Smart growth conference attracts diverse participants

The third annual Partners for Smart Growth conference was held in San Diego in mid-November, drawing more than 1,000 attendees, including two governors. The conference, organized by the Urban Land Institute (ULI) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), continues to grow in attendance (the first, in 1997, had 700 participants). The crowd mostly consisted of planners, public officials, and developers. Because smart growth is a parallel movement to the New Urbanism, the San Diego conference covered topics similar the annual Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU) – e.g. the mitigation of sprawl by channeling growth back into cities, and the development of mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods. The main difference is that CNU has a clearly defined charter which relates to design, and is led by people with a specific planning philosophy. Advocates for smart growth have principles – including mixing uses, compact development, walkable neighborhoods – which new urbanists also embrace. But these principles are more general (see commentary piece on page 21 for another view on the difference between NU and smart growth). The Smart Growth Network, the primary group behind the movement, is a “big tent” organization (including organizations as diverse as the developers’ group ULI, EPA, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the American Planning Association, and the CNU). The smart growth conferences offer a forum for diverse people and organizations, some of whom feel uncomfortable with the New Urbanism label, to talk about walkable communities and sprawl. Two governors: both smart growth advocates The San Diego conference featured a discussion between Maryland Gov. Parris Glendening, a Democrat, and Utah Gov. Michael Leavitt, a Republican. Representing vastly different political philosophies and states, the two governors demonstrate the political breadth of the smart growth movement. Both Maryland and Utah face severe problems with sprawl, the governors contend. Maryland, a small state, is seeing much of its open space consumed by sprawl. Utah’s sprawl problem is confined to the Salt Lake Valley, where most people live and where the population is expected to double in the next quarter century. Leavitt admitted that Utah’s incentive-based smart growth policies were “copied” from Maryland’s statute, passed in 1997. Both governors are using state infrastructure funds as leverage to promote modest increases in density of development, a mixture of uses, and transit-oriented development. Unlike Leavitt, Glendening expressed a willingness to combine incentives with regulations to promote smart growth. Glendening made the case that smart growth strategies can save significant money in costs for roads, sewerage, new schools, and other expenditures. Maryland recently canceled a $1.5 billion road project, Glendening says. In order to achieve smart growth goals, he adds, states will have to find a way to encourage higher density development, infill development, and better planning around transit stops. Glendening outlined the political difficulties of taking those steps. Two things the public does not want, he says: “sprawl, and more density in their neighborhood.” He uses the following analogy: “everyone wants to go to heaven, but no one wants to die to get there.” However, a public ethos is forming around the around the idea that something must be done to solve the sprawl problem, Glendening says. “There is more debate, more discussion, more people talking about how we can handle this issue than any time that I can remember – and I have been in public office since 1973.” New urbanist examples The keynote speaker was John Williams, chief executive of Post Properties, who highlighted his company’s revitalization of the Dallas Uptown neighborhood. Using new urbanist principles, Post (and previously Columbus Realty Trust, which merged with Post) developed a series of projects that have transformed an economically moribund area into a lively urban neighborhood. Dozens of projects were presented at the conference, and nearly all, to a greater or lesser degree, were new urbanist. High-density, mixed-use, infill projects were given the most prominent display – but new urbanist greenfield projects like Civano in Tucson, Arizona, also were featured. The term New Urbanism was frequently invoked, sometimes in misrepresentations. Utah Gov. Leavitt stated that new urbanists believe in a “central planning czar” who determines land use policies on a regional level – not a fair characterization of the approach of many new urbanists. Patrick Kennedy, a Berkeley developer of infill projects, took the position that the New Urbanism should only be built on infill sites that already feature an urban street pattern. But Kennedy was defining the New Urbanism narrowly – as high-density, mixed-use buildings. Neal Peirce and Curtis Johnson of the Citistate Group made the case for smart growth as an essential element of maintaining healthy metropolitan areas in the 21st century. San Diego will add a million new residents driving 685,000 new vehicles in the next 20 years, Johnson explains. Assuming development patterns don’t change, each car will require about five new parking spaces, which would mean paving 37 square miles of land, the equivalent of the entire county coastline one-half mile deep, at a cost of $17 billion. The new vehicles would require 1,300 more highway lane miles. “Some people, incredibly, still say that new roads and parking can keep up with growth,” says Johnson. He adds that “the only alternative left is to build an alternative mobility system,” that focuses on transit and vehicle trip reduction. Pierce points that that even a small increase in density – such as 4.5 net units/acre from the current 3.7 net units/acre – would allow the county to accommodate several years worth of growth. He points to the historic Mission Hill district of San Diego, with net densities of 14-20 units/acre, as examples of how higher densities can be aesthetically pleasing. “We need to figure out how to develop neighborhoods so that people prefer them even if they are more compact,” he says.