Ewing's article discussed how compact development will help with urban development, travel distance, and even CO2 emissions. If compact development is instituted and more commonly implemented, then the miles that people drive to work/recreation will decrease. Also, people might instead walk or bike to work, also creating better health conditions. Some of the things they wanted to implement include:
- cap and trade
- greenhouse gasses being federally regulated
- state spending will align with climate and smart growth goals
- pedestrian and bicycle facilities will increase
O'Toole disputed Ewing's claims. He thinks that more compact development will result in higher densities, which will decrease productivity, create less affordable housing and higher taxes. O'Toole also argues that there is no problem in need of the solution presented by compact development. Also, he argues the following costs of compacting:
- loss of property rights
- reduced geographic mobility
- higher house costs and lower home ownership rates
- higher taxes or reduced urban services to subsidize compact development
- increased traffic congestion
- higher consumer costs
- reduced economic mobility
Wheeler and Owen:
Both of these pieces argued for more environmental activism and planning of metropolitan landscapes per sustainability. They argued for a deep history of sustainability, and the input of regional and political perspectives. Finally, they argued for more public transportation and life in cities, which is more environmentally sustainable.
No comments:
Post a Comment