Thursday, December 31, 2009

Are Sustainable Suburbs Possible - Yes, But It Depends on Your Definition

This blog has often railed against suburbia in favor of more urban arrangements of our communities. And while there are a growing legion of those who support this position, there are still a number of individuals who, for many and varied reasons believe that the suburbs are superior and that cities are the antithesis of their dreams. What I have come to understand is that there is a broad spectrum of opinions, experiences, and understandings when it comes to creating great communities.

The truth, as always, lies not in the margins of the conversation, but at its core. When it comes to community-building the core of the debate lies often in our definition of terms. And fundamentally it is the fact that "urban" does not universally describe only place like Manhattan or inside the loop of Chicago. In like manner, suburban does not always mean a ranch house on 1/2 acre lot with nothing around for miles to walk to. And the solution to our current unhealthy pattern of development is not for everyone to live in a apartment above a store in the downtown. In fact, our small towns can have urban centers and our cities can have suburban neighborhoods.

The term "urban" simply refers to being in a city. A city can be New York with the tall skyscrapers of Manhattan and the 2 and 3 story neighborhoods of Brooklyn or it can be a town like Davidson, NC with its simple Main Street, college campus, and surrounding neighborhoods. The notion is scaleable but it shares common characteristics. Mixed-use centers with civic spaces surrounded by walkable neighborhoods (that contains parks and playgrounds) and connected by multi-modal transportation corridors. Depending on what part of a great community you are in, this scale could transition block by block or be more elongated. This concept is best illustrated by the transect diagram made famous by Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater Zyberk.

Within the context of the metropolitan area, Davidson, is in fact, suburban. The same can be said of Brooklyn. Neither can be truly sustainable community without access to a larger region of jobs. Like Lake Forest, IL (a classic walkable, mixed-use community to the north of Chicago) Davidson will hopefully be soon linked to the largest job center in the region - downtown Charlotte - via a commuter train. Yet there will still be those who must commute by car to jobs that are outside the core. But even within the city of Charlotte, a majority of the jobs are currently inaccessible except by car - a fact that is changing with a rapidly emerging transit, bicycle, and pedestrian network. But once you arrive into either community - Davidson or Brooklyn - you have an immediate sense of its urbanism within its context.

By contrast, suburbia offers no such civic amenities neither within its borders nor in its connections to the outside world. 100% of the embodied value of most suburbs today lies behind the front door. They lack any urban amenities - civic spaces and buildings, multi-modal corridors, walkable, mixed-use activity centers, etc.

Most of us who espouse the ideas of smart growth, sustainable communities, and new urbanism (all of which largely share the same set of core principles - making them different flag over the same nation, so to speak) are not anti-growth, anti-car, anti-freedom of choice, raging socialists (or communists, or humanists, or pagans for that matter). Sure, there are folks out there who are in fact opposed to cars and think that we should all live in high-rise apartments under the direction of a strong central government, but they are some of the individuals that I mentioned are in the margins and do not represent the core. In fact, most new urbanist (and old urbanist) planners and designers have helped to create places that are diverse, well-connected, and mixed-use with little government intervention and free-market financing. In Charlotte, NC this includes first ring suburbs of Myers Park and Dilworth (the image below) and newer neighborhoods and centers like Birkdale Village and the Village of Baxter. In St. Louis, this includes most every older neighborhood in the City and newer neighborhoods like the New Town at St. Charles.

Does living in one of these places mean that you no longer need a car and that you can live a carbon-free lifestyle (if that is your desire)? Perhaps, but it's your choice. These places give people choices. They are filled with car drivers and bus riders, families with children and single-person households, avid gardeners and lawn mowers, efficiency apartments and detached houses with yards, driveways and alleys, trees and pavers, Democrats and Republicans, Priuses and Ford F-150 Trucks.

The debate about the future of our communities and our future quality of life should be centered around our ability to make choices not our subjugation to a one-size-fit-all approach of modern suburban development. This includes choices for the developers who are the ones who create most of what is built as well as the tenants in the office buildings and the homebuyers who will be the daily users of that community. Great cities can have vibrant, walkable, and mixed-use suburbs that are connected by multi-modal transportation networks.

To paraphrase Vince Graham, a new urbanist land developer, most suburbs simply sell privacy and exclusivity, making each incremental addition a degradation of the original promise. Cities, and by extension all urban places (towns and villages included), add value to the greater community with each new home, civic space, street, or neighborhood center. Value is shared in the sense that all boats rise with good urbanism.

To close, as we look forward to a new year, let it be one in which communities across the country make development decisions that provide the greatest return not only for the residents of today but for our children, our grandchildren, and future generations.

