In the fight for livability, sometimes advocates can forget about those who are happily living in environments that others would deem “unlivable”: sprawling, car-dependent suburbs. If it’s all about making our lives more livable, “shouldn’t we be able to choose the sprawling suburbs if we want to?” asked a participant at the Partners’ “Building Livable Communities” Forum in September 2010. Well, yes, replied the panelists, but it’s not that easy. “Choosing” sprawl is not always the free choice that many believe it to be.
Some people prefer low-density, single-land-use living because it provides larger lot sizes for less money, or because it gives the option to drive everywhere, or perhaps because it feels like a safer environment for their children. Rising incomes, falling transportation costs, and low land costs at the fringe, have encouraged many to live in these environments, as individuals pay less to commute long distances, and are willing to pay for more (larger) housing on cheap land.
However, sprawl is not driven solely by the free market. There are federal, state and local policies that actively encourage sprawl, through influence over transportation and housing costs, the extension of infrastructure, and local government financing.
These policies are not categorically bad. Indeed, there are some people who prefer living in a sprawled environment, and one could argue that our policies are a move to accommodate those preferences. However, the fact remains that many policies (detailed below) significantly raise the appeal of sprawl for residents and developers, through programs that subsidize things like home-ownership and private-auto transportation. As a result, individuals who don’t want to live in sprawl have few choices. New incentives for more walkable, livable neighborhoods are not an effort to force a choice on anyone, but rather to expand our choices, to counter the boundless incentives we have given to sprawl at the cost of all else.
HOUSING
After World War 2 the Federal Housing Administration helped Americans purchase millions of homes, many of which were single family, detached dwellings. It was often easier to borrow money to purchase single-family homes than to purchase a unit in a multi-family structure, and loans for the repair of older homes were less plentiful than loans for the purchase of homes. This and other complementary programs made it less expensive to own a home than to rent in many cases, and gave strong incentive for Americans to move out of the city and into low density fringe developments where new single family homes were readily available.
Today, citizens receive significant tax breaks for owning a home, thereby reducing the true cost of housing and encouraging the consumption of it. A study by Persky et al. (2000) estimated that in the Chicago metropolitan area, the federal tax code lowers true housing costs 20-50%, causing land and housing consumption to rise by about 20%. The effect of this policy becomes clearer if we consider alternatives. How would things have been different if, for example, we had chosen to give the same incentive to individuals renting apartments in struggling inner city neighborhoods?
TRANSPORTATION
The Interstate Highway Act of 1956 added 41,000 miles to the national highway system, effectively subsidizing the development of the suburbs by lowering the cost of commuting. The typical cul-de-sac street design of many suburban neighborhoods make walking or biking difficult, and in fact can contribute to lower levels of service for cars as well, since the number of possible trip routes are more limited than in a grid-system. We tax gasoline less than other nations, and spend millions to ensure flow of oil from the middle-east. The lower prices that result make driving more attractive and long commutes less burdensome. According to the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment, automobile drivers in the U.S. pay 73-88% of monetary costs of driving, and only 53-69% of the total costs (which include congestion, pollution, and risks to public safety). Road investments that are intended to cure congestion lower the (time) cost of driving, consequently raising the demand for driving and often leading to just as much congestion on a bigger road.
AND ALL THE REST
Though housing and transportation policies are probably the biggest contributor to sprawl incentives, there are many others. State subsidies for extension of infrastructure, such as water treatment plants, lower the cost of suburban development. Cleanup requirements for infill sites increase the cost and risk of developing in the city. Local governments face a fiscal incentive for physical expansion, since a bigger city translates to a broader base for user fees, and property and sales tax revenues. Zoning codes require commercial developments to provide free parking that eats up valuable land and incentivizes driving. Some codes may not even allow for mixed-use development, encouraging the separation of our homes from work and shopping destinations, thereby increasing the need for more parking lots and roads. Financial institutions may favor the more familiar single-family housing developer over the less familiar mixed-use, urban-style projects. The funding of our schools through property taxes means that many new parents flee to the suburbs, where property values are higher and schools are better funded.
Yes, we should be able to choose where and how we want to live. However, we are mistaken if we think that our choices have been unconstrained up to now. As described here, many federal, state and local policies strongly encourage us to choose sprawl, and make other options less practical. Again, these incentives are not all bad, and many are backed by a sound public purpose. However, if we truly want to give people free choice over where they live, work and play, we need to make sure we have an even policy playing field. A growing contingent of individuals are demanding to live in more walkable, urban-style environments, and incentives for these neighborhoods are growing. How can we find a balance that truly gives us the ability to choose how to live? And equally importantly, how do we create cities where we don’t need to choose between what is right for building “livable” communities and what is right for ourselves?
