Are Compact Cities a Desirable Planning Goal?
The article written by Peter Gordon and Harry W. Richardson entitled; Are Compact Cities a Desirable Planning Goal? shows various arguments against the reason for compact cities to become implemented. They use the city of Toronto in the beginning of the article to compare it with cities in the United States. Throughout the article many topics and arguments are discussed which are; agricultural land, density preferences, energy glut, the scope for transit, suburbanization and congestion, the efficiency of compactness, technology and agglomeration-congestion trade-offs, downtowns in eclipse, rent-seeking and politics, compactness and equity, and competition among cities. From these issues displayed in the article, many valuable arguments could be agreed with. The authors used valuable data from past research done on the topics discussed in presenting their argument against compact cities.
Two main points from the article were considered most interesting. The issues of density preferences and energy glut discussed by the authors were quite interesting and have made a valid point. First of all as discussed in the article concerning density preferences, the authors make it clear that most people preferred low-density living as opposed to high-density living. As stated by Gordon and Richardson, “The choice for low-density living is influenced by instruments promoting suburbanization, such as: preferential income tax treatment of home mortgage interest, subsidies to automobile use, and interstate highway system” (Gordon and Richardson, 96). The previous quote identifies the preference people have concerning suburbanization. Because of preferential income tax treatment of home mortgage interest, subsidies to automobile use, and interstate highway systems low-density living is preferred. One great factor also concerning low-density preference is the fact that more funds are given to highways and parking than transit as stated by the authors. “Federal, state and local expenditures for highways and parking were $66.5 billion in ’91. Federal, state and local expenditures for public transit were $20.8 billion” (Gordon and Richardson, 96). As seen in the quote, more subsidies are given to highways making having an automobile beneficial. Another key proponent is that congestion pricing and emission fees are not present in most U.S. states making it less difficult to drive long distances.
Since low-density preference is one key issue concerning suburbanization, another compelling argument is that energy costs are low in the U.S. Since energy is cheap, the cost of gasoline is likewise. It is stated in the article that per capita energy consumption is below the level of consumption as it was in 1973 in the U.
...or present day cities Canada. Repeatedly there have been works of research that supports the idea that people are beginning to have the want and the need to live an area where there is walkability and convenience. From the perspective of a Millennial as society likes to call my generation, having the option to walk instead of drive is something to heavily consider when choosing a place to call home. The evidence as why people are moving is in a way demographically self-explanatory, a poor person would want to move from a city where crime is high, there is little to no property to invest in, and the schools seems are bad , to a place that boasts the opposite attributes.
look into its planning policies in order to prevent spatial segregation in Toronto. However does not explain what planning instruments are needed to help diversify the socio-economic composition of Toronto’s inner city. The article also suggests that for a more socially progressive city, anti-gentrification policies should be incorporated and adopted into Toronto’s official plan policies but does not explains what can be included as anti-gentrification policy.
In modern suburbs things like cul-de-sacs and tangle towns are more common to be designed with. This makes it virtually impossible to include a mass transit system into the suburb. Thus, more driving, more gas use, and more emissions created in the atmosphere. A common response to this from a suburban residential is that the city is jam packed with congestion and pollution from stop and go traffic. Yet with cities, they are more dense, highly populated and many of the stop and go traffic is created by workers who live in the suburbs coming into the city at rush hour. One thing that works well in a typical city is mass transit. Things like buses, subways and train systems work well with block by square block areas, but not so with winding curving neighborhoods such as in suburbs. Another reason why mass transit does not play a major roll in the life of one who lives in a suburb is that suburban commuting consists of many different directions and destinations. Where as in the city typical people are commuting into the downtown. A central destination such as a downtown keeps things more conveniently close, and since so many people are making the trip to one single common place then gas can be saved by major carpooling, or in other words mass transit.
Even though the cost of living can be very high most residents never have to worry about paying for a car. Taking a train, subway, or taxi is cheaper than paying for a place to park a car each month and the time it would take to drive through the cities traffic. In the western region of New York seeing an apartment complex isn’t very common, but living in an apartment is considered the norm for the residents that live in New York City because houses are way over priced for the average person. Living in the city compared to a small western region town can help means of transportation, future personal success, and overall make life easier but at a fast
Have you ever thought about living in the suburbs? Many surveys that were given to Millennials in the last few years suggest that they are wanting to live in the suburbs. This includes those that are living in the cities and those that already live in the suburbs. Those in the city want more space, while those that live in the suburbs want to keep their way of life the way it is. This will change the way the country will function, so the United States can thrive. Kris Hudson, in the article “Many Millennials Yearn for Suburban Homes,” asked the question “Do Millennials want to remain urbanites or eventually relocate to the suburbs?” (A2). This is one of the biggest question asked among demographers
An aging population, a younger generation who prefer walkable places, economic shifts, and the environmental impacts of suburban development are all contributing factors” (Beatz 141). Reshaping Metropolitan America gives an argument, as well as a blueprint, on how we can transform our infrastructure and housing demands by 2030.
