Density vs. sprawl
The Washington Post has noted a Western paradox of crowding amidst the wide-open spaces.
The urbanized area in and around Los Angeles has become the most densely populated place in the continental United States, according to the Census Bureau. Its density is 25 percent higher than that of New York, twice that of Washington and four times that of Atlanta, as measured by residents per square mile of urban land.
And Los Angeles grows more crowded every year, adding residents faster than it adds land, while most metropolitan areas in the Northeast, Midwest and South march in the opposite direction
Odd as it may seem, density is the rule, not an exception, in the wide-open spaces of the West. Salt Lake City is more tightly packed than Philadelphia. So is Las Vegas in comparison with Chicago, and Denver compared with Detroit. Ten of the country's 15 most densely populated metro areas are in the West, where residents move to newly developed land at triple the per-acre density of any other part of the country.In upper-income quarters of metro Los Angeles, density can be an aesthetic kick. When wedded to smart design and careful planning, it is a high-energy stimulant for suburban ennui, luring high-end stores, protecting open space and paying for toll roads that reduce traffic. But in poorer parts of the region, especially where large immigrant families have settled, density is a just fancy word for severe overcrowding.
Among the political implications:
Problems born of overcrowding also have a way of being ignored by politicians, since many residents are illegal or poor or both -- and do not vote.
Leo Brown | August 14, 2005 | Comment on This Post (4 so far) |
Your Name: Your Personal Note: | Your Email: Friends' Emails*: |
Comments
Fascinating. People spread out, and it's condemned as "urban sprawl." People bunch together, and it's condemned as "severe overcrowding." Maybe (radical concept!) both are largely just an artifact of people living their lives the way that they choose, and the market is responding to their desires.
The immigrant poor face problems both in overcrowded cities or in rural farmlands. Let's focus on the actual problems, and not merely the symptoms.
Posted by: Seth Dilday | Aug 14, 2005 1:34:30 PM
I am not saying that density is good or bad or that we should try to force density rather than sprawl or ignore problems. I am saying this is what is happening, and it might be helpful to think about the implications for government and politics, particularly if the political agenda is being set back East in the land of sprawl.
There are a number of public policy implications of the “dense West.” The most obvious is public transportation, which is more viable and more important in higher density populations. There are also implications for building codes, zoning, crime, parks and recreation, schools, water usage, and so forth. Western cities tend to have fewer rings of suburbs than Eastern ones, thus tending to centralize local government. Gun control looks different in an urban environment than a rural one. On the flip side, the low density parts of the West become vacation escape values, e.g. the national parks, or locations for second homes, which in turn may be dense, e.g. condos at ski resorts.
This has played itself out in my life. Three and a half years ago I moved from suburban Chicago (The City that Works) to much denser housing in San Diego (America’s Finest City). I opted for very short commuting and more walking. With local gas at almost $3/gallon, this looks like a good decision. However, while San Diego has been improving public transit, it still has a ways to go. However, the weather here sure beats Chicago weather. See above about walking.
We do not often think of the West as the country’s most urban region, but it is becoming so. The increasing strength of the Democratic Party in the West may track the growing urbanization. The image of the West is and may always be the frontier. The real West of the future, however, is likely to be more urban and more Latino and more Asian than we now imagine. It may be pro-business and socially conservative, but the West of the future will also benefit from good planning and good public policy because of the challenges of high density living.
Posted by: Leo Brown | Aug 15, 2005 6:36:01 PM
Yes, it's the West against the East, right - yes, that will get us somewhere.
LA and Vegas may be more dense than North-eastern cities, but that's not to mean that they possess the nieghborhood spirit that is supposed to result from increased density, and thus give rise to a disposition towards progressive politics. They epitomize suburban sprawl; now, this sprawl is simply taking place on smaller lots than back east.
The worst sprawl of all of course is in the South. No doubt about it. Talk about a dehumanizing place to live.
Portland, Oregon is a city that is creating communities. LA and Vegas are simply crowding crappy tract housing onto smaller lots. They are still far too auto-dependant to create anything like community-induced empathy and thus progressiveness.
LA is also the more conserative urban part of Cali, don't forget that. Vegas is slowly trending more Dem, likely enough to switch it to Dem next time, mostly because of immigration. Salt Lake City, well, ha, are you insane - it's full of mormons, and not the Harry Reid type either! I'm talking about the type that are taught to equate liberal with evil from catechism (or whatever they call their equivalent.)
Oh, and about Vegas, and for that matter Phoenix and LA and even San Diego - talk about a ticking time bomb. When the aquifiers run out and global warming ruins the water inflows from snow runoff, good luck getting water. The only future in the Southwest is a bleak one - come on, does anyone really think having huge cities in the middle of a desert makes much sense. I wonder why none exist in the Sahara.
Oh, one final thing - a bus system is not a mass transit system. You have to want to take one or be forced to. A rail system, like those in NYC or Boston, actually offer convenience and people will take it because they save time. The Southwest isn't the future of urbanity - it's just a continued manifestation of unsustainable growth. What's the point, anyway - California is solidly Democrat and Nevada looks like its going that way, but what, that adds 5 votes?
Posted by: Max Baker | Aug 20, 2005 10:14:36 PM
My intention is not to pit East against West, but rather to suggest that urban solutions may be somewhat different in the West than in the East.
As for Utah, the strength of the Democratic Party in Utah comes from its urban areas. Mayor Rocky Anderson of Salt Lake City is a major Bush critic. Salt Lake City provides the votes that keep Jim Matheson (D-UT) in Congress.
Salt Lake also has a great light rail system, attracting over 44,000 riders a day. In 1999, before the light rail, the Utah Transit Authority carried just over 23 million riders. In 2004, with the light rail, the total was more than 34 million. During peak commuting time, the TRAX light rail system carries the equivalent of a lane of I-15 between Salt Lake and Sandy. It is easier to expand the capacity of light rail than to build more lanes of traffic.
As for the South, our hearts go out to the residents of New Orleans and the stricken Gulf Coast. We have to help each other out when disaster strikes both through charitable donations and government programs.
Posted by: Leo Brown | Sep 1, 2005 2:29:55 PM
Ads by Google
(and yes, we know that sometimes they're very, very wrong. Other times, they're right on.)
