One of the downsides of our modern world of communication is that contrary voices are often given equal weight and airtime, whether they deserve it or not. Media is so eager to present “the other side” that nearly anyone can trot out an opinion and give it some amount of credence, even when it’s absurd. The challenge then is – do you respond? Do those of us who know better bother to give our time to someone who is so obviously wrong about an issue?
I thought about this as I listened to Robert Bruegmann speak last night at the Savannah College of Art and Design (SCAD), giving his lecture titled, “Sprawl: Learning to love it or at least think twice about trying to stop it.” Bruegmann’s title is provocative on purpose, as he promotes a book that he published in 2005. His lecture was rife with so many inaccuracies, cherry-picked statistics and flawed assumptions that, by his own admission, it tends to anger people. With about 200 people in attendance, mostly students, I feel it’s too important not to respond.
Since Bruegmann is being provocative on purpose, I feel no remorse for calling much of what he promotes as misleading at best, blatant lies at worst. As I said following the lecture, I almost don’t know where to begin.
And so, I’ll begin with how he defines sprawl. Like many people who rely on statistics, Bruegmann lumps all urban expansion of the last 150 years together as the same thing, as if there’s no material difference between the streetcar suburbs of the 19th century and post-WWII automobile-dependent suburbs. Sadly, though, Bruegmann teaches in an architecture school, so he should know better. But for those who don’t, let me reiterate a basic point – all urban expansion is not sprawl.
There is a fundamental difference between how cities expanded in the 19th through the early 20th century, and how they have expanded since. In the former, cities expanded as a series of connected neighborhoods. They were arranged on streets designed for walking, riding a bicycle and even had access to quality public transportation. Yes, they were lower density and more spacious than the city centers that they were attached to, but they were fundamentally walkable neighborhoods. Since the end of WWII, cities around the world, but most especially American cities, have expanded as a disconnected set of subdivisions, shopping centers and offices, only held together by a network of car sewers. This is not a minor difference – the two patterns of development are qualitatively and quantitatively different in every respect. Understanding this is Urban Planning 101. Equating all urban expansion as sprawl is a fundamental error underlying this book and lecture.
Brueggman then presents us with a series of statistics to show the shocking idea that as people become wealthier they tend to want a little more space, and even single family houses. Well, duh. Those of us who are New Urbanists or critics of sprawl would never argue otherwise. Single family houses do not equate to sprawl. Car ownership does not equate to sprawl. This is the point of decades of critique – it’s not about all the pieces that make up our cities’ growth areas, it’s about how they are arranged. He argues we are “forcing people to live another way” – an often parroted critique of urban planners. I must say, it gets really old to mention that the whole system today in virtually every city and town in the US, whether it’s zoning, lending standards, transportation planning, construction techniques, etc etc is all set up to produce sprawl. But really, shouldn’t a professional in the field know this?
I feel that I could go on for pages regarding the foolishness of these arguments and the inaccuracies. But in order not to bore you, the reader, here’s a quick summary of some other points:
- His critique that all the planning Portland, OR has done hasn’t changed travel patterns or lifestyle is another lie from the playbook of Randall O’Toole. Fortunately, this was debunked years ago by Michael Lewyn, at www.cnu.org/node/1532
- He stated that building in a denser fashion “might be more efficient economically.” Um – here’s the truth. It IS more efficient. On a per unit basis (the only metric that matters), it is unequivocal. Ever wonder why developers want to squeeze more units in?
- Not surprisingly, he minimized the threat of Peak Oil. Well, I suppose it’s also possible that gravity is still a theory, but I wouldn’t hedge my bets on it. Finite resources are just that – finite.
- He frequently cites European sprawl (and sometimes Asian) as examples that this phenomenon is everywhere, and that it is the same as in the U.S. Yes, other countries have their sprawl, too. But to say it works the same or is on the same scale as the U.S. is patently absurd. Many of those European suburbs are still walkable, and the actual amount that is auto-dependent is infinitesimal compared to American cities.
- He argues that buses as less efficient and worse for the environment because they get worse gas mileage and are typically under-utilized. Well, yes, buses in this country largely run under-used, but it’s BECAUSE we’ve built places that make it difficult at best to ride a bus, if not impossible. In debate, they call this a straw man. And is there even a point to mentioning that buses can (and often do) run on alternative fuels?
- Like many sprawl apologists, he equated car usage with freedom of mobility. I like to equate freedom with having choices. In this case, choices include not only driving, but also walking, biking, or even taking transit. Anything less is dependence, not freedom.
I appreciate a good debate & intellectual challenge as much as anyone. And, I agree with Brueggman that many professionals tend to look down their noses at the suburbs and suburban expansion. And I would even go so far as to say that this can be a fascinating topic for debate – the question of “what to do about it” is one that divides us into many different camps professionally.
