After two years of life under the Bush Administration, what we might call the "General Plan" for American is in the midst of a serious update. And it's not surprising that "smart growth" doesn't appear to be on the list.
After all, urban policy nowadays means homeland security, not livable neighborhoods. And it's a little hard to argue about all the problems of cities when cities are doing so well.
Cultural trends have combined with smart growth planning initiatives to make central cities attractive places again. Even downtown Los Angeles, arguably one of America's most inhospitable central districts, is experiencing a boom in housing demand and cultural life.
But maybe the biggest reason that smart growth isn't on the administration's agenda is simply that so many of the administration's friends are making a business out of opposing it. Under the banner of ideologues like Randal O'Toole, Director of the Oregon-based Thoreau Institute, and David Strom of the Taxpayers League of Minnesota, the anti-smart growth movement has begun the air attack against smart growth and may soon send in the ground troops as well.
Conferences to rally the anti smart-growth constituency have been picking up in number. This new movement is busy working out talking points and collective strategies. At a three-day convention in February called "Preserving the American Dream," Strom called smart growth leaders "pointy-headed intellectual fascist[s]." At another symposium in Washington D.C. titled "Preserving the American Dream of Mobility and Home Ownership," the stated goal was to discredit and oppose "rail-transit boondoggles" and "restrictions on rural property rights."
So much for all those feel-good urban design and livability conferences. The political theory gauntlet has been thrown down by the property rights crowd. The attack on smart growth principles is not only constant, but it is consistent as well. The message: Smart growth is a set of ideas dreamed up by pinheaded intellectual planners out of touch with reality who want to cater to urban elites and deny the masses the things they really want and need, such as houses and yards and cars.
And upon just a bit of reflection, we have to admit that maybe the planners have lost the battle before it has begun. After all, the smart growth agenda has been primarily carried by architects and progressive infill developers working in league with redevelopment officials and transit agencies.
All of these groups have reaped financial benefits from dramatically revitalized central cities. But urban planners have mainly been relegated to a cheerleading role, having evolved into a profession that is shy about leading a charge. Smart growth -- or what we used to call good planning -- is probably a better "sell" as an on-the-ground reality than it is as a theory. Because the intellectual debate comes right back to a fundamental planning issue: Property rights for the individual vs. collective planning for society.
That's why I'm pretty certain that in the war about the philosophical merits of smart growth, planners will be outgunned. That is because full-blown debate over urban social theory is an arena that most urban planners have lost stomach for. This may stem from the dismal failures of post-war urban renewal, a movement that planning agencies once lobbied in favor of loudly and successfully.
As a case in point, most planners are unaware that the anti-smart growth movement even exists. Some of the movement's leaders are typical property rights advocates who want to do little more than argue intellectual constructs just as the smart growth thinkers do.
But the movement is already developing strategies on how to best win the hearts and minds of policy-makers. For example, Jon Caldara, president of the Golden, Colorado-based Independence Institute, warned that the anti-smart growthers avoid coming off as "cranky white men," and recommended that they play the race card by enlisting spokespeople like Joseph P. Neil, an African-American state representative from South Carolina. Neil has opposed development restrictions that protect rural lands from development in that state.
Like other lighting-rod issues forced on the American consciousness by Bush and the conservatives in Washington, smart growth will apparently now require highly politicized discussion. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but one that will challenge planners in an arena that they have all but left behind.
Stephen Svete, AICP, is president of Rincon Consultants, Inc., a Ventura-based consulting firm.
With all of the static energy burning away in today's world, it's no wonder a growing number of communities want to stay in the dark. A handful of communities are working with educational organizations and lighting manufacturers to dim the lights in an effort to limit nighttime lighting pollution.
Whoever said that art imitates life has not visited one of Southern California's neighborhood cybercafes, where, according to some planners and police, the reverse is true. It is in these mainly blue collar, immigrant enclaves where video games and youth culture have combined into a lively and sometimes violent activity, thereby creating the state's latest LULU (locally undesirable land use).
In predictable fashion, cities are responding with ordinances, and businesses are fighting back through the court
The time has come to call rail transit a planner's pipe dream. Californians have poured tax money into rail for more than a decade, apparently on a well-intentioned aspiration that if we build tracks, we will ride the train. But according to a U.S. Census report on trip-to-work travel, Californians have not found the train station.
Urban transportation panacea or mobility-oriented snake oil? The Segway Human Transporter is either, depending upon whom you ask. The device either will change the way we get around in cities, or it will be the pedestrian-version of the Edsel. No matter, we should gird ourselves for statewide debates during coming months regarding regulation of the Segway HT (or simply "the Segway").
Among the articles of faith that urban planners hold as self-evident is this: Land use planning is a local endeavor. Many planners even espouse that a town's general plan can influence the "quality of life" through land use regulation. This theory has been at the crux of New Urbanist arguments for revamping development codes.
Though scarcely acknowledged, urban planning is in the midst of a fundamental shift in professional focus. The public is demanding the change. It's a simple idea, as well as an old one: Planners need to understand design. This is because urban planning in America has followed the larger culture into an era where style is substance.
Remember the "see-through" office building phenomenon that hit Houston during the mid 1980s and then Los Angeles in the early 1990s? Well, it's back. This time, it is the Bay Area that is afflicted with empty office buildings.
Desal in SoCal? It may not be as far-fetched as you think. No single resource has had more of an influence on California's development patterns than water. The essential liquid has been pivotal to a range of historical and political conflicts, from the pillaging of the Owens Valley by Los Angeles to the damming of the Hetch Hetchy Valley by San Francisco.
In anticipation of another raid on local government revenues by the State of California, local government officials have taken a page from grass-roots planning advocates and filed for two versions of initiatives for the state's November 2002 ballot. The "Local Revenue Accountability Act" is spearheaded by the state's leading city, county, and special district advocacy organizations – whose members are the largest employers of urban planners in California.
There are probably no two words that can get a planning commission or community more worked up than these: big box. Any self-respecting planner would agree that the Wal-Marts and the Home Depots of the world present a challenge to good suburban design, but one still has to wonder why so many collective hands are wringing.
While finger-pointing and chest-thumping have been California politicians' most visible reactions to the latest version of the energy crisis, a few local governments are slowly emerging as leaders in addressing the new energy crisis. The most aggressive of these agencies are going beyond simple conservation programs and actually using their existing facilities as alternative energy power generating locations. And some are seeing that by being leaders in alternative energy production, they can gain com