America has an overconsumption problem. We use too much oil purchased from countries which hate us to haul ourselves from point A to point B. We use too much coal to light homes which are too big and filled with too much stuff which we took out too much credit to buy. Though Americans make up just 5% of the world's population, the US alone accounts for 25% of the world's annual resource use. According to the Global Footprint Network, the consumptive lifestyle to which most Americans are accustomed would require at least four planet Earths to sustain indefinitely.
Nowhere is this culture of "too much" more apparent than in the great crusts of civilization surrounding our cities which we call "suburbia" and which suburban sprawl critic James H. Kunstler calls, "the greatest misallocation of resources the world has ever known." In the year 2000, 50% of the US population lived in suburban areas and that number has only grown since. Suburbia, both in its residents and use of resources, is quickly becoming, if it has not become already, synonymous with the "American Dream" and what it means to live in this country.
The real problem with suburbia is not aesthetic or cultural, though we aren't talking about the tree-lined streets of Greenwich Connecticut and Newton Massachusetts here, but spatial. In a nod to American's preference for feelings of privacy and land ownership, suburban areas have been designed to create space between people, between home, work and shopping, and between home and the perceived evils of city life. Resources in the form of oil, electricity and money to buy goods are then used to fill the space. In short, American suburban dwellers have sought space for themselves and their families, only to turn around and fill that space with consumption.
The issue of overconsumption is not new. For decades, environmentalists and sustainability activists have proposed a very simple solution, "Use less!" America, they say, will be able to make itself cleaner, greener, cooler, prettier, more equitable and more globally competitive if it can only find the common inspiration to turn off the lights, drive a little less, buy local food and develop energy sources which do not require million year old decayed plant and animal matter. All this is possible they say, if only we could all just tap into a sense of environmental enlightenment, join hands and in one clear gesture turn off the water while brushing our teeth.
Calls to be greener and use less energy are all well and good, but ultimately mean nothing unless we can fundamentally restructure the suburban environment in which a large swath of the American public lives. In suburbia, overconsumption may seem like a choice (and perhaps at a certain extreme level it is), but the physical reality remains that large-scale resource consumption is the only way to survive in the environment which we've built for ourselves. 50% of Americans live in suburban spaces only inhabitable with a large dollop of natural resources.
And just how do we go about redesigning the world of strip malls, big box stores and housing developments with cheesy, British sounding names? Again, the answer is simple. Move things closer together! Closeness is the driving principal behind the school of land-use planning and design known as New Urbanism. New Urbanist designers seek to move home, work, shopping and play closer together, preferably within walking distance or accessible by efficient public transportation. All of a sudden homes are smaller, but much better located and cars have to be used less if at all. Suburban sprawl is soon replaced by compact, desirable living areas. Not only do New Urban spaces require less energy to run and travel around and reduce the amount of land lost to large, flat, ugly development (think car dealerships), but the people living in these areas are able to form a sense of place and community. Unlike many of the ideas proposed by environmentalists which require people to make a conscious effort, go out of their way, or, in many consumers' eyes, make their lives less comfortable, New Urban design creates spaces people actually want to be a part of.
In a world in which impassioned pleas and the "if they only knew" excuse only go so far, the rise of New Urban design presents an attractive offer: Get people to make their lives more sustainable at the same time they make their lives tangibly better. While the path to a more sustainable future will require a vast set of new ideas, new technologies and yes, even some sacrifice, the first step begins with intelligent, simple design.
See http://www.laprogressive.com/progressive-issues/human-nature-prejudice/.
In any case, humanity's survival may actually depend on our ability to admit our own limitations, and overcome this unfortunate all-too-human tendency. Wow, how many times do you read praise for our ability to admit mistakes in these comments?! I'm even impressing myself!!!...;-)
Adding to the problem of Urban Sprawl are a few things, in my opinion. At least in the city I'm from where Urban Sprawl is a huge problem and all the suburbs are starting to look the the 'burbs from Edward Scissorhands. Really.
If you can afford, in theory, the big car, the big house, the big insurance payments and the big tank of gas for your big SUV, then you also have to show off, so to speak, that you can afford that big fat bill for downtown parking.
There is a culture of fear, who wants to take the bus when you can catch the next Ebola, or Swine Flu, or a suicide bomber will blow up the bus. Plus, why would these people take the bus with people them deem as low class. Really. This issue is about snobbery.
Convenience. Who wants to take a bus when they can drive? *whine* but you have to wait for the bus in rush hour. There are buses every 15 seconds in rush hour.
