1980 - 2010, Low-Density Continues to Dominate the American Landscape

If you're like me...

you see that suburban America comes with a giant pile of problems we haven't even begun to really quantify, fully understand, or even remotely pay the cost of yet. And it is frustrating we really haven't shifted the growth model much in response to this growing call to action (well, at least those in the industry hear the call, I don't know about the general house hunter).

Suburban problems...What am I talking about? Here's a short list:

• Air + water pollution from additional reliance on single-occupancy automotive transportation and the massive amounts of carbon fuel used to power the 1.2 billion cars (and growing) on the road
• Expensive infrastructure that hasn't paid for its own growth + maintenance in the long-run
• Suburbia is a tax burden to the urban economic engines of the country
• Uses more energy, water, resources that, unless technology can save us, is not consumed at rates of sustainable yield
• Suburban poverty is more difficult to manage and connect people to the social services they desperately need
• Health impacts adding inches to our waists and numerous other disease-associated factors
• Social isolation
• Loss of natural habitats and ecosystem services
• Loss of fertile farmland

A better alternative?

Urban environments are not without their own challenges of negative inflictions on our personal and ecological health, but they are measurably more sustainable from either a financial, environmental, and /or social perspective. Should they be forced upon everyone? No (and do yourself a favor and not listen to crazy talk that the Government is going to make you in accordance to the UN's Agenda 21).

And then there are those who do low-density responsibly. There are those who have a low-impact lifestyle in the countryside who garden, live locally, and make the most of their land in an ecologically responsible way. Bravo to them.

Most of us need a reality check. 

We at least owe it to the future generation to have a healthy, collaborative, sustainable lifestyle alternative to the human environment we seem to keep mass-producing for decades. The attached image demonstrates just how large of a tide we're up against. Even if you don't want to give up this suburban lifestyle (which is likely the only lifestyle you've ever really known), you owe it to your city to become a supporter of your downtown to grow into a densified, attractive, car-optional, pedestrian-oriented, bike-embracing, sufficient-minded, creative, compact, healthy, connected, energy- and water-efficient, tax-surplus oasis with a promising future.

Entry inspired by: Richard Florida's article in CityLab (9/14/16)...

The Difficulties of Density

http://www.citylab.com/housing/2016/09/the-difficulties-of-density/499571/

Untangling the Dilemma: Ethics, Housing costs, Economics

Most planners strive to be AICP certified.  It's a professional certification that offers more opportunities for professional work, promotions, clout, and an expectation to uphold a clear code of ethics published by the American Planning Association.  But do those with AICP credentials actually adhere to the code of ethics?  Do certified planners spend time thinking about how these less tangible standards become implemented?  Do they scratch deeper than the surface to uproot any lingering injustices left over from the civil rights movement?  And, if these planners see it, do they have the means to address it?  Are such planners empowered by their bosses?, their clients?, and do local Commissioners/Council members tolerate shaking up the status quo?

I'm not sure if local officials from growing communities have the political courage to face issues of economic justice when luxurious development requires special attention (if not coaxing) and acquiring such development promises to raise the stature of the community.  Housing diversity doesn't mesh well (whether political or marketable) with housing for the wealthy.  The wealthy seem to require private airports armed with gates and offer exclusive perks like upscale clubhouses with spas and tennis courts and a choice of tee times.  This exclusive space (with costly upkeep) is generally thought to be more exciting than affordable housing or cost-effect housing for working class families.

Is this a matter that was never reconciled in the civil rights movement?  Is this practice of marketing neighborhoods to a certain demographic a remnant of a time where exclusive neighborhoods were plenty recognized by race?  Is perpetuating the existence of exclusive neighborhoods (now divided by salary) really any different?  Have people earned the right to live among only among those who share similar socioeconomic backgrounds?

