Introduction: Planning the Post-Sprawl Era
Dowell Myers
Director, Master of Planning Program
USC School of Policy, Planning, and Development
For a Printer Friendly Version Click Here - Adobe PDF
The problem of urban sprawl and related questions of "smart growth" have captured the concern of a wide array of actors nationwide, including local government officials, citizen activists, nonprofit and philanthropic organizations, real estate developers, and state and federal policy makers. Popular interest in land use planning has reached a peak not seen in several decades. As we look forward into the new century, it is reasonable to ask how might we plan a post-sprawl era?
Background to the USC Conference
On November 30, 2001, an array of leading researchers and practitioners came together on the University of Southern California (USC) campus to consider the lessons of research about sprawl and to take up the challenges of planning the future. This university has been a hotbed for research on urban sprawl. In spring 2001, USC published the widely read study Sprawl Hits the Wall (jointly with the Brookings Institution), under the leadership of Michael Dear at the Southern California Studies Center and co-authored with Jennifer Wolch and William Fulton. Also well-known are the contrarian, "sprawl is good" views of USC economists Peter Gordon and Harry Richardson. A number of other USC contributors, although less visibly outspoken, actively contribute to sprawl research through a rich variety of vantage points, including urban history, demography, housing needs, and urban design.
The majority of presenters at the November 30 conference were drawn from outside the USC faculty. Generous support from the Fannie Mae Foundation and the Lincoln Institute for Land Policy made it possible to bring together a nationwide cast of scholars and practitioners. Several innovative contributions were invited from outside California. These include the regional planning experience of Robert Yaro, executive director of the Regional Plan Association of New York, the national studies of sprawl and density parameters conducted by professors George Galster and Rolf Pendall, and the unique aerial portraits of density configurations crafted by Alex MacClean and Julie Campoli. Within California we drew upon an exceptionally rich bank of talent, including William Fulton, John Landis, the politically astute city manager Rick Cole, new urbanists Stefanos Polyzoides and Shelley Poticha, and planners Joe Carerras and Richard Ramella. Participating USC faculty included Dowell Myers, Jennifer Wolch, and Peter Gordon, with others serving as moderators (Detlof von Winterfeldt, Juliet Musso, and David Sloane). Many of these participants also led one of the 15 roundtable discussions conducted as part of the luncheon. Additional roundtable leaders were Jim Bickhart, Raphael Bostic (USC), Randy Crane, Gen Giuliano (USC), Stan Hoffman, Richard Parks (USC), Katherine Aguilar Perez, Stephanie Pincetl (USC), David Sloane (USC), Frank Wein, and Chris Williamson.
So great is the interest about sprawl and its potential solutions that the conference could not be confined to a single auditorium. The USC Distance Education Network was contracted to broadcast all proceedings by video feed and webcast, both to an adjoining, overflow lecture hall and via the internet to stations across the country and around the world. The 8-hour live webcast is believed to be the longest ever attempted in the field of urban planning (judgment rendered by Chris Steins, executive director of the internet planning news service, PLANetizen).
The proceedings from the conference have been published on the web in order to allow the widest possible dissemination. The published material is drawn from recordings of the live broadcast, supplemented with PowerPoint files and explanatory material. In our modern internet era, the conference can be shared much more thoroughly and broadly than was possible during the print era. Each 15 or 20-minute presentation has been edited as a stand-alone segment that integrates the visual display and commentary as presented at the event. In addition, for each of the 15 "hot topic" discussion roundtables at the luncheon , we have posted a textual summary provided by the participants.
Entering the Post-Sprawl Era
The latest research and thinking regarding urban sprawl - coming from many different quarters - has converged on a new understanding best described as "post sprawl."
One point of agreement is the difficulty in defining the concept or fact of urban sprawl. As we press for more specific definitions and remedies, much is being learned. Sprawl is in the mind of the beholder and is created by multiple attributes of urban form: density, clustering, visual monotony, social functionality, and more. As we progress beyond the vagueness of "sprawl" we enter a more pragmatic, post-sprawl era.
A second point researchers have converged on is that sprawl is not tied to density as directly as we thought. Some high-density places look sprawled, and vice versa. The surprising finding reported by many, that the Los Angeles region has higher average population density than the New York region, highlights this discovery. (In general, the cities in the west are more densely built and populated than those of the east, in part because of limited rainfall and need for expensive irrigation in the west.) Yet everyone would still judge Los Angeles as more sprawled than New York, and so average density cannot be the defining element of sprawl. In the post-sprawl era, we recognize the need to build better places, not just ones that are quantitatively denser.
