Design First Walters fm qxd 2/26/04 7: 50 pm page I

67
Walters_03.qxd 2/26/04 7:15 PM Page 67

---

MYTHS AND CRITICISMS OF SMART
GROWTH AND NEW URBANISM
There are half-a-dozen myths in particular that
circulate freely in American debates about Smart
Growth, and it is important to put the record
straight. These are:
1. Smart Growth is code for ‘no growth.’
2. Smart Growth is all about high density.
3. Smart Growth is all about cities and wants to get
rid of suburbs.
4. Smart Growth is anti-car.
5. Smart Growth doesn’t work in the marketplace.
6. Smart Growth means more regulations that slow
development and increase costs.
Let’s take the first two points together; they are clearly
in opposition to each other, which should tell us
something straight away about the muddled thinking
that still exists about this topic. Many developers are
very suspicious about Smart Growth, fearing it will at
the very least make life harder (see Myth no. 6) and at
worst drive them out of business as citizens’ groups
urge more and more restrictions on development
in order to stop growth in their community.
Neighborhood groups on the other hand, often imag-
ine that Smart Growth is either a plot by architects
and planners forcing a high-density lifestyle upon
them for some socialistic purpose, or it’s a conspiracy
by developers to get rich by building as many homes
as possible on any given piece of land.
Before correcting these two myths, it is important
to clarify the issue of density, for what is perceived as
high density in an American residential neighbor-
hood would be considered average or even low in
Britain. In many public meetings we’ve held on this
topic, Americans used to living in places that have
only one or two houses per acre complain strongly
about ‘high’ densities of 10 dwellings per acre.
For comparative purposes, 10 units per acre
(25 dwellings per hectare) is the average density cur-
rently built in British suburbs in 2000. However, the
national government’s Planning Policy Guidance
Note (PPG3, 2000) regards this as too low, and rec-
ommends a minimum of 30 dwellings per hectare
net, and a preferred range of between 30 and
50 dwellings per hectare net (12–20 units per acre).
(These British figures are calculated on the net site
area that excludes major roads and landscape buffers,
so the actual gross densities to equate with American
figures would be slightly lower.)
To extend this comparison, Parker and Unwin’s
model village at New Earswick, begun in 1902, is
about 11 dwellings per acre, a figure consistent with
that of the New Town of Runcorn, designed at a ‘low’
density in the 1970s to ‘reduce overcrowding.’ These
differences in suburban community norms between
America and Britain are less evident in the redevelop-
ment of central urban areas. In a city like Charlotte,
densities for downtown living range from older neigh-
borhoods with four houses per acre to new mid-rise
apartments at 100 dwellings per acre (26–650 per-
sons per hectare). Foregoing the lowest densities in
this spectrum, the range of medium to high numbers
(20 units per acre and up) are broadly in line with
British practice.
While attitudes to density in Britain and America
vary, the fact that towns and cities will continue to
grow is consistent in both countries. A ‘no growth’
strategy is impossible to uphold. The British govern-
ment announced in February 2003 a major new devel-
opment initiative for south-east England to cope with
the anticipated need for as many as 800 000 new
homes by 2030 in that part of the country (http://
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2727399.stm).
In America, the US Bureau of the Census expects the
country’s population to grow by 58 million people by
2020, or more than 21 percent.
While growth is inevitable, the way it is handled is
not, and as shown by the 12-point list of principles
earlier, Smart Growth advocates support many differ-
ent strategies to improve the quality of development.
Denser development is only one of many tactics.
Density alone means nothing; in the wrong place it
can be harmful, but as part of a more comprehensive
strategy of mixed-use neighborhoods and alternative
transportation choices – buses, trains, bicycles, walk-
ing – it is definitely part of the solution. The positive
attributes of this strategy include a more walkable,
less polluted environment, less reliance on the car,
and easy access to shopping and employment.
Development should occur across a range of scales
and densities depending on the situation and site con-
ditions. Around transit stations that form the centers
of new neighborhoods, in areas that have a mixture
of uses, and along bus routes, densities should be
medium to high, between 20 and 80 dwellings per
acre (130–520 persons per hectare). This puts a large
number of people in locations where they can reduce
the use of their cars by riding trains and buses, and
where they can walk conveniently to other uses in the
neighborhood. Importantly, large apartment com-
plexes should 
not
be built in places that are distant
DESIGN FIRST: DESIGN-BASED PLANNING FOR COMMUNITIES
68
Walters_03.qxd 2/26/04 7:15 PM Page 68

---

from other facilities and only accessible by car. This
just causes extra traffic and pollution as large numbers
of new residents drive everywhere for everything. One
of the conventional American land-use planning
tools, zoning land near large roads as high density
‘multi-family’ apartments as a buffer between the
highway and single-family neighborhoods, is there-
fore one of the least smart things to do.
In locations that are purely residential, densities
should be lower, from 2 to 20 dwellings per acre
(13–130 persons per hectare). The higher densities in
this range should be used sparingly but are necessary
to provide smaller, less expensive homes in locations
dispersed throughout the community, and not all
clustered in higher density areas. In theory, as one
reaches the edges of any community the density
should reduce dramatically as urban uses recede and
rural uses dominate the landscape. However, as we
well know, it is precisely these edge locations that
receive most new growth pressure, and which often
get swamped by a tide of new houses and apartments
spread all across the landscape.
In this situation of sprawling at the edge, there are
three basic strategies to manage this growth:
(a) If the proposed development doesn’t meet Smart
Growth criteria, and the vacant land has no water
or sewer service, the municipality can stringently
limit the development capacity of the land by
refusing to spend public money to extend its
lines or to build new ones. This option should be
used more often, but many elected officials still
believe their main task is to facilitate ‘develop-
ment’ to improve their community’s tax base, as
noted in Chapter 2.
If it is judged sensible to allow growth at a