Review of "War on the Dream" --- Orange County Register
Demographia/PublicPurpose/RentalCarTour Updates
Suburbs a sin to Smart Growthers
STEVEN GREENHUT
Sr. editorial writer and columnist
The Orange County Register
sgre...@ocregister.com
I'm always dumbfounded when ideologies take firm root among everyone
who is anyone, even when those ideologies fly in the face of everything
we see around us. During the Soviet era, it was self-evident to most
average folks that freer societies were more prosperous, more affirming
of human dignity and altogether better places than totalitarian
regimes, yet a good bit of elite opinion preferred the promises of
left-wing utopias to the everyday reality of the democratic West.
These days, I am a bit bewildered by the degree to which another
ideology - granted, one far less noxious than communism - has taken
root in America, even though it so obviously stands athwart everything
we see all around us. Who you gonna believe, your own eyes or the
grandiose statements of ideologues? Well, many Americans, especially
those in positions of power, are choosing the ideologues.
I'm referring to the ideology of Smart Growth and New Urbanism.
Basically, these philosophies argue that traditional suburbia of the
sort that has evolved since the 1950s is a terrible thing. They say it
promotes isolation, hopelessness, despair, social turmoil, leads to
deep divisions among classes and races and is unsustainable.
"Unsustainable" is one of those words that defies precise meaning, but
those who throw around such a term are suggesting that suburbia is
causing irreparable harm to the environment.
The Smart Growth/New Urbanist crowd has a solution to the terror of
suburbia. We should all live packed into apartment buildings. Our kids
should play on the street like in the old days of the glorious New York
City tenements. We should not drive, but depend instead on mass
transit. Every urban area should be surrounded by a green zone -
i.e., a no-growth area of farms and woods and parks. Government will
exert complete control over development decisions so that only the
"right" types of things are built.
Fortunately, there's plenty of evidence to debunk this nonsense. I
highly recommend "War on the Dream," by Wendell Cox, an Illinois-based
consultant who writes and speaks extensively about transportation and
housing. Those who believe that this fracas over urban planning is some
ivory-tower debate with little or no real-world consequence need to
keep Cox's words in mind: "The principal purpose of this book is to
highlight the serious consequences of currently popular land-use
policies. The urban planning community is implementing - and proposes
to expand - strategies that are already seriously eroding housing
affordability and intensifying traffic congestion. This could result in
substantial economic reverses, because homeownership is so central to
the creation of middle-income wealth and because traffic congestion
reduces productivity."
As Cox points out, the restrictive land-use policies advocated by Smart
Growthers and New Urbanists result in a dramatic loss of housing
affordability. Those cities with the most restrictive rules have the
highest housing prices, whereas those with fewer rules have relatively
lower prices. Those of us who own homes have enjoyed watching prices,
and our equity, soar in California. But the effect is devastating on
people trying to get onto the economic ladder. It's always been ironic
to me that the so-called spokesmen for the poor and minorities often
advocate the most meddlesome government restrictions that make it
nearly impossible for lower-income people to buy homes, start
businesses and build wealth.
Homeownership is not only fundamental to wealth creation, as Cox
argues, but to the sense of community that New Urbanists supposedly
want to foster. Homeownership creates investment in a community and is
fundamental to the notion of the American Dream. The issue also is one
of freedom. As Cox explains: "People who are allowed to do what they
want will be generally happier and more productive. ... To preserve the
maximum latitude for people to act as they prefer, regulations and laws
must be limited to what is genuinely important and should not be based
upon flimsy research or flawed analysis."
Unfortunately, Smart Growth and New Urbanism are based on faulty
foundations. Those of us who grew up crammed into row houses in dirty
East Coast cities (in my case, Philadelphia) scratch our heads at the
otherworldly arguments and analyses these ideologues make. When we
moved to the suburbs, we found: a) less political corruption; b) better
schools; c) more open space; d) friendlier neighbors; e) a more
free-flowing transportation system; f) cleaner air; g) less crime, etc.
The suburbs might not offer the nightlife, restaurants, architectural
splendor and cultural pleasures of the city, but they hardly are the
fonts of despair that the Smart Growthers claim.
One of the most commonly used arguments is that suburbs breed anomie
- i.e., loneliness and isolation. Because suburbanites have so much
private space and so little public space, we supposedly have little
contact with one another and have not developed complex social skills
like people have developed in the city. That view is opposite of the
one I have experienced. When I lived in Philly and Washington, D.C., I
knew few of my neighbors. Street life was more menacing than cozy, and
I kept to myself and my social circle. I went to museums and such but
was not intimately involved in what one might call community life.
In the suburbs, I know many of my neighbors. Some of this is driven by
my age and the fact that I have kids, but I am deeply involved in
community activities. A new study by Jan Brueckner of the UC Irvine
Economics Department and Ann Largey of the Dublin City University
Business School in Ireland took an empirical look at the issue. They
confirm the points Cox makes.
I talked to Brueckner, who said he didn't know what he would find from
his research. The results? "Social interaction is higher in the
suburbs, contrary to what many people believe." He said suburbanites
are more likely to talk to their neighbors, to have more friends, to be
involved in social clubs. His research didn't explain why that occurs,
but he had some speculations.
For instance, urban dewellers are "bombarded with people all day," so
they tend to withdraw into their personal space. Suburbanites are out
mowing the lawn and working on their houses, which might provide more
oppotunities for chatting with the neighbors, compared to just walking
by someone in an apartment hallway.
He also thinks there's more crime in urban areas, which makes people
less social and there's more to do in cities, which makes people less
dependent on their neighbors for entertainment.
Don't expect the Smart Growthers or New Urbanists to change their views
in light of the evidence. This is - as I've called it before, and Cox
calls it in a book chapter - a theology that has nothing to do with
evidence and everything to do with faith. These planners and their
disciples believe in their hearts that suburbia is evil, and they are
going to use the power of government to save us all. If you are not in
the mood for being saved, then Cox's book will delight you.
Contact the writer: sgre...@ocregister.com or (714) 796-7823
--
Wendell Cox
Demographia | Wendell Cox Consultancy - St. Louis Missouri-Illinois
metropolitan region
Visiting Professor, Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers, Paris
+1.618.632.8507 | +33.6.10.59.59.92
www.demographia.com | www.publicpurpose.com | www.rentalcartours.net
New Book:
WAR ON THE DREAM: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life
Information & Orders:
http://www.demographia.com/wod1.pdf