Read an Excerpt
America's Urban Future
Lessons from North of the Border
By Ray Tomalty, Alan Mallach ISLAND PRESS
Copyright © 2015 Ray Tomalty and Alan Mallach
All rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-1-61091-596-0
CHAPTER 1
Changing World, Changing Cities
Cities in the United States are in a time of transition. Post–World War II patterns of growth have begun to play themselves out, and new patterns are emerging. Although low-density, car-dependent development on the urban fringe continues, more emphasis is being placed on higher-density, mixed-use development around transit stations, in city centers, and in suburban subcenters. In a reversal of historical trends that saw middle-class people flee distressed urban cores, many central cities are attracting new residents (especially younger people). In both central cities and suburbs, Americans are increasingly demanding more walkable and transit-friendly neighborhoods and in general are looking for higher quality urban places in which to live, work, and play. Concerns over the environmental and public health effects associated with urban sprawl, tighter government infrastructure budgets, the emergence of the creative economy, and a growing awareness of the destructive implications of social inequality are causing community leaders to question conventional models of urban growth and development. All these issues will almost certainly continue to gain in importance in the coming years and contribute to this new phase in the evolution of US cities.
During this time of change, urban leaders in the United States are looking for direction. Across the nation, city officials, planners, developers, architects, and others involved in shaping our cities are experimenting with new approaches to city design. Plans and projects going under a variety of rubrics — from pedestrian pockets, transit-oriented development, and complete communities to life-cycle neighborhoods and new urbanist developments — are springing up across the country. The truth is, however, that even though a number of organizations are working to spread these emerging practices by disseminating knowledge and experience to city builders around the country, these promising trends remain sporadic and scattered. Pockets of change are visible here and there, but the larger governance and policy arrangements that favor sprawl continue to churn out low-density, car-dependent development in urban regions across the country.
Within this context of change and brakes on change, our purpose is to bring a fresh perspective on US planning and development trends by leavening the discussion with experiences and practices from the country's neighbor to the north, Canada. Anyone who has visited Canada after living in the United States has experienced the uncanny "same but different" feeling. Canadian cities look more or less like US cities, with similar downtown skylines, road patterns, and architectural forms, but some differences are immediately apparent: city centers are generally livelier, even people who can afford cars take transit, there are more people on bikes, districts of concentrated crime and extreme poverty are relatively rare, there are few gated communities, and most people feel (and are) safe to walk the city streets, even at night.
Beyond these tangible differences in the urban quality of life between the two countries are less visible but no less important differences in environmental sustainability. By international standards, both US and Canadian cities do well in terms environmental conditions that affect public health in that the quality of and accessibility to potable water is high, urban air pollution is relatively manageable, access to public parks is good, and contaminated soils tend to be handled properly. On measures related to resource consumption and waste generation, however, Northern American cities are among the worst offenders in the world. Even compared with other rich countries, they have very high levels of greenhouse gas emissions, energy use, solid waste creation, and water use. Although it is understandable that many observers would lump Canada and the United States together as resource gluttons, there are important differences between the two countries. For example, on a per person basis, Canadian cities tend to use substantially less energy, emit fewer greenhouses gases, use less water, produce less garbage, and release fewer contaminants into the air than do their US counterparts.
Although it is true that many factors can be adduced to explain these differences in the way cities work in the two countries, there is little doubt that the built form of the city plays an important role. Built form refers to the city's physical shape and texture, size, and underlying infrastructure. Much evidence has been amassed in recent years to show that urban form is a key determinant of urban function and in particular that the density, urban structure, and mix of land uses can exert a powerful influence on how the city works in terms of its environmental and social functionality.
Sure enough, if we take the trouble to look under the similar skylines, we see significant differences in the built forms of Canadian and US cities. In Canadian cities, urban and suburban densities are typically higher, mixed-use areas are more widespread, scattered exurban development is less common, there are fewer expressways running directly through the cities, development is more focused around transit, and urban transit services themselves tend to be of higher quality than in US cities.
