Reading over Winnipeg blogs, I came across this. It's a university student reflecting on their values, morality, sustainability, and urban sprawl. On the post itself I'll write only a little. Most of it self-discovery and what not. I do not know enough about the Oak Ridges Moraine to comment.
What I found interesting is that the writer "hate[s] the urban sprawl that surrounds [her], even though [she is] a suburbanite". This seems odd; if a person hates urban sprawl, wouldn't moving downtown be wiser than living in suburbia?
Moving away from directly commenting on the article, but keeping on with my line of thought. Urbanists seem to have a dislike of suburbia and "urban sprawl" and, as is the case of the blog writer, even sometimes think this takes on a moral aspect.
My question would be, why do urbanists believe that governments should force their preferences for living arrangements on others?
Urbanists may prefer living in tightly packed downtown neighbourhoods or in apartments/condos. They may enjoy being surrounded by people and noise at all times. They may not value freedom or space as much as others. That's fine. If people want to live in urban areas, they should be free to.
On the other hand, though, urbanists are in a constant struggle to have municipal and provincial governments enforce their urban preferences on everyone else. Every talk of urban issues comes with the standard calls for governments to promote "urban density" and to limit "urban sprawl". Every attempt to further develop a city outwards is met with resistance, such as Waverly West here in Winnipeg or Richmond Hill in the blog post.
Why should the preferences of urbanists take priority over the preferences of those who prefer the freedom, space, and quiet of suburbia (or even ex-urbia)?
Why is "urban density" superior? What makes living in a cramped, loud, over-populated urban area inherently "better" than living in suburbia, rather than a free choice of trade-offs for individuals to make on their own?
Why should their values and morality be imposed by government on others who do not share them? Or subsidized at the expense of others?
By purchasing homes in the Suburbs/Exurbs, individuals show a preference for the space, freedom, etc. that suburban living provides and are willing to take on the additional inconveniences of increased transportation times and costs to do so. Should this choice not be respected?
If people want "urban sprawl", why should we be trying to force "urban density" on them instead simply because a small group of urban activists wants their preferences forced on others?
In theory, if the long-term costs of new suburban developments were factored into the price of the land, it wouldn't be so bad. Not just building new roads, but fixing those roads years later, building fire halls, etc. There is a tendency I think to approve new developments and subsidize the infrastructure to expand the property tax base without thinking of the long term implications. There are also less obvious long term costs related to the decay of the core of the city that sprawl contributes to.
ReplyDeleteYou ask why governments should force their preferences for living arrangements on others.
ReplyDeleteI believe they should not. Instead, they should be promoting more fairness.
In general, the further away you live from the core, the costs needed to pay for services rises. But the amounts paid by the public is not at all proportional, especially in Winnipeg.
But I'm not really answering your first question: why is urban sprawl 'bad'.
Cherenkov,
ReplyDeleteThe immediate costs of building a new development should definitely be completely borne by the developers; as for the long terms costs, the suburbs pay taxes like anyone else.
The core should be helped, but stopping development is not going to do this. Rather crime should be rooted out, destructive policies like rent control should be ended, those "heritage" supporters who object to the destruction/renewal of every single building should be ignored, taxes should be shifted from property to consumption, etc. A whole host of things would be superior to simply stopping development.
Suburbanite,
I agree. I would reply the same as to Cherenkov, the costs of building a new development should be completely borne by the developer and taxes should be shifted from property to consumption.