Why would I want to live downtown? There are *gasp* criminals there. See my comment about the culture of fear.
People want to send there offspring to the best school and showboat about their kids. I can't send my kids to school where there are *whispers* criminals.
The big box stores in the city I live are disgusting as are all the SUV's and mini vans that clog the roads.
Now, how would you feel if people told you, "Just forget about retrofitting your city apartment/condo green. We are going to make you move to the burbs, maintain a perfect green lawn and live around people whose politics scare you and with whom you have absolutely nothing in common."
That is how your position sounds in reverse to happily suburban me.
The suburbs can enjoy the same advantages of sustainable retrofitting as the city, without ticking off the inhabitants.
In case you haven't noticed, the price of gas is going up again which means there will be significantly fewer SUVs in suburban driveways come the new year without any government mandates. I am laughing all the way into town at 53 mpg in my fully paid for Prius.
Oh, yes, you can be sustainably suburban.
People here love their SUV's, despite gas being more expensive by the litre.
I also live in the suburbs, I was using the city I live in as an example. I should have clarified. Honestly, people in the suburbs here are the typical suburbanite. They have 2.5 children, minivans are profilic, the children don't walk to school, the walmart, home depot, rona (a Canadian version of HD) parking lots are full.
Please come here and smack these people and tell them how they can live! Really. I'm begging!!
Anyway!
Thank you for the link.
Where I am, well, it's funny.
It's a big city with a small city mentality. There is a horrible class divide (in my opinion) and the suburbanites would love to plow over cyclists who get in their way.
It also doesn't help that we have a mayor who runs this city like his own private business, there is no liberal print media for news (aside from the two university weekly's).
There are certainly pockets of the city where green is good (both kinds), but when those of us who want more sustainable living try for policy change, we are mocked by those who don't support us. I'm not trying to paint the city as bad, the people are lovely, but the mind set isn't exactly progressive in some areas.
Thank you for the link though, I'll be sure to check it out.
So people don't live in the suburbs just because it's so desirable, they live there because it's the only place they can get that (tax-subsidized) mortgage.
And yes, I'm sure lots of people like suburbia. It's just less affordable to live in cities now because suburbia enjoys so many subsidies (like West Bank settlers...for reals!).
One final note about suburbia: it is the "anti-community." Urban neighborhoods have "social space" where neighbors can encounter each other and experience what it is to be a member of a community. Suburbs have automatic garage door openers, so unless you encounter your neighbor in the Safeway parking lot, any social contact is strictly optional. There are no public squares, parks are leftover floodplain to which you must commute, so social movements are quashed by design.
Finally, if you really want to know the difference between sprawl and New Urbanism, I recommend Duany's lectures. Here's one (part 1 of 9). Worth the trip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwd4Lq0Xvgc
My small city has been trying to restore its downtown for the last 25 years with no success because people simply do not want to be there. If you try to force them into this mode the backlash will make that against the new health care legislation look paltry by comparison.
People get tax-subsidized mortgages no matter where they live and will continue to do so until the deduction is eliminated from the tax code. At which point no one will get a subsidy no matter where they live. More tinkering with an already byzantine tax code is not going to prevent people from buying nice, affordable, private homes with large yards.
Americans want independence and privacy. Forced propinquity usually leads to more lawsuits and violence than it does to community associations. Certainly, a new urban environment should be offered as an alternative to the upper middle class and wealthy who can afford it. However, you really should just leave the rest of us where we are.
I do not believe in letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. My focus is on retrofitting suburbia.
As for Duany's video: it's unrelated to what makes the suburbs more affordable than inner cities. The subsidies are the culprit here.
As for your assertions about "what people want." The evidence is in. Either the nice, pre-1950's pedestrian-friendly mixed use neighborhoods, or similarly-designed New Urbanism gets premium prices. I know that in Fantasia's "land of affordability" that's a sign of elitism, but in market economies, that's an indication that real buyers with real money want the product.
Finally, I urge you to be suspicious of "restorations" like your downtown project; whether such things succeed depends on the details. These are often sabotaged by a reliance on building (more profitable) offices and commerce rather than housing for the people who would go to them. You need *lots* of housing to make even a neighborhood shopping center viable (typically 17,000 people, says the sprawl-friendly Urban Land Institute). If your downtown restoration doesn't have enough housing, you'll build a dead downtown. If it has enough housing demand remains high for city living.
First, New Urbanism encompasses *all* densities, not just compact housing. See http://dpz.com/transect.aspx if you don't believe me.
