1

Smart Growth: Smart Growth: Threat to the Quality of LifeThreat to the Quality of Life

Presentation byPresentation byWendell CoxWendell Cox

Wendell Cox ConsultancyWendell Cox ConsultancyVisiting ProfessorVisiting Professor

Conservatoire National des Arts et MetiersConservatoire National des Arts et MetiersParisParis

Frontier Frontier Centre Centre for Public Policyfor Public PolicyWinnipegWinnipeg

24 February 200424 February 2004

Experience

2

1. Smart Growth: A Primer2. Rental Car Tour of Europe3. Portland: False Nirvana4. The Role of Home Ownership5. Mass Transit6. Winnipeg Observations7. Growth Inducing Strategies

Smart Growth:Threat to the Quality of Life

OUTLINE

1. Smart Growth: A Primer

3

REALITYCanadians & Americans Happiest in World: Pew

APOCOLYPTIC VIEWThreat of farmland lossWaste of landLoss of communityExcessive public costs

SOLUTIONThe Compact City

(Higher density)Get people out of cars

What is Smart GrowthTHE ANTI-SPRAWL MOVEMENT

Lone Mountain Compact

absent a material threat to other individuals or the community,

people should be allowed to live and work where and how they like.

4

Farmland: 30x-100x Urbanization

1 9 5 0 19960 %

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

Land

Production

Agricultural Productivity

Urban3%

Agricultural97%

Canada: 2001

Statistics Canada: 2001

Manitoba: 2001

Urban1%

Agricultural99%

27,000

117,300

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

Urban Land Farmland Reduction

Farmland Reduction ¼ Urbanization

5

01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,0009,000

10,000

US W. Europe Asia

Vehicle Hours/Square Mile

N O x

CO

N M H C

Air Pollution Least@ 45-55 MPH

Higher Density: More CongestionMORE INTENSE AIR POLLUTION

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

US Paris Hong Kong Tokyo

Higher Density = Longer Commutes

Work TripTravel Time

6

6%

11%

15%

21%

48%

Larger Urban Areas More DenseURBAN LAND AREA BY POPULATION QUINTILE: 2001

4th PopulationQuintile

3rd PopulationQuintile

2nd QuintileMontreal &Vancouver

1st QuintileToronto

5th PopulationQuintile% of

TotalUrbanLandArea

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

Core (1939) Ring 1: 1959 Ring 2: 1979 Ring 3: Later

Newer, Lower Density: Less Spending

>700 USA MunicipalitiesSpending/Capita: 2000

Density9,067

Density5,466

Density2,861

Density2,218

7

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

Quintile 1 Quintile 2 Quintile 3 Quintile 4 Quintile 5

Spending Less in Smaller Cities

Population274,000

Population71,000

Population38,000

Population22,000

Population9,000

>700 USA MunicipalitiesSpending/Capita: 2000

Myth: Jobs-Housing Balance

Job Location17.9%

Other Location17.9%

Neighborhood25.9%

House20.5%

Other Reasons17.7%

Reason forNeighborhood Choice

Hong Kong>1,000,000 of Jobs

Passed

8

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

250

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Obesity

UrbanDensity

Obesity & Land Use: The Myth

Food Consumption UpLand Use Little Changed

2,0021,774

Caloric Intake Trend: Early 1990s

2. Europe from a Rental Car

9

Paris from a Rental Car

Paris suburbs

Suburban Hanover Suburban AntwerpSuburban Copenhagen

Suburban Commercial Development

Copenhagen suburbs

Stockholm Big Box Home Store Stockholm: Arlanda Corridor Strip Development: Paris

10

Urban Land Area ExpansionParis Urban Area1954 1999

Sprawl is caused by affluenceand population growth, and

which of these, exactly, do wepropose to prohibit?

Greg Easterbrook in The New Republic

Planners View: North America?

