key issue #4: why do suburbs have distinctive problems? suburban problems – since 1950, suburban...

Key Issue #4: Why Do Suburbs Have Distinctive Problems?

• Suburban Problems– Since 1950, suburban population in U.S. has grown from 20% of U.S. to 50%– Central city 40% to 30% (“hollowing out” of cities)– Small towns/rural 40% to 20%

• The Peripheral Model– Strong desire for suburban living in U.S. (even increasing in Western Europe)– Suburban attractions: detached, single-family dwellings; private land/yard;

space to park (garage/driveway/carport); more opportunity to own instead of rent; less stress; more privacy; more space for children; less crime; less traffic/congestion; better schools; less trash; newer homes/services/amenities

– Suburbs lack inner-city problems, but have own problems (sprawl & segregation)

– Peripheral Model (Galactic City Model) by Harris• Central city surrounded by inner suburbs (older)• Surrounded by a beltway or loop road (like an interstate loop)


• The Peripheral Model– Peripheral Model (Galactic City Model) by Harris

• Edge cities have formed around beltway• Edge cities began as bedroom communities for workers in central city• Later shopping malls/retail built, then office & industrial parks built• Edge cities formed into specialized nodes as clustering continued and airports,

theme parks, distribution centers located around the beltway• Edge cities have seen an increase in residential density (condos, townhomes, etc.)• A galactic city is a post-industrial city surrounded by edge cities• Technoburb – edge city/suburb focused on research/tech production

– Density Gradient• Density declines as distance from CBD increases• Inner-city – average of 100 dwellings per acre• Old suburbs – 4 to 5 dwellings per acre• New suburbs – 1 to 4 dwellings per acre• Fringes/periphery – 2-4 acres minimum for each dwelling• Density gradient is the gradual change of density as distance from CBD changes


• The Peripheral Model– Density Gradient

• 2 changes have occurred to density gradient– # of people in center has decreased (gap in center)– Increase in density in the suburbs (more apartments, row houses, small lots)

• Now, density in center is almost equal to density in suburbs (density gradient has been flattened)

• Europe – low-income high rises in suburbs; very few detached homes on large lots; suburban and urban density almost equal also

– Cost of Suburban Sprawl• Sprawl – progressive spread of development over the landscape• Developers seek cheap land (may not be contiguous to built-up

area)• Many people desire large tracts of land with detached homes• Inefficient in U.S. (creates a “Swiss-cheese” effect with gaps)


• The Peripheral Model– Cost of Suburban Sprawl

• Negatives:– Cost to extend roads & utilities (paid by taxes or by developer with cost passed on

to buyers)– Wastes land – loss of prime agricultural land, land sits unused until opportune time– Wastes energy – more fuel for cars, car-centric (little to no public transit)

• In Europe & UK – severe restrictions; designate mandatory open space (greenbelts) to protect rural areas and reduce sprawl

• House prices in Europe on periphery have increased greatly due to restrictions on supply

– Suburban Segregation• 2 ways:

– Residential separated from commercial & industrial activities; each activity is confined to distinct areas/corridors

– Each community built for a single social class; others excluded by cost, size, location


• The Peripheral Model– Suburban Segregation

• Homogenous neighborhoods a 20th century phenomenon (vertical class-separation before, now horizontal)

• Large sections developed with similar house sizes, lot sizes, & costs to appeal to similar people

• Zoning ordinances – developed in early 20th century in Europe & N. America; encourage spatial separation; preventing mixing of land uses in same district (single family homes separated from multi-family; residential from industry & commercial); sets max densities

• Biggest criticism – low-income & minorities excluded from suburbs due to costs, attitudes of suburban residents, etc.