It was also once perceived that housing for black and white families didn't mesh well with one another.  I might suggest that the poor (working poor, ill poor, underemployed poor, uneducated poor, undocumented poor, etc.) of today deal with a similar stigma that were once reserved for black households of the 1950s and 1960s (or any time before Fair Housing regulations of the Civil Rights Act of 1968).  Even after passage of the Act, there were holdouts on the practice of redlining where black home buyers were denied access to (or steered away from) certain neighborhoods by one means or another.  Housing discrimination only protects people based on  race, color, religion, or national origin (and I believe expanded to include disability/handicap and familial status) at the federal level.  Other protections have been applied in certain states to protect LGBT or age discrimination.  I also think that these cases of discrimination are seen for what they are: bigotry and a form of injustice.  Regretfully, issues of segregation by class remain as an accepted stratification of our economic reality that upholds the idea that we all earn our place in society.  It is commonly justified in everyday rhetoric that money earned is a sign of dignity, accomplishment, and stature earning a person the right to isolation from the downsides of income stratification.

What do you think?  Do we need to take a careful look at our beliefs about housing "markets" along lines of income stratification?  Have we accepted upper class enclaves that segregate people along new lines of discrimination by doing so?

Take these ideas and read what AICP has to say about Housing Policy and planner's "responsibility to support the needs of underrepresented and disadvantaged people."  Does the diversity within neighborhoods offer social cohesion even between people at different ends of the pay scale?  Is the way we zone and implement design regulation have an impact on this outcome?  I carefully question common practice and its wisdom.

--- Addition 3/9/13 ---

I would also thank Marc Brenman for his contribution of bringing up another source that provides direction of Housing as a right under the UN's UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS.

Labor shortage, Farming, and Immigration policy

The media today is focused on how immigration reform will impact our economic possibilities and realities.  Today's article from Kirk Johnson in the NYTimes highlights an American workforce not willing to take hard farm jobs. Through my best urban sociologist lens, I view people wanting more than to simply "fill jobs" -- but that is not the way the story is presented.  This article was also referenced in a spirited debate this morning on the Diane Rehm Show.

The dialogue revolves around the context of new (legally challenged and court confirmed) immigration policy and how it coerces undocumented workers back to their home country - potentially leaving crops unharvested.

I shake my head at this kind of analysis, because it overlooks the complexity of the social dimension when observing people's job selection process as well as the historical trend of people migrating to cities. The farming industry has been altered immensely through a technological overhaul that dates back to the industrial revolution.  However, new technology is usually received with mixed reviews because of how it typically leaves low-skilled workers without jobs, replaced by machinery.  This unsettling news is no comfort to the low-skilled workers in this country that are suffering most from unemployment.  Yet, despite their relatively low skill (and subsequently low wage), they have quality of life expectations that the rural farm setting does not offer.

Evidence to this fact can be seen in the affinity that low wage workers have for city centers.  It is the city that offers affordable transportation, social opportunities and a quality of life that is made interesting by the unique opportunities to urban life.  Ever since the industrial revolution and the invention of machinery that has replaced farm jobs, people have been migrating to the city nonstop.  If it were for only employment opportunity, farm labor shortage should have them migrating back -- but these people are choosing to stay in the city.  This is evidence for the quality of life that cities offer over their rural neighbors.  Despite one out of 11 people are unemployed, these folks still choose the city to the rural farm life.

So if a labor shortage in rural farm country cannot lure people out of the city, perhaps it is time to bring the farm to the city.  The vertical farm might be a viable option.  This potential solution looks to face the problem of feeding a population on an exponential growth projection and the fact that there is no stopping people choosing their home in a city rather than a rural farm.







But this doesn't offer politicians an easy way to skirt the pressing issues of immigration policy.  For too long, it seems that we've been addressing immigration with the following questions:

• "What will it do for the benefit of our economic well being?"
• "What stress will it put our social services under?"
• "Why should our tax dollars pay to educate these children?"

I think these are the wrong questions and they only look at the problem under a very short timeline and avoid moral humanitarian perspectives.  My questions are more about what if we don't open up opportunities to our neighboring nation?  What will make the pressure of managing "illegals" subside?  Taller fences?  More armed guards?  Security will not add value to our economy.  Investing in human potential, immigrant or domestic, may be more productive (although I would like to see empirical evidence on the matter).