Building Livable Communities

[Telly Savalas]

Making our cities and towns livable is an issue which has completely disappeared from the radar in the United States. At present, suburban sprawl is the primary form of new development. This mode of development encourages reliance on single passenger motor vehicles, pits local governments against one another, exacerbates problems of economic inequality, and is a nightmare for the environment. ( see http://www.urban.org/pubs/urbansprawl/one.htm )


Whatever one thinks of Bill Clinton, it must be acknowledged that the Clinton-Gore Livability Agenda was a step in the right direction. The goals of the program were to:

• Preserve green spaces that promote clean air and clean water, sustain wildlife, and provide families with places to walk, play and relax.

• Ease traffic congestion by improving road planning, strengthening existing transportation systems, and expanding use of alternative transportation.

• Restore a sense of community by fostering citizen and private sector involvement in local planning, including the placement of schools and other public facilities.

• Promote collaboration among neighboring communities -- cities, suburbs or rural areas -- to develop regional growth strategies and address common issues like crime.

• Enhance economic competitiveness by nurturing a high quality of life that attracts well-trained workers and cutting-edge industries.

(from http://www.smartgrowth.org/library/gore_pr11199.html )

It's time for the leaders of the Democratic Party to make a stand on this issue. The federal government needs to be a partner to local governments to encourage and empower them to restore sanity to their development policies.

[NMDemDist2]

1. K & N, thanks for the links n/t

[crispini]

2. I agree. Our cities suck.

The suburbanization -- it's very very bad. And the Dems should recognize that what with the rising gas prices, this is an issue that lots of people should be able to get behind.

[Deja Q]

3. It was more profitable to keep us separated. Just as how McMansions are

more profitable when cheaply built, rather than properly built with decent insulation (amongst other things).

When porfit is put above common sense, everyone suffers. (though the endowment-challened mcmansion owners won't realize it for years to come. The lowest $ means more to them; as it does us all.)

[Telly Savalas]

6. I'm too lazy to chase down the links right now...

but zoning laws and public policy play a large role in the dominance of McMansions. Townhouses, which promote density and a livable community, would be a lot more profitable than McMansions if only developers were given the green light to build them in more areas and the infrastructure was in place to support them. (transit, etc.) The problem isn't laissez-faire capitalism, but rather really bad urban planning agendas. Fix the zoning laws to promote livable communities, and the market will respond.

On the other hand, large businesses do certainly stand to gain from the clusterfucked organization of local governments which allow them to play one suburban municipal government against another to get tax abatements.

[EmmaP]

4. Ah...

This is one of my favorite topics. Here are a couple more links that you might find interesting...

http://www.dpz.com/index.htm

http://www.walkable.org/

http://www.kunstler.com/

[Bloodblister Bob]

5. Not that you advocate this scenario, but...

...it's been my experience that many "urban planners" would like us all to live in little high-rise apartments, right beside the railroad tracks. That's not my idea of a good time.

[Telly Savalas]

7. I've never seen anybody support that.

[Bloodblister Bob]

10. Your post implied that...

...people driving their cars and living in suburban developments are somehow not really "free".

If they're not, then the freedom-making solution would seem to be the opposite of the scenes pictured: high-density housing located on public transportation routes. Do people really want to live like that? I don't.

[Telly Savalas]

11. There are a wide variety of alternatives to sprawl.

The freedom-making solution is to make these options available. As it stands, most new development is guided by public policies which promote sprawl. If a developer wants to vary the slightest from cookie cutter McMansions and strip malls, she's confronted with hostile zoning laws and the lack of infrastructure support. Hence choices are being denied.

As far as high-density housing on transit routes go, it seems to be the case that demand is a helluva lot greater than supply based on the housing costs in large North American cities.

[Canuckistanian]

8. Bedzed - Check this out

What is BedZED?
BedZED, the Beddington Zero Energy Development, is an environmentally-friendly, energy-efficient mix of housing and work space in Beddington, Sutton.

Unique is an over-used word, but BedZED deserves it. There are a number of small, one-off projects based on sound environmental principles. However, to our knowledge, BedZED is the first to incorporate up-to-the-minute thinking on sustainable development into every aspect of the scheme, from the energy-efficient design to the way the houses are heated.

http://www.bedzed.org.uk/main.html

[slor]

9. Thanks for posting...

I am thinking about getting some friends together to purchase foreclosures, and I want to promote renewable energy and other environmental concerns, as well as bolstering a sense of community that is missing in most neighborhoods. These links will certainly help!

[lostnfound]

12. Missing: economic resilience / self-sufficiency dimension for communities

Of course, the "Washington consensus" seeks an interdependent globalized economy and sees community self-sufficiency as either a threat or as a lost profit opportunity for capital.

In lieu of a huge centralized government prone towards corporatocracy, I want to see policies that help to encourage community self-sufficiency. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. But it's better for the environment and for our communities if we can feed, clothe, shelter ourselves without having to ship every bit of it across the globe.

Diversity provides resilience. Monoculture creates vulnerabilities.

[wiggs]

13. another good link

check out

www.activelivingbydesign.com

[dcfirefighter]

14. Absolutely vital for the success of the species

Maximum density laws keep lower incomes out of housing: they're put in place to encourage a 'floor' in housing prices, keeping the 'riff-raff' out.

Enforced 'greenspace' tends to raise the price of real estate, and often becomes 'developable' when the price is right and the correct palms are greased.

Suburban areas receive massive subsidies for their existence, though these subsidies are not always apparent:
Road projects
Public Safety Expansion
Utility laws (i.e. must provide service at average costs).
Ultra cheap gasoline

Suburban development occurs for two reasons: supply and demand.

City development can easily accommodate more population through changed tax laws. Specifically, a two part solution exists:
1) property taxes on buildings must be reduced or eliminated, decreasing the cost of owning a building, and increasing the value and number of buildings.
2) property taxes on land values must be increased, increasing the holding costs for land, and encouraging development to highest and best use.

Such a shift in taxes would encourage denser development as well as providing increased revenues for increased city services and quality of life: improved schools improve land values, transit improves land values, etc.

There is no reason to think that such a shift would require 'little high rise condos next to the railroad tracks'. 4000 s.f. mansions on 2 acres would still be allowed, you'd just have to compensate the rest of the city for using 2 acres of valuable land (though, if the land were in the boonies, far from public highways, transit, and other infrastructure, it wouldn't be that valuable, and the taxes would be small).

[Labalanza]

15. Phew!

Agreed that this is a crucial issue---question is: can people put the brakes on car culture? There are some encouraging signs (i.e the return of light rail in major cities and a smattering of thoughtful developments across the land)but car culture reigns and has just mauled the West where I live. No easy answers, but the issue warrants wide attention.

[Terry in Austin]

18. Yes - it's called "$10 gas"

Coming soon to a suburb near you!

[Armstead]

16. Agreed. It should be a top burner issue

People of all political stripes have been bitching about how our countryside and communities have been ruined by homogenous, land grabbing sprawl.

It ought to be an issue that's high on the agenda.

[Armstead]

17. Agreed. It should be a top burner issue

People of all political stripes have been bitching about how our countryside and communities have been ruined by homogenous, land grabbing sprawl.

It ought to be an issue that's high on the agenda.

[Labalanza]

19. It would also be nice...

if the development of liveable communities structurally employed concepts such as are found at:

crest.org