ceosforcities.org/work/driven-apart ), sprawl increases travel distances, and therefore the total time people spend driving and delayed by congestion.<br /><br />"A focus on centralisation reduces green space and concentrates urban pollution." Higher density development tends to reduce greenspace within the urbanized area, but by reducing urban expansion it preserves total farmland and wildlife habitat. For discussion see Chester Arnold and James Gibbons (1996), “Impervious Surface Coverage: The Emergence of a Key Environmental Indicator,” APA Journal, Vol. 62/2.<br /><br />"A focus on rail transit escalates costs, reduces flexibility, and caters for only a minority of trips among even those (relatively few) households that have ready access to it." This reflects a misunderstanding of the role rail transit plays in an efficient transport system. Rail provides a catalyst for more compact, walkable neighborhoods which leverages additional reductions in per capita vehicle travel. Residents of regions with high quality transit tend to drive 10-20% fewer annual miles than in regions that lack such services. See Litman (2005), “Impacts of Rail Transit on the Performance of a Transportation System,” Transportation Research Record 1930; at www.vtpi.org/railben.pdf .<br /><br />"Medium to high density living is socially flawed, as it is associated with transience, increased urban crime, diminished quality of life, and loss of a sense of community, especially for households in middle to lower income brackets". This statement is wrong. In fact, crime rates are higher in rural areas than cities (at least in the US and Canada), and residents of more walkable, mixed communities are more likely to know their neighbors and participate in community activities than residents of sprawl. For an amusing discussion of this issue see, “The Debate Over Density: Do Four-Plexes Cause Cannibalism” 1000 Friends of Oregon (www.onethousandfriendsoforegon.org/issues/density.html ).<br /><br />"Refurbishment and restoration of inner city suburbs for higher density living leads to gentrification that displaces lower income households." Current demographic and economic trends are increasing demand for housing in more accessible, multi-modal neighborhoods. The smart solution is build more new urbanist neighborhoods to increase supply and reduce prices so lower- and middle-income households can afford them. See "Where We Want To Be: Household Location Preferences And Their Implications For Smart Growth" (www.vtpi.org/sgcp.pdf ).<br /><br /><br />For more information:<br /><br />Pamela Blais (2010) "Perverse Cities: Hidden Subsidies, Wonky Policy, and Urban Sprawl," UBC Press (http://perversecities.ca).<br /><br />Robert Burchell, et al (2000), "The Costs of Sprawl – Revisited," TCRP Report 39, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org); at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_74-a.pdf.<br /><br />Todd Litman (2010), "Understanding Smart Growth Savings," Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/sg_save.pdf.<br /><br />William Lucy (2002), "Danger in Exurbia: Outer Suburbs More Dangerous Than Cities," University of Virginia (www.virginia.edu); at http://arch.virginia.edu/exurbia/death-in-exurbia.pdf.Todd Litmanhttp://www.vtpi.orgnoreply@blogger.com