The false language of smart growth

Gary Imhoff, DC Watch - The language of the debate sets the terms, and the terms determine the outcome of the debate. The language of the urban planning debate in which we are currently engaged is terribly skewed, and needs to be rebalanced. One side calls itself the champion of "smart growth." What do their opponents favor, then, if it isn’t smart? Those who like neighborhoods of single-family homes with yards are derided as advocates of "sprawl."

Sprawl is a bad thing; doesn’t it just sound ugly? But those who like neighborhoods of high-rise apartment buildings want "walkable" and "livable" communities, when they could equally be accused of favoring "congestion" and "crowding." Opponents of cars want urban families to be "car-free." This may be the most misleading term of all. What makes a family without access to a car "car-free," instead of "car-deprived?" As a parallel language construction, are homeless families simply "house-free," freed of the burden and expense of maintaining a household?

The problem with smart-growth language is that it may sound good in urban planning classes in colleges, but when it is tested in the public its deceptions become apparent. People just can’t be forced into one way of life. For a city to thrive it has to provide a variety of choices and lifestyles to its residents.

Let me quote one last article by Joel Kotkin:

"There are at least three major problems with the thesis that density is an unabashed good. First, and foremost, Census and survey data reveal that most people do not want to live cheek to jowl if they can avoid it. Second, most of the attractive highest-density areas also have impossibly high home prices relative to incomes and low levels of home ownership. And third, and perhaps most important, dense places tend to be regarded as poor places for raising families. In simple terms, a dense future is likely to be a largely childless one. . . . The density agenda need to be knocked off its perch as the summum bonum of planning policy. These policies may not hurt older Americans, like me, who bought their homes decades ago, but will weigh heavily on the already hard-pressed young adult population. Unless the drive for densification is relaxed in favor of a responsible but largely market-based approach open to diverse housing options, our children can look forward to a regime of ever-higher house prices, declining opportunities for ownership and, like young people in East Asia, an environment hostile to family formation. All for a policy that, for all its progressive allure, will make more Americans more unhappy, less familial, and likely poorer."