The Times Call gives and overview today of the Wednesday evening lecture by William Travis titled “‘Dumb Growth’ in the New West”. Points included 1) Growth in the New West outpaces the national average; 2) an additional 1.5 million people will live in Colorado by 2030; 3) local planning is ineffective and myopic and 4) more intergovernmental agreements are necessary to plan on an ultra-regional level.
The trends he predicts for "exurban" growth in the mountains will result in more "extreme commuting". Businessweek described this disturbing scenario last year: commuters spending at least a month of their lives each year traveling a minimum of an hour-and-a-half one-way to work. Their ranks have jumped an astounding 95% since 1990, according to the Census Bureau, accounting for 3.4 million workers.
I'm a new dad and that makes me feel even more tired.
Read more about Travis' book "New Geographies of the American West," and hear a podcast interview on the Camera's website.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Geography, like any science, is politically neutral, so there's really not much of a platform for a Professor of Geography to do anything about urban development patterns other than to restate the obvious.
The amazing thing, then, is how value-laden this "dumb growth" lecture is. For example, affordable housing subsidies, which Travis clearly supports, are one possible mechanism to address the flight of the workforce to more distant affordable towns. But it's a mix of about 5 percent geography to 95 percent policy in that equation.
Exurbs will continue to grow until people choose to stop living there. Long commutes will continue to be an option for those who want to work in the city while living in the country.
Beware critics who present their data wrapped inside an agenda. Prof. Travis may have a few clues about how to preserve quality of life here in Colorado, but in the end he's just another person who moved here from out of state and wants to lay the blame at the feet of local officials for enabling that move.
Naturally growth is faster in the west, who wants to live in the east? And, when I’m talking east, I’m talking as near east as Weld County!
When people like Professor Travis “research” this stuff and come to the conclusion that it’s being done wrong, they’re actually passing judgment on the marketplace. There are limits to what towns and cities can do in this regard. They have to be responsive to the market if they want to have virbrant, successful towns.
Market forces also allow exurbs to exist. If I can afford to live an hour and a half from work on my mini-ranch, why not? What would compel me to live close in? In most cases the average joe can buy more house for the money the farther out he lives. The offset is the cost of commuting. Another compelling reason to tax the heck out of fossil fuels. Market direction changes as the influences on the market changes.
Planning decisions by local governments sometimes create this flight. Affordable housing options are great, but like refineries or WalMarts, everybody wants them, but not in their backyard. If people have the means, they many times opt to be away from the issues of a town or city.
But, all that said, I agree with you Alex - why listen to this guy?
Post a Comment