10 comments:

  1. Your description of Brooklyn as a suburb which would not exist without the job center of Manhattan being nearby has really clarified for me some ideas I've been wrestling with. A little over a year ago, I wrote the post below:

    http://blog.iqwirty.net/2008/11/considering-life-without-ubiquitous-cup.html

    Today, my wife and I live in a suburb in New Jersey (which, by your definition, would probably be called urban). There was something about the type of town we moved to that we could not quite explain to others, but I think your post does it nicely. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  2. The issue of communitty and choices are misused often by those who advocate very extreme positions of pro or anti suburbanism, urbanism, enviornmentalism, and the like. This mis-use has led to a very polarizing debate. And that is a shame. As a society, we are in the throws of a perfect storm. Climate change (real or not, it is pushing public policy and business decisions), energy consumption (who is using the oil, supply is now, well, being demanded by other world economys), and the credit crisis give us a real opportunitty to debate our choices and communittys.

    thank you for your post. it is well stated and should be read by all

    Scott Dadson

    ReplyDelete
  3. The real quesrion is:
    "Can cities be made sustainable."

    (The burbs that have large lots are far more sustainable as they have spce for energy generation, growing food and maybe even sewage disposal.

    Thanks
    JK

    ReplyDelete
  4. The question as to whether the 'burbs are more sustainable is predicated on mobility being status quo with the current dispersed sprawling network served by cars running on cheap gas. Even in the era of electric cars (or some other technology), I wonder if a half acre 30 miles from work will still be viable. Six months of $4 gas sent many to the more urban areas. What will a more prolonged increase in oil do?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm reading Green Metropolis (David Owen, 2009). His chapter "Liquid Civilization" sums it up nicely when he says that any modern sustainability discussion is ultimately about oil.
    Can cities be made sustainable? Major US cities supported populations of several million each prior to the gasoline internal combustion engine (New York City >3 million in 1900).

    ReplyDelete
  6. I do think that the need to live in or near a city or urban environment in order to find good work has the possibility of decreasing significantly over the next decade. Not saying that the need *will* decrease - I believe it will have a lot to do with how open businesses are to depending on a more mobile work environment. Working from home (fully or partly) is easier today than it was five years ago, but culturally it is still a hard sell in most offices.

    In the slices of America's work environment where working outside the office is encouraged, I think that all the questions and answers about suburban vs. urban life change drastically.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Craig Lewis said...
    I wonder if a half acre 30 miles from work will still be viable.
    JK:
    That is based on the false assumption that people in the burbs drive further to work. That is not true: most jobs are no longer in the central city - they are spread out just like the people are. Total daily driving changes little between people who live on several acre plots to medium density cities. See: the data and charts, based on Dunphy and Fisher, here: portlandfacts.com/smart/densitycongestion.htm

    Craig Lewis said...
    Six months of $4 gas sent many to the more urban areas. What will a more prolonged increase in oil do?
    JK:
    Probably the same thing as $5 & up gas did to Europeans years ago: people get smaller cars!!!

    What people DO NOT DO is make a long term switch to transit. Even in Europe autos account for 78% of personal motorized travel and transit is in a decades long down trend. See: portlandfacts.com/transit/eurotranistshareloss.htm

    Rob Cannon said...
    I'm reading Green Metropolis (David Owen, 2009). His chapter "Liquid Civilization" sums it up nicely when he says that any modern sustainability discussion is ultimately about oil.
    JK:
    In that case, no problem because we will never run out of oil. To believe in peak oil you have to deny economics, chemistry and history:

    economics (supply goes up, consumption goes down with price)
    That is why we have recently had a series of dramatic announcements of new discoveries - the recent high oil prices have brought much new exploration which has found more supplies.

    chemistry (you can make the stuff)
    The Fischer–Tropsch (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_process) (also: fischer-tropsch.org) process and the Bergius process (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergius_process), both used from the 1930s on, make li quid fuels form coal. Methane instead of coal can also be used a starting point. Sasol (sasol.com/) has been producing commercial quantities of oil from both processes for years. Also from natural gas.

    History (Hitler ran a war on manmade oil).
    The Role of Synthetic Fuel In World War II Germany Said this: “The percentage of synthetic fuels compared to the yield from all sources grew from 22 percent to more than 50 percent by 1943" airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1981/jul-aug/becker.htm

    Thanks
    JK

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thank you Jim for your comments and perspective. I think that the jury is still out on whether the suburbs will in fact be abandoned in the future or simply redeveloped for a new paradigm. Generally though, I can't wrap my head around fifty more years of the status quo land development practices. Infrastructure is very expensive; a fact that we have come to realize much too late in the game. The extensive infrastructure network in this country - rural, suburban, and urban - have been neglected for far too long, and we lack any real funding solutions to tackle them comprehensively. I don't see a solution that will perpetuate what we have seen in recent decades. I think that infrastructure dollars will go towards those areas with the highest cost-benefit and I suspect that the 2 units/acre suburbs will be lower on the list. Just a feeling...

    As for congestion, I don't agree with Jim's interpretation of the data regarding vehicle trips generated and density. My reasoning is quite simple. Congestion is in fact the measurement of time delay while traveling and it is generally measured at intersections. This differs from vehicle miles traveled or trips generated. To say that an increase in density increases trips generated is generally agreed up. Congestion, on the other hand is not as dependent upon density as it is upon driver choice. A study by the City of Charlotte of their entire MPO showed that congestion is in fact highest in the suburbs. Why, do you ask would this be the case? It's all about choices. The suburbs lack any network choices, auto or otherwise and, as a result, traffic is continually funneled onto a limited number of major thoroughfares. Well connected neighborhoods would improve these conditions. And to do so requires planning and some regulation.

