About Steve

Viewpoints from the Publisher's View

DenseMay Issue, 2010, Potrero View

By Steve J. Moss

Californians have been concerned about urban sprawl – low-density, land-intensive, highway dependent development – virtually since the first ranchette was built on a quarter acre lot in the southern reaches of Santa Clara County mid-century last.  Since then tens of thousands of pages have been written about the evils of sprawl:  it gobbles up scarce farm land and wilderness areas, prompts a dependence on pollution-spewing cars, increases public infrastructure costs, and creates soul-deadening suburbs.  I’ve contributed to this paper indictment, having written anti-sprawl analyses for American Farmland Trust and Bank of America, among others.

Over the last two decades “smart growth” – also known as compact, or transit-oriented, development – has emerged as the antidote to sprawl.  Smart growth principally consists of higher density housing, with good access to public transit and pedestrian-friendly communities.  The theory is that greater density enables mass transit and carless travel to operate more efficiently, getting people out of their vehicles, and conserves land in rural areas.  A premium is placed on achieving these elements within urban neighborhoods, and, in particular, along existing rail corridors and freeways.  

Many smart growth candidates – including West Oakland and Southeast San Francisco – previously hosted light and heavy industries.  Now they’re home to high concentrations of low-income households, living amidst the toxic legacy of a previous age, in neighborhoods that are deficit in almost any amenity you can name, including open space, high-quality schools, and employment opportunities (see “Publisher’s View:  Toxic Development,” in the November View).  From the perspective of the status quo, change, even in the form of higher population density, could be an improvement.

Although smart growth sounds good on paper, its intelligence will be measured by how it performs on the ground.  And early indications, at least in Southeast San Francisco, are alarming.  The problem is that, in a good economy – when there’s an active demand and available financing for real estate – private sector developers have every incentive to build dense housing complexes in places where land is expensive.   Density, it turns out, isn’t that hard to achieve within the cities people want to live.  But smart growth policies are being implemented in a period in which the public sector’s ability to create the associated necessary public infrastructure is deeply compromised by wall-to-wall deficits.  There’s a substantial risk that higher densities will be forced into areas that already lack sufficient high-quality parks, schools, and transit without any significant increase in funding for, and the capacity of, the essential elements to serve the increased population.  The results would be much less livable cities, increasing conflict over scarce public resources, and a general degradation in the quality of life.  These miseries would be visited on the same working class families who’ve already suffered under years of environmental injustices and neglect.  

There is a way to ensure that growth is indeed smart.  And that’s to invest, disproportionately and substantially, in creating the host of public amenities necessary to support thriving, densely-populated communities.  That is, to mimic the population tilt back towards urban areas with an equivalent amount of public investment.  Under current economic conditions this would require a realignment of local, regional, state, and federal spending priorities, including focusing a large portion of air quality – and climate-related, if they ever materialize – fees, gasoline tax revenues, and federal transportation funds to smart growth communities.

City building requires the full attention of local politicians, plutocrats, and citizens.  San Francisco’s greatest assets – Golden Gate Park, Golden Gate Bridge, and the Golden Gate National Recreational Area, to name a few – were created by visionary leaders supported by the region’s still great wealth.  For a half-century Southeast San Francisco has been written off as a place that’s best not to visit, where second rate public investment is delivered to last class citizens.  That attitude needs to change, replaced by a new era that replicates the golden future the City’s founders – and thousands of immigrants drawn to our city on a hill – once envisioned.   

Southeast San Francisco and other smart growth targets are being asked to double their population densities, mostly to help solve regional air quality, affordable housing, and other public problems.   If we’re going to be the solution, then our problems need to be solved too.  Higher density development combined with a rich diversity of public amenities could produce a rainforest of benefits, and create 22nd century communities for which we’ll be proud.  Or, smart growth could end up being the dumbest thing policy makers have ever forced upon already hard-pressed neighborhoods.  Our grandchildren will let us know.