This book explores these national differences in built form, how they arose, and how the Canadian experience could contribute to the discussion on building more sustainable and livable cities in the United States. The book is based on the assumption that — given the similarities in cultural, economic, and political conditions — what worked well in Canada is at least worth considering in the United States. Through the resulting policy recommendations, we seek to stimulate multilevel discussion in the United States on how to remove barriers to and otherwise encourage more compact, mixed-use development, redevelopment within existing built areas, and a slowing of sprawl on the growing fringe of our cities. Our hope is that the discussion will help trigger policy changes that take advantage of the new drivers of urban change and hasten the transition to the next American city.
Drivers of Change in US Cities
To position the discussion of similarities and differences between Canadian and US cities, we highlight some of the forces that are already creating the conditions for significant changes in how US cities are designed and built. The urban landscape in the United States is undergoing profound change as it is buffeted by new forces to which it must adapt. These drivers include emerging demographic and economic changes that are shifting housing markets, sharpening environmental and health concerns, changing expectations for the quality of the places we inhabit, and tightening constraints on government spending. These factors are bringing the issue of development and transportation patterns in the United States to a head and causing us to rethink how cities are planned and built. Generally speaking, these forces are pushing US cities in the direction of more sustainable and livable environments, and their efforts could be amplified by selective policies that have shown to be an effective framework for urbanization in our neighbor to the north.
Demographic Changes
One factor driving change in the type of housing and neighborhoods people want to live in is related to demographics. Demographer Arthur Nelson has projected trends in aging to 2030 and linked them to expected changes in household formation, household size, and household structure as well as location and neighborhood preferences. His projections are based on the advent of four roughly equal-sized generational subgroups — baby boomers, Generation X, Generation Y, and millennials — with two generations, baby boomers and Generation Y, being especially important in the evolving housing market over the coming decades.
The baby boom generation, born between 1946 and 1964, now accounts for 82 million Americans and will comprise 64 million people in 2030. With the leading edge of the boomers now reaching retirement age, most observers expect to see major changes in their choice of housing type and location in that time span. Already, few boomers have children still living at home, and as more boomers lose their ability to drive and walk long distances, many are expected to trade in oversized, socially isolating, and car-dependent suburban homes. If such options are available in their communities, they are likely to seek out single-family homes on smaller lots, townhouses, and condos in or near burgeoning suburban town centers; others may be drawn to more urban areas with convenient transit linkages and good public services like libraries, cultural activities, and health care.
Because boomers are such a large part of the population and will be selling their homes, often to relocate to rented premises, there may be a glut of ownership housing and stiff competition for rental housing. Nelson estimates that about half the boomers will want to live in walkable, transit-friendly neighborhoods. Although some analysts believe this estimate to be overly optimistic, there is a strong possibility that aging boomers may help shift the US housing market toward smarter forms of development.
Generation Yers, born between 1981 and 1995, now number 65 million and will grow (via immigration) to 71 million by 2030. This group will also help revolutionize the housing market in the United States. Many of these people, who will be between thirty-five and forty-nine years old in 2030, may not wish to emulate their parents' suburban lifestyle. According to Nathan Norris, many Gen Yers prefer densely settled areas where they can take full advantage of social networks, have easy walking access to daily destinations, avoid car ownership, and find rental accommodations to suit their footloose lifestyles. Of course, some Gen Yers will occupy suburban housing being vacated by their parents' generation, but indications are that many will be drawn to transit- and walk-friendly communities. Rather than flee to the suburbs, some analysts believe that this generation is more likely to plant roots in walkable urban areas, exerting pressure on local governments to improve urban school districts.
The outcome of these large demographic changes could entail a greatly increased demand for something that the US housing market is not currently providing: small one- to three-bedroom homes in walkable, transit-oriented, economically dynamic, and job-rich neighborhoods. Based on his demographic research, Nelson estimates that by 2030, one-fourth to one-third of US households will be demanding the type of housing options that retail corridors and subcenters can provide. Such demand will mean increasing the supply of housing that meets this description from its current stock of 10 million to 25 million by 2030. "In effect," he says, "if all new homes built in America between 2010 and 2030 were built in those locations, demand for this option would still not be met." Meanwhile, Nelson expects a large oversupply of large-lot housing to accumulate.
