As Northampton’s Zoning Revisions Committee moves to implement the Sustainable Northampton Plan, we encourage the committee to evaluate proposals with the interests of families in mind. It can be hard for parents of young children to attend public meetings, but they vote with their feet when deciding where to live. The migration of young adults out of Massachusetts has been a hot topic in the news as of late.
A review of news accounts and child-care books suggests that families with young children find that…
- Cars are useful and convenient
- Multi-story retail structures are hard to navigate (especially stairs and escalators)
- Drive-thru retail is convenient
- On-site parking is convenient, the family need not cross any busy streets to get into building
- Parking garages are hard to navigate and off-putting
- Homes that are too small are undesirable
- Private yards are a valued amenity, as are nearby parks
Added to this weak jobs picture is a longer term challenge—the increasing loss of young workers and families from Massachusetts. Between 2001 and 2004, the number of 20-24 year olds increased by 5.7 percent, but this was much slower than the 9.7 percent increase nationwide. More worrying is that by the time young people begin considering settling down—when they reach age 25-34—they are most likely to leave the state. There was actually a 4.8 percent decline in this segment of the Massachusetts population between 2001 and 2004 despite growth nationwide.It is indisputable that sprawl architecture is frequently ugly and has severe resource and social costs. However, Smart Growth proponents need to appreciate why sprawl living appeals to families with young children in order to present viable alternatives.
http://www.mma.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=708&Itemid=93
See also:
Springfield Republican: “Hanging on to best and brightest in state” (9/27/09)
If Massachusetts hopes to compete for economic growth in the increasingly global marketplace, it can’t afford to lose a single young-blooded resident to another state.
That’s the conclusion state officials have reached – based on some discouraging numbers showing an out-migration of young people from the commonwealth…
Estimates show that one in five adult residents under the age of 35 will move out of the state…
…the state has tremendous assets to build on – outstanding public and private colleges and universities, cultural and historic treasures, the seashore, mountains and public parks…
Springfield Republican: “Downtown Springfield forum launches campaign to find ways to make Massachusetts more attractive to young adults” (9/23/09)
“There is a lot of interest in the commonwealth with young adults,” said Elizabeth Clay, [Governor Deval] Patrick’s director of grass roots governance. “Is this the place you want to settle down and make your life? If not, why not?”
Smart Growth Winners (Rich People) and Losers (Other People)
Smart growth is great if you are an upscale professional, preferably without children, who can score a relatively large apartment fairly close to work. It’s a lot less fun for the majority trying to cram your family into four or five rooms… Smart growth is great if you can afford to have everything you buy delivered, or are in excellent physical condition with a physically undemanding job; it is not so great if you have to come home from your shift at the nursing home to lug groceries a quarter-mile down the street, and then up three flights of stairs. Smart growth is great if you can afford to eat in the plethora of restaurants; it is not so enjoyable if you have to scrape up an extra 20% for the ingredients in tuna casserole. Smart growth is great if you have a nanny to take the kids to the park during the day; it is not so terrific if you have to choose between wasting several precious hours standing around the playground, or letting your kids languish inside. Smart growth is great if you can afford taxis when you need them; it is not so good if you are forced to take three buses to get somewhere you really need to be. Smart growth is great if your family members are all affluent enough to take care of themselves; it is not so fulfilling when you have to shove your ailing mother into the kids room when her resources fail.
“Sprawl and Congestion—is Light Rail and Transit-Oriented Development the Answer?”
The car is an amazing piece of technology that has greatly extended our range of choice as to where to live, work, shop, and play. No other form of transport can compete with the automobile in terms of door-to-door mobility, freedom to time one’s arrivals and exits, protection from inclement weather, and comfort, security, and privacy while in transit.
New York Times: “Vibrant Cities Find One Thing Missing: Children”
Officials say that the very things that attract people who revitalize a city – dense vertical housing, fashionable restaurants and shops and mass transit that makes a car unnecessary – are driving out children by making the neighborhoods too expensive for young families…
[Mayor Potter says,] “We can’t let Portland become a retirement city or a city without neighborhood schools.”
