Tag Archives: suburbs

Good Community Design is Good for You

by Neal Kaufman

 

December 5, 2004 Los Angeles Times

Are our cities making us sick? Will children born today die fatter, more sugar-saturated and at a younger age than their parents?

Cities were sickly places 150 years ago. Dysentery, typhoid, measles, influenza and other diseases thrived in overcrowded and unsanitary conditions. It took heroic and creative leadership by city planners, architects and health advocates to create healthier cities.

Political will and professional expertise helped drive improvements in housing codes, sanitation ordinances and work-site conditions. Locating cemeteries on the outskirts of cities and placing green space in the center minimized pollution and encouraged outdoor physical activity. Such changes fueled the health advances in the first half of the 20th century. Life expectancy rose from 39 years in 1850 to 50 years in 1900 and to 68 years in 1950.

Today’s cities are plagued with traffic, violence and overcrowding. People are isolated from each other, spending too much time indoors and bombarded with unhealthy food, cigarettes, alcohol and drugs. Homicide and fatal car crashes may be the swiftest urban killers, but bad living conditions and unhealthy choices contribute to obesity, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, asthma, depression and violence-related injuries.

Sound urban design and smart architecture create bustling streets and people-filled parks where young and old safely walk and talk, see old friends and feel confident they will not be attacked. Well-planned cities create communities where neighbors can meet in the local cafe, talk about their concerns, say hi to the other patrons and feel connected to the shared public spaces filled with old and new friends.

Homes close to businesses allow people to shuttle back and forth easily, running out to get what they need, while still having leisure time to mow the lawn or read a book.

Neighborhoods where services are located close to each other make it easier for a mother with four children to see the doctor, the teacher and the counselor and still have time to go grocery shopping to get nutritious, fresh food for her family. Communities where residents are actively involved create spaces where a group of seniors can play cards, where grandmothers can walk their grandchildren to the store, and where fathers can teach their children to ride a bike or throw a

ball.

When health-oriented approaches to planning and design are embraced, such as the Health Impact Assessment used in Europe, Australia and Canada, health planners can guide development by predicting and measuring the health effects of a policy or a proposed construction project. When developers, builders and school boards guided by appropriate zoning regulations, building codes and performance standards work with residents, they create vibrant and health-promoting

neighborhoods. When we cluster a useful mix of schools, parks, libraries, mixed-income housing, healthcare, adult education and social services, neighborhoods become more vital, people more healthy and fit. That’s good for waistlines and the civic bottom line.

 

Dr. Neal Kaufman is co-director of the UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families & Communities, a member of the First 5 LA commission and director of primary care pediatrics at Cedars-Sinai Med

 

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under New Urbanism: Timeless, Traditional, Walkable Design, Sprawl and Suburbia

Cars and Suburbs on Welfare

By Owen D. Gutreund

Twentieth-Century Sprawl (2004)

 

“The coordinated Good Roads movement had successfully lobbied government to provide better roads as a free-of-charge public good, ostensibly to get the farmer out of the mud. One of the most significant aspects of the landmark 1916 legislation was that there were no federally imposed user charges associated with the Federal-Aid highway program. Furthermore, motorists were protected from toll charges, and attempts to levy a federal gas tax had been repeatedly defeated by lobbying efforts of motorist groups, oil companies, and other highway lobbies…as a result, there was an enormous government subsidy of auto use, and the technical provisions of the Federal-Aid Highway Acts directed these subsidies exclusively toward rural areas. In effect, the federal government established a system of transfer payments, from urbanized regions to rural regions, and from all taxpayers to those who drove automobiles. In 1921, users of the 9 million motor vehicles in the nation paid only 12 percent of ALL highway costs.”

pp. 26-7.

 

“…the Hayden-Cartwright Act of 1934, which threatened to reduce aid to any states that increased ‘diversions’ of revenues from gas taxes to nonhighway purposes. The preamble of this act of Congress serves as an excellent example of the insertion of auto subsidies into the fabric of American political culture: ‘Since it is unfair and unjust to tax motor-vehicle transportation unless the proceeds of such taxation are applied to the construction, improvement, or maintenance of highways…’…many states passed legislation requiring that all gas-tax revenues be used to directly benefit motorists. Within a few years, 20 states had enacted CONSTITUTIONAL provisions to ‘protect’ highway revenues…As a result…gasoline consumption could not be taxed to support nonhighway expenditures, even though virtually no other type of consumption was similarly privileged. Highway construction was now sheltered…from the need to compete with education, law enforcement, prisons, or welfare programs for scarce government funds, unlike virtually all other government endeavors.”

