Earthsky Interviews
Private: Increased urban density better than sprawl?
04-29-2007 - Human World
Jantz, who’s at Shippensburg University in Pennsylvania, uses a computer model called SLEUTH to replicate patterns of past development from satellite images, and make predictions about how development will look in the years ahead.
Jantz has predicted that the rate of urban and suburban development in the Washington/Baltimore area will double over the next 30 years. Jantz says streams in the area will suffer pollution heavy enough to seriously damage the delicate ecosystem of nearby Chesapeake Bay.
Claire Jantz: _There’s actually all kinds of stuff that will go into a stream when land is developed. With residential development, another pollutant source would be from things like fertilizers. So, as you’re putting fertilizers onto your lawn, some of those fertilizers will run off into the stream systems, and that fertilizes the stream system._
But, Jantz said, “increasing the density of new urban development could help prevent more urban sprawl and its effects.”
Jantz: _We’re exploring policies that would encourage cluster development, more intense development in places where there’s already infrastructure that exists for that development._
“Cluster development,” Jantz said, “could spare more wetlands and forests while being able to house the same number of people.”
Our thanks today to “NASA”:http://www.nasa.gov: explore, discover, understand.
Jantz told Earth & Sky, “All kinds of stuff goes into a stream when land is developed. If we think about a typical suburban development where you have roads and cul-de-sacs and single family homes, there’s increase in sedimentation. Soil particles run off into the stream system. That’s one source of pollution, especially when land is disturbed. Another pollutant source is fertilizers on yards that run off into the stream system. That sort of fertilizes the stream system causing eutrification and algae blooms. Pollution is one of biggest problems in Chesapeake Bay.”
“NASA uses a ‘SLEUTH’ to predict urban land use”:http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0322sleuth.html
“Population’s impact on nature,”:http://www.whrc.org/pressroom/news_items/Sites/Scott-Claire/rising_cost3.html an interview with Claire Jantz from NASA’s Earth Observatory.
Our thanks to:
Claire A. Jantz
Assistant Professor
Shippensburg University
Department of Geography & Earth Science
it’s changed a lot
Where I live, we keep pushing to keep big apartment complexes out and keep green space. the problems with the cluster development is that you get less green space.
development is out of control especially in the Northeast. Migration of NY & NJ people into PA while PA people retire to DE and MD on the Eastern Shore. Everyone wants waterfront—-so waterfront becomes 99% private access. Waste flowing into the marshlands and Chesapeake Bay has multiplied exponentially …. where IS the EPA and where is the money being used by Chesapeake Bay Foundation ? —no EPA controls, no accountabiliity for Cities to follow carefully developed master plans laid out by state and county planning commissions. We need more incentives to lead developers to reclaim brownfields and rehab old neighborhoods. There is already a glut on the market of new construction – yet it keeps on going.
developers even offer out-right “payola” to city supervisors for approving their plans.
How does one gain access to aerial photos of Dallas-Ft. Worth over the past several decades to study the rate of our urban spawl?
In Dallas, TX high-density redevelopment is taking place in 80 year old neighborhoods. The City Council will approve anything to boost the tax base. Zoning has been replaced by “planned developments” permitting developers to ignore neighborhood master plans. Streets, infrastructure, street parking, etc. are forced to handle 10 times the density for which they were built. This generates massive numbers of slow-moving polluting vehicles trying to escape gridlock. Travel times are protracted and higher impermeable surface coverage has lead to flooding. Unless high-density is matched with totally reconstructed and high-capacity infrastructure, it can lead to devastation in established neighborhoods. The problem is that you can’t widen a road in one place for high-density use without constricting traffic flow elsewhere.
High-density along NEW growth corridors is great as long as its infrastructure is master-planned that way.
if we want to save our sensitive areas for the future this is required
This is one of the most interesting areas of discussion, to me.
I live in what was – when I arrived here 30+ years ago – a small city of perhaps 300,000. Now there are a million-plus inhabitants people here … more if you count the surrounding areas. At first, I felt resistant to the change. And it still bothers me to see beautiful open fields turned into shopping malls, on the outskirts of town. Plus those outskirts seem to get farther away every year.
But here in the center of town, the change toward increased density has been great! Suddenly we are living in a city, with bookstores, galleries, coffee houses, even a farmer’s market … lots of interesting things to see and do within walking distance … and best of all a community of neighbors, plus people you simply see over and over … a real urban community.