A special challenge applying in California is that the state is adding 15 million residents between 1990 and 2020. In this 30 year period, the state's population is projected to expand from 30 to 45 million people. Florida, at 15 million residents in 2000, is the fourth largest in the nation. The amount of growth expected in California is equivalent to adding the entire state of Florida on top of California in just 30 years. What kind of urban form will be required to maintain livability is a prime concern when planning the post-sprawl era. How can we make density a positive contributor to the quality of life?
In the post-sprawl era planners consider lessons for future development that reach beyond sprawl. Our common goal is to enhance future livability. This requires more deliberate consideration about desired urban form than we have afforded in the past. Not in several decades or longer has so much public attention been directed to the work of urban planners. Even if developers, elected officials and many others contribute to urban growth patterns, it is urban planners who are held responsible by the public. Accordingly, it is incumbent on the planning community to generate and publicize workable solutions to enhance future livability of our urban areas.
Overview of Conference Presentations
A total of seven panels were held during the day, and a series of 15 discussion roundtables were conducted during the luncheon. Each of these events is summarized in the proceedings. The conference was designed to include a wide range of views, running from quantitative studies, to GIS mapping, aerial photography, site planning, and architectural design, and including discourse on political process. The conference even included some friends of sprawl as well as its many critics.
The general format of the day was to present a series of research-based or theoretical presentations in the morning, transitioning after lunch to more applied research on solutions, and capping the day with discussion of political processes required to plan the post-sprawl era. The proceedings list the presentations in the same order they were presented at the event. The abstract attached to each presentation offers a thumbnail sketch of its content and focus. Biographical summaries are also posted for each of the participants.
Following welcoming remarks by Detlof von Winterfeldt, the associate dean for research in the USC School of Policy, Planning, and Development, the conference theme and purpose was introduced by Dowell Myers, director of the School's urban planning program. Increasing evidence and consensus states that sprawl has run its course in California, once regarded as the bastion of sprawl. California has been growing at 5 million per decade, and is presently adding the equivalent of the entire state of Florida - fourth largest in the nation - in just 30 years. Old patterns of growth are no longer tenable. Recent opinion polls are summarized that show a narrow majority of residents favoring drastic changes in land development patterns. At the same time, substantial desire remains for continued, unfettered low-density development. Arriving at workable, and agreeable, solutions is the challenge of the day.
The day's second panel provided a national context in which to understand the California experience. George Galster, "Multiple Dimensions of Sprawl: How Does LA Stand Up?" summarizes an in-depth research project seeking to measure and describe sprawl according to multiple dimensions of its spatial pattern. A dozen major metropolitan regions are compared. Despite its lack of predominant core, Los Angeles is found to be not very residentially sprawled on most dimensions. Although Los Angeles scores very low on compactness, it is also relatively high on average overall density.
Rolf Pendall, "Who Sprawls Most? Density in US Metro Areas, 1982-97," addresses only one dimension of sprawl -- density -- as it differs across over 300 metropolitan areas. Extreme differences are found between regions, with higher densities in the west (Los Angeles) and lower densities in the east (Atlanta). Growth rates, foreign-born and elderly residents, and racial composition all influence density levels. While these structural factors are hard to change, there are other political factors that are easier to change, especially investment in infrastructure.
Finally, Robert Yaro, executive director of the Regional Plan Association of New York provides his views on Large US metropolitan regions can be redesigned for the post-sprawl world. Further development is necessary to accommodate population growth. Cities and suburbs can be redesigned around notions of propinquity. Small cities and suburbs can and do provide alternatives to sprawl in polynucleated metropolitan areas.
The following panel on "Rethinking Issues of Sprawl and Density" raised several probing questions about the nature of sprawl and how best it should be evaluated. In her presentation, titled "Post-Sprawl Metropolis: Planning for the Transition to Sustainability," Jennifer Wolch, co-director of the USC Sustainable Cities Program and a co-author of the Sprawl Hits the Wall report, argues that sprawl is not sustainable. There are numerous reasons for this assessment: excessive resource consumption, fiscal inequities and social polarization, limits to regional development, etc. A new path is being found based on collaborations across social divisions, between interest groups, and between species. Lessons are drawn from the experience of a community named Harmony.
