Is smart growth smart?

This has happened too I think in many small towns across the country - at one time before everybody had cars they were complete centres on a small scale, having all the goods and services the local residents normally needed. A few things like advanced medical service would still require a long trip to the city. However with highways and automobiles, many residents can now drive to the nearest larger centre for bargain shopping with more choice, forcing local stores out of business and in turn requiring more travel to live in a small centre.

I agree, David. My neighbourhood was built before cars became common, and so is almost walkable- except some services are no longer available downtown! A strange example was that we had to get our car insurance renewed and we had let it expire, and the insurance place was wayo ut in the suburbs. I guess most people never leave their car uninsured for a short period!

That is an interesting point about Garrison Woods having only two private schools in the community. My observation has been that most modern "walkable/smart" communities are designed to offer walkability as a feature, but without losing the conveniences of the car, and it doesn't really work. You end up with certain important things that you have to drive to get to. The only truly walkable neighborhoods that I know of in Canada are that way because they were built before automobiles were dominant, and they work because they are too dense for driving to be very convenient, and built on a large enough scale to provide lots of services and choice in close proximity. It seems like you can't have it all.

In response to Lenore's question, yes I would live in a smart neighbour hoodl In fact I did for three years (Garrison Woods in Calgary). We lived in a refurbished attached home (Garrison Woods is built on a former military base).

I thought I'd look into it a little further and checked out this page http://www.aboutremediation.com/caseStudies/cs_GarrisonWoods.asp. This is an interesting read since it also addresses major barriers encountered and reasons for success. In addition, a local NGO, Sustainable Calgary published a report in 2005 (Towards Smart Growth in Calgary, see http://www.sustainablecalgary.ca/documents/SmartGrowth.pdf). It found that, because Calgary's planning and design standards were developed to make it easier for an automobile based society, the regulatory framework makes it hard for developers to pursue a Smart approach. In fact, it requires special approval. Garrison Woods was developed on public lands by a government agency. You will see from the case study that one of the barriers was the time consuming approval process. In addition, costs were estimated to be 30% higher than a regular development. That's not to say it shouldn't be done but that there needs to be a recognition of these factors since they can be big considerations for developers.

We moved from the community when our children's school (Waldorf School) moved close to the edge of the city limit. That made it more convenient in terms of getting them to school and being close to the community with which we are affiliated. However, it has increased our environmental footprint more than we anticipated. We now drive many more kilometres to get them to activities and get me to and from work. My husband now works at home as do my parents who we now share a home with.

An interesting point about Garrison Woods is that there are two schools in the community, both of which are private schools. I'm not sure why that happened. It's likely that many families still need to transport their children outside of the community for schooling.

LAURA

Claims that we can understand human behavior by bringing in examples from other animals are not really arguments - we can find examples of almost anything in the diversity of the animal kingdom. (How about ants and bats, they don't seem to mind living in close quarters? Oh but what about bears and some cats, they're often solo and need lots of space. Oh but then there are schooling fish and flocking birds - darn)

As for what nature is or is not, everyone seems to have their own idea. I once heard of an environmental studies TA ask their students to list places where they meditated, then claimed those places were examples of nature that we might not think of as nature, because anywhere we meditated must be a piece of nature. Huh? My point may seem absurd, but the idea of "nature" is a human construct, so you can define it however you want, whether you think it can exist in a city or not, or everything is nature, or only large tracts of wilderness are nature.

As for causes of human stress, how about overwork, traffic, fear of poverty after retirement or for our children, fear of crime caused by large gaps in wealth and fear-mongering in the media, or fear of others caused by internalized racism and classism?

If you consider the ecological footprint, the high-density high-rises would have a smaller footprint, compared to medium density developments.

Thus, we should be working on improving open public spaces next to high-rise developments to ensure they not only have the parks, but also jobs and amenities. We should be working on encouring the residents to "own" public spaces, thus reducing the crime.

Here is a website that has a lot of information about public spaces http://www.pps.org/

As Lenore points the consensus amongst progressive planners is to create high density, multi-use, diverse cities is seen to be the best model of urban development. But what about Simon's comment that human beings in dense cities exhibit social stress?

I would suggest the stress is not caused by being near other people in general, but by being near people you don't know, and don't trust - this is caused by a modern society that doesn't value community, as evidenced by the loss of social spaces to the car. I would suspect problems result as a result from isolation from nature casuing pshycological problems (Wilson's Biophilia hypothesis, and Kaplan and Kaplan's work on psychology and experience of nature provides some intruiging evidence of this), lack of good quality well maintained housing (however large in area), and lack of opportunity to socialise with the local community - this doesn't require lower density or more personal space, but better use and design of the land available.

People in North America normally have a ridiculous amount of personal space, even in problem areas of inner cities, compared with other parts of the world. The problem is something else.

Katherine,
I agree that many First Nations may be an example of Tragedy of the Commons but in my First Nation people just want a safe and healthy place to live. They don't care if it is an apartment building or a townhouse.

