Can we afford sprawl?
Suddenly the price of gas is validating the long-standing critique of suburban sprawl. The Wall Street Journal writes today that: "Today, the subprime-mortgage crisis and $4-a-gallon gasoline are delivering further gut punches by blighting remote subdivisions nationwide and rendering long commutes untenable for middle-class Americans." This morning's LA Times highlights the plunge in values in far-out Victorville and Lancaster. CNN over the weekend carried a story: "Is America's suburban dream collapsing into a nightmare?" Of course experts differ on whether today's high gas prices are an irrational spike or a long-term reality. And certainly in the short run, there is no reason to believe that the doubling of crude oil price in less than a year is a permanent situation. But any serious observer would agree that even if a declining economy eventually brings down the cost of oil and gasoline, fuel is never going to be as cheap as it's been for the last half century. Even if drilling were resumed offshore in California and the vast resources on protected reserves were thrown open to exploitation, the time and investment needed to bring them online will ensure costly energy for a long, long time.
So that leaves Ventura in an enviable position. Yes, we've suffered from high home prices and a dearth of private sector jobs. But now we have an opportunity to be a model for sensible, compact development that enhances livability and energy efficiency. There is an opportunity to bring back some of the jobs and investment that for too long flowed to the far fringes of our region (requiring costly transportation upgrades to facilitate those long commutes.)
But with every opportunity comes challenges. First, we need to find ways to promote local jobs so fewer of our own residents jump on the 101 Freeway in the morning. Second, we have to be more open-minded about new development in older areas. Third, we have to actively improve alternatives to driving: transit, walking and biking.
Hard as those challenges may seem, the alternative is not workable. We can't go back to cheap gas. And we can't afford to spend what we are now spending on gas.
For more on how we can adapt to the new energy costs, check out the report on "Transforming Urban Environments for a Post Peak Oil Future" on our Green Ventura page:
posted by Rick Cole at
4:35 PM
3 Comments:
You are absolutely on track. We can't afford sprawl and urban infill is a key part of the solution. We have far too much land devoted to the car including land for parking.
Which brings me to the point - why does the city have a parking requirement in approving projects? The City of San Francisco has removed this requirement - its up to the project developer to decide. This puts a price tag on the parking space, which is how we regulate something ins short supply in a capitalist economy. A developer can choose between using his capital to provide parking or he can offer to put in a green space, add more living space, or reduce the price of the unit. The tenant can chooose to keep a car, or use public transport, or walk.
Remove the mandatory parking requirement. Removing mandatory the parking requirement is probably the biggest single step towards reducing sprawl!
Ricky - Did you write your own " anonymous said" ?
The parking allocated for a bunch of the already-approved projects around town is rather truncated at best - like the one next to the Sidecar and the one across the street from the High School.
If you want more "good" jobs, then concentrate on your own job - create a more business-friendly environment - but then, of course you aren't a businessman anyway - you're a liberal bureaucrat who drives a Prius - God help us.
To the previous poster - please don't claim to be "Business Friendly" by advocating for stricter parking rules. Instead, the City should loosen up the parking requirement. This will give businesses more flexibility to grow without having to provide more parking. You are not helping by requiring mandatory parking for expansions.
Post a Comment
<< Home