The distinction between sprawl and New Urbanism is that sprawl is designed primarily for autos. Sprawl streets without sidewalks are a commonplace, for example. The sprawl in the region around Sacramento would need an estimated $50 million just to connect all the disconnected sidewalks. Pedestrian access is the NU way, so street design is important. See http://www.completestreets.org/ for details.
NU is nothing more exotic than you'll find in pre-1950's pedestrian-friendly mixed-use neighborhoods.
Meanwhile "demand" is indicated by prices. NU neighborhoods command an *average* of a 40% price premium. The current champ is DPZ's resort village, "Seaside." (the set for "The Truman Show") Interior lots there sold for six times the neighboring sprawl development. That's a high-demand premium!.
So...demand is on the side of NU.
What is not is inertia (no one got fired for building mediocrity), and subsidies. The subsidies for outlying development are simply enormous. If you can find some cheap ag land for a few thousand dollars an acre, getting development permits makes it literally 50 - to 100 times more valuable (after tax!), before the real estate bust.
What do you get for $105,000 in one of your New Urban environments? Do you really believe the middle class should be herded into pens like sheep?
This would be why Liberals get tarred with the appellation "elitist."
As for the canard about being "herded into pens like sheep," I'll still stand by "New Urbanism encompasseÂs *all* densities, not just compact housing. See http://dpzÂ.com/transÂect.aspx if you don't believe me." It's still true, no matter how you ignore it.
Finally, I'll let you know that this "elitist" is fine with you living where ever you want as long as I don't have to pay for it. If you want to suspend your house from a helicopter, that's fine with me. Just don't ask me to subsidize the gas.
Folks in suburbia shop at Whole Foods, buy organic cosmetics, attend yoga class, but drive SUVs and make million dollar salaries slaving for neo-cons. They don't think in terms of the big picture. They simply justify their profession.
I was not surprised, and I felt that if we can just define those further means of doing what needs to be done as a natural part of living, then we will have conquered our future. It is a real challenge. It is a little bit sleazy to cater to our inability to respond to our better angels, but realistically, I think there is probably no other way.
I want a big yard where my Golden Retrievers can run, children can play without constant supervision and I can grow flowers and vegetables. I have no intention of sharing my swimming pool with casual acquaintences. And I want to live close enough to town that I can get to the nearest Piggly Wiggly in 15 minutes--by car. Ergo--suburbia. You couldn't blast me out of my nice suburban home with dynamite.
If 50% of America lives in suburbia, it is because we want to.
So--why is no one trying to make our spacious, gracious, lovely and private homes eco-friendly where and how they stand?
I use less electricity than a house half the size of mine because of what I have done with deciduous trees, interior insulated shutters and interlined drapes. I drive a Prius. We have a natural swimming pool. All our hot water is solar. Our attic sports a solar blanket. We have heavy natural fiber insulation in our walls, crawl space and attic. We recycle and compost thus saving space in the landfill.
Suburbanites can be solid green citizens, too.
I don't care how many green features you put in your house, you still drive everywhere, and although your car may be a prius, it contributes to the traffic problems in your area. The roads that you use cover pervious surfaces, the sewers, water and electric lines that feed your house take up many more resources than other living habits. Just because your house may be SORT OF eco friendly, does not mean that the services required for it are. How do you get your mail?, where does the food from that piggly wiggly come from? Trucks from halfway across the country that need to service every other piggly wiggly.
Your own pool is full of chemicals.
Subrurbanites can never be green citizens, it is an oxymoron.
Transition United States ( www.transitionus.org ) is working completely outside the government to start individual communities on the pathway to sustainability in ways that are acceptable to the residents.
What would work in Seattle, WA might be anethema in Florence, SC. It isn't about what you want. It is about what can be accepted in each different community.
Eisenhower developed the interstate highway system for national defense. It would allow rapid deployment of defensive troops in case of invasion and airplanes could land on freeways/interstates. It would also allow rapid transportation of goods and services thus insuring the continued competitiveness of the US in the world economy.
The cost of housing in the cities is what drove buyers to suburbia along with a desire for a plot of land to putter on and a need for privacy. Most people do not do well jammed up against their neighbors.
The tax code and interest rates subsidized housing wherever people wanted to buy. These benefits were not targeted to any particular kind or location of housing. The government was encouraging industry and investment.
The only thing which caused suburbs to grow was buyer demand.
If city housing could be made safe, private, spacious, pretty and affordable people would move to cities. Until that happens, suburbs will remain the housing of choice for most Americans.
transitionus.org.
http://www.postcarbon.org/article/167065-a-future-without-oil