1
Smart Growth: Smart Growth: Threat to the Quality of LifeThreat to the Quality of Life
Presentation byPresentation byWendell CoxWendell Cox
Wendell Cox ConsultancyWendell Cox ConsultancyVisiting ProfessorVisiting Professor
Conservatoire National des Arts et MetiersConservatoire National des Arts et MetiersParisParis
Frontier Frontier Centre Centre for Public Policyfor Public PolicyWinnipegWinnipeg
24 February 200424 February 2004
Experience
2
1. Smart Growth: A Primer2. Rental Car Tour of Europe3. Portland: False Nirvana4. The Role of Home Ownership5. Mass Transit6. Winnipeg Observations7. Growth Inducing Strategies
Smart Growth:Threat to the Quality of Life
OUTLINE
1. Smart Growth: A Primer
3
REALITYCanadians & Americans Happiest in World: Pew
APOCOLYPTIC VIEWThreat of farmland lossWaste of landLoss of communityExcessive public costs
SOLUTIONThe Compact City
(Higher density)Get people out of cars
What is Smart GrowthTHE ANTI-SPRAWL MOVEMENT
Lone Mountain Compact
absent a material threat to other individuals or the community,
people should be allowed to live and work where and how they like.
4
Farmland: 30x-100x Urbanization
1 9 5 0 19960 %
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
Land
Production
Agricultural Productivity
Urban3%
Agricultural97%
Canada: 2001
Statistics Canada: 2001
Manitoba: 2001
Urban1%
Agricultural99%
27,000
117,300
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
Urban Land Farmland Reduction
Farmland Reduction ¼ Urbanization
5
01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,0009,000
10,000
US W. Europe Asia
Vehicle Hours/Square Mile
N O x
CO
N M H C
Air Pollution Least@ 45-55 MPH
Higher Density: More CongestionMORE INTENSE AIR POLLUTION
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
US Paris Hong Kong Tokyo
Higher Density = Longer Commutes
Work TripTravel Time
6
6%
11%
15%
21%
48%
Larger Urban Areas More DenseURBAN LAND AREA BY POPULATION QUINTILE: 2001
4th PopulationQuintile
3rd PopulationQuintile
2nd QuintileMontreal &Vancouver
1st QuintileToronto
5th PopulationQuintile% of
TotalUrbanLandArea
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
Core (1939) Ring 1: 1959 Ring 2: 1979 Ring 3: Later
Newer, Lower Density: Less Spending
>700 USA MunicipalitiesSpending/Capita: 2000
Density9,067
Density5,466
Density2,861
Density2,218
7
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
Quintile 1 Quintile 2 Quintile 3 Quintile 4 Quintile 5
Spending Less in Smaller Cities
Population274,000
Population71,000
Population38,000
Population22,000
Population9,000
>700 USA MunicipalitiesSpending/Capita: 2000
Myth: Jobs-Housing Balance
Job Location17.9%
Other Location17.9%
Neighborhood25.9%
House20.5%
Other Reasons17.7%
Reason forNeighborhood Choice
Hong Kong>1,000,000 of Jobs
Passed
8
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Obesity
UrbanDensity
Obesity & Land Use: The Myth
Food Consumption UpLand Use Little Changed
2,0021,774
Caloric Intake Trend: Early 1990s
2. Europe from a Rental Car
9
Paris from a Rental Car
Paris suburbs
Suburban Hanover Suburban AntwerpSuburban Copenhagen
Suburban Commercial Development
Copenhagen suburbs
Stockholm Big Box Home Store Stockholm: Arlanda Corridor Strip Development: Paris
10
Urban Land Area ExpansionParis Urban Area1954 1999
Sprawl is caused by affluenceand population growth, and
which of these, exactly, do wepropose to prohibit?
Greg Easterbrook in The New Republic
Planners View: North America?
