Know Your Neighborhood

By George Schmok

Last year, according to numerous sources, the population of the world topped the 7 billion mark, and in a historical blink of the eye we could add another billion in a dozen years or so. That’s a lot of people!

Planning for those people is, of course, one of the principal concerns of the landscape architectural profession.

One school of thought in planning for this population increase is the New Urbanism movement, which advocates increasing density in the urban core. Ultimately, however, this school of thought puts the supply of energy and survival resources in a futile battle to meet the ever-increasing demand.

As a city grows and its population increases, it is forced to reach further and further away for the supply of survival resources. Over time, the increased density will push outward from the center, expanding the area of the city, causing the search for resources to reach even further away from the core. At some time it reaches the point of conflict where either expansion has to stop or unmet demand ensues.

Remember, urban growth is a relatively new phenomenon. In 1800 only 3% of the world’s population lived in an urban area. In 1900 14% lived in the urban core and only 12 cities topped one million inhabitants. In 2008, the urbanites passed the ruralites worldwide. Today there are more than 340 cities with more than a million people. That is amazing growth . . . And it is relatively untested growth.

Certain elements, however, do have historical precedence. Allow density to increase unabated and two things historically occur: Poverty centralizes, and demand surpasses supply. Think of Kolkata, India. With 18 million people it is one of a new category called a ‘Mega-City’ (a city with a population of more than 10,000,000). In 1975 there were three such cities. Today there are 21. In India, uncontrolled development and growth has swelled the inner city to the point of chaos. It wasn’t planned to be so overrun, but with no ordinances to limit density, the cities have ultimately become a cause of poverty. The beauty that was once a central trading post and world-famous destination is now an impossibly packed slum where food, water and shelter are luxuries very few have in abundance. In India 50% of the nation’s grain harvest comes from 2% of its land mass. And in that Punjab state, water from the aquifer has been drained to a point that in a few years the crops will be dependent on the falling of rain, not controlled irrigation.

In Southern California, continued growth is on track to be unsustainable as well. The only sources of water, food and energy are hundreds of miles away. To increase density in the area is irresponsible at best, with potentially lethal consequences should there be a severe drought or natural disaster that stops the flow of survival resources to the area.

Cities and urban areas should strive to be resource independent. Density ordinances should strive for the lowest levels of importation, especially concerning energy and foodstuffs.

Remember, from the air, sprawl may take a bad picture, but from the ground it can be a great place to live. If every house in the southwest had to have a solar power-generating roof, there would be a huge energy surplus and less demand for coal burning, hydroelectric and windmill power sources. That alone should make the Sierra-clubbers smile. Mix in storm-water management and capture, and a sprawling community becomes energy and resource neutral. Add in public transportation designed to get the citizens to and from work, coupled with localized travel in electric vehicles – think golf carts, Segways and mopeds whose batteries are charged by solar power, and now you have a real base for a sustainable community.

Urban development is a new science, one that needs more than one trend and one option. Centralized density has no long term proven track record of success. Instead, its end game is cities like Kolkata, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Lagos . . . New Urbanism has a place and a point, but it is certainly not the end-all model for sustainable development.

Looks like this may be one of many columns on the subject, so if you have an opinion, please let us know.

God Bless . . .

George Schmok, Publisher