Part II of the assignment #7

A newspaper article:
“Smart Growth” taking hold in U.S. cities, study says (New York Times, published in March 24, 2010)
(http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/03/24/24greenwire-smart-growth-taking-hold-in-us-cities-study-sa-30109.html?scp=4&sq=sustainable%20planning&st=cse)

This article deals with the changing trend of urban redevelopment since the 2000s in terms of metropolitan regions’ sustainable planning systems. Through U.S. Census residential building permit data for the 50 largest metropolitan regions over a 19-year period (1990 to 2008), the EPA shows that there has been a fundamental shift in the real estate market, including “a dramatic increase in the share of new construction built in central cities and older suburbs.” Considering the main focus of this study from the EPA report, urban development trends of metropolitan regions, this is related to urban (development) policy issues and focuses on city (or local) government planning for sustainability, I think.

As several scholars mentioned the conceptual and intrinsic ambiguities of sustainability and sustainable development, it is hard for us to reach a consensus on how we define sustainability and what factor(s) or perspective(s), of ecological, economic, environmental, and social sustainability, should be considered more than others. Under this circumstance, I will use the definitions of sustainability that Solow, Goodland, and Wheeler generally mentioned: It is a comprehensive concept, including a series of actions for preserving existing stocks of ecological and social capital, improving long-term health of human and ecological systems, and helping make human communities and natural environments healthier while seeking higher quality (and values).

According to the analysis of the EPA report, urban development at the local level in the United States focuses on two research questions: (1) “if there has been a shift toward urban redevelopment,” and (2) “in which regions the shift has been most significant.” The empirical findings show that (1) redevelopment of urban centers has continued to outpace construction in the outskirts of suburb areas and (2) this acceleration of residential construction in urban neighborhoods reflects a fundamental shift in the real estate market. This development trend supports the viewpoints of environmentalists who would conserve “untouched land while reducing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.” Moreover, it also has similar policy orientations toward the Obama administration's “Partnership for Sustainable Communities” (http://www.epa.gov/dced/partnership/index.html), run jointly by the EPA, the Transportation Department, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Focusing on the “livability” initiative that this program orients toward, U.S. cities’ urban redevelopment trend since the 2000s tends to approach ecological and environmental sustainability, like “improving building-level energy efficiency, cutting greenhouse gas emissions through transit-oriented development, and taking advantage of other locational efficiencies.”

In spite of increasing sustainability in terms of ecological and economic sustainability regarding urban redevelopment since the 2000s, many large-scale redevelopment projects still require changes in local regulations or public infrastructure investments in order to move forward. A recent national survey provides an indication of just how common infrastructure adequacy and inflexible parking regulations are as a barrier to redevelopment. Sixty percent of developers stated that projects are constrained by a lack of infrastructure and seventy percent consider minimum parking requirements a significant burden on their typical development projects (Urban Land Institute, 2009). Additionally, some potentially viable redevelopment sites face the burden of real or perceived contamination and need assistance to evaluate conditions and conduct any necessary clean up. The clear trend toward more redevelopment has a couple key implications for smart growth: (1) regions often cited as leaders in promoting growth management and redevelopment (Portland, Denver, Sacramento and Atlanta) are among the medium sized cities where the shift inward has been most dramatic; (2) In metropolitan regions with large and diverse central cities with strong ties to the global economy (New York, Chicago, Boston, Miami, Los Angeles) the market fundamentals are shifting toward redevelopment even in the absence of formal policies and programs at the regional level.

The case analysis on the urban redevelopment trend at the local or regional level does provide a broad picture of the magnitude and direction of residential construction trends across the country. Although it is hard to generalize, land-use regulations, infrastructure provisions, and incentive programs strongly influence these trends driven by real estate market fundamentals. Specifically, in regions where urban core communities’ share of new construction has increased, some projects, like transit-oriented development, high-rise buildings in prime waterfront or downtown locations, redevelopment of former industrial sites, redevelopment of strip commercial parcels or large underutilized parking lots, are driving forces for this trend. Besides, in regions where urban fringe development is still increasing its share, continued decentralization of employment, a weak overall housing market, and deficiencies in urban core infrastructure are likely to be seen.

Although this article focuses on the city governments’ sustainable urban planning and development, the EPA report and this article show us the general trends of urban redevelopment in terms of a national context. That is, this article attempts to see a comprehensive urban redevelopment trend including all the state and city levels. Under the lack of federal leadership on housing and transportation policy, city governments’ efforts to improve local energy efficiency and preserve local environments through decreasing pollution rates at the local level can be possible through the effective implementation of “smart growth.” However, such findings regarding urban redevelopment in the metropolitan regions may simply indicate that sustainability planning is in its early stages and intergovernmental consensus or political backing has not yet emerged for the most meaningful changes. As this article mentions, urban redevelopment toward the city center caused changes in demographic variation of those living in urban centers and building structures, like decreasing single-family homes but increasing multi-family developments such as apartment complexes and blocks of condominiums. However, we don’t know how exactly a series of shifts regarding urban redevelopment toward “smart growth” influences sustainable development at each level of government (the federal, state, and local levels) and their interaction (or intra-governmental relations). As Wheeler mentioned, how well the Three Es – economy, environment, and equity – are balanced and reflected at the local sustainable planning framework depends on local governments’ capacity and will toward sustainable development and their capacity to connect specific policy and program changes in a meaningful way.