Gary LoRusso Alaska

interpacket.com/gary-lorusso-growth-theory

Gary LoRusso: How “Smart” is “Smart Growth”?

According to Gary LoRusso, urban planners and government specialists have, in recent years, made a point of advancing the concept of “smart growth.” Supposedly, smart growth is designed to promote local economic growth, reduce pollution, increase pedestrian and cyclist accessibility, improve the use of public transit, provide for more affordable housing, reduce commute times, and facilitate stronger, more unique, and more interconnected communities and neighborhoods.

However, while smart growth proponents insist that cutting down on suburban sprawl is the key to creating more sustainable and livable areas, there is also a completely different side to the argument.

The Case against Smart Growth

Smart growth detractors, contrary to popular belief, are not against most—or perhaps even any—of the concept’s supposed goals. Healthier communities, shorter commute times, more affordable housing, and reduced air pollution: these are improvements that few people would say no to. In fact, LoRusso believes that the reason smart growth can be such an appealing concept to government and to other supports is that its proposed impacts are so much in line with the things we as a society consider to be “for the public good.”

What smart growth detractors question about the concept has very little to do with its goals. Rather, detractors believe that smart growth fails to achieve the majority of its goals, and can actually prove to have an adverse impact on communities and neighborhoods in the long run due to actually exacerbating the issues it is trying to solve. In short, smart growth detractors question whether or not the concept is really “smart” at all.

The Portland Example

People who are against smart growth certainly have a few pieces of compelling evidence on their side. One particularly troubling case of smart growth in action happened in Portland, Oregon toward the end of the decade.

City planners, in an attempt to create denser epicenters of life in Portland, set minimum density requirements with the goal of building small, isolated neighborhoods into teeming apartment complexes and condo communities. Under smart growth principles, the goal of the regulation was to concentrate more people into fewer living spots, in turn building stronger local communities and economies, and cutting down on personal transportation and the pollution it causes.

However, while Portland’s use of smart growth sounds like a terrific idea on paper, it didn’t work quite so well in execution. Many families, drawn to the city by the small town feel of its residential neighborhoods, rejected the city planners’ demand that their neighborhoods be turned into generic condominium communities or apartment complexes. Families who had come to Portland looking for comfortable, private homes and spacious yards were suddenly greeted by a city which wanted to destroy those freedoms.

Whether or not Portland saw a mass exodus of families in the wake of its smart growth movement has not yet been proven. However, the increased density of people in new apartment and condo communities did have a number of measurable impacts, and very few of them went along with what the goals of smart growth had predicted.

For instance, despite an increased emphasis on public transit, many Portland residents have continued using their personal vehicles, leading to increased traffic congestion in high-density areas. Since Portland’s smart growth plan dictated a move toward higher-density population centers across the board, that means traffic has gotten worse overall. In addition, housing costs, which were supposed to become more affordable, have arguably only increased.

Gary LoRusso Considers Why Smart Growth May Be Failing in Certain Areas

So why has smart growth met with failure in Portland, and does that failure mean that the concept is flawed, or merely that Portland’s experience was not the right area for its implementation?

According to Gary LoRusso, it is difficult to entirely discount smart growth as a compelling urban planning strategy, if only because creating higher-density population areas does generally create great business and economic opportunities. However, LoRusso did have a few reservations about smart growth, and he thinks these items will need to be addressed and reconsidered before the concept can become a viable one for most areas.

Smart Growth Assumptions about Transportation May Be Off Base

One of the definitive aspects of the smart growth theory is that it is supposed to make communities more accessible to pedestrians and cyclists, as well as more viable for public transportation opportunities. However, LoRusso thinks that many Americans, just as they want big houses and wide open backyards, simply want to drive their own cars.

Convenience: For one thing, personal automobile transportation is usually faster than walking or biking and is often cheaper than taking public transportation. As a result, residents in areas like Portland don’t feel inclined to adhere to the smart growth provisions. If one’s own car is the most convenient form of transportation—which it is virtually everywhere other than in the biggest cities—then that is the form of transportation that most people are going to use.

Air Pollution: Furthermore, since people are still driving, but are facing greater traffic congestion, smart growth may actually be having an adverse affect on pollution. Cars in stop and go traffic tend to contribute more to air pollution than other vehicles, and public transportation stalwarts like buses cause dreadful levels of pollution in their own right.

ABOUT:

LoRusso is a professional land surveyor with licenses to work in both Alaska and New Hampshire. In his spare time, Gary LoRusso pursues music (he plays banjo and guitar), supports charities, and enjoys the escape that hiking trails, biking, and fishing can provide.

 

interpacket.com/gary-lorusso-growth-theory