11

3. Portland: False Nirvana

Urban Growth Boundaries & Other Land Rationing

RationingRaisesPrices

12

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Portland

United States

(Land) Rationing Raises Prices

HOUSING OPPORTUNITY INDEX

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

Other Smart Growth “Climbdowns”MarylandNew JerseyMinneapolis-St. PaulSuburban Washington

DevelopedAcres Plan

Portland Retreats on Densification

2040Plan

Actual2002

More2004?

PortlandVote

AgainstDensity

1997

13

4. The Role of Home Ownership

Purpose of Economic System?% OF NET WORTH IN HOME EQUITY BY INCOME

43% 41%34% 32%

29%33%

29%

16%

65%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

<$20

K

$20-

40K

$40-

50K

$50-

60K

$60-

70K

$70-

80K

$80-

90K

$90-

100K

$100

K+

US Households:1998

Widely Distributed Wealth Creation

14

59.2%65.7%

74.7%

49.1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Core 1st RingSuburbs

2nd RingSuburbs

3rd RingSuburbs

Home Ownership & Sprawl: US

1,002 Municipalities2000

Illegal in PortlandHOUSING OPPORTUNITY IN ATLANTA

Atlanta Suburbs Growth: 1990s

White Non-Hispanic32%

Visible Minorities68%

15

TomásRivera PolicyInstitute:

Land RationingGrowth ControlsImpact Fees

Barriers: Hispanic Home Ownership

Black Home Ownership Higher in Sprawl

55.0%

45.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%Kahn (Tufts University)

LessSprawl

MoreSprawl

Home Ownership Rate

Affordability Driven by Land Regulation

…high prices have little to do with … a free market for land.

Instead, our evidence suggests that zoning and other land use controls play the dominant role in making housing expensive.

PRICE ESCALATING DYNAMICSLand prices riseInfill costs moreLess competitionBuilders move “up-market”

16

5. Mass Transit

Transit55%

Highways & Other45%

Transit3%Highways

97%

Winnipeg Transit Share > Portland

14%

7%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

Winnipeg Portland

17

Why Are All These DriversNot on the Train?

Picture fromAlternative Master Transportation

Plan for the City of Toronto

Auto(Green Area)

Transit(Lines)

Auto-Competitive

Transit in Portland

Auto access far greater than transit

30 MinuteTravel Access

From SuburbanLocation

18

Urban Area Auto Competitive

Transit WouldRequire Dismantling

Suburbs

Ceaucescu: Father of Smart GrowthTRANSIT IS DOING ALL IT CAN

6. Winnipeg Observations

19

Winnipeg More Dense than Portland

1,407

1,209

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

Winnipeg Portland

Population perSquare KM

W inn ipeg & Po r t l and Dens i t y

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

P o p u l a t i o n p e r S q u a r e K M b y L a n d A r e a

Dec i le ( 1 0 % ) : 2 0 0 1 & 2 0 0 0 : C e n s u s T r a c t s

> 4 0 0 / K M 2

P o r t l a n d

W i n n i p e g

Winnipeg & Portland: Density Profile

20

Metropolitan Population: 1951-2001

1951 1976 2 0 0 10%

100%

200%

300%

400%

500%

600%

Winnipeg

Vancouver

TorontoOttawa-Hul l

Edmonton

Calgary

MontrealHamiltonQuebecLondon

Metropolitan Population: 1951-2001WINNIPEG DROPS FROM 4 TH TO 8TH

Making Winnipeg a Better City

EducationTaxesCrime

Services

21

7. Growth & Income Inducing PoliciesSERVING PEOPLE NOT PLANNING IDEOLOGY

43% 41%34% 32%

29%33%

29%

16%

65%

Lone Mountain Compact

absent a material threat to other individuals or the community,

people should be allowed to live and work where and how they like.

22

The Universal Dream: People First

Honjo (Tokyo suburb)

People FirstNot Bricks, Mortar

or Urban Form

Wendell Cox Consultancypublicpurpose.comdemographia.com

email: policy@publicpurpose.com