"People generally prefer to live with a little bit more space and the mobility that only the car gives them," said Wendell Cox, one of the movement's most noted critics. He derides smart growth as "the opiate of the planners."
"That is a very difficult problem for people who believe we should live in higher densities to solve. In fact, it's impossible."
The Maple Lawn Farms Community in Howard County is designated a smart-growth area suited for high-density development, but its density will be well below both what was originally projected and smart-growth norms.
(Ricky Carioti -- The Washington Post)
|
| | | | | | | | | | ______ Spreading Sprawl ______ • The Role of Government
County policies deflect growth rather than control it.
• The Price Commuters Pay
To live in housing they can afford, many people drive a long way to work.
• The Limits of Smart Growth
To planners, density is a good thing. But not to everyone.
______ Graphics ______ • How Far Will We Grow?
Satellite images show the expansive growth of the Washington area since 1986.
• Super-Commuters
Some residents are commuting roughly an hour or more to work.
• No Shift in Howard County
Rural areas have grown in lock step with growth areas in Howard County. ______ Multimedia ______ • Audio: Washington Post reporter Peter Whoriskey discusses the Post's series Washington-area sprawl.
______ Live Discussions ______ • Transcript: Washington Post reporter Peter Whoriskey discussion on area sprawl.
• Transcript: Gerrit Knaap of the University of Maryland Smart Growth Center fielded your questions. | | | | | | | |
_____Growth and Development_____
•
Washington's Road to Outward Growth (The Washington Post, Aug 9, 2004)
•
Space for Employers, Not for Homes (The Washington Post, Aug 8, 2004)
•
Arrival of Metro Could Transform Tysons (The Washington Post, Aug 7, 2004)
•
Loudoun Looks at Settling Lawsuits (The Washington Post, Jul 27, 2004)
•
Md. Panel Backs Study Of Rte. 32 Widening (The Washington Post, Jul 22, 2004)
•
More Stories
|
| |
|
In this, he echoes some county leaders in Maryland who continue to question smart-growth objectives.
"Smart growth is inconsistent with the American dream of a big home on a five-acre lot," said David Bliden, executive director of the Maryland Association of Counties, which opposed Glendening's effort as an unreasonable intrusion into counties' power to regulate building. "The concept of a higher authority, of a Big Brother, is inconsistent with the democratic principles that have to be intertwined with land use management."
Advocates of smart growth argue that better-designed neighborhoods -- such as the fashionable neo-traditional towns with nostalgic architecture sprouting at Kentlands in Gaithersburg -- will make denser neighborhoods not only tolerable but also attractive to home buyers.
In an interview at his offices at the Smart Growth Leadership Institute, where he consults with government officials about smart-growth issues, Glendening acknowledged the difficulties facing the program but also noted its achievements.
Among them: The state spent more than $130 million acquiring nearly 52,000 acres of rural land for preservation; hundreds of millions of state school construction dollars were shunted toward established towns and cities rather than rural areas; some counties -- notably, Wicomico, Calvert and Washington -- have strengthened restrictions on developing rural land.
The program's most significant achievement, he said, was one of consciousness.
"We made it a public issue -- that's probably the most important thing," he said. "Episodically, you can point to all kinds of successes. . . . [But] we did not get here -- meaning sprawl and the abandonment of existing communities -- we did not get here overnight. The nation worked very hard for 60 years to develop the system that we've got. . . . So it's like changing the course of the Queen Elizabeth. You can just barely see it start to move."
Aside from the power of local opposition to undo smart growth, critics have pointed out other problems. Some local governments mapped smart-growth areas on land that should have been preserved as rural. Others, after choosing sensible smart-growth boundaries, made it too easy for developers to build in the natural areas outside them.
But if there's one thing that developers, home builders and environmentalists can agree on, it's that the financial incentives for developing inside the smart-growth areas have proved too weak.
"I don't think the dollars ever flowed in the amounts they needed to flow," said David Flanagan of Elm Street Development, a firm that has developed projects inside and outside smart-growth areas. "The idea behind smart growth was probably sound, but the execution and funding. . . . I think the rate of sprawl is faster today than I've ever seen it."
The smart-growth laws are still on the books, and Ehrlich last fall announced his own program intended to revitalize Maryland's cities. "It has always been in the Ehrlich administration's plans to build upon the smart-growth program by preserving its core mission: to encourage redevelopment of older communities and neighborhoods," said Shareese N. DeLeaver, a spokeswoman for the governor.
But in other ways, Ehrlich has not seemed committed to the program or its goals. He has eliminated the job of smart-growth secretary, a Cabinet-level position under Glendening. And environmentalists cite Ehrlich's support for road projects such as the intercounty connector and the widening of Route 32 in Howard County as evidence of his lack of commitment.