But to say that sprawl is not a problem is not only untrue, it’s destructive. The environmental and economic consequences of our development patterns are proven facts. The social aspects are debatable, but they are real. Aesthetic critiques can be snobbery, but beauty does matter – human beings always gravitate toward it.
What I’m most left with after this lecture is the question of how can someone be a professional in the field of planning/architecture and deny the importance of this issue? It strikes me as no different than being a climate scientist and saying climate change is really no big deal, or being a health professional and poo-poohing the obesity epidemic. Yes, repairing sprawl may not be as important to humanity as feeding the poor or securing clean water for all, but within our profession it’s the most important issue of our time.
Contrary views are very important to advancing intelligence and understanding. But sometimes they are just contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. That’s not debate – that’s either self-promotion or masturbation.
5 Responses to Learn to love Sprawl?
Leave a Reply
Connect With Me Elsewhere
Kevin on Video
Why The Real Estate Crash Is Good For The Future Of America
Street Design & Walkability
Form-Based Codes As Economic Development
Nice job responding to Bruegmann’s misguided shtick..especially since he was speaking to impressionable students who are looking for inspiration and compelling perspective on this important topic. Breugman is really a carbon copy of Joel Kotkin, another sprawl apologist who should – and may, in fact – know better.
Bruegmann’s presentation, as is the book, was indeed provocative. Much of the information, as is almost always true in multifaceted debate relying on interpretation of the same data, was approached in a manner so at to make it fit appropriately into what is meant to be perceived as the viewing (and right) side of the argument. For example the data regarding bus to automobile usage was about correct when looking at it mathematically, and considering the car (1.5 passengers/Gasoline) gets 40mpg and the bus (9 passengers/Diesel) gets 2.5mpg. Currently, even hybrid/alternative fuel buses only get a maximum of about 9mpg. And I feel that you are certainly correct when you suggest that these buses have the opportunity to function to a much higher level of efficiency when properly utilized. I’ll take it even further in adding that a major factor that wasn’t taken into account when considering this comparison is the embodied energy that is in this high efficiency automobile. Without taking the time to do the math, off the top of my head I would say that same bus could carry 4-5 people instead of 9 and still be about as efficient. You contend that buses are underused “BECAUSE we’ve built places that make it difficult at best to ride a bus, if not impossible.” How is it impossible to walk down to the street, wait 15 minutes, and get on the bus? I have to disagree here and suggest instead that it is primarily a cultural issue and little more. Of course, I’ve lived in cities like San Francisco where it is completely viable to rely on a public transportation system for almost all your needs, but I’ve found that in other cites it is viable as well but, for whatever reason just isn’t utilized.
When it first came to my attention that Bruegmann was coming to SCAD to lecture it certainly piqued my interest. Having worked with environmental groups like CALPIRG, Greenpeace and UNESCO I’ve seen highly varied approaches to environmental protection. Upon cursory inspection, I found out what is widely considered the basis for Bruegmann’s argument, as well as information on the other 6 books that he was published.
The book was inflammatory and many times hard to read, as is any subject that seems to go against the core of what you believe. I read the whole book, finishing the conclusion there at the student center only an hour before the lecture began. While I didn’t agree with all the material, I was glad that I read the whole book so that I could truly have an educated opinion on what Mr Bruegmann had to say. In the end, after reading the book, I saw it for what it was; a historical perspective.
Could the material be misconstrued? Certainly. Does the overall work still suggest that Sprawl is unavoidable? Maybe. Does the book state that Sprawl is a term that is defined by the user’s perspective? Repeatedly. Does the work address a KEY factor here, in that the world population is growing exponentially? Not at all.
Regardless, shouldn’t we be able to trust college students to make their own decisions and do the research if they are going to act on something like this?
I see what you are getting at, and I agree that I don’t want people thinking that Sprawl is “unavoidable and happenstance” or just a natural fact of life. It would be easy to take that away from the lecture. I am not sticking up for Bruegmann, but he did not say that Sprawl is “not a problem”, rather the pattern that is widely described as Sprawl is something that has happened to some extent or another since the protected walls came down from cities and the rise of the Villas came to pass. Missing here is a “solution” which by default may make it as an argument “for”. He does not go further in addressing that when people have the means, they are likely to pursue the detached home. He does not address cultural definitions of comfortable personal space. He does not address population growth. All factors that as an New Urbanist, you likely ponder on a daily basis.
Ironically though, although I’m sure you had the best intentions of giving passionate comment, what most people remember about the lecture is not what happened in Portland, not the power consumptions of a high efficiency car versus a bus, not even the concept of Suburbia as compared to Exubria, instead, when I mention the lecture to other students, they invariably remember one statement “I haven’t read your book, but….”; and that’s it.
Thanks for the comment. Just a couple of points – first, just because something is physically possible does not mean it is going to happen. Yes, of course in many suburban areas (though certainly not all) it is possible to take a bus at least to work. But if you honestly think people will willingly subject themselves to a hostile physical environment, a long walk, perhaps some bad wearer, etc to do so, then you ignore human nature. And understanding human nature is at the key of urban planning.
