2000
Abstract:
This is the first time in U.S. history that an urban planning problem has featured, if
peripherally, as a Presidential campaign issue. Never before have academic urban
planners been in so much demand for T.V. news programs, radio talk shows, and
newspaper op-ed pieces. Why? Because of a raging debate about U.S. residential
lifestyles. The long-held American dream of a suburban detached home with a
garden and a two-car garage (now often four!) has become a cardinal sin, if not a
crime: indulging in and contributing to "sprawl". This addiction has a touted
antidote: densification and public transit. Its defect is a widespread distaste for the
medicine. Revealed preferences strongly favor the single-family home (and
surveys among apartment dwellers show that this is their dream too) and driving.
The New Urbanists who live on multi-acre lots and the transit agency bosses who
choose among a Mercedes, a Lexus or a limousine rather than between bus and rail
are more than anecdotal. But perhaps the world is changing. In 1998, threequarters of the 250-plus local ballot initiatives in favor of growth management and
development controls passed. Many developers have been "converted" to promote
Smart Growth projects, such as infill townhome developments close to transit lines
that pass a "sustainability" test. Billions of Federal and State dollars continue to be
poured into transit (especially rail) with the perverse result that transit ridership
continues to fall (primarily as a result of the diversion of resources from bus to
rail). Suburban living is blamed for high school shootings, obesity and
dysfunctional families. But, even if these diagnoses were correct and even if there
has been a change of heart, would it make a difference?