Lower Real Incomes and Prospects for Home Ownership
Many scholars draw a direct link between rising US income following World War II and the ascendance of sprawl. In a nutshell, higher incomes mean that more households can afford more land, a larger home, and more cars, making car-dependent, low-density suburbs a reflection of general prosperity. Statistical modeling has confirmed this effect for the United States. Robert Margo found that 43 percent of suburbanization that took place over the 1950 to 1980 period in the United States could be attributed to people getting richer.
In the heyday of urban sprawl, from 1950 to 1970, mean family incomes rose rapidly, about 3 percent annually. Although incomes continued to rise in remaining decades of the twentieth century, the rate of increase was lower, from 1 to 2 percent annually. The first decade of the twenty-first century was the first in the post–World War II period to witness an actual decline in real incomes, with all quintiles worse off in 2010 than in 2000. Moreover, by 2010, the median net worth of US households had dropped to its lowest level since 1969. Although asset prices rebounded from 2010 to 2013, median wealth did not, and the median net worth of US households in 2013 was even lower than in 2010. Median secured debt, which includes real estate and auto loans, rose to $91,000 in 2011, a 30.5 percent increase from the median $69,749 owed in 2000.
The weakened financial condition of US families will undoubtedly undermine their ability to afford housing in the coming years, a factor that should place more emphasis on smaller homes, smaller lots, older neighborhoods, and rental housing, all consistent with more urban living. Meanwhile, the prospect of worsening congestion, longer commuting lengths, and rising fuel prices may dissuade many people from seeking cheaper housing in exurban areas far from work opportunities. Institutional factors also point in this direction. For example lending institutions have raised the bar on mortgage qualifications by requiring higher credit scores, work histories, and down payments, which will also tend to favor smaller homes and rental units.
Concern for Climate Change
Climate change has moved to the mainstream of public consciousness and caused many people to accept the necessity of a more concerted approach to managing urban growth. We are already seeing the effect of climate change (e.g., unexpected shifts in weather patterns; the number and severity of storms, floods, droughts, and major forest fires), and further changes are expected to stress physical, social, and health infrastructure. Given the increasing media attention afforded this issue, it is not surprising that the vast majority of Americans — even a majority of Republicans — now believe that the climate is changing and that steps need to be taken to mitigate these changes. Other indications that climate change is looming as a key public policy issue for the coming years include that the financial sector and defense establishment increasingly see climate change as a real threat to economic health and national security.
Next to China, the United States is the largest greenhouse gas–emitting country on the planet (and has four times the per capita emissions rate than China). That is not due only to its status as a rich, consumerist, midlatitude country; it also reflects the nature of its cities. Other countries with similar levels of economic wealth have much lower per capita emissions. One reason European countries have lower emissions is that their cities are much more energy efficient than US cities.
Although there is still some debate in academic circles on the effect of sprawl on greenhouse gas emissions, there is little doubt that low-density, auto-dependent sprawl consumes more energy for heating and cooling buildings and for urban transportation than more compact development. For example, one report prepared for the US Environmental Protection Agency showed that a home's location relative to transportation choices, its size, and its energy efficiency can have a huge effect on energy consumption; for example, an energy-efficient multifamily unit in a transit-friendly location consumes about one-fourth the total annual energy of a standard single-family, detached household in a conventional subdivision far from transit services. An Urban Land Institute publication, Moving Cooler, outlined various transport-related greenhouse gas reduction scenarios based on how aggressively we change land use and associated travel patterns. The authors estimated that modeling future growth on current best practices could achieve a 20 percent reduction in emissions. A maximum effort, including comprehensive growth boundaries, minimum required densities, and jobs and housing balance as well as non–land use strategies could reduce emissions by 60 percent.
With urban transportation and household heating and cooling accounting for about half of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, it is difficult to envision a "solution" to the climate crisis that does not involve more compact, mixed-use neighborhoods that are more walkable, bikeable, and transit-friendly.
(Continues...)
Excerpted from America's Urban Future by Ray Tomalty, Alan Mallach. Copyright © 2015 Ray Tomalty and Alan Mallach. Excerpted by permission of ISLAND PRESS.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
