Smart Growth

367

Smart Growth
Why We Discuss It More than We Do It
Anthony Downs

Ihe Smart Growth vision has a strong
intellectual and emotional appeal, com pared to mole sprawl However, though

some places follow Smart Giowth poli
cies, they are oumumbeted by those where such policies are commonly dis cussed but rarely piacticed effectively Why is this the case? Successful imple mentationrequires adopting policies that

s I speak to audiences at ound the countiy about how to cope with growth, people often ask me, "Where is Smatt Growth being implemented most effectively?" I usually reply, "Smart Growth is much mote talked about than actually catIied out in pIactice " That does not mean no regions are actually using Smart Growth policies But it does mean that such regions aie greatlyout numbered by others where Smatt Growth principles ate commonly discussed but not actually put into effect Why is that the case? Ihe basic reason is that caitying out Smart Growth principles encounters
many obstacles that ale not obvious at the outset, but emerge strongly as advo

aditions, in duding local home rule and low-density
give up long-established t living patterns These intermediatesteps ate unappealing to most Ameficaaas Ibis article analyzes where Smart Growth ad vocates among urban planners, govern ment officials, environmentalists, and real estate developers should focus their

cates try to apply those ptinciples Those obstacles have inhibited the ability of mban planners, government officials, environmentalists, and zeal estate develop ets who promote Smart Growth toachieve their initial objectives ][his article
explores why I believe that is the case

attention if they hope to move flora vision to reality Anthony Downs is a senior fllow at the Brookings Institution in Washington,
DC, whele he has been since I977 Au

The Genesis and Nature of Smart Growth
Smaat Growth was originally conceived as a zeaction to what many plannets believed wereundesizable featmes of continuing growth through "suburban sprawl" (Bmchell, Listokin, et al, 2oo0; Bmchdl, Lowenstein, et al, 2oo2; Downs, 2oola) Those undesirable featmes included the following: • Unlimited outward and "leapfiog" expansion of low-density new develop
ment

thor ot edim of 24 books, his latest are
5tdl 5rude in 7?a c and Growth Manage merit andAffordable Housing Do They

Cbnflict?(both from Brookings Institu
tion Press, 2004)
Journal of the American Piannlng Association, VoI 71 No 4, Autumn 2005 ©American PlanningAssociation Chicago¸ IL

• Latge-scale conversion of open space and environmentally sensitive lands to
urban uses

• Lack of' choice among housing types and neighborhood configurations, • Wmsening tzaffic congestion and air pollution caused by mote intensiveuse of automotive vehicles for ground tzavel
• Costly zequizements to expand roads, sewers, water systems, and other infra

structures outward rather than repairing and using those already in place • Failure to redevdop existing older ndghbmhoods
• Segregation of land uses rather than a mLxing of uses that reduces the need

for travel

368 Journal of the American Planning Association,Autumn 0.005, Vol 7I, No 4

Since Smazt Growth was c eated to reduce or eliminate these perceived ills, its advocates tend to piomote opposite principles of action Ihus, the most common principles of Smart Growth are the following:I I Limiting outward extension of new devdopment in
order to make setdements more compact and pre

nongovernment envt*vnmentalirttwho axe appalled by sprawl and want tostop its absorption of so much open land Ihey normally opmate out of private foundations and other gioups that are not part of the public sector The Sierra Club and the Nature Conservancy are examples of such groups Ihey function as private lobbyists trying to persuade the media, the public, and government officials to adopt broad Smart Growth policies (see, e g, Benfield et al, r999) The...