It’s been quite a transformation. Once I stopped resisting it, I began enjoying it very much. For example, for years, I felt annoyed about the increased traffic. Now I take the bus to work, since, with more population, the bus service has improved. Bus riding means more walking (exercise), more open air, more sunlight, more interacting with neighbors, more “downtime” for listening to my i-pod or reading. I like it a lot.
And for every high-rise apartment building that goes in downtown, I think of the open spaces in the countryside that are being preserved …
Nothing will stay the same. I live near a town of 260 people that in 1900 boasted a population of 6000. It was and is the county seat. In 1900, Anderson had a college, several newspapers and shipped 20,000 bales of cotton. Now we have a courthouse, a sherriff’s office, a store and mechanic shop and a fading main street. Most of the homes dating from the 1830’s are gone, those left are fading into the ground.
And yet, Houston is moving our way. We have a vast influx of people moving out of suburbia and establishing little farmettes raising nothing but pet horses and kids. Traffic used to be a few cars a day running by on the highway. The sound of passing traffic was the exception instead of the rule. Now the traffic noise is constant.
We went from no crime to some crime.
Bryan/College Stations has grown from 30.000 to over 150,000 inhabitants and is only 30 miles away. That urban sprawl is heading our way. We are going to get the municipal landfill in our county as Brazos County could not site one there.
For me, the increased population is personally uncomfortable. I prefer to be fairly from town. Close enough to get things I want but not close enough to see, hear, smell or feel it. Perhaps one day I will move to the mountains of the west or to Alaska. Perhaps not.
The one thing I really dislike is central planning of cities. It ussually destroys the inner city and the results or horrible. THe folks that can run for the suburbs and those that can’t wind up living in bombed out, crime ridden cesspools and that is a shame.
Well, no answers, no questions. Just my ramblings today. Have a great day and remember, the future is what we make it.
One response was that, with clustering, you lose open space and greenery. This is not true. The main concept behind clustering is to put the same number of dwelling units in the same area—just lower the size of yards and be creative in the dwelling unit design and construction.
I do not work in large metropolises but in more rural area, and clustering in these relatively open spaces is very important. One can design smaller lots and smaller houses that all have access to open space. Therefore, even though your residential lot is 5000 square feet, you have access to adjacent open space (and views)of literally acres.
The biggest problem (I am a land planner) is that Americans want big lots and big homes—to go along with their Hummers, I guess. We try and give developers incentives like faster review times to counter act this cultural precept, but until nuclear winter sets in and the price of gas here compares to Japan—the public is reluctant to settle for anything less than the biggest of everything.
All this hype about suburban sprawl and “smart growth” (what an oxymoron that is) is just liberal cr@p. They (democrats) just want more money poured into cities and force people to live there so that they create more big-government hungry urbanites. People like “Claire” need to spend more time in West Baltimore (running scared) and more time actually ON the Chesapeake Bay and less time using their computers to get liberal study grants. If she knew anything about the amount of fertilizer put on farm land she wouldn’t be so glib about criticizing suburban homeowners. Did she ever come down to Maryland to see all the construction regulations in place to limit runoff? There’s enough plastic fencing and haybales around a construction site to stop a monsoon. But I guess real research isn’t required when you’re just parroting the party line.
It has been said that one of the greatest leaps in human development was establishment of settled cities and towns. Even today, City dwellers are generally wealthier, healthier, better educated, and have more opportunities than their rural counterparts. Yet we are seeing a lot of people trying for the rural life (but not too rural!) and with restrictive zoning creating grass ranches and longer commutes, many jobs leaving cities with them. It would be a shame if the only employment left in Boston, near some of the world’s best colleges and accessable to public transportation, was in restaurants and hotels because the jobs requiring a degree from these colleges had all gone to office parks an hour from downtown near housing no grad can afford.
Dan, you see, I have been thinking that the rural areas were getting less crowded. But it probably depends on where you live.
Where I live, there’s been some increasing downtown density – and quite a lot of sprawl. And the relatively nearby rural areas are definitely populated. But the far rural areas – say, 1.5 hours away or farther – seem to have a lot of houses that are empty.
As if people went out there to live, but then returned closer to the city.