11
3. Portland: False Nirvana
Urban Growth Boundaries & Other Land Rationing
RationingRaisesPrices
12
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Portland
United States
(Land) Rationing Raises Prices
HOUSING OPPORTUNITY INDEX
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
Other Smart Growth “Climbdowns”MarylandNew JerseyMinneapolis-St. PaulSuburban Washington
DevelopedAcres Plan
Portland Retreats on Densification
2040Plan
Actual2002
More2004?
PortlandVote
AgainstDensity
1997
13
4. The Role of Home Ownership
Purpose of Economic System?% OF NET WORTH IN HOME EQUITY BY INCOME
43% 41%34% 32%
29%33%
29%
16%
65%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
<$20
K
$20-
40K
$40-
50K
$50-
60K
$60-
70K
$70-
80K
$80-
90K
$90-
100K
$100
K+
US Households:1998
Widely Distributed Wealth Creation
14
59.2%65.7%
74.7%
49.1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Core 1st RingSuburbs
2nd RingSuburbs
3rd RingSuburbs
Home Ownership & Sprawl: US
1,002 Municipalities2000
Illegal in PortlandHOUSING OPPORTUNITY IN ATLANTA
Atlanta Suburbs Growth: 1990s
White Non-Hispanic32%
Visible Minorities68%
15
TomásRivera PolicyInstitute:
Land RationingGrowth ControlsImpact Fees
Barriers: Hispanic Home Ownership
Black Home Ownership Higher in Sprawl
55.0%
45.0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%Kahn (Tufts University)
LessSprawl
MoreSprawl
Home Ownership Rate
Affordability Driven by Land Regulation
…high prices have little to do with … a free market for land.
Instead, our evidence suggests that zoning and other land use controls play the dominant role in making housing expensive.
PRICE ESCALATING DYNAMICSLand prices riseInfill costs moreLess competitionBuilders move “up-market”
16
5. Mass Transit
Transit55%
Highways & Other45%
Transit3%Highways
97%
Winnipeg Transit Share > Portland
14%
7%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
Winnipeg Portland
17
Why Are All These DriversNot on the Train?
Picture fromAlternative Master Transportation
Plan for the City of Toronto
Auto(Green Area)
Transit(Lines)
Auto-Competitive
Transit in Portland
Auto access far greater than transit
30 MinuteTravel Access
From SuburbanLocation
18
Urban Area Auto Competitive
Transit WouldRequire Dismantling
Suburbs
Ceaucescu: Father of Smart GrowthTRANSIT IS DOING ALL IT CAN
6. Winnipeg Observations
19
Winnipeg More Dense than Portland
1,407
1,209
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
Winnipeg Portland
Population perSquare KM
W inn ipeg & Po r t l and Dens i t y
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
P o p u l a t i o n p e r S q u a r e K M b y L a n d A r e a
Dec i le ( 1 0 % ) : 2 0 0 1 & 2 0 0 0 : C e n s u s T r a c t s
> 4 0 0 / K M 2
P o r t l a n d
W i n n i p e g
Winnipeg & Portland: Density Profile
20
Metropolitan Population: 1951-2001
1951 1976 2 0 0 10%
100%
200%
300%
400%
500%
600%
Winnipeg
Vancouver
TorontoOttawa-Hul l
Edmonton
Calgary
MontrealHamiltonQuebecLondon
Metropolitan Population: 1951-2001WINNIPEG DROPS FROM 4 TH TO 8TH
Making Winnipeg a Better City
EducationTaxesCrime
Services
21
7. Growth & Income Inducing PoliciesSERVING PEOPLE NOT PLANNING IDEOLOGY
43% 41%34% 32%
29%33%
29%
16%
65%
Lone Mountain Compact
absent a material threat to other individuals or the community,
people should be allowed to live and work where and how they like.
22
The Universal Dream: People First
Honjo (Tokyo suburb)
People FirstNot Bricks, Mortar
or Urban Form
Wendell Cox Consultancypublicpurpose.comdemographia.com
email: [email protected]