SELLING SMART GROWTH by John C. Mooney a Thesis Submitted to the Johns Hopkins University in Conformity with the Requirements Fo
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SELLING SMART GROWTH by John C. Mooney A thesis submitted to The Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Government Baltimore, Maryland May 2008 © 2008 John C. Mooney All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT “Selling Smart Growth” analyzes some of the effects unplanned development has on a city’s gross metropolitan product (GMP). “Selling Smart Growth” uses the case study method to illustrate the effects of unplanned development by comparing a Green GMP to standard GMP. The difference between the two GMPs represents the cost of unplanned development. “Selling Smart Growth” concludes that planned development’s cost over time is lower. Using this data, smart growth public policy advocates can increase their chances of implementing smart growth policies by selling it to the American people by arguing that it will save them money. The principle advisors to this thesis are Dr. Kathy Wagner Hill, the Associate Program Chair for the Government Program at The Johns Hopkins University, Dr. Dorothea Wolfson, former U.S. Rep. William Clinger of Pennsylvania, and Dr. Benjamin Ginsberg, the David Bernstein Professor of Political Science, Director of the Center for the Study of American Government, and Chair of the Government Program of Advanced Academic Programs at The Johns Hopkins University. ii PREFACE As a kid in the Bronx, I viewed owning a car as a luxury since I spent most of my time walking or riding the subway. Upon moving to Long Island, I noticed that there were few sidewalks, none of the parks were as nice as Van Cortlandt, and a car was a necessity. I witnessed poor planning when a multibillion-dollar nuclear power plant was built but never produced any electricity. I also saw the Long Island Sound treated as a medical waste and sewage dumping ground. As a high school newspaper reporter, I covered stories on strip development, business grand openings and sad closings, widening of existing roads, and the building of a bypass around Rocky Point’s business district. Each time I visited home during college, new strip malls had been built leaving old strip malls vacant. Traffic was worse despite all of the construction being done to relieve congestion. Open space existed only in my memories of traveling over the East River and “through the wood, to Grandmother’s house” on rural Long Island. After college I lived in Germany and noticed that I could walk everywhere, train and bus service was amazing, windmills were abundant, and small businesses thrived. Then, in contrast, I witnessed the lack of planning and foresight in the rebuilding of Iraq in 2005-2006. All of these life experiences led to this thesis. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I have been aided greatly by others and I want acknowledge their assistance. First, to my grandmother, Angela Savino, who sparked my interest in government from a very young age. To my mother, Lisa Mooney, who has sacrificed for me during her entire adult life. To my kindergarten teacher all the way to my thesis advisors – all of your guidance has been priceless. To my soldiers and my close friends and their families – you have never let me down. Finally, to the friends that helped me in the editing of this thesis: Terence O’Rourke, Chris Kucharski, Lindsey Hagan, David Maes, Dr. Mary Ann Lyons, and Margaret Jessee Lyons. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 A. History of Urban Planning ........................................................................................ 9 B. Urban Planning Schools of Thought ....................................................................... 16 II. NEW YORK, NEW YORK: INDUSTRY .................................................................. 22 A. History of Development.......................................................................................... 22 1. Effects on Industry............................................................................................. 31 2. Effects on Water and Energy ............................................................................. 38 3. Effects on Transportation................................................................................... 40 B. GMP v. Green GMP................................................................................................ 42 C. Recommendations ................................................................................................... 46 III. LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA: WATER AND ENERGY.................................... 55 A. History of Development.......................................................................................... 56 1. Effects on Industry............................................................................................. 61 2. Effects on Water and Energy ............................................................................. 63 3. Effects on Transportation................................................................................... 70 B. GMP v. Green GMP................................................................................................ 72 C. Recommendations ................................................................................................... 75 IV. CHICAGO, ILLINOIS: TRANSPORTATION ........................................................ 80 A. History of Development.......................................................................................... 80 v 1. Effects on Industry............................................................................................. 91 2. Effects on Water and Energy ............................................................................. 91 3. Effects on Transportation................................................................................... 93 B. GMP v. Green GMP................................................................................................ 94 C. Recommendations ................................................................................................... 97 V. PORTLAND, OREGON: PLANNED CITY............................................................ 100 A. History of Development........................................................................................ 100 B. GMP v. Green GMP.............................................................................................. 103 VI. CONCLUSION........................................................................................................ 106 A. Cumulative Findings: Cost of Development........................................................ 110 B. Problems and Limitations...................................................................................... 110 C. Policy Recommendations...................................................................................... 112 D. Topics for further research and development ....................................................... 122 vi LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Data and Calculations for New York................................................................. 44 Table 2: Data and Calculations for Los Angeles ............................................................. 73 Table 3: Data and Calculations for Chicago.................................................................... 95 Table 4: Data and Calculations for Portland.................................................................. 104 Table 5: Comparison of the Cost of Development ........................................................ 110 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Unplanned Development GMP Hypotheses....................................................... 6 Figure 2: Unplanned Development Cost Hypothesis......................................................... 6 Figure 3: Planned Development GMP Hypotheses ........................................................... 7 Figure 4: Planned Development Cost Hypothesis ............................................................. 7 Figure 5: Levine's Paradigms........................................................................................... 14 Figure 6: Image of an Urban Network............................................................................. 19 Figure 7: New York's GMP ............................................................................................. 45 Figure 8: New York's Green GMP .................................................................................. 45 Figure 9: New York's Cost of Development.................................................................... 46 Figure 10: Los Angeles' GMP ......................................................................................... 73 Figure 11: Los Angeles' Green GMP............................................................................... 74 Figure 12: Los Angeles' Cost of Development................................................................ 74 Figure 13: Chicago's GMP............................................................................................... 96 Figure 14: Chicago's Green GMP.................................................................................... 96 Figure 15: Chicago's Cost of Development ..................................................................... 97 Figure 16: Portland's GMP ............................................................................................ 104 Figure 17: Portland's Green GMP.................................................................................. 105 Figure 18: