"Smart Growth" or Infill? (metro, suburban, downtown, market)

[SteelCityRising]

As most of you know, I am vehemently opposed to the haphazard sprawl patterns that are now dominating the United States. Most of today's newer United States suburbs are poorly-planned. Mixed-use zoning is strictly prohibited, creating "islands" such as industrial parks, commerce parks, strip malls, and housing developments, all of which make our society more autocentric, increasing our dependency upon foreign oil at a time when gasoline prices are already spiking. Many housing developments themselves have large lot sizes and have lost their sense of intimacy and community as a result of people spending less time conversing with neighbors. Many suburbs/exurbs, especially north of the Mason-Dixon line, are draining vitality out of urban centers, leading to "White Flight" and urban decay. It saddens me to see that the majority of Americans now reside in suburbs while cities decline and rural areas lose their pastoral settings for new construction.

I have been studying alternatives to American suburbanization with great interest, and I have now been reading about a "smart growth" community coming to Berks County, Pennsylvania, which seeks to offer an alternative to the chilling fact that nine acres of Pennsylvania's wilderness is being devoured for low-density urban sprawl every hour. My own metropolitan area increased its land usage by 20 square miles from 1970-1990 while declining in population by tens of thousands of residents. These smart growth communities seek to build brand new communities that emulate better-planned communities of a century ago, where folks could work, play, worship, shop, and commune in walking distance of their homes.

I can't help but wonder though if we should be marring MORE of our landscape for brand new smart growth communities or if we should seek first to redevelop existing brownfield sites nearer to urban centers. One thing is for certain though---we can't keep on doing what we've been doing to our environment since the 1950s. At some point the global supply of fossil fuels will be depleted, and then what will become of today's exurbs/low-density suburbs? Some suburbs, such as Pittnurse70's Louisville, Colorado, are at least trying their best to be more socially-responsible by linking housing developments to one another and to points of interest in the community via wide paths to encourage walking. However, her suburb is an anomaly, especially here in PA where most newer exurbs/suburbs don't even have shoulders along the roadways, let alone sidewalks, forcing EVERY resident to drive a vehicle.

Being somewhat skeptical about smart growth, I've chosen myself to reinvest in an existing city; I'll be raising my children in a once-vacant home in Scranton's city limits that I'll be restoring into a liveable space. This home will be in a tree-lined neighborhood with sidewalks within walking distance to a city park, downtown, and a major university campus. I feel we ought to revitalize existing neighborhoods FIRST before planning for new ones, even if these new ones are well-intentioned. What do others think?

[TXTwizter]

We need to be reinvesting in our inner city areas. I have always lived intown....I hate driving! Especailly since it takes $50 to fill my truck.

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by JVTX72

We need to be reinvesting in our inner city areas. I have always lived intown....I hate driving! Especailly since it takes $50 to fill my truck.

I agree. Even for those who live in the exurbs/outer-tier suburbs with the mentality of "I have the money to fill up my SUV so butt out" have to admit that when our planet finally does run out of fossil fuels, they'll be up the creek without a paddle if enough isn't done before that time to develop alternative fuels. If their SUVs become obsolete because there is simply no longer any fuel available to power them (no matter what the price), then how will they be able to access other areas outside of their residential subdivisions? This might not happen for another 50 years down the road, for example, but it will happen someday. Folks living in walkable neighborhoods will be at an advantage at that point in time for being able to walk to a grocery store while those in the exurbs/outer-tier suburbs will have to potentially grow food in their backyards.

Then again, if tractor-trailers don't have gasoline to ferry goods from warehouses to stores, the advantage that urban dwellers will have over the far-out dwellers will be short-lived---only until the stores run out of existing inventory.

[vegaspilgrim]

I voted for infill. Not everybody wants to live in a high rise/ mid rise condo, and I totally understand that, but there are many who would like that-- if it was an affordable option and if the quality of the condo building and the amenities offered exceeded what you could get for the same price in a single-family home. The problem is most of these urban redevelopment/ new urbanist projects are priced simply way too damn high and are geared for "boutique" markets. It's not practical for most people.

By the way, SWB, if you're interested in urban geography, you should check out downtown Denver (and the surrouding neighborhoods) sometime. The amount of midrise/high rise condo buildings already built and currently under construction is staggering! This place is looking like a whole new city lately. You could also view the so-called "smart growth" areas (Stapleton and Lowry developments), and what a typical sprawl-suburb looks like, and compare the three. You might be surprised. In my opinion, most master planned "smart growth"/ "new towns" type developments SUCK and are actually worse than your standard plain-vanilla suburban area.