It’s a given in our representative system that policies adopted into law should have popular support. However, there is a distinction to be made between adopting a policy consistent with what a majority of people want, and pushing a policy while making dubious claims that it harnesses “the will of the people.”
The former is a valid exercise in democracy; the latter is a logical fallacy. Smart Growth advocates are among the most effective practitioners of Argumentum ad Populum, urging everyone to get on the bandwagon of higher densities, compact mixed-uses, and transit orientation because all the “cool cities” are doing it.
Smart Growth advocates also claim this is what people prefer, even if it is not how they currently live. The two core features of Smart Growth land use — high densities and multi-family dwellings — are simply not preferred by most Americans in most places, despite the trendy push for Livability, New Urbanism, Resilient Cities, Smart Codes, Traditional Neighborhood Design, Transit Oriented Developments or any other euphemistic, clever name currently in fashion.
In the internal data of the 2011 Community Preference Survey commissioned by the National Association of Realtors, no specific question was asked about density, but 52 percent of respondents said, if given a choice, they would prefer to live in traditional suburbs, small towns or the rural countryside. Another 28 percent chose a suburban setting that allowed for some mixed uses (Question 5). Taken together, this shows an overwhelming preference for low densities. Only 8 percent of the respondents favored a central city environment.
As for vibrant urbanism, only 7 percent were “very interested” in living in a place “at the center of it all.” Most people wanted to live “away from it all” (Question 17). An astonishing 87 percent said “privacy from neighbors” was important to them in deciding where to live. One can reasonably infer that a majority of this majority would favor low density places with separated uses rather than crowded, noisy mixed use locations that blur the line between public and private.
When presented with a range of housing choices, 80 percent preferred the “single-family detached house” (Question 6). Only eight percent chose an apartment or condominium. Furthermore, 61 percent preferred a place where “houses are built far apart on larger lots and you have to drive to get to schools, stores, and restaurants” over 37 percent who wanted a place where “houses are built close together on small lots and it is easy to walk to schools, stores and restaurants” (Question 8).
So -- absent the loaded terms and buzzwords that are central to Smart Growth -- a large majority of randomly selected people from across the country showed a strong preference for the land use pattern derisively referred to as “sprawl.”
Yet the press release from the National Association of Realtors proclaimed that “Americans prefer smart growth communities.” This is because on Question 13, respondents were given a description of two communities:
Community A, a subdivision of only single family homes with nothing around them. Not even sidewalks!
Community B: lots of amenities all “within a few blocks” of home. Of course, the description neglected to mention the population density and degree of residential stacking required to put all those dwellings in such close proximity to walkable retail. This was a significant omission, since the first housing option offered in Community B was “single family, detached,” on “various sized lots.”
Community B received 56 percent support.
So, with just one response to an unrealistic scenario, out of twenty answers that included many aversions to Smart Growth, the myth that people prefer Smart Growth was spread. The National League of Cities released a Municipal Action Guide to thousands of elected and appointed officials declaring the preference for Smart Growth, and the online network Planetizen, among others, uncritically helped spread the news.
Missing from the triumphalism was this important caveat in the 98-page analysis of the results by the consultants who conducted the survey:
“Ideally, most Americans would like to live in walkable communities where shops, restaurants, and local businesses are within an easy stroll from their homes and their jobs are a short commute away; as long as those communities can also provide privacy from neighbors and detached, single-family homes. If this ideal is not possible, most prioritize shorter commutes and single-family homes above other considerations.”
In addition to spinning the results of preference surveys, Smart Growthers also ignore them. Maryland is a case study in how to disregard what people want while claiming the opposite. In drafting a statewide growth management plan that anticipated “increased demand for housing, an aging population, and diverse communities,” Maryland officials ignored a robust 55+ Housing Preference Survey from Montgomery County that specifically addressed this concern.
The survey showed that most seniors planned to remain in their present homes upon retirement. Only 30 percent planned to move, and, of that group, only a small percentage would consider an apartment or condominium. This should have mattered to Maryland officials trying to gauge housing preferences for their senior population. Instead, the architects of PlanMaryland looked elsewhere to find studies that reinforced their assumptions.