The Miawpukek Reserve (where I live) is a small reserve compared to others throughout Canada. The total reserve is 541 hectares and I think we still live communally despite living in our own homes. Families tend to live in the same area for generations. For instance, the area where my mother, her parents, and siblings live has been inhabited by my family since at least the 1800's. There is still a sense of family within the community.

There is a general agreement among progressive planners that the model of massive towers surrounded by so called public space doesn't work, as the surrounding area has no stores or workplaces- it becomes a crime filled dead zone. The model of buildings 4-7 stories with retail at the base and workspaces mixed in fronting on a road with transit seems to work well, and makes places such as Paris the exciting cities they are. So it isn't just a question of density, it is the right kind of density that is needed.

Tina,

First Nations on the West Coast used to live in "big houses" or longhouses, with several generations in one house. They had all the land they wanted and they could have lived in separate homes, just like many suburban families, but they chose not to. That seems very sustainable to me.

What you said about valuing communal land seemed to be true in the past, but not now. I visited a lot of First Nations in BC, and spoke about sustainable ways of living with the younger crowd. However, nobody seem to want to live in apartment- or townhouse-style homes just for the sake of propecting common land. Tragedy of the Commons?

I truly believe in the value of high-density living. To me it's going back to the way indigenous people lived for thousands of years - several families and generations on a small piece of land. I think it's a good thing for nature, and if you believe that we are part of nature, it's a good thing for us too. I think it follows the law of nature - use only as much as you need. However, do you think we are seeing too much of a good thing? Do you think the main problem with urban environments is that it's too much high-density towers with not enough open space around?

Most animals have senses that are tuned to the presence of others of their species. If these senses are overwhelmed with an excess of signals telling the animal that others of its kind are around, it experiences stress -- and moves.

This effect is adapted in social animals, which will tolerate the presence of others of their kind if they recognise them as kin.

The problem with city life is that we are animals. Being surrounded by strangers, constantly seeing and hearing strangers, and having to share space with strangers, causes us stress. A small amount of stress is a positive thing -- without it, we are bored -- but too much leads to problems.

Much of the problems experienced in our inner cities closely resemble stress behaviour and territoriality: exactly what we'd expect if we feel overcrowded.

We don't need more green space -- we need more personal space.

Tina, I think you're very fortunate to live in a context so deeply connected with the natural environment and your cultural heritage. I think many city dwellers suffer from a profound lack of connection to these important roots. Relatives may live in remote cities or countries, with all interaction coming through electronic devices. And 'nature' seems to be evident only in the little bits of yard, park, and other greenspace found in the fragmented cityscape.

But, speaking as a city dweller, I'd much rather live in a dense, walkable neighborhood with easy access to shops and services, than a suburban wasteland where every errand requires sitting behind the driver's wheel. But, I'd want it to be a safe and friendly neighborhood, where neighbors know each other, and human connections can develop. And I'd like it all the more if that dense neighborhood had integrated natural features like green roofs and corridors. Even better would be to have such a neighborhood surrounded or interpenetrated by greenspace with ponds and living daylighted streams that support micro ecosystems.

I don't know if there is such a thing as urban nature. In a urban setting nature is forced to adapt to the spaces that are left over. I don't feel comfortable with using this concept of urban nature because it is not "nature" in the sense that I see it. Everyday I see birds, tress, mountains, and the river that exist in conjuction with the other. In this sense "nature" is not an isolated green space surrounded by urban development.
As part of the land use planning in my small community, we try to follow the natural lay of the land so that development does not result in a lost of the natural beauty of the area and minimizes the environmental impact.
Also, I live on an Indian reserve, where all land within its boundaries is deemed to be communal band land. By having this desigantion I think community members are more aware that this land is for all of us and must be protected and used in a sustainable manner. My people have lived in this community since time immemorial;isn't that sustainable smart living?

Jennifer Wolch wrote a great book chapter called "Zoopolis" about how we would all be better off if we incorporated natural elements into cities. It is in a book called "Animal Geographies". I think in a way some cities have such areas by accident- ie Vancouver has so much coastline that there are "pockets" of nature hidden here and there. Her argument was that we should have much more of that, even on the micro level such as nature in a corner of the back yard. Sounded interesting

Is the problem then that urban planners and designers ignore the natural world in the creation of urban settings? The human spirit craves connection with the natural world (whether consciously or unconsciously) so by removing nature from the urban form removes a necessary part of the human life experience. Would more people wish to live in compact urban forms settings if more place and respect was given to nature in those settings? Is it not suburban sprawl and associated infrastructure that disconnects the human from the natural much more than compact developments with associated green/ natural infrastructure.

I live on a small reserve in southern Newfoundland (population of 850) and I hope to continue to live here. My husband's and my family are all nearby, some are within walking distance. If circumstances change and I have to move away to an urban center, I don't think that I would be able to live in a "smart growth" development. I think that it would feel confining as I am used to living in a country setting. Urban dwellers might feel differently as they are used to living in close proximity to others.

It all depends on what a person's worldview is. I feel as part of my culture and hertiage that I am close to nature and I get strength and comfort from living in a natural setting. Nature is a part of me, as I am a part of it. I would not feel comfortable living in any urban setting, whether it is a "smart growth" development or not.