Bruegmann, for what it’s worth, absolutely states that sprawl is not a problem, along the lines of Kotkin, Cox, O’Toole and other similar writers. His lecture said it directly. My larger point is again, to lump together all urban expansion of the last 160 years as sprawl is a complete fallacy. Only someone trying to prove a preconceived point would do that. The streetcar suburbs of the 19th century, for example, are fundamentally different in every respect from the post-war suburbs of the 1950′s-today.
Finally, yes, forgive me that I haven’t read his book. But, that is the beauty of the lecture circuit, isn’t it? It’s the speaker’s job to summarize their thoughts, as he did quite well. He’s given more than adequate time to present his work. I vehemently disagree with his opinions, but I don’t need to read his book to understand further (and frankly I’ve heard all of these arguments before). If reading the book is a precondition for an opinion on any speaker or presentation, then we’ll have precious little discussion.
I agree with you 100% that just because something is physically possible it doesn’t mean it is going to happen, the failure of communism would have to probably be a principal example of that. In the case of public transportation, I believe it is primarily an issue of cultural conditioning. What it would take to “correct” this or where the most primitive roots of it began, I can’t say. Still, I’ve noticed more and more that many determining characteristics for reasons of denial are by nature subjective. For example, some days I walk to school. That walk is about 2.7 miles, one way. It takes me about 35-45 minutes, it’s through an area that may not be considered the “best” area (E Gwinnett-Wheaton-Liberty, Skidaway to MLK), and I would not do it if it was raining or I thought it was going to rain. I know this is a decent walk, but I hardly consider it a journey. I’m not saying this is for everyone but, it seems that I see many students (those that are expected to set the standards later) that complain when they have to walk from Eichberg Hall to Broughton Street or even better, to O House, the latter being approximately 3/10 of one mile. This then of course makes my definition of a long walk much different that someone else’s. The bus runs this route, but I’ve found that usually by the time a bus arrives, I could have just walked in the same amount of time.
This goes back to your understanding human nature being the key of urban planning, and I agree, but, we don’t understand human nature, and it seems every time we say we do, we are proven wrong.
Our culture is tremendously different from that of the 50′s, in almost every aspect. We are fortunate enough to have access to informational expression like that found in the lecture circuit, indeed. Where I would have to disagree with you here though is something that is a product of our information saturated society in that, an abbreviated lecture isn’t enough to form an actionable opinion by relating that information to preconceived notions. While I am certainly not as familiar with the other opinions of Cox, Kotkin and O’Toole as you, if we don’t thoroughly inspect each incarnation of similar approaches, what is the barometric indicator of progress?
I am with you, I adamantly disagree that Sprawl, as we likely have a similar definition, is harmless and natural. Maybe I’m just jealous that you didn’t have to suffer through the book, as I did. Or maybe I saw something more in the overall approach that suggested this preposterous concept was more to make people think, and maybe unite in opposition.
Kevin,
I was pleased to read some of your more practical comments on urban sprawl as other subjects. While be an urban planner is bears similar feeling as telling someone how to arrange the furniture in someones home and how to live a more “healthy and efficient” life around your planned ideal. As a person whom was part of the first eco wave in the 70′s, certain aspects of conservation beacame part of my thinking and the life i lead as i am sure this genertation of “sustainable” persons with with their life moving forward which is good for all. I will state though, like, many negative human behaviors we have, one cannot and more importantly understand, we cannot legislate, mandate or shape peoples behaviors overnight. Damn, leave it to us impatient americans, we want to do things quickly! The evoltion of peoples behaviors and how we live our lives has to evolve, whether gentle pushed or heavily legislated. Not only do we need to evolve socially, but we all need to keep in mind we need to consider ( as most heavy handed extreme advocates do regardless of position on the subject) is that we also evolve as we age in our lives. Our values change as we grow older. Our economic, social, and family values change over time. I find it amusing to hear a young person talk about sustainable, walkability and the overall heroic social concious values they posess and how others in the community need to adopt their way of life lest they perish, when in fact, this single,young, childless, financially limited “hero” cannot see that the entire community they live in posesses a vast array of values. Yes, those varing array of values eventually translate into our lives in the form of behaviors by which we live. Indeed, planning in many cases is severly lacking, but at the same time lets back up a moment and consider this small factor before we bash the suburbs. I at one time lived in a cl-de-sac and my kids rode their bicycles safely there. We as a family walked and rode bicycles almost every day through out our neighborhood – safely. I read about all the bashers of suburbs, and their lack of walkabitlity and truly feel pity for that person, because they obviously either grew up in a bad neighborhood or they have never once lived in the suburbs. I live in the country side now, and my walks are through the woods mostly as we have no sidewalks, but honestly we rode bikes and walked MORE when we lived in those dreaded and evil un-walkable suburbs.