Urban Sprawl

Re: excessive development

Date: 2002-10-22 16:37:33 PST

Messrs. Crispin and Miller make a number of good points.

It has not been mentioned that there is a transition zone
between the edge of suburban areas and the surrounding
rural countryside. Think of it as a broad, slowly moving
ribbon on the map. Over the course of years, it slowly
moves outward as core areas become suburban and
more remote areas become less rural and more transitional.

Such transitional areas have been observered and noted
since the 1950s and, some argue, remain largely unchanged
today except in their location. At the outside of the transition
area, rowcrops give way to nurseries, and then to market
gardens and orchards, and then to greenhouses and horsie
farms. The housing density slowly increases as the "elbow
roomers" move outward from the city.

Some would argue that this is a natural part of the secession
from rural to urban areas, and that there is nothing wrong with
it. Indeed, the counties and towns that try to stop the outward
growth, that are in a state of denial about its inevitability, get
overrun and behind on infrastructure with disasterous
consequences (e.g. Norcross, Georgia).

Many unintended consequences arise from attempts to
control such growth through zoning. For example, counties
that require a minimum 10 acre lot, thinking to zone out
purely residential uses, often find that people build anyway.
Those with better credit can find nonconforming loans, or
in some cases still qualify for FNMA or FMAC mortgages.

Most "elbow roomers" have no idea what to do with 10
acres, though. They lack the money to landscape it, lack
the equipment to farm it, lack the skills and fortitude to
plant a forest, and lack the wherewithal to fence and
stock it. In many cases the homeowner will keep up a few
acres around the house and let the rest grow wild, the
unkempt meadows providing refuge for noxious weeds and
drunken teenage revelry.

The "cluster development" zoning technique, where a large
area is closed to development except for chosen areas where
the land, highway system, etc. is most suitable for growth,
has more promise but is politically unpalatable in most
jurisdictions. It makes a few land speculators into winners
at the expense of other landowners. This serious problem
aside, I see this as a better solution than the "house in every
field" sort of zoning where 1, or 2, or 4, or some number of
houses are allowed per quarter section or per 40. It allows
an area to grow with less change to the character of the
landscape.

> Think of how many urbanites we could chase away if we all had private
> shooting ranges on our property.

As the urbanites become more numerous, there is a shift in
local politics and such activities are inevitably restricted. So too
with odors, chemical spray, and so on from adjoining farms.

> > People aren't going to put up with being stuck into Hong Kong-style
> > high-rise apartment blocks, either; they want genuine single-family
> > houses, real homes with yards around them.

There is much to be said for city life in a vibrant, thriving metropolis.
San Francisco and New York are perhaps the best examples, though
many smaller and younger cities do very well. I would imagine that
most young couples, offered the choice between a three bedroom
home outside of Syracuse and a three bedroom condo in Manhatten,
for the same money, would choose the latter. The trouble is that the
house in Syracuse costs $120k and the condo costs $750k, even
though they have the same square footage and so on.

The real problem is that the high densities are unattractive without
the parks, shops, communities, dynamic night life, and the other
attractions that make city life worthwhile. These all add cost, and
are politically divisive to create. Much "sprawl" is created by
building houses in areas totally devoid of city services, thus allowing
land acquisition to be accomplished cheaply, and also producing
a much lower mil rate for property tax. I'm not aware of any
jurisdiction that has tried to address this economic source of
sprawl directly.

The opponents of sprawl would do well to look at urban centers
to see what they have done to repel people so fiercely. The also-
ran cities of the USA -- Atlanta, Denver, Phoenix, Detroit -- are
indeed repellent to live in. They all have their reasons varying from bad
traffic (none have a workable transit system on par with Chicago
or New York), crime, and smog to a simple lack of any real
desirable core area around which to build a vibrant city.

In closing, the "five acres and independence," so aptly lauded in
the book of the same title in the 1930s, is an inseperable part of
the American dream. Planners and activists would do well to
accept that, and to find ways to incorporate such a vision into
the communities they shape.

Louis

[web site home] | [Rural Home]