CITIES AND TOWNS ARE BAD FOR THE CHESAPEAKE BAY because of all their polluted stormwater runoff. Most home buyers today want big lots, as far from town as they can get. Sprawl (scattered low-density, single-use development, far from town and cities) is just a product of the "free market." "Density" means high-rises, crime and dirty streets. The suburbs are quiet, pastoral and safe places, and low densities preserve rural character.

Heard all these before? Believe them? They are all wrong -- or at least they're not as "true" as they appear to be. And there are a lot of other myths and misconceptions about development that could use some "straight" talk -- because the Bay can no longer afford sprawl.

Myth 1: Everyone wants a big lot in the suburbs (Part I).

According to the National Association of Home Builders' (NAHB) yearly surveys, for decades people have consistently said that what they want is the most house for their money (that is, good value) in a good neighborhood. The NAHB surveys confirm that home buyers do not necessarily want a big lot or one that is isolated from retail and community services. A neighborhood or community represents a total package of assets and values. Easy walks to parks and shops, good schools, sociable town centers, narrow (not wide) streets, and conserved open space, also rank very high in other recent housing consumers preference surveys.

Conventional large lot developments simply cannot deliver on many of these characteristics. Ironically, compact development is cheaper to build, thus a greater value to buy; and, the "cheaper" housing farther from towns (because of lower land costs for the developer) fails to account for vastly increased transportation costs for the buyer.

Myth 2: Everyone wants a big (house and) lot in the suburbs (Part II).

Even though the era of "Ozzie and Harriet" is some 30 years past, we're still building homes as if this TV family reflected today's households. Less than half of all American families today have children under 18 living at home, and of those that do, one-third are single parent families. Also, as baby boomers age and the elderly live longer, productive lives, this population is comprising a growing proportion of housing consumers whose small household size will require different housing types and different development patterns (e.g., for many elderly, the car is not a viable transportation option). Even today, reflecting these smaller households, more than half of all new homes built and sold in such Bay metro areas as the Baltimore region are in the higher density ranges -- e.g., townhomes and condominium units.

Myth 3: Developers are simply building what and where the public wants; it's a "free market" out there.

The market for housing hasn't been "free" for at least 50 years. Since the late 1940's, federal and state governments have actively promoted suburban sprawl. Everything from tax policy to the overwhelming government support for highways over all other modes of transportation, have supported sprawl. These public policies, laws and plans have encouraged homebuilders to build on farms or forest land well outside of town, or required that they build in low density, single use patterns. And ironically, although there is little real "product"out there from which to choose, numerous visual preference surveys show that people actually prefer communities which more resemble pre-World War II towns.

Myth 4: Cities and towns are bad for the Bay.

It is true that urban runoff supplies toxic pollutants to creeks, rivers and the Bay. But such runoff is not reduced, in the long run, by scattering housing across the landscape, building huge strip shopping centers and malls, and isolating offices and industry in single use "parks". The results of sprawl are insidious: more and wider roads are required to connect these land uses; their relative isolation requires several times the driving (and air pollution, which then falls back to the ground and waterways); and the commercial land uses that are built to serve residents are wholly auto-oriented.

Furthermore, such patterns consume farmland, forest and wetland. Farms and forest land are naturally beneficial for the Bay. The former, if well-managed, can produce less toxics than residential lawns and can always revert to forest and wetland in the future. Finally, accommodating several million more people in or adjacent to city, town, or village centers is just plain efficient: it saves naturally productive open land and produces less pollutants on a per person basis. It also allows for efficient technical solutions for runoff, such as improved sewerage systems.

Myth 5: More density means more crime, and congested roads.

Study after study confirms that there is no cause and effect relationship between housing density and crime rates. Scholars and urbanist Jane Jacobs makes excellent arguments for density, and for community designs that put more "eyes on the street." According to Portland, Oregon's chief of police, community policing is made much easier with designs that include pedestrian-friendly streets, a diversity of housing types and densities, and a diversity of people of different ages, incomes and cultures who get to know one another. Driving around spread-out suburban areas is very inefficient for police patrols, and many such areas never see any police presence.

