The Cyburbia Forums is the oldest and most active English language urban planning message board on the Internet, and one of the small number of online communities where members enjoy intelligent, troll-free discussion. Cyburbia has hundreds of active members, yet is a strong community full of creative, friendly, and occasionally offbeat planners, planning students, architects, urbanists and other like-minded people who care about and/or help shape the built environment. Cyburbia Forums members enjoy a sense of community and camaraderie that is unmatched by any planning-related web site or listserv. We'd love to have you join us as another Cyburbian.
I am curious if planners are interested in ending sprawl based planning. Or do they really think it is a good thing? Are they being led by the Civil engineers into accepting and promoting sprawl based planning? Is it the developers? the politicians? Or is sprawl planning kept on its pedestal by inertia? Is it the responsibility of planners to lead the fight against the insanity?
the way I see it, as my opinion, I would say... all of the above, and then some.
I think sprawl is a contribution of everything. It's big business, because as much as we fight, they're dream of putting a store in or near our town/city/neighborhood will be on the basis of their template. They use a design (big box, usually facing the road, huge parking in front, etc.) they know works, a layout that has proven to maximize profits and ease for their customers. You see this a lot with Wal-Mart especially. Just a poll, how many people have "old" Wal-Marts in their town, and no one can do anything with? They just sit there, until some virtual unknown store moves in? And they best part... they left that store empty, to move into a brand new space down the street. Companies try to repeat what works, so they can continue making money, and sadly to maximize profits you need big box stores with lot's of land, and usually no sustainability.
I also, as un-American as this will sound, blame the "American Dream". This isn't seen in other countries, because here everyone wants a house, with a yard, white picket fence, and a place for their dogs and/or kids to play. This was breed into us as the definition of successful. Moving out of an apartment, having the freedom to turn the football game up as loud as you want without fear of having an eviction notice, or noise complaint the following Monday (I'm still bitter, can you tell?).
Lastly, people believe living close together, or in uptown/downtown urban areas has too many negatives. With the exception of great urban areas (Manhattan, Chicago,and some others) people don't have enough amenities within walking distance. I know in Charlotte, NC there is no retail to speak of within a few blocks of these handful of 40 story condos they just built. Crime is another thing. The mantra of urban areas being crime ridden is laughable mostly, but still, a fear of people when deciding to live downtown or in the 'burbs.
I think it's a mix of things, not just the three above, but those are the main things that I believe cause sprawl. It's not an evil plot by anyone, it just happens, it's the general consensus, and good luck trying to change that overnight or stopping it with zoning laws or anything else.
by Mr_Bacon on Thu, 2010/01/28 - 6:24am
My undergrad courses are teaching me that Smart Growth is the way to go (reversing the last half-century of suburbanization and sprawl by focusing on intensification, mixed uses, etc.)
I'm being taught that sprawl patterns are creating problems, thus the time has come for a paradigm shift.
If my learning experience is the same as the experience of other current students/recent grads, then I think the tides will be turning in favour of Smart Growth in the coming years.
by CPSURaf on Thu, 2010/01/28 - 6:26am
Quote:
Originally posted by steel
Is it the responsibility of planners to lead the fight against the insanity?
It's hard to lead the fight against sprawl when planners are at the whim of local politics. When there is no political will, there is no way.
by Hink_Planner on Thu, 2010/01/28 - 1:48pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Bacon
My undergrad courses are teaching me that Smart Growth is the way to go (reversing the last half-century of suburbanization and sprawl by focusing on intensification, mixed uses, etc.)
I'm being taught that sprawl patterns are creating problems, thus the time has come for a paradigm shift.
If my learning experience is the same as the experience of other current students/recent grads, then I think the tides will be turning in favour of Smart Growth in the coming years.
Although I support many of these ideas, I seriously doubt many will come to fruition. Many educators are just that...educators, not real world planners. Academia finds a way to try and sugar coat most of what is taught in planning school. 5 years ago, I was taught this... I think my first year out, I was pushing for change... and then realized that it just isn't practical 75% of the time and the other 25% is political.