• Zoning laws & regulations enforced by Code Enforcement• Restrictive covenants – additional restrictions placed on properties by a

neighborhood (through a Homeowner’s Association/HOA)• GI Bill (Service’s Readjustment Act) – after WW2; allowed veterans to apply for

low-interest loans for mortgages– Contributed to growth of suburbs post-WW2


• Contribution of Transportation to Suburbanization– Sprawl increases dependence on automobiles & public transit (if

available) for transportation (too far to walk)– Railroad in 1800s – allowed commuting from suburbs– Cities built street railways (trolleys/trams/streetcars) and underground

or elevated railways (subways/el-trains)– Streetcar suburbs – houses & shops clustered around a rail station or

stop (had to walk to station, so relatively high density to cluster around station)

– Motor Vehicles• Suburban expansion in 1900s relied on automobiles (especially in US)• Autos more flexible than rail (allow lower density, more dispersed suburbs)• Car ownership now nearly universal in U.S. (except low-income and central city

residents of VERY large cities like NYC)• 95% of all trips in U.S. are made by car/truck• Heaviest traffic flow is into CBD in morning and out of CBD in evening


• Contribution of Transportation to Suburbanization– Motor Vehicles

• U.S. public transit is rare, not extensive, or non-existent outside of the very large cities

• U.S. government has encouraged automobiles– Interstate highways (since 1950s); federally funded– Government policies to keep gas prices lower

• Average U.S. city allocates 25% of land to roads & parking (paved); about 1/3 of CBD used for parking

• Modern freeways at least 6 lanes through a city and take up at least 75 feet with large interchanges

• Wide streets with 5-7 lanes (medians, turn lanes) not needed except at rush hour

• Heavy car use leads to pollution, traffic jams, lost time in commuting (perhaps up to 2 hours a day in big cities)

• Policies to reduce traffic: toll roads, HOV (high-octane vehicles) lanes for buses & carpooling, smart-pass lanes (toll with badges scanned)


• Contribution of Transportation to Suburbanization– Motor Vehicles

• Technology – intelligent transportation systems (ITS) with message signs for traffic/construction alerts; GPS suggests alternate routes

• Preference is still for private vehicles over public transportation (flexibility, freedom, identity)

– Public Transportation• Rush-Hour Commuting

– Intense concentration in CBD during work hours (higher daytime population)– Large # of people must reach a small area from a wide area from all directions

at the same time in the morning & leave at the same time in the evening– Public transit is cheaper, less polluting, & more energy efficient (better at

bringing a large # into a small area)» Bus (30 people) compared to auto (1-6 people)» A double-track rapid transit train can carry same as 16 lanes of freeway» Autos & roads require maintenance & upgrades


• Contribution of Transportation to Suburbanization– Public Transportation• Rush-Hour Commuting

– Average American loses 36 hours in traffic jams & wastes 55 gallons of gas annually

– Cost of congestion – over $1 billion per year (overlooked because people prefer privacy & flexibility of cars)

– Only 5% of work trips are on public transit (fewer trips, miles of track, & cities with trolley/train service since 1940s)

– GM bought streetcar companies & made buses» Buses more flexible (use road)» Decline in bus ridership by almost 50% since 1940s)» Some cities have Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) with dedicated bus-

only lanes (Toronto, Cleveland, Salt Lake City)


• Contribution of Transportation to Suburbanization– Public Transportation

• New Rapid Transit Lines– One exception to decline of public transportation is rapid transit

» Fixed heavy rail (subways, trains, el-trains)» Fixed light rail (streetcars, thinner/lighter trains)

– Boston & Chicago have built new lines & modernized existing to attract new riders (Chicago has also built in interstate medians)

– Newer systems in Atlanta, Miami, San Francisco, Washington DC– Federal funding to fix/expand; 4% annual increase in ridership since 1995– Trolley or light rail transit

» Tourist attraction in New Orleans & San Francisco» New in Buffalo, Baltimore, Calgary, Edmonton, LA, Portland, Sacramento,

St. Louis, San Diego, San Jose, Charlotte, Memphis» Low ridership & few miles worth of track; expensive construction» California is a pioneer in light rail (San Diego most miles, big plans in LA

which is very car-dominated)


• Contribution of Transportation to Suburbanization– Public Transportation• Service vs. Cost

– Low-income may not own autos but may not be able to afford public transit

– Low-skill jobs often moving to suburban areas (not well-served by public transit); company vans may have to transport workers

– Cities have difficulty attracting jobs & workers– Hard to pay for public transit (fares do not cover costs)– Customer decline, fares increase, more customers leave– Not sufficient public funding like in Europe– Europe considers public transit an essential public service


