Urban Sprawl: Problems and Solutions
By Trevor Kauffman
Thesis: The environmental and ecological problems caused by urban sprawl can be solved through environmentally sound building techniques, legislation and several economic avenues.
Outline
Point #1 – History
Point #2 – Green Building and Urban Planning
Point #3 – Federal Govt. Role in Urban sprawl
Point #4 – State and Local Govt. Role in Urban Sprawl
Point #5 – CNU and USGBC
Conclusion -----
Urban sprawl, as defined by Gregory D. Squires of the Urban Institute, is the “pattern of urban and metropolitan growth that reflects low-density, automobile-dependant, exclusionary new development on the fringe of settled areas often surrounding a deteriorating city”, mainly the expansion and creation of suburbs (Squire 2002). Although suburban areas are often associated with development and growth, the true cost on society due to this growth is not fully measured. Externalities, such as increased air pollution and carbon dioxide emissions from increased travel times add to the threat of climate change. Chemical runoff from lawns and increased water runoff due to impermeable surfaces such as roads roofs and parking lots, contribute to issues with water pollution and sewer overflows. The destruction of habitats and beneficial ecosystems such as wetlands and waterways, the loss of farmland, and the disturbance and degradation of soils due development and pollution are also symptoms of unchecked urban sprawl. These externalities are costs that are directly caused by the expansion into the borderlands of an urban area but are not directly paid by the development companies and for the most part, not by the inhabitants of these new developments. These external costs instead, are paid by the larger community and society as a whole in ways that are becoming more and more visible.
Urban sprawl is the embodiment of several other much larger issues such as climate change, overpopulation, and the over consumption and abuse of natural resources. These problems in and of themselves are tough to solve but when put into the context of urban sprawl, climate change and the overuse and abuse of natural resources specifically, become somewhat manageable. Overpopulation is a problem that seems to transcend conventional methods of solution such as legislation or economic methods and lands in the realm of suggestion and social programs, at least in the United States. Therefore, although it is a major factor in urban sprawl it will not be discussed further. However, the environmental and ecological problems caused by urban sprawl can be solved through environmentally sound building techniques, legislation and several economic avenues.
History
Too much of the urban sprawl that took place during the rush to the suburbs after WW II was poorly planned and consisted of houses that were anything but environmentally friendly. Companies like GE pushed the sales of large appliances such as central heating and cooling systems, refrigerators, freezers and televisions. Housing development companies looked for the cheapest way to construct housing without regard to the consumer and neglected innovations in solar technology due to the higher costs of solar heating (Hayden 2003). Fortunately better urban planning and green construction has become more prominent due to an increased awareness of the world around us. These ideas are perpetuated by organizations such as CNU (the Congress for New Urbanization 2007) and the US Green Building Council, which promote thorough urban planning and green construction respectively. The combination of better urban planning and green construction can significantly reduce the damage caused by putting up new homes or businesses and cerate economic opportunities for older neighborhoods.
Green Building and Urban Planning
The first step in reducing urban sprawl should be a look inward to see what improvements can be made within the city limits. The restoration and revitalization of old neighborhoods should take priority over fringe construction. Putting money into restoration projects not only improves the quality of life within the immediate community but also creates a more centralized place where people can go to shop, eat and spend their time. This, if paired with attractive public transportation such as a trolley or small scale Magnetic Levitation Train, would help decrease the carbon emissions by reducing dependence on cars (Hayden 2003). If however, fringe development is deemed necessary through economic or political avenues there are steps to be taken to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and lower the impact on the local environment.
Transit oriented development is one facet of urban planning that helps reduce carbon dioxide emissions and traffic congestion by reducing reliance on automobiles. This type of development is already being implemented in cities like Portland, Oregon where most buildings are within a short walk from a transit system (O’Meara 1999). Another idea connected with transit oriented development is a move towards walkable neighborhoods around a “town center” that are connected to other neighborhoods by rail (Hayden 2003). Being able to bike or walk to almost anywhere needed is not only good for health reasons but almost completely eliminates the need for cars. Carbon dioxide emissions are not the only pollution related to urban develop; chemical runoff from lawns such as fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides have also become environmental concerns of late. One solution suggested by Dolores Hayden in her book Building Suburbia: Green Fields and Urban Growth 1820 - 2000 is to reduce the size of yards and fill them with native plant species, effectively eliminating the yard all together, and replacing it with a community lawn (Hayden 2003). Not only does this reduce and control the amount of chemicals applied in an urban setting but also creates opportunities to strengthen communities through increased interaction and sharing of a public space. But, good urban planning cannot take place without green construction.
Green construction, as defined in William J. Thompson and Kim Sorvig’s book Sustainable Landscape Construction, are practices that
“…reduce resource use and pollution while increasing the value derived from each resource used. Green construction protects healthy sites, restores or enhances marginal sites by working with natural processes and contributes to regional habitat conservation. Within these parameters, green construction stimulates a stable and diverse local economy, improves local quality of life and improves human health” (Thompson 2000).
