Towards a New (federal) Urban Agenda

The urbanists list links to a blog entry from Grist on the environmental and energy policy folks involved in the Obama campaign, "Obama's energy and climate advisors." It's a list of heavy hitters, but not necessarily people oriented to significant transformation.

(Relatedly, Streetsblog reports that at the Rocky Mountain Roundtable conference, aligned with the Democratic National Convention, there was a workshop on funding transportation, featuring among others, the director of the NYC Department of Transportation. See "Sadik-Khan to Discuss Transpo Funding at the Democratic Convention.")

This shows the need for an alternative policy paper on what would be the ideal Federal Urban Agenda. It was suggested that John Norquist, former mayor of Milwaukee, now president of the Congress of New Urbanism, could join an Obama Administration. People like John Norquist would be great additions to the federal government, as probably would be any of the people at the Center for Neighborhood Technology, like Scott Bernstein or Jacky Grimshaw, who may well have some relationships with people in the Obama camp, since they are based in Chicago.

The US Department of Housing and Urban Development is really about affordable housing more than it is about urban revitalization, at least in terms of revitalization of vital places, rather than redevelopment.

The work done by John Prescott and the work by the equivalent UK agency far surpasses what is done at the national level here. The way that the UK has a form of national planning couldn't be adopted here, but just as the US Department of Commerce created model codes in the 1920s, which became the basis of the organization of local planning and building codes, a federal agency focused on "sustainabile land use and transportation" could put out PPG--"Planning Policy Guidance"--reports to shape the discourse and way of planning at the local level. And having allied organizations like the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment and English Partnerships makes for a better discourse, and provides a means to make better projects happen..

But the UK, in terms of selling it, or the narrative, or the touchpoint of what matters to people, focuses on community, calling the agency the Dept. of Communities and Local Government.

There are bits and pieces, of course the Smart Growth Office at EPA. The Dept. of Energy has a small smart growth unit and supports the development of alternative fuel technologies and renewable energy development.

The US Department of Transportation could have a far better focus on mobility other than than automobile, and the Federal Transit Administration needs an overhaul in terms of its support of fixed rail transit. Plus having a national passenger railroad plan, which I don't think we really have. And the gasoline excise tax and funding transit more generally.

Then there are relevant bits and pieces in other agencies including the Economic Development Administration of the Dept. of Commerce, not to mention its support, or almost lack thereof, of tourism. The flip side of promoting tourism is that it is about making better places and destination development (balanced against the problems of touristification), and doing that helps make places better for the people who live there.

Then there is the US Department of Agriculture, both in terms of promoting access to food and farmers and public markets, but also rural development. The USDA Extension Service is the foundation of the field of community development in the United States. I use many resources produced by various extension programs and their university affiliates, even if their target audience is supposedly rural. The University of Wisconsin Extension Service Center for Community Economic Development is one of the best resources out there in terms of community development. Plus, how about an urban agriculture and foodways agenda?

Then there is the US Department of Health and Human Services and the link between built environment and mobility and health, plus wellness issues, plus reorganizing how health and wellness services are delivered generally and within urban populations. (All About Cities makes an interesting point about automobility, air quality, and health effects, in "What the Olympics teach us about urban health" and today's Post has an interesting article about improving the delivery of health care services that has implications for urban populations, "Making Practices Perfect.")

And while there needs to be an assistance program with regard to getting schooling improved, I am not sure the federal "No Child Left Behind" initiative coordinated by the US Department of Education was the best way to go about it.

So I think there could be a great New Urban Agenda by the Democrats, although I don't think I see it yet...
-----
Land use shapes economic and foreign policy, balance of payments, etc., because as long as we have an automobile-centric land use policy, the country needs lots of gasoline. As long as the country needs lots of gasoline, our foreign policy is beholden to oil.

A new land use paradigm that isn't dependent on oil has many benefits, from reduced energy consumption to greater disposable income on the part of households who don't need to spend as much (or no money) on cars. OTOH, it's not so good for the people dependent on the automobile manufacturing, servicing, and financing industries.