• Contribution of Transportation to Suburbanization– Public Transportation• Public Transit in Other Countries

– MDCs in Western Europe and Japan» Many have high auto ownership» Still maintain and expand bus, tram, train, & subway networks» Considered a public service; heavily subsidized» High gas prices (high gas taxes)» More dense (more efficient for public transit & pedestrians)

– LDCs in East Asia and Latin America expanding service– London has opened 35 miles of subway (London Underground was world’s 1st

subway) since 1960s and 25 miles of light rail– Paris has added 250 new miles of subway/heavy rail for suburbs– France has built in smaller cities like Lille, Lyon, Marseille– Growth in suburbs has stimulated non-residential construction (shops, offices,

industry)– Japan has pioneered high-speed rail (bullet train) & monorails


• Local Government Fragmentation– Government fragmentation makes it difficult to solve regional

traffic & sprawl problems (also waste disposal, building of affordable housing, other services)• Example: 1,400 local governments in NYC area, 1,100 in Chicago area, &

over 20,000 in U.S.• 40% of 20,000 are cities & counties (rest are special agencies for

school/fire/sanitation/transportation/water)• Response by fire/police/ambulance difficult at boundaries

– Inner-city problems spread into older/inner suburbs (cannot generate revenue to pay for services)• Low income pushed out by filtering/deterioration• Low income pushed out by gentrification• Middle & high income attracted by renovation/gentrification• Middle & high income pushed further out to newer suburbs on periphery


• Local Government Fragmentation– Metropolitan Government• Coordination of governments or specific agencies to guide or

replace many small local units• Council of government – cooperative planning agency with

representatives from different local governments in metro region

• Memphis-Shelby County combined agencies – library, schools, engineering, planning, port commission, industrial development, airport, metropolitan planning, transportation/roads/trolley/bus

• 2 types of strong metro-wide governments:① Federations

» Toronto – federation in 1953 with 13 municipalities becoming 1 government


• Local Government Fragmentation– Metropolitan Government• 2 types of strong metro-wide governments:

② Consolidations» U.S. – county & city governments combine with government functions

handled singularly» Louisville-Jefferson, Jacksonville-Duvall, Nashville-Davidson,

Indianapolis-Marion, Miami-Dade (Miami boundaries does not match county boundaries)

» New York City – 5 counties/boroughs operating as 1 city (Manhattan, Bronx, Brooklyn, Staten Island, Queens)

– Smart Growth• States & local governments taking steps to curb sprawl, reduce

traffic congestion, & reverse inner-city decline• Goal is to create pattern of compact & contiguous development

(no gaps) and to protect environment


• Local Government Fragmentation– Smart Growth• Government enact smart growth legislation to limit sprawl

– Higher density– Dedicated open spaces– Mixed use development (mixing of densities, mixing of uses such as

residential/commercial/public/park, & mixing of incomes)– Master planned developments – encourage developers to provide holistic

plan with multiple uses & densities (Ex. Schilling Farms)– “New Urbanism” – attempt to make communities more walkable/bikable,

more pedestrian-friendly, more “green” construction, more architectural detail, wider range of housing & uses, & historical preservation» Also encourage redevelopment of brownfield sites

(abandoned/underused industrial land with potentially hazard materials handled)

» Brownfield is NOT superfund sites – superfund sites are highly toxic with EPA designated clean-up requirements


• Local Government Fragmentation– Smart Growth

• Maryland has used smart growth policies since 1998 to limit new highway extensions or expansions; cannot extend sprawl or destroy farmland; state money helps encourage infill in urbanized area gaps

• Oregon & Tennessee have required municipalities to define urban growth boundaries (annexation reserves)

• New Jersey, Rhode Island, & Washington were early leaders in smart growth policies

• Decentralized cities – multiple nodes, lack of a true CBD• Planned cities – carefully planned since inception– Washington DC, Canberra (Australia), Brasilia, New Delhi,

Islamabad• Gateway cities – cities that serve as major points of entry for

a country (airport, seaport)

key issue #4: why do suburbs have distinctive problems? suburban problems – since 1950, suburban...

Documents