Tips for Presenting Smart Growth to Decision-Makers and the Public
One reason for the spread of low-density suburbs was the perception that they worked well for couples with children under 18 years of age. What people may not realize is that such couples represent less than a quarter of American households; in fact, there are more single-person households in the U.S. than couples with children. Moreover, the aging of the population will increase the number of 1- and 2-person households in the future. Of the families with children, about 30% are single-parent households and this portion is growing over time. These facts indicate that community planning should offer a mix of housing and commercial development types that provide options that address the varied needs of a diverse population.
Some community members may dismiss non-automobile transportation as serving relatively small segments of the population. However, it is important to remember that, in 21 st -century America , the lack of a car is as much a time-of-life issue as it is an income issue. The elderly and children of all income groups benefit from being able to walk, cycle or ride transit to the places they need to go to most often.
Experience has shown that Americans have a negative perception of density when it is discussed in the abstract (for instance, when comparing plans calling for 12 dwellings per acre versus 4 dwellings per acre). However, when they are shown photos of well-designed dense developments they find them easier to accept. Effective presentations on density and urban design generally begin with photographs of small-lot single-family dwellings, low-rise multi-family dwellings, and other medium-density housing types. Such presentations also emphasize the advantages to regional travel that derive from placing new development at infill locations rather than the regional perimeter. Studies show that infill development generates less traffic than similar development at the edges of the region.
Instead of vague reference to development being “Smart Growth,” be specific in terms of visible characteristics such as the density of households and employment, the mix of uses, the urban design features that create walkability, and the accessibility of the development site to regional destinations. Experience has shown that communities possessing high levels of the “4D's” generate fewer vehicle trips and miles per capita than does development with lower levels of density, diversity, design, and destination accessibility.
Effective presentations include photos of contrasting situations instead of abstract descriptions. For example, in a community that values small-town atmosphere, showing photos of a small town next to photos of a low-density suburb usually arouses support for the small town photos. Then the discussion can move to a careful review of the specific characteristics of the small town illustrated in successive photos, including relatively high densities, a walkable environment, and a mix of land use types. Similarly, side-by-side photos of different pedestrian environments can reveal preferences that help frame a discussion of the design elements needed to facilitate pedestrian travel. New technologies allow the discussion to achieve even higher levels of dynamic interaction. Interactive computer models such as INDEX, PLACES and What-If? allow workshop participants to select preferred land use and transportation concepts and receive immediate visual feedback on the effects of their choices on a wide array of economic and environmental indicators. Web-based versions allow participants to iteratively refine their concepts with continuous feedback on the effects of specified land use changes on land consumption, energy use, and vehicle miles of travel. Such processes empower community members and stakeholders and give them new respect for the trade-offs associated with critical planning decisions. An even higher level of public appreciation occurs when sophisticated transportation models are used to present visual simulations of the effects of land use changes, street design, and modal integration concepts on such factors as traffic flow, transit operations, and pedestrian accessibility.
Smart Growth has a variety of potential effects, any one of which may be of interest to different constituencies. It is important to use analytic tools and presentation techniques that reveal the full array of expected outcomes. This includes objective presentation of such benefits as reduced travel time, improved air quality, reduction in land needed for urban uses, decreased reliance on oil, livelier town centers, and more housing choices, as well as such impacts as localized traffic congestion.
The local consequences of Smart Growth can differ from the regional effects. The regional effects of dense, well-designed infill development are usually positive, including reductions in land consumption, infrastructure costs and vehicle miles per capita. However, local effects can be mixed or even negative. At the local scale, positive effects of dense, well-designed infill development can include increased property values and economic vitality, creation of more pleasant “place” environments, and improvement in an area's ability to support high-quality transit. Negative consequences, however, can include increased traffic generation and related impacts. For example, Smart Growth development at an infill location is likely to generate fewer trips and vehicle miles than the same development at a suburban location, and doubling the density of an infill development may reduce its trip generation per capita by 20%. However, the localized net effect of doubling the density would be an increase from, say, 100 trips to 160 trips (20% fewer than simply doubling the number of trips to 200). As a result, the more dense Smart Growth development would still generate 60% more traffic and associated impacts than the less dense alternative. Smart Growth is not a universal solution. Smart Growth advocates who categorically denounce low-density suburbs and emphatically promote dense infill development as suitable for all locations and needs can undermine efforts to reach consensus-based conclusions. Individuals and communities have different preferences and needs, and want to openly consider a variety of different planning concepts and place types. The goal of most Smart Growth plans is not to throw up obstacles to suburban development, but rather to remove obstacles to Smart Growth to create a level playing field. These efforts may target: environmental reviws that are more onerous for infill projects than greenfield sites; land use regulations with maximum densities rather than minimum densities; general plan codes that inhibit mixed-used development; and transportation standards that favor the automobile.
Smart Growth can be inhibited by outmoded local regulations. Early twentieth century development codes that separated housing from employment and mandated reductions in housing density were sensible public policies when they were introduced. However, modern stores and offices do not resemble the dirty and dangerous old industrial sites the codes were trying to protect people from. And the introduction of piped water and sanitary sewers has eliminated the wellwater/septic tank nexus that spawned the original legal restrictions on residential density. Since the original rationale for this type of regulation is gone, governments should re-consider whether the regulations are still needed; at least in their original form. Smart Growth should not be considered a second-best solution. While there are places for low-density suburbs, some of the most desirable communities in America , as measured by low vacancy rates and high housing price per square foot, involve Smart Growth. They usually have such Smart Growth characteristics as medium density, mixed land use types, highly walkable environments, and good access to transit. These include Georgetown in Washington, D.C., Greenwich Village in New York City, and the Back Bay in Boston. It is not the case that only the poor and desperate will accept multi-family housing; 62% of the households in expensive and glamorous Beverly Hills , California live in apartments or condominiums. |