It started with a governmental incentive of getting America out of the Great Depression. Home Owners Loan Corporation (HOLC) was “signed into law by FDR, designed to serve urban needs” (Jackson, 196). This law protected homeownership, not only that, “it introduced, perfected, and proved in practice the feasibility of the long-term, self-amortizing mortgage with uniform payments spread over the whole life of the debt” (Jackson, 196). Because of this new law, it was cheaper to buy a house than rent. Then came the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) that encouraged citizens to reside in new residential developments and/or areas with FHA-approved features, like Levittown. Mass-produced cars and cheap gasoline made the option of moving to a suburban area more of a reality for many families because now they can think to live such a lifestyle. With cars, come commuters who needs accessible roads to drive to and from work, to go grocery shopping, etc. which mean that the government need to pave roads for such commute to happen. “The urban expressways led to lower marginal transport costs and greatly stimulated deconcentration,” (Jackson, 191). As Jackson expressed, “The appeal of low-density living over time and across regional, class, and ethnic lines was so powerful that some observers came to regard it as natural and inevitable,” (190). Urban areas were becoming too crowded, too heterogeneous, more and more crimes were breaking out everyday; this is not an ideal living condition for a lot of people so moving to a bigger, more spread out area is a great contestant. Therefore, some of the key factors that explains the growth of the suburbs are housing policy (FHA & HOLC), mass-produced houses, mass-produced cars, cheap fuel, and government funding
Many Americans would be shocked to learn that the American Dream may be the cause. behind some of society’s most troubling problems. The dream of owning a house, a car, and a yard with a white picket fence is the driving force responsible for the phenomenon known as urban sprawl. Urban sprawl, sometimes referred to as suburban sprawl, is characterized by low. density development, geographic separation of essential places, and dependence on automobiles.
The desire of residents in their respective areas to pursue a by a city consolidation means more than just
In “The End of Suburbia”, the main purpose of the documentary is to explain the oil crisis as we are nearing the oil peak, and had reach the maximum oil supply in the world. That suburbs will likely fail because of this crisis. The documentary the main point they are trying to state, is that people in America cannot continue living the way, they do in Suburbs. The cost of maintaining that life style, is extremely expensive and not energy efficient, using far too much oil to be considered maintainable.
We take them for granted when driving miles to the closest mall. We are unconscious of their usefulness when traveling to see a distant relative by car. We can't take a moment to stop and admire their beauty and usefulness; the architectural wonders that are highways and their interchanges; which have such a rich history embedded in the American suburbia of today. Let's go back to the early 1900's, when the automobile was starting to become a dominate part of the American life (Morton, 2014). Around this time; a shift began to occur towards private transportation over public by influencing policies in their favor (Nicolaides and Wiese, 2006). One of these polices was created by the Federal Aid Highway of 1925; the United States Highway System which basically expanded the highways across the United States connecting one another, creating new opportunities for growth in many areas (Weingroff, 1996). This had many effects on different factors of the American way of life; specifically suburbia (Morton, 2014). After the war, the private home that was a luxury a few years prior, was now becoming affordable for many thanks to low interest rates and flexible payments through the National Housing Act of 1934, created by the Federal Housing Administration (Fishman, 1987). Perfect example of a policy acting towards private over public was the Los Angles Master Plan of 1941, which pushed the direction of private automobiles and singles households: there being 1.16 million cars (2.4 people per car) and having 31 percent of the city land dedicated for single family homes, this was really solidifying the post suburbia lifestyle (Fishman, 1987). In Los Angeles alone around this time, 900 square miles were transformed to tract development homes ...
...mpensation for transport is less severe on the consumer's budget. Consequently, Americans who save more money will also be able to better afford the costs of living, which reduces homelessness, a large problem in the U.S.
Again, this section will give a working definition of the “urban question’. To fully compare the political economy and ecological perspectives a description of the “urban question” allows the reader to better understand the divergent schools of thought. For Social Science scholars, from a variety of disciplines, the “urban question” asks how space and the urban or city are related (The City Reader, 2009). The perspective that guides the ecological and the social spatial-dialect schools of thought asks the “urban question” in separate distinct terminology. Respected scholars from the ecological mode of thinking, like Burgess, Wirth and others view society and space from the rationale that geographical scope determines society (The City Reader, 2009). The “urban question” that results from the ecological paradigm sees the relationship between the city (space) as influencing the behaviors of individuals or society in the city. On the other hand...
Chaffey, J. (1994). The challenge of urbanisation. In M. Naish & S. Warn (Eds.), Core geography (pp. 138-146). London: Longman.
Sociologist … explained that open pattern of suburb is because of seeking environment free noise, dirt and overcrowding that are in the centre of cities. He gave examples of these cities as St. John’s wood, Richmond, Hampstead in London. Chestnut Hill and Germantown in Philadelphia. He added that suburban are only for the rich and high class. This plays into the hands of the critical perspectives that, “Cities are not so much the product of a quasi-natural “ecological” unfolding of social differentiation and succession, but of a dynamic of capital investment and disinvestment. City space is acted on primarily as a commodity that is bought and sold for profit, “(Little & McGivern, 2013, p.616).