Brian Filak
Smart Growth
As our population continues to grow, we need to adopt new sustainable
designs to accommodate future housing demands. Smart Growth is an approach
to addressing this issue. Smart Growth involves designing communities that are
well planned and remain sustainable with a large capacity of residents. A few of
the many principles that characterize Smart Growth include creating an
arrangement of housing opportunities and choices with walkable neighborhoods
and a variety of transportation options. Implementing mixed land uses,
preserving open space, and directing development towards existing
communities using compact building design area also at the top of the list. A
key goal of smart growth is to reduce our dependence on automobiles and
pollute less. This happens when homes and businesses are evenly dispersed
amongst one-another and an hour commute to work is not necessary. Rather
than spreading further out from industrialized centers, smart growth
incorporates urban growth boundaries and focuses on building up areas that are
already inhabited. Consequently, this means smaller houses and increased
multi-family housing.
Many organizations have collaborated to research smart growth and create
growth policies. Currently, 11 states have voluntarily adopted smart growth
principles and guidelines for development projects. In order for this
development to become more wide-spread, local, state, and federal
governments need to adjust zoning laws and create more incentives and
regulations.
Opponents of smart growth argue that it impedes individual privatization
rights and could have adverse effects. Since smart growth involves packing
more people into less space, more individuals who desire, and can afford, their
own space may push further into rural areas, resulting in more developed land.
Those who challenge smart growth say that condensing communities will make
housing prices rise and hinder the American Dream of owning your own house.
Also, the diversification of smart neighborhoods has the possibility to generate
more crime.
What do you think? Is Smart Growth the answer to dealing with resource
management and pollution from population growth, or can our environment
sustain current trends of sprawl? Are our values regarding the environment
great enough to make us lighten our values for individual homes and yards?
13 comments:
I believe that if our world population continues to grow at an exponential pace, then smart growth will be inevitable. We will eventually run out of resources. The commute will be too far and the resources wasted for each individual to build their own suburban wonderland will be too great. The sprawl will be too wide. The only answer will be smart growth. We will have to build up in our cities. However, if we are able to lower our fertility rate, like many European countries have, we may be able to keep our suburbs. This could be a diffucult task in America since our immigration rate is extremely high and growing.
This is a very controversial issue, that even I have hard time choosing a side for. One part of me thinks, pro-environmentalism and of course we should do everything to save the health of our earth, even if it means giving up the luxuries of our large private homes. However, another part of me feels like a home is something that we shouldn't have to sacrifice. Our homes are for most of us, our only real escape for the world, where we find comfort and solitude. Living in secluded areas or pleasantly small neighborhoods, is this escape from our busy lives to a safe, quiet hideaway. It seems to me that the Smart Growth is completely eliminating this possibility. So while it may be wise and environmentally conscious to push people and businesses closure together to avoid driving as much, it forces us to sacrifice our sense of comfort and seclusion that most of us find in the privacy of our homes.
To me, Smart growth sounds like a good plan. Our population is growing at an exponential rate and it is time that we do something. Living closer to work and using less automobiles is a great way to start. Not only does it reduce dependence on oil, but also lowers the amount of natural resources needed. Having a home that is excluded in a far away place is nice but it is so very harmful to the environment.
Which states have implemented this growth? I do agree with more multi-family housing. In Europe that is almost all you see. It is very efficient for heating and cooling when many families are all in one building. The growth rate of the US is nearly at zero, but there is still overall growth due to immigration, so we may need to revert to these policies at some point. on the other hand, we don't need 'large' homes for just one family. If we reduced the overall size of homes in general, we could save some of our resources. I agree, that the luxury of our own homes and our own space is something a lot of Americans won't want to give up. What is the middle ground here?
I have high hopes for smart growth. What we're doing now certainly isn't sustainable. That's a good point that was brought up about possible negative effects if it, though. Those thinks hadn't occurred to me. However, I think potential benefits outweigh potential risks; we have to do something different. Somehow the designers of these communities just have to sweeten the deal and make it desirable to live there, and hopefully undeveloped land that is further from civilization would be protected somehow. More Open Space/Parks land paid for by smart growth communities? I don't know- there's got to be a way to do the right thing. As far as increased crime, my hope is that people living in these communities would act like a community and watch out for one another. Am I dreaming?
