Tragedy... and Confusion

It’s terrible when something happens that could have been prevented, especially when it happens to a child. Yet another pedestrian was hit by a car in the Lehigh Valley on Saturday; this time, it was a little girl who was trying to cross the street with her sister. The car, traveling along a 45-mile-per-hour street, did not see her. My heart aches for the family of the girl as well as the driver. Out of respect for them, I won’t comment on the intersection, but as time goes on and wounds heal (and hopefully not too long into the future), I hope someone on the township or County councils considers more pedestrian-friendly safety features in that and other residential areas.

I do, however, want to comment on a recent blog post on a website called Mother Jones. Kevin Drum, the author, addresses a debate that has been raging for many years now: does suburban sprawl exist because policies mandate them or because people want them? Not surprisingly, Smart Growth advocates blame the policies, and Randall O’Toole and similar folks point the finger at public opinion. Drum seems to agree with O’Toole when he says, “These regulations aren’t something that’s being imposed by ‘government.’ They exist because people really, really, really want them.”

So, this brings up two issues. First does research really confirm that people “really, really, really” favor low-density suburban development over dense cities and inner-ring suburbs? And second, if the data does support that conclusion, do people always know what’s best for themselves?

Luckily, I did my thesis research on just this very topic. Previous research came to different conclusions. But what I noticed while reviewing them was that the studies that concluded people favored suburbs most often had participants judge only policy statements. This is dangerous because words such as “density” have garnered negative connotations that conjure up images of the Projects or other such monstrosities. What’s more, most studies that found that the majority of people favored more traditional developments were only presenting participants with images of the city blocks and neighborhoods. I would argue that this is a more effective method of gathering people’s reactions because we all have the ingrained ability to instinctually react to visual stimuli; I cannot say the same about written policy stimuli (if such a thing exists). But the downside to only examining images without their underlying policies is that when it comes time for the design codes to either go urban or suburban, the policies are what matter. Therefore, the public often goes in with a vision of what they want (more traditional development features), but they fail to make the necessary policy connections and, instead, rally for suburbia.

To test this hypothesis of visual-policy disconnect, I tested people’s reactions to both images and policies and compared them. What did I find? The people that did visually prefer suburban development also preferred suburban policies. But, those that visually preferred urban designs, which was the vast majority, didn’t seem to show any connection with urban or suburban policies; there was absolutely no relationship whatsoever. I had to conclude that, in a way, Randall O’Toole is right that people really like suburbia… just not all of them, and in the case of the most acute of our 5 senses, most prefer otherwise. But I also had to conclude that the vast majority that wanted their neighborhoods to look more urban also had no clue how to bring about such a vision. For example, a good number of participants that liked pictures of walkable neighborhoods also expressed desire for cul-de-sac policies, which actually counteract walking, as well as narrower streets, which promote walking. And of those that liked pictures of well-designed density, there was no consensus when asked about density policies.

What can we take from this? Both the Smart Growthers and Randall O’Toole are correct: suburbia is the result of policies that most people support, not because they are in favor of the results, but because they misunderstand their consequences. People are just really, really, really confused, and planners are really poor at educating them.

I think I’ve already answered my second question. Don’t get me wrong: I truly believe that people do know what is in their best interest when they completely understand the issue at hand, but when they don’t, as is the case with urban development (as well as many other social policies), the democratic process caves in on itself. We end up enacting costly policies, then enacting more costly policies to correct for the original policies – until we get to the point that we are at today where we can’t even afford to maintain the roads we already have let alone continue to build new ones.

Anyone disagree?