The Great Conflation
There is an abundance of examples like these, and the key to understanding how they influence decision-makers lies in the conflation of specific amenities with the overarching concept of Smart Growth. For example, Todd Litman’s Where We Want to Be, published by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute, claims that “preference for smart growth is increasing due to demographic, economic and market trends such as aging population, rising future fuel prices, increasing traffic congestion, and increasing health and environmental concerns.”
Does this mean most seniors – such as those in Maryland – want to live in high density, mixed use, transit-oriented apartments even when they say they don’t? Hardly. Litman concedes that “most Americans prefer single-family homes,” but finds “a growing portion want neighborhood amenities associated with Smart Growth including accessibility, walkability, nearby services, and improved public transport.”
Those amenities are things like sidewalks, which evidently are now a Smart Growth invention, and shops that are close to (but not mixed into) residential areas. Litman’s clever construction – e.g., sidewalks equal walkability equal Smart Growth policy – is convincing to officials who mistakenly conclude that their constituents must want Smart Growth when, in fact, they do not.
This has been Part One of a Two-Part Series on Smart Growth by Ed Braddy.
Photo by W. Cox: Rail station in Evry, a suburb of Paris
Ed Braddy is the executive director of the American Dream Coalition, a non-profit organization promoting freedom, mobility and affordable homeownership. Mr. Braddy often speaks on growth management related issues and their impact on local communities. He can be reached at ed@americandreamcoalition.org.
Email this Story
awesome
I have visited to this site multiple times and everytime I find useful jobs for me so I would suggest please come to this site and take the chance from here. Oxnard Garage Door Repair You completed certain reliable points there. I did a search on the subject and found nearly all persons will agree with your blog.
Evidence of Free Range Humans
To date, I have not seen a better urban image that captures the natural instincts of man to range freely in his environment. This is what humans do. There is no amount of planning that will correct this impulse.
Great article Ed Braddy and great photo Wendell Cox! I featured this article on my blog Exurbia Chronicles yesterday.
Small towns?
New Urbanists have been huge proponents of reviving old small towns and building new small towns. I'm not sure why you would see that at odds with these findings.
For most of the approaches you cite, "central cities" are a small piece of the discussion. And even if central cities are preferred by a minority of folks that should be still be an option for them: 8% market share is still 25 million people, give or take. That's a lot of apartment houses.
Also recognize that lots of suburbanites already live in apartments. Whether they want to or not that's what they can afford. And usually they're designed to be pretty dismal places; it's no wonder people want out. A little design can make them much more habitable. In my fairly suburban county 42% of people rent; 29% percent live in Townhouse (7%), Duplex (.6%) or Apartments/Condos (21%). The idea that all those suburban apartment houses are just going to disappear or that no more will be built and they will all move into houses is ludicrous. And that has nothing to do with central city living.
O RLY?
I don't know which particular "New Urbanists" you've been talking to, but unfortunately the ones with political power tend to fit the description in the article dead on, in part because they appeal to the mass-tranist crowd in a way the New Urbanists you describe really cannot.
Aside from that, the best use of decaying small towns and neighborhoods is for industrial land. While it is true that it is more expensive to build in places that already have buildings, it is also true that the long-term cost of industry is much lower in areas that have existing infrastructure and transportation routes. Policies which discourage industry (all the rave in todays America and even more so in certain American states) also discourage the redevelopment of such lands and logical economic development of cities. In very large cities, especially those with serious traffic problems, such areas may eventually see revival as a commuting corridor for young bachelors, as is happening in Atlantas East Bankhead and Knight Park neighborhoods which are increasingly favored for their quick commutes and relatively cheap living costs by young people with no children who need few government services.
fddf
Merkur Casino
Jokers Cap spielen
I have a presentation that I am presently working on, and I have been on the look out for such information.