I think smart growth is a very good idea. In addition to reducing our reliance on petroleum, it brings communities closer together. Whether neighbors are sharing a living room or sharing a bus seat to work there is more interaction. I believe close communities are healthy communities and if Smart Growth also reduces pollution they will live in a healthier environment. It is tough to give up some luxuries, but smart growth might actually create a happier along with a healthier environment.
Sam Cimino
This sounds like a great idea and for a lot of reasons it makes sense. Individuals like most of us commenting on this are aware of the current "resource curse." However, I don't see this winning favor in most people's eyes. The idea that no one can build a home on a good sized chunk of land and feel like them and there family has privacy and seclusion is not going to settle well in for the american dream mindset. As far as energy resource. I think that new homes being built should be required to generate at least 30% of their own energy. Maybe also if externalities of resource depletion were added into building people will not big as big of homes. Just an idea
The problem with smart growth communities is that you have to want to live in close proximity to lots of other people and deal with their 'externalities'.
I for one am the type of person who will inevitably look for more rural places to live, in an attempt to not have to deal with 'every one else's shi#.
Also, these kinds of linked communities tend to have homeowners agreements or lease terms that limit what a person can do with their space (to limit said externalities). This is similar to living in an apartment or condo. However, these terms do not imply that your neighbors will respect said terms. (for example: idiots being loud and drunk after posted quiet hours)
Smart growth is the housing equivalent of public transportation. It has its benefits if you don't mind dealing with the general public. But having used public transit, public schools, public institutions, and having been a foodserver to the general public for many years... My opinion is that the 'general public' are a bunch of self seeking douches who are annoying to deal with.
If you don't believe me check out craigslist's 'Rant and Rave' page, which is generally the public ranting about how much the rest of the public pisses it off.
Heck, trying to walk through campus with all of the texting, ipoding, skateboarding, uber-tuned-out of our world is enough to drive me nuts some days. Why would I want to live near you people???
For the record:
I'm all for more efficient housing through better insulation, decreased size, use of solar and wind, and using better/less destructive/more recyclable materials.
However:
Living in pre-planned communities reeks of socialism and the 'projects'.
Side note:
I did some landscaping and fence building in one of these communities in Louisville, CO (duplexes mixed with single homes unified with a group courtyard style yard).
All of the homes were cheaply built on crappy clay soil, walls were not 'plumb', and there were massive subsidence issues associated with the crappy soil.
My point?
Just because something is well designed doesn't mean some housing company can't come along and implement it in a really poor place at the eventual cost of the buyer.
another externality of group housing--> there is an interest in the organizers to make profit (say by building on a cheap site with poor soil)
Smart Growth sounds a lot like some of the intentional communities existing in Australia. There are neighborhoods called co housing where people live in much smaller homes with small kitchens and living spaces and have a large community dining hall to host larger dinners and a community theater room ,pool ect. The thought is that it is silly for everyone to have these large energy consuming spaces in every home when they are rarely used. I lived in one of these for a few weeks and loved it, i felt a greater sense of community with my neighbors. People also shared lawn mowers and other tools that are rarely used but necessary. I also lived in other sustainable intentional communities with based on various values. In all the international communities I lived, I felt a greater sense of community with my neighbors and I felt that people were more connected with the space we lived, and were more conscious of their impact in regard to others.
While smart growth sounds like a great idea, and i support this idea, i have a hard time seeing how this could be implimented on a large scale. With regards to working close to where you live, given that so many business districts and jobs in general are considerably sprawled from residential areas, the smart growth initiative must not only address creating multi-family housing centers, it seems it would also need to relocate businesses. Otherwise, only the residential aspect of this idea is addressed.
Smart Growth is absolutely possible and a good idea. I wrote about Smart Growth as a way to decrease non-point source water pollution in my term paper. Not only does Smart Growth advocate ways to design neighborhoods and communities, this initiative gives suggestions to avoid building in areas located next to drinking water supplies. Smart Growth incorporates many variables even accounting for the ways in which people can form committees for deciding how to develop their own communities.
I think smart growth is definitely a good option for our development today. The housing market may become very competitive, such as with boulder, but it also depends on the quality of living in a given city. I have Issues with open space because of this, if a town cant grow out the everything becomes more expensive. Also more people will have to commute to the city if housing price rise too much. Its a cost benefit between sprawl and commuting.
Post a Comment