Answers to frequently asked questions about cities and their relationship to our rapidly deteriorating natural environment:
This is supposed to be a website about saving the environment. So why is there so much discussion about city planning?
There are several reasons. One is that by improving the quality of life in cities and towns, we can help reduce urban sprawl. A second is that cities are massive consumers of resources and sources of pollution.
What is wrong with urban sprawl?
Urban sprawl consumes a vast, and ever-growing, amount of land. Much of it occurs on habitat for a variety of species of animals and plants, some of which are rare or endangered. And much occurs on prime agricultural land, particularly in the U.S., but also in many developing countries. Sprawl also increases the amount of infrastructure required per capita, including roads, water pipelines and electricity transmission lines. In addition, it reduces walkability and the efficiency of public transportation, thus requiring more trips to be made by automobile and consequently resulting in more air pollution and other forms of environmental damage caused by road transportation.
How can better designed cities and towns reduce sprawl?
Improvements to cities and towns can make them more attractive to some people for living and working and thus provide a good alternative to sprawl.
People like living in spread-out suburbs. They don't want to be forced to live in cities.
Rather than talking about "forcing" people to move to compact cities and towns, the emphasis should be on both making cities and towns a more attractive option and eliminating government policies that exist in some countries that promote sprawl at the expense of cities. Actually, people are frequently forced to live in suburbs, often distant suburbs, because many cities have become quite unlivable.
What needs to be done to make cities more attractive for living?
There are many things, including reducing crime, reducing air pollution, reducing noise pollution, lowering the cost of living, increasing walkability, improving cleanliness, improving transportation, increasing civility, and increasing amenities.
What types of government policies promote sprawl at the expense of cities?
They can vary considerably according to the country, city, region, etc. Among them are policies that subsidize sprawl by not charging fully for the much greater infrastructure and services costs per capita for low density suburbs. An example is road construction and maintenance costs. Likewise, in some countries sprawl is subsidized by subsidizing gasoline prices.
The building of freeways through high density urban areas can also be viewed as a form of subsidy to sprawl because it makes it more convenient for people in distant suburbs to enter or pass through cities while at the same time reducing the quality of life in the cities through increased noise and air pollution and reducing space for housing, parks and other purposes.
Another example, which is still extremely common in the U.S., is the existence of minimum parking requirements for new construction, such as one parking space per inhabitant. This can add substantially to land acquisition costs and the cost of construction in high density urban areas, and it can likewise reduce the availability of land for housing and other purposes.
What are the biggest complaints about living in cities?
They include crime, air pollution, inadequate transportation, noise, and the high cost of housing.
What specifically should be done to improve the quality of life in cities?
The quality of life in cities varies greatly according to various factors, including the country and the region. Some dense cities, particularly in Europe and parts of East Asia, already are very attractive places to live. However, others, including in some developed countries, and particularly in the United States, have serious problems that make most people prefer living in the, often distant, suburbs.
One of the most important things that can be done is reducing automobile transportation while improving alternative transportation. This has the benefits of reducing air pollution and noise and also increasing walkability. Numerous successful examples of this have been implemented in Europe in the past several decades, including through creating pedestrian zones and transit malls and charging fees for the entry of automobiles into central areas. Very often, this pedestrianization has been accompanied by installing tramways (referred to in some countries as light rail), or reinstalling them where they were previously scrapped in favor of increasing automobile traffic, and adding a variety of amenities including trees, benches, artwork, restrooms, vendors, public service booths, etc.
Noise could be reduced not only be lessening automobile traffic but also by improving building codes to require new residential buildings to be soundproof and to add soundproofing to existing buildings when renovating. One of the most important aspects of soundproofing is replacing single glazed windows with double or triple glazed windows. Such windows can also result in a substantial reduction in energy consumption for heating and cooling.
Reducing or eliminating automobile lanes on streets (sometimes referred to as road diets ) not only allows more space for pedestrians and alternative transportation, but also makes space available for more trees. Adding trees both enhances the attractiveness of streets and also helps improve air quality and mitigate extremes of temperature, thus helping to reduce energy devoted to air conditioning. Adding trees also makes walking more pleasant, particularly in hot weather, and may have other psychological benefits as well.
Do cities have enough space to increase housing?
It depends on the city. Very often the most unlivable cities and their inner suburbs have much excess space that could be used for housing and parks. Such excess space is often occupied by parking lots and brownfields. Additional space can be obtained in some cities through freeway removal, a once unimaginable process that has been becoming increasingly popular in the U.S.
But wouldn't it be prohibitively expensive to make cities more attractive as a place to live?
Not necessarily. In fact, it could actually result in saving money in the long term, in addition to its environmental and other benefits. Cities are constantly getting rebuilt anyway. This includes historic districts, in which buildings are upgraded while preserving their historic character. Also, in some cases savings could be achieved by eliminating the, often hidden, subsidies for distant suburbs and sprawl.