I think what sprawl really is currently, is cheaper land, with more development potential. Walmart in a downtown? That would cost them a fortune to get a 250k s.f. building. The model of construction we currently have (get everything you need in one place stores) does not create an environment that is friendly towards urban cores. Other than some larger MSA's most areas will work with whomever will expand their tax base. No matter where they want to go. I don't think this is a planner thing, but an elected official thing.
by steel on Thu, 2010/01/28 - 2:49pm
I have sat in meetings with suburban planning agencies where my client is insisting that they do not need the amount of parking being required. They showed all kinds of data to prove their point but lost the argument. They built the required parking lot and all the extra water retention it needed and now have around 100 empty spaces.
by mgk920 on Thu, 2010/01/28 - 3:28pm
I agree with the line that planners may WANT for things to be more compact, walkable, cohesive, spontaneous and so forth, but when the local pols write zoning laws that legally require and enforce that 'wasteful' form of post-WWII style 'beigeville' sprawl development, there really isn't much that they can do. Those are the same pols who sign the planners' paychecks.
Mike
by nrschmid on Thu, 2010/01/28 - 3:44pm
Working for rural clients, I think we often take these undesireable components (big box retail, large lots, conventional subdivisions, etc.)out of their context, isolate them, and ridicule them. For example, a Chicago city lot (which ranges from 25'x125' to 25'x150") would look ridiculous in the middle of Montana. To create the right feel for transit oriented development, it's not just mixed uses around a mass transit node. You also need to have enough businesses and shopping traffic, and too many developers are trying to ram TODs down smaller communities throats because hey, that's the way the bigger towns are doing it.
Greater emphasis should be placed on context sensitive design, from the dense urban core to the very rural and hardly-populated countryside. There are plenty of tools to make big box retail, large lots, and conventional subdivisions more aesthetically appealing, through the use of architectural pattern books/design guidelines, lot coving (varying the setbacks of individual large lots), or introducing conservation subdivision where applicable. Over the past 5-6 years, I have seen vast improvements in "sprawl" in many exurbs.
by Gotta Speakup on Thu, 2010/01/28 - 4:00pm
Some planners seem to be against sprawl, some don't. The majority would rather see more dense, less conventional development, smaller parking lots (or no offstreet parking at all) etc.
But some seem to think that any alternative to a single family home on a half acre or more is inferior. They may say they oppose sprawl, but then they make it inevitable.
by ColoGI on Thu, 2010/01/28 - 4:46pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Gotta Speakup
Some planners seem to be against sprawl, some don't. The majority would rather see more dense, less conventional development, smaller parking lots (or no offstreet parking at all) etc.
But some seem to think that any alternative to a single family home on a half acre or more is inferior. They may say they oppose sprawl, but then they make it inevitable.
IMHO the compact stuff will become inevitable when cheap energy becomes scarce, and folks will seek out more compact development for the lower cost and because they won't be purchasing consumer goods they were manipulated into wanting and needing a huge house to put the stuff in. BUT many won't like or adjust to the increased density ( a new planning challenge). It is simply human nature.
So I tend to want to let people make their short-term choices, as I can't take away what people want. But we need to start making places now for the coming wave of people realizing they can't have what they want. Not everyone wants a big yard, and not everyone wants a condo in downtown. Up until a year ago the majority in our country could make such a choice.
The change is on the horizon and the most democratic thing to do (do we have a democracy any more?) is to allow the widest range of choices. When the suburbs are too expensive, many of those big houses will be scrapped and recycled. Not a disaster - I'll be the first one in for windows for my greehouses.
by wahday on Thu, 2010/01/28 - 4:58pm
What planners want and what actually happens are two different animals, largely because planers don't make laws - they enforce them (more or less).
And while it is true that we have a seat at the table (or some might say, behind the first row that is actually sitting at the table) and can make recommendations, I think that studies and literature supporting compact development, urban growth boundaries and the like are easily trumped by a housing developer(s) who contributes cash to a politician's campaign. And I shudder to think how this will look in the future now that the lid has been blown off corporate donations.
In my fair town, we have the added layer that at least some of our City Councilors have significant land holdings in an undeveloped part of the City. There is little doubt in my mind that some see the forwarding of sprawl development as their opportunity to make it big and they are using the platform of City Council to ensure their land is as valuable as possible.
Given all of this, the power of the planner (despite what Mr. O'Toole says) to curtail future sprawl is really quite limited. Larger, more nefarious forces are at play.
This doesn't mean its hopeless, but it certainly is challenging.
Register Now for FREE!
