Eric Panzer Smart Growth Attitudes May 8 2006p. 1Attitudes Regarding Smart Growth ofLocal Leaders and Officials in Contra Costa County, CaliforniaEric PanzerAbstract The ecological impact and sustainability of land use patterns and urban developmentare increasingly coming under scrutiny. The term “smart growth” has been introduced todescribe alternative development patterns characterized by land conservation, transit options, andthoughtful regional integration. It is important to consider what impediments exist to itsimplementation—most notably at the local to sub-regional level, where stakeholders mostdirectly influence development. This research examines attitudes regarding smart growth held byleaders within Contra Costa County, California, which contains a variety of environments anddevelopment types. Officials and leaders were individually interviewed to determine theirpersonal attitudes regarding smart growth and their experience with it in their community.Informants were well informed and generally supportive of smart growth principles; but alsoexpressed concerned with homogenous imposition of smart growth, restricted communityinvolvement, and smart growth’s suitability for certain settings and demographics. This impliesthat smart growth may gain support by encouraging community input, allowing flexibility in itsapplication, and by providing lifestyle choices more comparable to citizen’s currentcircumstances.Eric Panzer Smart Growth Attitudes May 8 2006p. 2Figure 2. Typical suburban developmentfeatures large and irregular lots, curvilinearstreets, unincorporated open space, and theexclusion of higher density or non-residentialuses. (Travis County, TX Tax Appraiser)Introduction“Smart Growth,” broadly defined, is any growth that is more efficient, more ecologicallysound, and provides for a higher quality of life than prevailing forms of residential/commercialdevelopment. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate smart growth and suburban sprawl respectively, withprivate lands shaded yellow, open space shaded green, and mixed uses shaded orange.This research will use a hybrid set of criteria to define smart growth, developed fromcharacteristics of smart growth provided by the Urban Land Institute (O’Neill 1999) and theNational Neighborhood Coalition (2000):? Development is economically viable and preserves open space and natural resources.? Redevelopment of infill housing, brownfield sites, and obsolete buildings is activelypursued.? Urban centers and neighborhoods are integral components of a healthy regional economy.? Mix land uses.? Take advantage of compact building design? Provide a variety of transportation choices.? Create walkable neighborhoods.Figure 1. Smart growth developmentfeatures a block structure, compact lots,integrated park space, and accessiblehigher-density and commercial uses.(Envision Central Texas)Eric Panzer Smart Growth Attitudes May 8 2006p. 3These strategies serve to decrease land use as well as consumption of energy and materialresources. This stands in sharp contrast to typical suburban development, which not onlyincreases land and resource use, but has been also shown to have negative social consequences.A wealth of data are available showcasing the effects of typical suburban development,ranging from, most notably, those concerning environmental impact and health, to thoseconcerned with societal ills. An examination of Bakersfield, California suggests that its airpollution problems were directly linked with its sprawl, as greater distance between workplacesand residences resulted in more frequent and longer car trips (Weiser 2004). In the 30 years fromthe mid 1960’s to 1990’s, driving rose significantly while walking and mass transit ridership fellproportional to population (Federal Highway Administration 1999; U.S. Census Bureau 1993).These behavioral changes have been largely attributed to the advent and proliferation ofsuburban sprawl and a recently released report confirms that commute times continue to grow,with associated increases in gasoline expenditure and lost time (Texas Transportation Institute2005). Additionally, sprawl has been identified as an instigator of major public health problemsnot just limited to those relating to air pollution; American obesity trends have also been closelylinked with degrees of sprawl with cities featuring higher sprawl indices also suffering fromhigher obesity rates (McCann and Ewing 2003). Sprawl has been further blamed for socio-economic injustice as productivity and jobs are transferred from urban neighborhoods to moreaffluent suburban edge cities (Duany 2000). Development styles associated with sprawl havealso been correlated with proportionally higher crime rates, especially during daytime hours, andincreased social isolation resulting in lost senses of place and community (Duany 2000).Regional surveys have indicated high levels of public support for smart growth projects,signifying that impediments to smart growth likely arise from other sources, such as unfavorabletransportation policy or reluctant developers. One particularly inclusive survey of 12,000 centralTexas residents demonstrated that residents found smart growth scenarios to be the mostattractive options for a variety of given facets (Envision Central Texas 2003). Residents foundthe scenario which corresponded to smart growth development patterns to be most desirable forthe objectives of wise land use, high quality of life, and transportation choice (FregoneseCalthorpe Associates 2003). Evidence shows that certain groups are not only expressing thesepreferences, but following through with them, with many couples without children living athome now choosing to settle in urban areas (ULI 2003). There is also evidence to support theEric Panzer Smart Growth Attitudes May 8 2006p. 4notion that state and local elected officials are in cases also supportive of smart growth. Forinstance the state legislature of West Virginia in 2004 enacted new planning regulations morepermissive of smart growth (Andrews 2004). James McGreevey, Governor of New Jersey, evenwent so far as to “declare war on sprawl” in 2003, although business leaders were swift todenounce his comments (Riordan 2003). This study provides an opportunity to more broadlyexamine the knowledge and sentiments of community leaders and public officials beyond thesespecific cases.Faced with physical and financial limitations on typical suburban development as well
View Full Document
Unlocking...