The traffic corollary is that density (and mixes of uses) do not produce more traffic than compact, mixed-use communities. In fact, one recent study showed that a doubling of density reduces the total number of vehicle miles driven in an area by 20 to 30 percent. The reason is that with added density and some mix of uses, more people can accommodate their daily needs without using cars or with fewer and shorter "chained" trips. In contrast, according to official data, car ownership patterns and driving habits in the suburbs dramatically increase the number of miles driven and trips taken. We cannot build our way out of traffic congestion in urbanizing areas, but changes in land use patterns, with more compact development, can reduce certain travel needs and support safe and efficient modern transit.

Myth 6: Scattered, low density development preserves rural character.

The opposite is true. Two- and three-acre lots, and even five- and ten-acre "farmettes," eat up traditional landscapes, ruin country vistas, and make natural economically productive uses in rural areas (such as farming or timbering) impossible to sustain. In a study completed by CBF in 1996, a conventional, low-density, rural development design consumed twice as much open space as a more compact, clustered concept.

Strip malls, fast food joints and endless subdivisions quickly overtake community character, converting the rural heritage of "Chesapeake country," -- Pennsylvania dairy farms and orchards, the Virginia Piedmont and tidewater, Maryland watermen's communities to the unrecognizable sameness of everywhere else.

Myth 7: "Managing growth" means that the state will take over local government powers.

Local governments must retain primary authority for making local land use decisions for reasons of accountability and local knowledge. But local planning can and should be guided by overarching state growth objectives and requirements since the effects of local decisions don't stop at the county line. Examples of guidance by the state include requiring the development and implementation of urban growth boundaries, as well as public policies that encourage good development within them and discourage substantial development outside them. The state, too, has a stake in conserving open and productive land and in making public infrastructure investments efficient.

Myth 8: "Managing growth" means forcing everyone to live in cities or in apartments.

Most new growth would be directed toward (and adjacent to) existing towns and other centers of development, but there will always be some opportunity for very low-density living. Traditional town designs, following familiar, centuries-old patterns in the Bay region, can accommodate higher densities without sacrificing privacy, safety or comfort. These concepts would not require everyone to live in the highest of densities, but provide for a variety of housing types. Townhomes, duplexes, and small lot designs, such as are prevalent in places such as Easton, Maryland, Alexandria, Virginia, and many a small Pennsylvania town, can accommodate substantial growth with minimum impacts on the Bay.

Myth 9: Local economies need the tax base that growth management would destroy.

The tax base of local communities is terribly weakened by most form of sprawl. This inefficient pattern of development is difficult and expensive to serve with public services. Single-use, low-density growth usually costs communities much more than it returns to local coffers; thus the local depth currently faced by many a Bay region local government "blessed" by such growth (for example, recent estimates by Prince William County, Virginia are that each new sprawl-designed home costs the locality $1,600 more than is returned in taxes and other revenues). Implementation of a local growth management program increases predictability for the development community and helps preserve the quality of life that makes a region attractive to business and industry.

Myth 10: Urban areas will benefit from growth management, but rural areas will suffer.

Not true. Rural jurisdictions which need economic development will still be able to attract it. But those jobs and improved services will be more appropriately directed toward established rural towns and villages, and other designated centers. In addition, traditional local rural industries such as farming, forestry, tourism, and recreation, often endangered by sprawl, will be protected. Finally, suffering urban areas can also find relief through the revitalization that naturally occurs as people rediscover town and cities.

The bottom line is that managed growth is better for the environment, more cost-efficient for local governments, and more profitable for developers. And, quite simply, the Bay cannot afford to continue down the path of sprawl.

TO LEARN MORE OR TO GET INVOLVED IN FIGHTING SPRAWL...contact the
Lands Program of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation
162 Prince George Street
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
Phone: (410) 268-8816
Our e-mail address is savethebay.cbf.org

CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION -- SAVE THE BAY
Headquarters
162 Prince George Street
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
Phone: (410) 268-8816

Maryland Office
164 Conduit Street
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
Phone: (410) 268-8833

Virginia Offices
1001 East Main Street
Heritage Building
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Phone: (804) 780-1392

100 West Plume Center
Norfolk, Virginia 23510
Phone: (757) 622-1964

Pennsylvania Office
214 State Street
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101
(717) 234-5550

Copyright: Reprinted with permission from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. All rights reserved.

Back To Top