Some people prefer low-density, single-land-use living because it provides larger lot sizes for less money, or because it gives the option to drive everywhere, or perhaps because it feels like a safer environment for their children. Rising incomes, falling transportation costs, and low land costs at the fringe, have encouraged many to live in these environments, as individuals pay less to commute long distances, and are willing to pay for more (larger) housing on cheap land.
However, sprawl is not driven solely by the free market. There are federal, state and local policies that actively encourage sprawl, through influence over transportation and housing costs, the extension of infrastructure, and local government financing.
These policies are not categorically bad. Indeed, there are some people who prefer living in a sprawled environment, and one could argue that our policies are a move to accommodate those preferences. However, the fact remains that many policies (detailed below) significantly raise the appeal of sprawl for residents and developers, through programs that subsidize things like home-ownership and private-auto transportation. As a result, individuals who don’t want to live in sprawl have few choices. New incentives for more walkable, livable neighborhoods are not an effort to force a choice on anyone, but rather to expand our choices, to counter the boundless incentives we have given to sprawl at the cost of all else.
HOUSING
After World War 2 the Federal Housing Administration helped Americans purchase millions of homes, many of which were single family, detached dwellings. It was often easier to borrow money to purchase single-family homes than to purchase a unit in a multi-family structure, and loans for the repair of older homes were less plentiful than loans for the purchase of homes. This and other complementary programs made it less expensive to own a home than to rent in many cases, and gave strong incentive for Americans to move out of the city and into low density fringe developments where new single family homes were readily available.
Today, citizens receive significant tax breaks for owning a home, thereby reducing the true cost of housing and encouraging the consumption of it. A study by Persky et al. (2000) estimated that in the Chicago metropolitan area, the federal tax code lowers true housing costs 20-50%, causing land and housing consumption to rise by about 20%. The effect of this policy becomes clearer if we consider alternatives. How would things have been different if, for example, we had chosen to give the same incentive to individuals renting apartments in struggling inner city neighborhoods?
TRANSPORTATION
The Interstate Highway Act of 1956 added 41,000 miles to the national highway system, effectively subsidizing the development of the suburbs by lowering the cost of commuting. The typical cul-de-sac street design of many suburban neighborhoods make walking or biking difficult, and in fact can contribute to lower levels of service for cars as well, since the number of possible trip routes are more limited than in a grid-system. We tax gasoline less than other nations, and spend millions to ensure flow of oil from the middle-east. The lower prices that result make driving more attractive and long commutes less burdensome. According to the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment, automobile drivers in the U.S. pay 73-88% of monetary costs of driving, and only 53-69% of the total costs (which include congestion, pollution, and risks to public safety). Road investments that are intended to cure congestion lower the (time) cost of driving, consequently raising the demand for driving and often leading to just as much congestion on a bigger road.
AND ALL THE REST
Though housing and transportation policies are probably the biggest contributor to sprawl incentives, there are many others. State subsidies for extension of infrastructure, such as water treatment plants, lower the cost of suburban development. Cleanup requirements for infill sites increase the cost and risk of developing in the city. Local governments face a fiscal incentive for physical expansion, since a bigger city translates to a broader base for user fees, and property and sales tax revenues. Zoning codes require commercial developments to provide free parking that eats up valuable land and incentivizes driving. Some codes may not even allow for mixed-use development, encouraging the separation of our homes from work and shopping destinations, thereby increasing the need for more parking lots and roads. Financial institutions may favor the more familiar single-family housing developer over the less familiar mixed-use, urban-style projects. The funding of our schools through property taxes means that many new parents flee to the suburbs, where property values are higher and schools are better funded.
Yes, we should be able to choose where and how we want to live. However, we are mistaken if we think that our choices have been unconstrained up to now. As described here, many federal, state and local policies strongly encourage us to choose sprawl, and make other options less practical. Again, these incentives are not all bad, and many are backed by a sound public purpose. However, if we truly want to give people free choice over where they live, work and play, we need to make sure we have an even policy playing field. A growing contingent of individuals are demanding to live in more walkable, urban-style environments, and incentives for these neighborhoods are growing. How can we find a balance that truly gives us the ability to choose how to live? And equally importantly, how do we create cities where we don’t need to choose between what is right for building “livable” communities and what is right for ourselves?