    And finally, I must also take issue with your assertion that our energy supplies, particularly oil, are limitless. Even if we are technologically and financially able to draw upon those previously inaccessible areas, that only addresses one side of the equation - supply. The other side is a much more ominous and menacing factor. The rise of the third world, particularly India and China, will have dramatic impacts on the demand for oil. They are game-changers, without a doubt. And lest we not forget that much of the world's oil supplies lie not within our borders but in territories far aflung, many of which are controlled by regimes that are hostile to our ideals. And with the third growing (in total population) and the first world shrinking (exception for in-migration), we cannot be so bold to think that others won’t seek to corners those resources for themselves.

    2008 was an early warning shot of the potential disruptions that can be caused by oil dependencies. Perhaps we will use some Nazi-synthetic or maybe we will figure out how to turn high fructose corn syrup in Pepsi into a viable alternative. The only problem is, the shift required from our current delivery system to that alternate fuel could be a decade or more to full implementation. The suburbs took a blow in 2008 with the jump in gas and another bigger blow in 2009 with the bursting of the housing bubble that disproportionately hit newer suburban areas. The question is whether we are resilient enough to manage the next shift if it lasts say 4 years instead of 1. Will the 3600 square foot production home on a half acre be as resilient as a 2000 square foot brownstone closer in? Is status quo really a viable future?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Craig Lewis said... I think that infrastructure dollars will go towards those areas with the highest cost-benefit and I suspect that the 2 units/acre suburbs will be lower on the list. Just a feeling...
    JK: You are forgetting the areas most in need of infrastructure repair are older - IE: the dense cities. New infrastructure may have to go further, but that is not the whole story: To upgrade a sewer to handle higher density’s more demand for services involves
    ..a) Ripping up an existing street digging up the old pipe,
    ..b) Installing temporary pipework.
    ..c) Digging up the old pipe.
    ..d) Installing the new, bigger pipe.
    ..e) Switching from the temporary pipe to the new pipe.
    ..f) Covering the new pipe
    ..g) repairing the road surface.

    On a new suburban development it involves:
    ..a) Dig a trench on vacant land.
    ..b) Put a pipe in it.
    ..c) Cover the trench.
    DONE. (They do this before building the roads & houses)

    Which would you guess is the cheapest per person served?

    Craig Lewis said... And finally, I must also take issue with your assertion that our energy supplies, particularly oil, are limitless.
    JK: You are underestimating the power of progress. Say that we can get oil (or any mineral) down to 5000 feet. When we learn to go down to 10,000 feet we have DOUBLED the potential supply. This is an exponential function! One can also observe that we are getting better at extracting a higher percentage of oil that we can reach and are using it more efficiently, both increase the exponent on that exponential function. (Think of it as going deeper=the third dimension; efficiency of extraction & usage= the fourth dimension!)

    Craig Lewis said... The other side is a much more ominous and menacing factor. The rise of the third world, particularly India and China, will have dramatic impacts on the demand for oil. They are game-changers, without a doubt.
    JK: All those people will also have a dramatic impact on SUPPLY as some portion of them will go into the oil finding business. And more people is more potential for great new ideas. These are things that the “gloom & doomers” have always ignored (and always been wrong because of ignoring them.)

    Craig Lewis said... And lest we not forget that much of the world's oil supplies lie not within our borders but in territories far aflung, many of which are controlled by regimes that are hostile to our ideals.
    JK: All the more reason to open up our “off limits” areas to exploration. Some people say merely doing that will make us energy independent.

    Craig Lewis said... The only problem is, the shift required from our current delivery system to that alternate fuel could be a decade or more to full implementation.
    JK: What is the problem here - we are no where near out of oil, the real problem is political.

    Craig Lewis said... The suburbs took a blow in 2008 with the jump in gas and another bigger blow in 2009 with the bursting of the housing bubble that disproportionately hit newer suburban areas.
    JK: Actually the housing bubble mostly hit areas with excessive land use controls. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/08/opinion/08krugman.html And the oil price problem was probably speculators “investing” in oil due to screwed up monetary policies.

    Craig Lewis said... Will the 3600 square foot production home on a half acre be as resilient as a 2000 square foot brownstone closer in? Is status quo really a viable future?
    JK: Of course it will be more resilient! It has enough space to grow some food and to produce most of the energy needed. Try putting up solar panels and a windmill on a tiny lot. And usually that ½ acre home it is about as close to work locations as living in a city.

    Thanks
    JK

    ReplyDelete
  10. To add to the conversation on the core definition of terms, as the author began the entry, a helpful quote by Peter Calthorpe offers insight into the applicability of scale, or "urbanism", across varied patterns of the built environment:

    "By urbanism I do not mean city-like densities and high-rise buildings, I mean the qualities of community design which establish diversity [variety], pedestrian scale, and public identity regardless of location or density."

    ~ The Next American Metropolis, Acknowledgements, Paragraph 2

    ReplyDelete