It is important to include these parameters for green construction when a house or neighborhood is built. For starters, building envelopes reduce the damage done on site by setting aside protected areas from construction areas (Thompson 2000). Reducing on site damage makes it easier for the land to heal and reduces the amount of particulate matter in local waterways. Trees are important parts of the landscape and should always be put in protected areas when possible. They give shade in the summer and can be used to block cold winds in the winter. Orientation to the sun is another important consideration when building new homes. Solar energy is a plentiful and renewable resource; all natural energy comes from the sun. The use of photovoltaic cells, natural lighting, and solar heating can reduce energy use by 60% (O’Meara 1999). Most of these techniques however are old hat. Solar power has been around since World War II and people have been orienting their houses towards the sun for thousands of years. There have been some advances in green building and urbanization that have sprung out of the large concrete urban jungles that have appeared since the industrial revolution.
Ecoroofs, consisting of short hearty grasses, can be used to reduce storm water runoff, curbing the amount of sewer overflow into rivers and other waterways. Ecoroofs are not rooftop gardens and are not intended for pedestrian use. Their main functions are to improve thermal insulation, reduce the urban heat island effect by absorbing less heat, produce oxygen, filter out carbon dioxide and other air pollutants, store carbon, provide habitats for birds and are capable of absorbing 75% of rain fall that falls on them (Thompson Sorvig 2000). Ecoroofs can be retrofitted to existing roofs without the addition of extra supports and are relatively simple to install and maintain (Thompson Sorvig 2003). Another way to reduce the amount of runoff in urban areas is to use porous materials instead of concrete or asphalt when creating parking lots, roads, or sidewalks. Gravel, grass, brick and porous concrete allow water to drain into the ground and bypass often over flowing sewer systems and reduce the effects of runoff into local water sources (Thompson Sorvig 2003). Proper urban planning and green building deal with a lot of the environmental issues associated with sprawl but still do not deal with the ecological issue of space.
Federal Government Role in Urban Sprawl
In order to solve the problems associated with space, urban sprawl needs to be slowed. Private interests need to recognize the shift in public opinion and the federal government needs to support legislation that encourages internal development of cities and discourages low density housing on fringe areas. The federal government has had its hands in the development game ever since the great depression. In the 1930’s the Home Owners Loan Corporation and the Federal Housing Authority offered mortgage assistance to single family buyers, opening up the opportunity for many families to move out of the cities and into the suburbs by insuring mortgages and interest rates (Squire 2002). By the 1950s due to low interest rates and post war benefits for veterans houses could be bought with just a few thousand dollars in cash with mortgage payments as low as renting as apartment. This is what led to the suburban explosion of the 1950’s, cheap farmland could be bought, subdivided and developed into “Levittowns” (Squire 2002).
This surge in the number of people who own homes has led to the formation of interest groups such as the Home Owners Association. These groups are able to influence policy in the areas which interest their members, mainly tax benefits. Meanwhile, subsidies and tax breaks for people living in higher density housing, with mid to low end incomes, were ignored until the 60’s and 70’s when programs such as public housing and rent supplements were enacted (Squire 2002). Since then the federal government has taken other actions to reduce sprawl like the Clinton Gore “Building Livable Communities” initiative which gave over $10 billion of tax credit bonds over five years in order to “preserve open space, create or restore parks, clean up “brownfields”, protect farmland and wetland, and improve water quality” (Squire 2002). The initiative also pulled together over $6 billion in support of mass transit. While this is a good start, Livable Communities was underfunded, tends only to work on the margins of sprawl in specific localities and contains many voluntary provisions (Squire 2002).
There are more active steps that the federal government should take in order to reduce the amount of sprawl. Tax breaks and subsidies that encourage the ownership of single family, resident owned homes and commercial housing developments could be cut or done away with completely. The saved money should then be put into financing urban transit systems, revitalizing neighborhoods, and cleaning leftover industrial waste from abandoned lots. Raising prices of rural land to include all the ecological functions that would be lost due to construction and subsidizing property taxes of people who live on the land is another step to curb development. A density tax, which took into account the relative density of a neighborhood (relative to the size of the city), could be used to supplement property taxes. High density areas would have a lower tax while lower density areas would have a higher tax. These changes might upset some groups such as the Home Owners Association, but Federal government spending started and supported the move towards the suburbs so the Federal government should to have a role in slowing that movement down. However, the Feds can’t do it all alone and need the support of state and local governments. There are steps that the public can take too in order to stop sprawl on a local level.
State and Local Government Role in Urban Sprawl
State and local governments can also play a role in reducing urban sprawl. Unlike on the federal level, citizens can play an important role through their right to vote on issues that directly affect them. In his article Americans are Saying no to Urban Sprawl, Carl Pope, the executive director of the Sierra Club, sites three ways that local governments can reduce unnecessary urbanization of fringe areas.
“The first option is purchasing open space and farmland for preservation … The second option growth planners should utilize is marking and promoting urban growth boundaries (UGBs)… America and has witnessed significant population growth, its urban growth boundary has preserved open space around Portland and helped make Portland one of the world's most livable cities…the third option planners should pursue is reinvestment in urban areas and revitalization of existing towns and cities” (Pope 2007).
