Is there anyone out there who has not been inundated lately with articles about “Smart Growth?”
It’s almost impossible to attend a conference or pick up the newspaper without hearing about Smart Growth. Words of reason. Words of passion. Shouts of “extremist” and “tree hugger” bounce back and forth.
Vice President Gore has made smart growth a prominent element of his presidential campaign, and the Sierra Club is highlighting metro areas dangerously in the clutches of urban sprawl.
Just exactly what is smart growth? I’m not entirely sure, but I do know that it has a lot of supporters and a lot of opponents, and I think temperatures are only beginning to rise in what should be the hottest debate in economic development over the next couple of years.
| The only problem with many Smart Growth arguments is that the overwhelming majority of business people make decisions based upon dollars and cents, not on some sense of social or environmental responsibility. That’s not to say that they don’t care about those things, only that they know that if their company does not make money, they don’t stay in business. |
If you’ve ever listened to some of the compelling arguments for or against Smart Growth and found yourself occasionally scratching your head and wondering if you’ve missed some key point, don’t feel alone.
Any movement that takes great pains to describe itself as not being part of the no-growth or slow-growth environmental movements of the past ought to at least make one pause to think. But that doesn’t mean that you should dismiss it out of hand.
One way to make any sense of Smart Growth is to look at it in terms of saving the urban core of our metropolitan areas, something even most ardent suburbanites would agree is an important thing to do. After all, even though much -- if not most -- of a metro area’s current growth now occurs in its outlying areas, the urban center is still the heart of that area’s identity to the rest of the world.
Coming up with innovative solutions to the pervasive economic decline in many parts of our nation’s cities is a positive, and important, step in the right direction.
The only problem with many Smart Growth arguments is that the overwhelming majority of business people make decisions based upon dollars and cents, not on some sense of social or environmental responsibility. That’s not to say that they don’t care about those things, only that they know that if their company does not make money, they don’t stay in business.
There are valid economic reasons why companies choose greenfield locations (on the outskirts of town) over brownfield locations (in the urban core). The only way to get businesses to choose a more expensive brownfield site is to change the economic dynamics of the equation -- in other words, incentives, tax abatement, enterprise zones, etc.
In an urban area, businesses tend to locate where their costs are less and where they can find the work force they need. In many cases, that means locating in the suburbs. For the past 50 years Americans have been steadily moving out of the inner cities and into the suburbs, out of apartments and into houses with lawns. That trend shows no sign of abating.
The most serious problems for urban centers is not the traffic congestion and air pollution caused by suburban commuters driving their cars to their jobs in the downtown. That situation will resolve itself, and it’s the solution that is driving the nail in the coffin of downtown business districts, as businesses abandon the downtown to open up suburban offices closer to their work force.
Smart Growth arguments that stick to the subject of revitalizing the urban core of our nation’s cities face enough of a challenge. But when the debate -- quite often from people who have only a stereotypical understanding of life in the fringe cities -- shifts toward how to improve suburban life and business development, it runs aground.
When proponents argue that increased population density, mixed zoning and greater use of mass transit -- three important tenants of Smart Growth -- will improve one’s quality of life, they’re just kidding themselves.
Nobody objects to mass transit as long as it will take you where you want to go and the price is reasonable. The problem with most new public transportation systems, unfortunately, is that they have limited routes and are usually not reasonably priced, unless they are heavily subsidized. As for population density, Americans continue to opt for the additional land and space suburban living typically offers.
And most homeowners -- for whom the majority of their personal net worth is tied up in the value of their home -- really don’t want to live next door to a commercial enterprise. If you doubt that, you haven’t priced any real estate lately.
No, the future of Smart Growth is not to fix what ails the suburbs, it’s to revitalize America’s urban centers. And that’s not going to be an easy job.
Above all else, Smart Growth (whatever it turns out to be) must be economically appealing to America’s small businesses, the real growth engine of our economy. If it’s not, there’s not enough money in the federal government’s coffers to buy the success of the Smart Growth agenda.
That’s the challenge, and the “game” has just begun.
Means the article is accessible only to our magazine subscribers.