…From 1990 to 2003 the city added more than 90,000 people, growing to an estimated 529,121 residents, but Portland is now educating the fewest students in more than 80 years…
After interviewing 300 parents who had left the city, researchers at Portland State found that high housing costs and a desire for space were the top reasons…
Many Portland families are relocating to the newest edge suburbs, where housing prices are cheapest…
Metro Portland’s Long Experience with Smart Growth: A Cautionary Tale
Expected home price inflation was found to be greater than expected in most of the states that embraced smart growth, including Oregon, Washington, Tennessee, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Colorado…
Restrictive growth policies actually caused increased suburbanization in Portland, which now has the 10th greatest suburbanization rate in U.S. As home prices went up in the site-restricted metropolitan area, families moved further out to find affordable housing…
There is very little evidence that other aspects of restricted growth policies have reduced households’ costs in other areas to offset the increased costs of housing. In economic terms, it is safe to say that restricted growth policies are not family-friendly…
Small cities surrounded by developable land, like Eugene and Salem, now have housing prices that rival those in San Francisco Bay Area communities, when the purchasing power of local incomes is considered…
Oregon actually has a tremendous amount of available land… Oregon has apparently successfully engineered a shortage of sites in a state with plentiful land…
Metro Portland’s Long Experience with Smart Growth: A Cautionary Tale
The notion that potential homeowners would prefer to pay the higher cost of high-density housing as an alternative to the traditional home/yard/neighborhood environment style of raising families is wrong. The percentage of families moving to the Portland area that buy or rent within the UGB [Urban Growth Boundary] has fallen dramatically since site restrictions were implemented…
Suburban ‘Raise the Drawbridge’ Sentiment Motivates Some Smart Growth Policies
Bozeman is an interesting case study because it is small and because the Smart Growthers have strong control of the city…
…the real problem is that city and county officials are trying to stop suburban growth around the city by imposing Portland-style growth controls. Officials insist that new developments are far more densely packed than the market demands…
On a practical level, these Smart Growth policies are counterproductive. Restricting growth in the city, or creating unattractive
high-density projects in a place awash in open space, only pushes people farther out into the countryside. In Belgrade, eight miles away, one finds market-driven suburban-style subdivisions. That city does not have many restrictions, and those who cannot afford Bozeman or who want a bigger place simply move away, thus promoting the sprawl that Smart Growthers are trying to stop…
Mary Riddel, “A Dynamic Approach to Estimating Hedonic Prices for Environmental Goods: An Application to Open Space Purchases”
One important outcome of the Boulder [Colorado] open space purchase program has been leapfrog development of areas outside the greenbelt. Many critics of the program maintain that development was not thwarted, but rather relocated. Our [research] results support this conclusion. In fact, commercial and residential expansion occurred because of the program.
Notre Dame Pitches Urban Design Studio to Northampton
[NSNA comments:] …sprawl happens because we have electricity, phones, cars, a growing population and widespread wealth (PDF). In particular, we have discussed the many concrete benefits of owning a vehicle. When people have a chance to escape crowded environments that lack greenspace, many will do so, especially if they have young children. Living miles away from a city center used to be isolating. Modern technology means that’s no longer the case.
There are certainly aspects of sprawl that merit criticism, but planners and scholars need to understand why so many people like detached homes, private yards and private cars. It’s not just that they’ve been bamboozled by advertising or victimized by conspiratorial car companies. Too often New Urbanists will insist that dense development and mass transit are the only hope for a resource-constrained future, when other solutions, such as more efficient cars and smaller (yet still detached) homes may prove to be more popular, and thus more workable. Popular solutions are less likely to require large government subsidies, cause voter dissatisfaction, or spur leapfrog sprawl. And, too, some of the New Urbanists’ assumptions about the energy-efficiency of multi-unit dwellings are questionable.
Berkeley, California: Cautions on Infill
In 1990, 60 percent of New Yorkers said they would live somewhere else if they could, and in 2000, 70 percent of urbanites in Britain felt the same way. Many suburbanites commute hours every day just to have “a home, a bit of private space, and fresh air.” But unfortunately, running off to suburbia or to the wilderness to find contentment is becoming environmentally and economically unviable.
We must draw people back into relatively compact urban areas. Showcase cities that have managed to attract would-be suburbanites into increased core densities have done so through neighborhood revitalization and by giving priority to quality of life, not density. This is the opposite of what Berkeley is doing…
Renters and other high-density residents are expected to do without adequate living space, greenspace, quiet, and cars; and without cars, they lack the freedom, pleasure, and mobility taken for granted by average Americans. This is ethically unacceptable…
Our Column in Today’s Gazette: The Hidden Risks of ‘Smart Growth’
Taking the long view, we are concerned that smart growth could gradually transform Northampton into a community that’s inhospitable to families with young children. It’s easy to see how they might pack up for Easthampton, Hadley, or other surrounding towns. Children do cost Northampton money, particularly when it comes to public education, but young families infuse the city with energy and variety, and children with fond memories and deep local roots grow up to be adults who will care for Northampton in the future. That, to us, is true sustainability.