Moving Forward in 2001
When urban renewal came to America's cities, those affected by it most did not perceive abstracts like "blight" and "slums" to be a problem. Likewise today, many suburbanites--and much of middle-class white America--does not perceive "sprawl" to be a problem. Too often urban advocates, environmentalists and those on the left send out a "sky is falling" message that those that have it within their power to steer development differently are just not going to hear or heed.
Shopping On Main Street
Take the anti-Wal-Mart crowd. I don't like big suburban chain stores any more than I like cleaning the cat litter box, and I recognize the impact they can have on small retailers. But the truth is most of America loves Wal-Mart. They have great prices and all the anti-sprawl and chain store rhetoric in the world is not going to encourage Wal-Mart to develop in a more urban and environmentally sensitive way. Like it or not (and most people seem to like it), we live in a society ruled by commerce. Wal-Mart develops the way it does for the same reason Mrs. American shops there. They know if they develop this way, they will profit, and in the same way, Mrs. American knows if she goes to Wal-Mart, she'll find a good selection and save money.
Developers develop. That's what they do, and they do it the best way they know how. Shoppers shop--and they look for the best quality for their money, as well as selection and convenience. Few agendas can get in the way of these processes. If development is to happen differently, then there has to be a way for developers to make money doing it.
And there are examples of chain stores that have made money--and continue to do so--by developing in urban areas in a way that's sensitive to a walking environment. Instead of criticizing Wal-Mart, perhaps devising a way to create a profitable urban discount business model Wal-Mart could follow would be more productive. After all, it seems the merchandise sold there is a pretty good match for the demographics of many urban neighborhoods.
Of course that could mean a chain store in an urban area where a locally-owned business could have been. But the truth is there are almost no locally-owned large-scale stores in any of America's downtowns. Macys, Lord and Taylor, Bloomingdales--they're all chains. Many of the stores in America's downtowns a quarter century ago were too: Woolworth's, McCrory's, Montgomery Ward, JCPenney and Sears. Today, just as in days past, chain stores attract large numbers of shoppers, and if placed in a walkable setting, steer pedestrians past many locally owned stores that feed off the traffic. If Lord and Taylor can develop in an urban-sensitive way, there is no reason Wal-Mart and Home Depot can't.
The New President
I expect that many urban and environmental groups do not look forward to a Bush presidency. Despite his environmental record, Al Gore may have been a better bet for people who place sprawl and the environment at the top of their list of important issues.
Not too long ago I had applied for a job in city government, familiar territory for me. A Libertarian friend of mine asked astonishingly if I didn't have a problem working with in a liberal-democratic and bureaucratic machine. More, he asked how I could sacrifice my personal views and help fulfill the mission of the mayor and city government.
"That mission will be fulfilled whether I am there or not," I replied--at least I'd have a chance of influencing it from the inside.
Like it or not, George W. Bush will be president for at least four years. Republicans will control the Congress for at least two. Will the Bush presidency be good for America's cities? I don't know the answer, but attacking suburbanites for a way of life they don't see as problematic won't help any--and it could hurt.
Instead of focusing on agenda items we're not likely to be able to influencen, perhaps we can focus on areas the new president is already supportive of--federal support for Amtrak, and further support for brownfields cleanup efforts.
And there are ways to reframe issues important to urbanites so they appeal to Middle America and Republicans. Light rail construction is a way to relieve highway congestion, and suburban sprawl is not nearly the threat for suburbanites that vanishing farmland is.
Presenting Options
Luckily city life is slowly coming back in vogue and many Americans, even in the middle classes, are beginning to tire of sterile suburbs and are looking for alternatives. Still, development continues in suburban and greenfield areas much faster than urban areas are being rebuilt and repopulated. More, for many in suburban America, moving to an urban area--especially inside the close quarters of the city limits--will never be an option.
That's why its just as important to present home developers with ways to develop denser, yet still suburban, communities and reap additional profit, as it is to provide home and lifestyle consumers with realistic and attractive urban and pseudo-urban options.
In many respects, conservatives have been the best at putting forth these alternatives. The Heritage Foundation presents a development style known as coved housing developments and bay housing developments in its recent book, A Guide To Smart Growth. While the coving design supposedly results in 4 percent fewer lots, 70 percent less land is required for infrastructure and there's 40 percent less paving than in a traditional suburban development pattern. A bay housing development looks suspiciously like a cul-de-sac neighborhood, until you notice that there is very limited auto-access, and that all the land in between homes is a commons to be used by the entire community.
In order to get some of what we want, we have to deal with conditions that exist. The desire for a suburban lifestyle is a condition that exists. George W. Bush is a condition who exists. Presenting profitable and marketable alternatives and framing the discussion in a manner that's appealing to those with the power to change things is more likely to bring success, than relying solely on stopping, opposing, and criticizing.
Eric Miller is editor of The New Colonist.
Go to A Word from Richard Risemberg