I think sprawl is a contribution of everything. It's big business, because as much as we fight, they're dream of putting a store in or near our town/city/neighborhood will be on the basis of their template. They use a design (big box, usually facing the road, huge parking in front, etc.) they know works, a layout that has proven to maximize profits and ease for their customers. You see this a lot with Wal-Mart especially. Just a poll, how many people have "old" Wal-Marts in their town, and no one can do anything with? They just sit there, until some virtual unknown store moves in? And they best part... they left that store empty, to move into a brand new space down the street. Companies try to repeat what works, so they can continue making money, and sadly to maximize profits you need big box stores with lot's of land, and usually no sustainability.
I also, as un-American as this will sound, blame the "American Dream". This isn't seen in other countries, because here everyone wants a house, with a yard, white picket fence, and a place for their dogs and/or kids to play. This was breed into us as the definition of successful. Moving out of an apartment, having the freedom to turn the football game up as loud as you want without fear of having an eviction notice, or noise complaint the following Monday (I'm still bitter, can you tell?).
Lastly, people believe living close together, or in uptown/downtown urban areas has too many negatives. With the exception of great urban areas (Manhattan, Chicago,and some others) people don't have enough amenities within walking distance. I know in Charlotte, NC there is no retail to speak of within a few blocks of these handful of 40 story condos they just built. Crime is another thing. The mantra of urban areas being crime ridden is laughable mostly, but still, a fear of people when deciding to live downtown or in the 'burbs.
I think it's a mix of things, not just the three above, but those are the main things that I believe cause sprawl. It's not an evil plot by anyone, it just happens, it's the general consensus, and good luck trying to change that overnight or stopping it with zoning laws or anything else.
I'm being taught that sprawl patterns are creating problems, thus the time has come for a paradigm shift.
If my learning experience is the same as the experience of other current students/recent grads, then I think the tides will be turning in favour of Smart Growth in the coming years.
I'm being taught that sprawl patterns are creating problems, thus the time has come for a paradigm shift.
If my learning experience is the same as the experience of other current students/recent grads, then I think the tides will be turning in favour of Smart Growth in the coming years.
I think what sprawl really is currently, is cheaper land, with more development potential. Walmart in a downtown? That would cost them a fortune to get a 250k s.f. building. The model of construction we currently have (get everything you need in one place stores) does not create an environment that is friendly towards urban cores. Other than some larger MSA's most areas will work with whomever will expand their tax base. No matter where they want to go. I don't think this is a planner thing, but an elected official thing.
Mike
Greater emphasis should be placed on context sensitive design, from the dense urban core to the very rural and hardly-populated countryside. There are plenty of tools to make big box retail, large lots, and conventional subdivisions more aesthetically appealing, through the use of architectural pattern books/design guidelines, lot coving (varying the setbacks of individual large lots), or introducing conservation subdivision where applicable. Over the past 5-6 years, I have seen vast improvements in "sprawl" in many exurbs.
But some seem to think that any alternative to a single family home on a half acre or more is inferior. They may say they oppose sprawl, but then they make it inevitable.
But some seem to think that any alternative to a single family home on a half acre or more is inferior. They may say they oppose sprawl, but then they make it inevitable.
So I tend to want to let people make their short-term choices, as I can't take away what people want. But we need to start making places now for the coming wave of people realizing they can't have what they want. Not everyone wants a big yard, and not everyone wants a condo in downtown. Up until a year ago the majority in our country could make such a choice.
The change is on the horizon and the most democratic thing to do (do we have a democracy any more?) is to allow the widest range of choices. When the suburbs are too expensive, many of those big houses will be scrapped and recycled. Not a disaster - I'll be the first one in for windows for my greehouses.
And while it is true that we have a seat at the table (or some might say, behind the first row that is actually sitting at the table) and can make recommendations, I think that studies and literature supporting compact development, urban growth boundaries and the like are easily trumped by a housing developer(s) who contributes cash to a politician's campaign. And I shudder to think how this will look in the future now that the lid has been blown off corporate donations.
In my fair town, we have the added layer that at least some of our City Councilors have significant land holdings in an undeveloped part of the City. There is little doubt in my mind that some see the forwarding of sprawl development as their opportunity to make it big and they are using the platform of City Council to ensure their land is as valuable as possible.
Given all of this, the power of the planner (despite what Mr. O'Toole says) to curtail future sprawl is really quite limited. Larger, more nefarious forces are at play.
This doesn't mean its hopeless, but it certainly is challenging.