“Entertainments may be taxed; public houses may be taxed; racehorses may be taxed…and the yield devoted to general revenue. But motorists are to be privileged for all time to have the whole yield of the tax on motors devoted to roads? Obviously, this is all nonsense…such contentions are absurd, and constitute an outrage upon the sovereignty of Parliament and on common sense.”

— Winston Churchill

pp. 32-5.

 

“…highway-related borrowing…was another powerful (albeit subtle) subsidy to automobility. Virtually all the highway debt of local governments…was backed by pledges of future revenues, mainly property taxes. Even at the state level, where user fees were levied, 20 percent of state road bonds were serviced by general revenues (in addition to the use of general revenues to fund road construction and maintenance). This meant that ALL taxpayers were bearing the burden of accommodating automobility, regardless of how much they used automobiles (if at all) or how much they benefited from lower transportation costs.”

 

pp. 36-7.

“The Interstate Highway legislation [1956] was the latest in a succession of laws that established and perpetuated a skewed American system of highway finance…the Act went a long way to closing any remaining gap between what was good for General Motors and what was good for the country….Over time, these measures established, then institutionalized, two related subsidy patterns. First, they undercharged motorists by a wide margin, penalizing the non-motoring majority while simultaneously inducing more and more Americans to adopt the automobile as the preferred mode of transport. In contrast, other developed nations in the world chose to impose user charges far in excess of road expenditures. A study of 14 industrialized European nations found that, on average, user fees were nearly three times the amount of direct highway costs, while in the US they were only about half. Second, American highway legislation consistently favored construction in unpopulated areas while impeding investments in urban transportation networks…The deductibility of mortgage interest was certainly a major component…[and] the sales tax on automobiles (which was invariably dedicated to state highway programs) was tax deductible. Likewise, employers could deduct the (often substantial) costs of providing free parking for workers, a benefit that was not taxable for the recipients. Company cars were similarly privileged. In contrast, any reimbursement for commuting by transit was fully taxable. More arcane tax provisions like the investment tax credit, and Accelerated Depreciation also favored corporate investments in new, unbuilt locations, instead of reinvesting at existing urban locations. As marginal tax rates rose during the postwar era, the power of these inducements grew, even as the Interstate Highway legislation sent automobility incentives to new highs…Cities and towns in all regions of the nation, of all shapes and sizes, were affected as resources were persistently directed to the periphery, away from downtowns and town centers.”

pp. 58-9.

 

“Concerned that Colorado was moving toward a user-fee funded system, the AAA and Good Roads groups obtained legislation…that imposed a statewide property tax for highway construction and a prohibition against locally levied user fees.”

pg. 68

 

“Americans who purchased cars could count on other Americans, even those who did not own cars, to share the cost of vehicle [parking] (in addition to the shared costs of usage built into the highway finance system).

pg. 81.

 

“As with many other motor vehicle programs, the general budget absorbed these [off-street parking] costs while benefits accrued only to commuting motorists, most of whom lived outside of Denver city limits.”

pg. 88.

 

[The new 35-year old mayor of Denver created the Denver Planning Office in 1949.] “Under [the new planning director], the…goal was clear and simple: ‘to give the automobile maximum freedom of direction and speed.’…Not only did the planners accept auto-dependency as an unalterable fact, they also embraced the notion that it was the government’s responsibility to meet the resulting demands without question, without alteration, and without charging motorists directly. As a result, their assumptions and forecasts became self-fulfilling prophesies…[The planning staff] offered a vision of new six-lane divided freeways with cloverleaf intersections (and a median strip too narrow to accommodate transit)…designated truck routes, re-timing certain traffic lights, and numerous street widening projects…even though the plan was geared toward the automobile, the planning office did not expect motorists to pay for it. This planning approach persisted for decades. A 1963 downtown plan focused almost entirely on increased automobility…the report dismissed [transit] because it was not self-supporting. Instead, it concluded that freeways ‘must be built’ to facilitate the flow of private automobiles…the report urged that access streets be widened and limited to one-way traffic, and called for $80 million of new off-street ‘parking terminals.’…a 1966 plan proclaimed that ‘the need for additional freeways within the urban area is acute and irrefutable when future traffic projections are examined.’…Despite its claim to comprehensiveness, the focus was exclusively on ‘street and highway systems and related highway-oriented transportation facilities for motor vehicles…[other forms of transportation] are not treated.’ It called for the expenditure of $200 million on freeways and $50 million on streets, with the city’s share of costs paid for by a bond issue that would be repaid out of property and sales tax collections…While the city’s planners indicated that suburbanization was inevitable, they in fact actively encouraged it. They planned to eliminate agricultural land use, increase low-density residential development, and limit high-density areas…[Denver planners] believed that ‘the mistake to avoid is over-concentration’ and ‘the advent of the private automobile liberated urban growth from central congestion.’ ”

pp. 89-93.