A contrarian view that questions the wisdom of criticizing sprawl is offered by Peter Gordon, director of the USC Master of Real Estate Development program, in his presentation, "Really Smart Growth." He outlines a new position on smart growth that emphasizes consumer sovereignty in place of government regulation. Gordon states the case in favor of bottom-up decision making instead of top-down controls. A transportation economist, he expresses a view favoring continued freedom for people to rely on commuting by car, and he believes that lower density auto-oriented development fosters that commuting freedom. Gordon recommends that top-down planners do only a few things but do them well: focus on infrastructure plans, enhance property rights, and trust landowners to discover and plan for highest and best use.
Yet another perspective on sprawl is offered by John Landis, chair of the UC-Berkeley Department of City and Regional Planning, in "Sprawl In California: Its Extent, Causes, Effects, and Future." He answers the question--is California sprawling?--by referencing the definition for sprawl. In terms of density and compactness, the answer is mostly no. But in terms of inter-regional housing, jobs and commuting spillovers or in terms of urban fabric homogeneity, the answer is largely yes. These conclusions are heavily illustrated with analyses of California growth patterns that utilize GIS and other displays. Landis outlines policy directions that emphasize improved regional/county land use planning cooperation, better match of job and housing locations, and greater efforts toward improved "place making" in suburban, infill, and new town planning.
The luncheon break provided opportunity for conference attendees to participate in 15 "hot topic" discussion roundtables. These were led by both conference presenters and other assembled experts. A complete listing of topics and leaders is given at the end.
The day's fourth panel focused on Growing Consumer Preferences for Density. This panel marked a transition from morning sessions analyzing sprawl to afternoon sessions that addressed solutions. Dowell Myers, director of the USC Master of Planning Program, spoke on "Growing Preferences for Higher Density Residential Environments:The Boom Ahead" (based on a paper co-authored with Elizabeth Gearin). Conventional beliefs about the prevalence of low-density housing preferences were summarized and then questioned in light of recent survey evidence. Three major factors create an expectation of rising density preferences in the decade ahead. First, adults over age 40 have much greater preference for compact city living than the young. Second, the baby boomers are now crossing that age line, swinging the bulk of growth in housing demand toward a new set of preferences. And, third, a number of general background trends also support even greater residential preferences for living in denser, more central locations. Little recognized is that American cities are built on the preferences of a tiny minority (1-2%) each year. Myers argues that past development patterns reflect a very different complexion of demand for new construction than what will be unfolding in the current decade, and so the potential for major changes in development patterns is greatly enhanced.
Julie Campoli, a principal in Terra Firma Urban Design and Alex MacLean, a principal in Landslides Aerial Photography, then presented their unique views in "Visualizing Density." In the debate over the density of future development, visual tools are needed to bridge the gap between measured density and perceived density. Low-level aerial photography is used to construct a visual catalogue illustrating various density levels. The many examples shown depict how site design affects the look and feel of density. Technical challenges are discussed with regard to how these aerial representations can be crafted in a manner that depicts a visual portrait of places in the fairest, most meaningful manner possible. The visual catalogue presented here takes the abstract notion of density of sprawl to a more tangible level.
The fifth panel provided a Survey of Planning for Livable Places. Joe Carreras, senior planner with the Southern California Association of Governments, presented "Growth Trends and Planning Solutions for Livable Places." He provided a broad historical overview of growth in Southern California. Another 6 million residents -two Chicagos- will be added in the next 25 years, but much less low density residential land is available. Solutions include more multifamily housing production, both to meet changing lifestyle needs of aging Baby Boomers and Young Hispanics. Development of urban villages is outlined for enhanced livability, providing an expanded set of living and shopping choices for an increasingly diverse population. Carreras surveys a wide range of programs and research findings assembled by the Southern California Association of Governments. He concludes that public support for a regional growth vision is critical if we are to change our urban form in the post-sprawl era.
