A Slightly Skeptical Perspective on “Smart” Growth: It’s
Necessary, but Not Sufficient
by Jack Marshall
Some thirty years ago the concept of “smart” growth represented
cutting edge thinking among community planners. Twenty years ago it was still
innovative and provocative, and by about ten years ago it had become conventional
wisdom among most progressive planners.
Today “smart” growth should
be considered a valuable component of a larger, more comprehensive and visionary
strategy for growth management. By itself, though, “smart” growth
is not enough. When done right, it offers short-term solutions to sprawl, but
it simply does not guide us over the long haul toward sustainable communities.
The goals of “smart” growth are admirable, and the benefits—actual
and potential—are substantial:
Primary among [the benefits of “smart growth] may be the improvement
of human settlement patterns in ways that will foster a sense of community, reduce
the need to drive, facilitate public transportation, and put farms, forests,
and open space in reach of urban populations. By concentrating growth in already
developed areas and slowing human expansion into natural areas, smart growth
can help minimize additional ecological impacts as some growth continues. (Annie
Faulkner, 2001, in the Population Press: “Solutions to Sprawl: The Limits
of Smart Growth”)
The reference to “concentrating growth in already developed areas” brings
us to the shortcomings of smart growth.
Infill development in already developed areas will be limited, as Faulkner observes, “by
people’s tolerance for increased residential, commercial, and industrial
density.” In many growing communities, efforts to increase the number
of residents and businesses through infill is meeting stiff resistance from existing
residents who don’t want to see remaining pockets of open green space disappear.
The essential character of a community changes as its size and density increase.
More importantly, even if people learn to accept higher density, there is
a physical limit to how dense we can get—at least in two dimensions. Whatever the
rate of a community’s annual population increase—even if it is less
than 1%—continuous growth will, at some point, fill up designated growth
areas and begin either going up or spilling over into rural areas.
The point is, the “smart” growth approach is pretty short sighted.
If the world were to end in ten or twenty years—as many localities’ comprehensive
plans seem to assume—the “smart” growth strategy would be fine.
New developments would use space efficiently and be aesthetically pleasing.
But
the world will probably not end in twenty years, and growth (unless we do something
about it) will continue. “Smart” growth will not stop
sprawl into open spaces, or degradation of the environment—it can only
delay it. Al Bartlett, the Boulder-based national leader in local efforts to
control population growth, observes that smart growth gets us to the same place
as dumb growth, it just gets us there first class—allowing destruction
of the environment and our quality of life in a more aesthetic and slightly more
leisurely way.
Some use the “smart growth” label cynically as a fig leaf to justify
whatever development brings them profit. But most advocates of “smart” growth
really believe it is the answer to communities’ growth problems. Indeed,
the corporate culture of most local Planning Departments includes deep-rooted
beliefs about the inherent value of “smart” growth—and they
hold these beliefs because they’ve been socialized by university Schools
of Architecture and Planning who also maintain the credo of “smart” growth.
We’ve
got to recognize some new truths. One is that the future doesn’t
end in 10 or 20 years. Community planning must be undertaken in the context of
much longer horizons than the brief glimpse into the future that now characterizes
our Comprehensive Plans. This doesn’t mean we must struggle for accurate
projections of vehicular traffic 100 years from now. But we should recognize
that there will, in all likelihood, be a community here 100 years from now and
whatever we do over the next 10 or 20 years will set the stage for the county
in 100 years.
Another truth is that population growth cannot continue endlessly
in any finite space. Growth will stop—for one of three reasons:
- we run out
of an essential resource (probably, in my area, it will be water);
- we become so
crowded and unattractive no one wants to move in; or
- we plan ahead to stop before
we reach one of these other situations.
Part of planning ahead involves confronting currently unasked questions about
an optimal population size for our communities. How large should we get? How
do we go about figuring what an optimal population size should be? How should
we slow and ultimately stop growth, in equitable and constitutional ways? How
can we ensure that the less advantaged can live in our community, with jobs and
affordable housing? When should our growth curve reach a plateau?
It is only by ending growth that we can have genuinely sustainable communities.
We delude ourselves if we believe there is such a thing as sustainable growth—even
though few dare to question the goodness of growth.
Imagine a campaign for “smart smoking”. This campaign, recognizing
that smoking is bad for us and irritating for others, urges us to always go outdoors
to light up. It teaches us to brush our teeth and rinse our mouths so we don’t
smell bad. It exhorts smokers to get lots of personal health insurance so the
medical costs of smokers’ cancer and emphysema aren’t borne by taxpayers
at public clinics. The campaign helps us purchase low-nicotine cigarettes, and
tells us where to get them cheap.
But in this “smart smoking” campaign, the NO-smoking option doesn’t
even make it to the table. Doesn’t that seem odd?
But in the “smart growth” movement, the NO-growth option doesn’t
even make it to the table. And we accept it. Few of our planners, our politicians,
our citizens, have the courage to say that we cannot grow endlessly.
Smart growth, as it stands now, is essentially an accommodation to growth.
By asking where and how growth should occur, it helps ensure that growth in the
short term is done well. As such it is necessary, but it is simply NOT sufficient.
Until this approach is incorporated in a more comprehensive view of growth management—an
approach that asks not only where and how growth should occur, but WHETHER growth
should occur—“smart” growth may be lulling progressive communities
into a false, and dangerous, sense of security.
Jack Marshall is President of Advocates for a Sustainable Albemarle Population
(ASAP). He is a cultural anthropologist who focused his professional life on
international family planning. He taught at the University of North Carolina,
directed social science research at W.H.O., and served as a consultant around
the world. Now retired in the county surrounding Charlottesville, Virginia,
Dr. Marshall can be reached at [email protected]. Five years ago—in
collaboration with other local activists—he established Advocates for a
Sustainable Albemarle Population. ASAP’s mission is to encourage
communities in Central Virginia to reach and maintain an optimal sustainable
size; its website is www.stopgrowthASAP.org |