Pope gives many examples of areas all over the Unites States where local governments have enacted legislation intended to limit urban sprawl. The option that I found the most interesting was the Urban Growth Boundaries that are in effect in the state of Washington and Oregon. The intent of the Urban Growth Boundaries is to provide “an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban use” (Squires 2002). There are seven requirements that developers need to meet in order to extend or change the Urban Growth Boundary, and the burden for proving that a site is needed for development lies directly on the developer (Squires 2002). Portland also forbids “snob zoning” which favors lower density housing, and promotes mixed development of residential and commercial buildings (O’Meara 1999). Legislation like the UGB, has helped make Portland and cities like it some of the most livable cities in the world. Imagine living in a city where the country was just a few miles out of town. The success of urban projects like these would be hard to manage without dedicated individual and organizations such as the Congress for the New Urbanism and the US Green Building Council.
The CNU and USGBC
The Congress for the New Urbanism and the US Green Building Council are both not for profit organizations which are working towards a more sustainable future. The CNU, founded in 1993, is based out of Chicago and is made up of planners, developers, architects, engineers, public officials, investors, and community activists. The members of the CNU look for creative alternatives to urban sprawl and take part in urbanization projects that range from “bringing restorative plans to hurricane-battered communities in the Gulf Coast, turning dying malls into vibrant mixed-use neighborhoods, or reconnecting isolated public housing projects to the surrounding fabric”(congress 2007). The CNU is a far cry from the development companies that profited from the mass migration to the suburbs, they take a more “proactive, multi-disciplinary approach to restoring communities” (congress 2007), and are not so focused on making a quick buck as they are concerned about the health and sustainability of urban areas
The US Green Building Council, like the CNU, is also working for a sustainable future. However, the USGBC’s focus is not on the communities but the buildings that make up the communities. The USGBC is perhaps most famous for the LEED certifications for green buildings which range from certified, silver, gold and platinum. The level of LEED certification “addresses all building types and emphasizes state-of-the-art strategies for sustainable site development, water savings, energy efficiency, materials and resources selection, and indoor environmental quality”(US green 2007). There are many good reasons to use green building techniques but perhaps the most compelling for those developers not sure on whether to go green or not is the economic and health benefits as listed by the US Green Building Council: reduced operating costs, enhanced asset value and profits, improved employee productivity and satisfaction, optimize life-cycle economic performance, improved air, thermal, and acoustic environments, enhanced occupant comfort and health, minimizes strain on local infrastructure, and contributes to the overall quality of life (US green 2007). Both the Congress for the New Urbanization and The US Green Building Council are both relatively new programs, but the speed at which they have grown and achievements such as the LEED certification program are signs that unchecked and unsustainable growth will soon go the way of the dodo.
Conclusion
It is nice to see that the current and potential problems caused by urban sprawl have not been ignored. Cities such as Portland, Oregon are trailblazers in what hopefully will be a move towards the revitalization of inner cities and bring urban sprawl under control. Other organizations such as the CNU and the US Green Building Council are making steps towards greener buildings and better urban planning. When these steps are backed up by proper taxation and subsidization, the environmental and ecological problems associated with urban sprawl will be significantly if not totally reduced. Progress doesn’t have to mean increased consumption of goods, space, and power; progress should be sustainable and should be focused on the decrease of costs to society as a whole.
Bibliography
Cavin, Andrew I. Editor. Urban Planning. The Reference Shelf. 2003
Congress for the New Urbanism: Official Website. 2007. 3. Nov. 2007. www.cnu.org
Hayden, Dolores. Building Suburbia: Green Fields and Urban growth 1820-2000.
New York: Vintage Books. 2003
O’Meara, Molly. Reinventing Cities for People and the Planet. DC. Worldwatch Paper
147. World Watch Institute. 1999
Platt, Rutherford H., Rowntree, Rowan A., Muick, Pamela C.Editors. The Ecological City. Amherst. The University of Massachusetts Press. 1994.
Squires, Gregory D. Editor. Articles by H.V Savitch and Carl Abbot. Urban Sprawl: Causes, Consequences and Policy Responses.
Washington, DC. The Urban Institute Press. 2002.
S. T. A. Pickett; M. L. Cadenasso; J. M. Grove; C. H. Nilon; R. V. Pouyat; W. C. Zipperer; R. Costanza Urban Ecological Systems: Linking Terrestrial Ecological, Physical, and Socioeconomic Components of Metropolitan Areas. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics .Vol. 32, 2001 pp. 127-157
Thompson, William J. and Sorvig, Kim. Sustainable Landscape Construction.
Washington, DC. Island Press. 2000
Urban Sprawl: Pro and Con: Property and Environmental Research Center. 2007. 3.
3. Nov. 2007. www.perc.org/perc.php?id=356
US Green Building Council. 2007. 3. Nov. 2007. www.usgbc.org