A complementary view is provided by Richard Ramella, a principal in The Planning Center, in his presentation on "Reinventing Suburban Strip Malls." He provides a case study of suburban sprawl in the context of Orange County, California, the quintessential 1950s low-density higher income suburb bordering Los Angeles, which has now turned into a job-rich, higher-density multiethnic metropolis. Several opportunities are illustrated of how to successfully cope with rising density in order to achieve greater livability. Redeveloping suburban strip malls provides one common opportunity. Successful mixed use developments and the role of local governments are described. Several different design approaches are possible for each density level. Ramella concludes that showing examples will help the public draw its own conclusions about how to best achieve a desired density.
The panel on Building Better Places with Compact Design was composed of a complementary pair of presentations, one focused on urban design and the other on local political consensus. First, Stefanos Polyzoides, principal in Moule and Polyzoides, Architects and Urbanists, presented "A Visual Survey of New Urbanist Principles." One of the founding members of the Congress for New Urbanism, Polyzoides offered an overview of new urbanist design principles, illustrating these with a critique of the existing built environment and exploring a wide range of proposed and actual examples.
This was followed by a presentation by Rick Cole, City Manager in the City of Azusa, California, on "The Political Process for Gaining Community Consensus." Drawing on his long experience as a city council member and mayor in Pasadena, before he advanced to his current city manager position in a smaller suburban town, Cole's presentation emphasized the political process required gaining consensus and building a shared political will. Practical issues of NIMBYism and exclusion must be addressed, not by sermonizing, but by building shared understandings and viable political coalitions.
The concluding panel in the conference featured remarks by William Fulton, principal in the Solimar Research Group, Inc., on "Principles for Planning the Post-Sprawl Era." Fulton's delivery, both searching and probing, generates many keen insights. His inspirational remarks were derived from five general principles useful for all planning. Planners need to think deeply and dare to challenge what we believe. Planners need to have a clear understanding of the future. Planners need to strive harder to understand what urban form really is. Planners should know what is fixed and what is not, focusing their attention on what is most changeable. Finally, planners need to use all their tools to address urban problems, coupling their big ideas with grass roots popular participation.
Finally, Dowell Myers closed the conference with acknowledgements to the many who helped the organizers put on so ambitious an event. The "Closing Acknowledgements" provided a rousing capstone to the day-long event. The closing credits, presented in the form of a PowerPoint animation, were a suitable reflection of the day's quality presentations.
About the Luncheon Roundtables
During the luncheon, a series of 15 "hot topic" discussion roundtables were convened, each with 6 to 12 participants. This provided all attendees an opportunity to converse on topics of specialized interest. Most of these sessions produced deliberations of sufficient value to report back to the rest of the conference group. The full set of deliberations is posted in the Proceedings under the Luncheon Roundtables.
The set of 15 roundtables and discussion leaders is listed below:
- What Do You Think Sprawl IS???
Leader: George Galster, Wayne State University - Where and Why is Sprawl a Problem in California?
Leader: John Landis, UC-Berkeley Department of City & Regional Planning - Sprawl Hits the Wall: Responses to the Report and the Challenge of Engagement
Leader: Jennifer Wolch, Southern California Studies Center - Public Engagement and Growth: Visioning the Future with the Public
Leader: Katherine Aguilar Perez and Jim Bickhart, Southern California Transportation and Land Use Coalition - Toward a Green Metropolis: Utopian Vision or Necessary Reality?
Leader: Stephanie Pincetl, USC Sustainable Cities Program - Smart Growth and Sprawl
Leader: Randy Crane, UCLA Department of Urban Planning - Transportation and Sprawl
Leader: Genevieve Giuliano, USC School of Policy, Planning, and Development - Health and Sprawl: What is the Connection?
Leader: David Sloane, USC School of Policy, Planning, and Development - Which Non-Sprawl Pattern Most Helps the Poor?
Leader: Rolph Pendall, Cornell University Department of Urban Planning - Housing Affordability Issues
Leader: Raphael Bostic, USC School of Policy, Planning, and Development - Regionalism from a Northeast Perspective
Leader: Robert Yaro, President, Regional Plan Association of New York - How Density Can be Sold to the Neighbors
Leader: Richard Ramella, The Planning Center - How Sprawl Can be Addressed in the General Plan in California
Leader: Frank Wein, URS Corporation - Using Census 2000 to Monitor Growth and Sprawl
Leader: Chris Williamson, Solimar Research Group, Inc. - Fiscal Reform and Sprawl: What is Needed?
Leader: Stan Hoffman, Stanley Hoffman Associates