 

“…Middlebury’s [VT] entire share [of revenues for road and bridge expenditures] came from local property taxes, although the vast majority of the area residents did not yet own or drive a motor vehicle [in 1923].

pg. 140.

 

“…the lobbying group sought to maintain the growth of the automobility subsidy by removing what they called the “nonhighway” expenses from the highway department budget. In particular, they began to complain that money from the highway fund was used to pay for the state highway police. They argued that such costs would be more appropriately classified as law enforcement expenses and that motorists were being unfairly taxed, through gas taxes and registration fees, to pay for the highway patrol. This strategy…serves as an example of the relentless efforts on the part of the automobility lobbies to expand construction while keeping motorists’ contributions down to a small fraction of the total funds spent accommodating automobiles.”

pp. 156-7.

 

“The engineers in the state highway department considered the narrow portion along Court Street [downtown]…a nuisance for motorists passing through Middlebury [VT]…Many townspeople had a different perspective. For them, Court Street was a charming tree-lined and grass embanked approach to their small New England town. The engineers’ plan would have allowed four lanes of traffic along this congested stretch but at the cost of all the trees along the street…state policy required the town to pay half of the state’s share of the costs…Overrun by cars and sprawling in all directions, the town was being transformed, refashioned by the now-overwhelming influence of automobility, whether inhabitants liked it or not.”

pp. 183-5.

 

“Motorists have been persistently undercharged. This has produced more demand for automobility than supply. In response, [Vermont] has poured enormous sums of money into new construction (at the expense of maintenance), trying to help the supply catch up to the demand. The result is a highway system that the government can not afford to maintain and an economy that is now predicated on artificially cheap, subsidized automotive transport. Small towns like Middlebury, as much as big cities like Denver, have been remade by this dynamic, rapidly spreading out across the countryside…”

pg. 195.

 

“…the consistent underpricing of auto use produced an imbalance between supply and demand. Demand far exceeded supply for the economic commodity at hand: properly maintained toll-free and traffic-free roads. Public response to this disparity, under the influence of Good Roads movement rhetoric, was to build [wider] roads to satisfy the excess demand, without addressing the underlying disparity between the costs of automobility and the charges passed on to motorists. Furthermore, a consistent emphasis on new construction to help the supply of road-miles catch up to demand exacerbated the pricing problem, creating a highway system that governments could not afford to maintain.”

 

Leave a comment

Filed under New Urbanism: Timeless, Traditional, Walkable Design, Sprawl and Suburbia

Brave New World

by Melissa Herron, Builder Magazine, July 1998

 

Excerpted quotes

City buyers aren’t motivated by the factors that lead people to buy in far-flung suburban locations. “People who move downtown want vibrancy…They are there strictly for the lifestyle.” –Dan McLean, veteran Chicago infill builder.

…suburbs just aren’t the utopia they used to be…”People once moved to the ‘burbs to escape crime and congestion and traffic jams of the city. But now the suburbs have all that.” –Andrew Warner, sales and marketing director for a high-rise condo builder in Chicago.

“People are coming back to the city because they’re tired of the sterile feel of suburbia.” [Bernie Glieberman, president of Crosswinds Communities in Detroit] Yet suburbia is exactly where most builders have built for the past four decades. [M. Herron]

70 percent of those surveyed preferred the concepts of New Urbanism — pedestrian orientation, community gathering places, and close-by shopping — as long as they could have privacy.

30 percent of those surveyed said they preferred an urban model where they could walk to conveniences. [M. Herron] “This is in a place that has no model, no basis of comparison to suburbia…I would say that means probably close to half the market wants it,” says Chris Lineberger, vice president of market analysts Robert Charles Lesser & Co.

“A substantial portion of buyers don’t want to live in the suburbs.” –Glen Barnard, president of builder Kaufman and Broad’s Denver division.

The neighborhoods that more and more consumers are scouting these days are close in. The beauty of infill locations is that the amenities are in place, and they have character. There’s no waiting for chain grocery stores and franchise restaurants, as is often the case in suburban settings. Shops, schools, and cafes already exist, along with theatres, libraries, art museums — you name it.

What attracts the older crowd? “Food, restaurants, nightlife, restaurants, restaurants, and food.” — Roger Mankedick, sales and marketing vice president for Concord Homes in Chicago.

75 percent of households don’t have children under age 18, making them prime candidates for urban infill projects.

Questions about crime often disappear after enough buyers move in, according to McLean. “People watch out for each other. Density creates safety.”

 

Leave a comment

Filed under New Urbanism: Timeless, Traditional, Walkable Design, Sprawl and Suburbia