This is my first time to visit your blog and I found very informational knowledge you done a great job, Keep more posting like this
The future of real estate
People need to know that living in a large home isn't the American Dream anymore. Surviving and being part of a community is. Why not consider getting rid of a mortgage and all of the property taxes and instead, focusing on living near great schools and right downtown. Commuting sucks! In my hometown, there have been reports that rentals in Lafayette Indiana are going to lead the way toward a local economy revitalization. I agree!
Smells like Teen Spirit
To be frank, that doesn't sound like a dream at all, it sounds like a nightmare. Anything involving the word "survive" in an economic conversation reeks of despair. It may also be that Indiana, being a rapidly growing economy near a lot of very clunkerish economies, may have rentals from new workers who have just moved in to the area. Besides, if you live in a small town, you can have a large house AND not commute.
jus manggis : thank for info
jus manggis : thank for info :)
this info is very good for me.This site is awesome. My spouse and i constantly come across a new challenge & diverse in this article.
Housing Preference Survey
This article is very good, but reading the actual survey shows the data can be interpreted in multiple ways.
Most respondents(80%) prefer a single family house but in an active neighborhood with access to retail and other services.
This does suggest an interest in smart growth and new urbanism, perhaps in a more modest way than the full package.
Or, an American version of smart growth, single family houses but on smaller lots,with the extra land pooled together for bike paths, parks, and walking/biking access to retail and other activity centers.
Too bad the survey did not ask about lot size preferences. Overall, development density might not change a lot, but the percentage of land devoted to single family lots might decrease, with an increase in common area open space and an increase in activity centers that include retail and other services.
The survey suggests most Americans are multi-taskers: they prefer privacy when they need it but social interaction when they want it.
Or does it suggest chaos?
"This does suggest an interest in smart growth and new urbanism, perhaps in a more modest way than the full package."
I would actually say what it really demonstrates is an interest in LESS PLANNING - let me explain that. For about 50 years the trend in America was more and more government control of urban development in order to prevent the arrival of "troublemaker businesses" in neighborhoods. This means businesses that might create noise, crime, ugliness, pollution or traffic congestion. Increasingly, American homeowners are like the teenager girl in her sun dress waving (and pining) for James Dean on his motorcycle.
What Americans may want is simply not to have planning - let the corner businesses move in to the residential areas, let the office buildings show up next door, let even industry start coming near my house! The ultraconformist cleanliness-obsessed America of the 40's and 50's is over, and now we have the wary and ennui-filled Ameirca of 2012, bored out of its mind and desperate to be proud of something, like neighborhood industry, architecture and businesses. It may be that urban planners need to find a new job.
"Or, an American version of smart growth, single family houses but on smaller lots,with the extra land pooled together for bike paths, parks, and walking/biking access to retail and other activity centers."
But do they want smaller lots? And do they actually want to pay for all those government services? We've had a great rude awakening coming our way for about 30 years now with regards to government services and people not paying for them - the reason for our current budget deficit.
It may be that, at least for much of that, Americans want private business to do it for them, and in many cases, private business will be more then willing to if they are invited to do so. Still, I think the "Parks and Recreation" suggestion is far more likely then a desire for "Smart Growth" or smart (indicating planned) anything really.
One thing to understand too is the economic nature of demand - demand factors not only what people want, but how much they will pay for it. That is important.
"Too bad the survey did not ask about lot size preferences. Overall, development density might not change a lot, but the percentage of land devoted to single family lots might decrease, with an increase in common area open space and an increase in activity centers that include retail and other services."
Indeed, that is too bad. We would not be having this conversation, one way or another, right now if they did.
"The survey suggests most Americans are multi-taskers: they prefer privacy when they need it but social interaction when they want it."
Social interaction? Or convenience and curiosity? I'm inclined to think the latter, as residential areas without services frequently have social interaction (while urban neighborhoods are not exceptionally well known in 2012 America for such, though there are a few cities like Seattle where that is more common) and social clubs can help alleviate that without a tight-knit neighborhood.