Lately, it seems every time someone wants to add more development, usually over and above levels already allowed in the general plan, they label it “smart growth”. The term was originally coined to mean a specific type of balanced development meeting certain criteria, but has evolved to mean just about whatever a developer or compliant city council wants it to mean. High-rise development in Town Center? Smart growth. More development along already congested Mariners’ Mile? Smart growth. High density housing/instant tenements on Costa Mesa’s West side? Smart growth.
If there’s a buck in it, it’s “smart”. Never mind that traffic is close to a standstill at rush hour. If we build more stuff, it’ll get better. Don’t agree? Well, you’re just not smart!
The May 30, 2007 issue of LA Weekly has a fascinating article about “smart growth” in Los Angeles. Writer David Zahniser recounts how LA planners intend to change people’s commuting behavior by increasing density to the point that residents will be so miserable in traffic they will not only willingly abandon their cars and accept mass transit, they will demand it.
Zahniser quotes Gloria Ohland, vice president for communications with Reconnecting America, a group promoting rail and transit, “Traffic, which is the problem, is also the solution… So I would argue, boost the density in Century City. Build it out to the max. And then, there will be the constituency to build a subway down Wilshire Boulevard.”
The solution is to make people more miserable. Isn’t that smart? Now read the article and substitute Bristol Street for Wilshire Boulevard, South Coast Metro/JWA for Century City, and Center Line for “a subway”.
“Smart” planners like this scenario. Not only do they get to process more development, thereby ensuring job security, they can get outside funds for planning transit oriented development. “Smart” politicians like it, too, ‘cause they never have to say “No’ to their developer clients… er… campaign contributors.
“Smart” developers absolutely adore this latest fad in land development. Not only do they get to build, build, build, in anticipation of some future, not-yet-funded transit, if the transit actually were to occur, under state law they can get a density bonus of twenty five percent or more for development within a quarter mile of a transit station or location where bus lines meet. Even better, their new, “smart” development is exempt from growth limits imposed under local congestion management plans. . Then they’ll get to build even more. It's called taking advantage of "infill opportunities". We’ll build ourselves out of congestion!
And how’s that working been working? Not real well in Los Angeles or Orange County which, according to a 2005 Federal Highway Administration study, have five of the most congested bottle necks in the nation. But the “smart” developers and politicians tell us it’s because we don’t have the mass transit which will come naturally if we just grow more.
How about a city known for its mass transit, like Chicago with its L train, subway, and bus system? They’ve got three of the top twenty four. Or Washington, D.C., with it’s Metro Rail. They only have two of the top twenty four, while Time Magazine reports that the average speed on the DC Beltway is all of 23 miles per hour.
Maybe they just don’t have “smart” growth. Maybe we need to look at a place like Portland, Oregon, known for its commitment to creating a “livable community” (a catch phrase preceding “smart growth”). Well, the Portland Tribune reported that local peak hour speeds on the I-5 were 22 mph, while peak hour speed on Highway 26 had fallen to 18 mph, though this subsequently increased after the highway was widened. No “smart” solutions there. Just plain old highway construction.
Still, our leaders in southern California apparently keep hoping that soon people will dump their cars and jump into mass transit. Either that, or people will move to within walking distance to work—if not out of state in frustration. Congestion will just melt away if they build enough.
Isn't insanity said to be expecting a different outcome while repeating the same thing over and over again?
2 comments:
The bright lights the big city have gone to Costa Mesa's head, the bright lights the big city there is a traffic jam up ahead, the bright lights the big city why did we listen to what the developers said, the bright lights the big city now walk every where instead.
Ahh,
The newest acronym is TOD, for transit-oriented development. Here in the OC, we have advanced to a later version called TFTOD, or transit-free transit-oriented development.
It allows for greater profits, higher density, and helps us create walkable communities without sidewalks. Cuts down on the pesky parking requirements too.
Don't worry. $10.00 a gallon gas will make it all work.
Post a Comment