What we're really talking about is compact, connected development

Nigel sends us a link to a blog entry from a neighborhood association in Northampton, Massachusetts, "Financial Incentives Distort Smart Growth Debates." This piece is by Randal O'Toole, an intelligent anti "smart growth" advocate. The association says that it:

supports Northampton's efforts to discourage unmanaged sprawl. However, compact growth must not come at the expense of urban quality of life. It must be carefully managed to avoid disruptive changes to neighborhoods, surges in property taxes, crime, congestion, loss of greenspace, noise and pollution.

Yet it supports the anti-compact development positions of O'Toole.

The problem with "smart growth" is that the concept is one of marginal improvement.

The "smartest growth" is infill development that makes little substantive demand on extant infrastructure. (Where the marginal increase in demand is met by extant infrastructure.)

Typically, smart growth projects are greenfield development, so added infrastructure at the project and district level is required at a minimum. Relatedly, typical new urban projects are greenfield projects. They promote walkability at the neighborhood scale, but at the scale of a district or county or region, such projects add to sprawl.

This is true for a couple reasons. Typically, the projects are far from the core of the region, and the ability to provide efficient (cost and time) transit is remote. DC is resurging because it is compactly developed already, and the addition of fast transit infrastructure (the subway system) re-monetized the value of compact urban design.

Anyway, back to the piece. It focuses on incentives provided to "smart growth" projects. The real issue is that most if not all new developments in the suburbs and exurbs are incentivized directly or indirectly. Without looking at that, whether or not a specific project is "smart growth," misses the most important point. (In the old days, subdivision developers paid for infrastructure and expanded infrastructure. The holder of the streetcar franchise built Connecticut Ave. NW for example.)

Similarly, there is a letter to the editor in yesterday's Lancaster (PA) Intelligencer Journal about the negatives of "density," that losing farmland in Lancaster County damages the local economy.

I found this interesting because the writer equated sprawl with "density." Downtown Lancaster is an amazing place. It is a definition of compact development, with buildings predating 1900 that are larger and attached compared to most neighborhoods in Washington, DC (the height of buildings in the core of Lancaster is comparable to Georgetown and Dupont Circle, although some of the DC buildings are bigger and/or more ornate).

They have a thriving local economy based on agriculture, industry (some being employee owned), and tourism. They have bus-based transit service. Plus, and this is worth a masters thesis level exegesis, the amount of locally owned retail is incredible--including independent supermarkets, selling food at prices better than most chain supermarkets in DC and its suburbs! (Lancaster's Central Market, a public market similar but much larger than DC's Eastern Market, kicks!)

Compact development, connected by transit, will save farmland. Farther out (we are staying near the border of Lancaster and Berks Counties) there are blots of compact development, such as old Adamstown, but they are surrounded by new subdivisions with large houses on big lots.

That's what's taking up farmland, not "density" places like the core of Adamstown or Ephrata or the core of Lancaster City.

Smart growth is too broad a term. We need to talk about compact development (the size of buildings and lots and urban design) and connected development (linked to extant infrastructure including transit).

If it adds to sprawl, it isn't smart, regardless of the incremental improvements over conventional forms of housing and retail development.

Whether it is "smart growth" or "new urban," sprawl is sprawl.