|►◄ Reverse Zone|
Complete List of Posts
Thu, 15 Mar 2007
This article in E Magazine, Ten Things Wrong With Sprawl, is a relatively fair analysis of pro and anti sprawl thinking, focusing on what the author believes are "undeniably adverse effects". These are:
Do Americans move to the suburbs to avoid seeing poor black people, or to not have to pay for their schooling? Well in places where the school district covers both cities and suburbs and there is no legal way to avoid paying for them, the poor black people still end up in different schools with fewer resources. There is some other economics at work in creating segregation, and there are other political reasons why schools with richer parents end up with more resources. I remember one instance when I got $300,000 of extra goodies for an inner-city school through corporate donations and a government grant. Two years later, all the goodies had been moved to the board's "alternative school" in a richer neighbourhood. The poor children are welcome to go there, if their nannies can go pick them up at 3:00 like all the other kids. One way or another Amartya Sen's Capability Deprivation mechanisms will equate economic, social, and political inequalities, and auto-oriented urban design is just one way to do this with a clear conscience.
The environmental and community consequences are more undeniable and universal. To his credit, the author concededes that modern day exurbs are not the places of alienation described by some new urbanist writers, many of whom draw upon affection for the older urban neighborhoods of the early and mid-20th century. It's the new high-density downtown condos that have a lock on alienation. But these exurban communities are the "glocalized" communities described by Barry Wellman. Each person participates in several distinct partial communities of place, with a drive in between the places. That means that the political power of each place is relatively weaker and the weakest communities lose. That is why things like homeless shelters end up in poor neighbourhoods, where they do the most social damage. This is also probably why the association between density and various noisy and disruptive uses still prevails in zoning codes. It's a vicious circle, where the uses that nobody wants end up in the areas with the least political clout, by associating them with density. Then when someone wants to tear things down and build something big, profitable, and alienating, it's much easier to dispossess the poor. Letting a designated area sink into misery is practically a necessity for the ability to eventually rebuild the infrastructure, if economics is alone to do the job.