Friday, June 29, 2001

National Geographic Magazine

PO Box 98198

Washington DC 20090-8198

As a resident of Atlanta, a city renowned for urban sprawl, I read with interest John G. Mitchell's article on the topic (National Geographic, July, 2001, page 48). However, I believe the article was long on opinion, short on facts, and advanced many popular misconceptions.

Urban sprawl is fundamentally a problem of aesthetics and convenience. People do not find strip malls visually appealing. Having to ride congested highways to work is an inconvenience. However, many of the same people who condemn urban sprawl nevertheless choose to live in communities plagued by it. We can avoid urban sprawl entirely by relocating to sparsely populated areas. The fact that we don't - on balance - means that most of us believe that the benefits of living in certain densely populated areas outweigh the costs.

It seems presumptuous for Mitchell to assume that he knows what is best for everyone else. Underlying many of the arguments against urban sprawl - and its by-product, the deep discount megastores mentioned in the article - is a not-so-subtle cultural elitism and classicism. Many urban sprawl critics assume everyone shares their fine sensibilities, that we should only have to drive through quaint little neighborhoods dotted with just the right number of rationally-spaced family-owned stores. They assume that because they are willing and able to pay a premium to live in such a community, that everyone should (or could). They assume, in other words, everyone should finance their vision of a more aesthetically pleasing America.

For make no mistake about it: smart zoning would make houses unaffordable for many Americans. It is a basic function of supply and demand: the more you restrict land development, the more expensive land becomes. We might have more visually pleasing, less congested neighborhoods, but only the wealthy could afford to live in them.

For evidence of this, visit Seaside, Florida, the quintessential planned community. Although a pleasant vacation spot, it is prohibitively expensive. Many visitors find it sterile. It was no coincidence that Hollywood chose it as the site of The Truman Show, a movie about a man living in a fake world. Yes, sprawl has its costs, but so does central community planning.

Ironically, Mitchell claims at one point that urban sprawl has made homes less affordable. The exact opposite is true. Development of new neighborhoods on previously undeveloped land increases the supply of homes and drives down their price, all things being equal. The index of home affordability - a relationship of median home price to median family income - is at the most favorable level in decades. The percentage of Americans owning their own home (66% in 1999) is higher than at any point in history, and much higher than in European countries (that have much more zealous central planning communities). If homes were really becoming less affordable, then the percentage of Americans who own their own home would be going down, not up. Urban sprawl may be unsightly, but it creates affordable neighborhoods.

The affluent in Atlanta do not live in suburbia; they live in older homes in town, many built in the 1950s or earlier. It is solidly middle and working class families who occupy those neighborhoods with the worst sprawl.

Urban sprawl is really not a function of sprawl but of dense population clustering. As the satellite image on page 56 shows, most people live on either coast. Vast areas of this country are virtually uninhabited. The problem is not that we are sprawling but that we are not sprawling uniformly or rationally. Everyone seems to want to live in Boston, New York, Washington, Atlanta, or San Francisco. Naturally, those cities exhibit some of the strains and inconveniences of urban sprawl. That is the price paid for clustering in high-demand areas. Once again, basic laws of supply and demand are at work.

Americans want affordable, plentiful housing, yet lament their long commute. They claim to want simplicity and a slower lifestyle, but crowd into increasingly densely populated communities. They condemn mass discount mega-stores but enjoy their convenience, selection, and low prices anyway. They haven't really thought the problem through. What do they want: a centrally planned community out of reach for most Americans, or continued development of aesthetically unpleasing but economically efficient strip-mall-centered neighborhoods? Judging from their actions, the overwhelming vote is for the latter.

I could avoid urban sprawl entirely by moving an hour out of Atlanta into rural Georgia. But my family would not move with me. The fact is that most people clearly prefer suburbia, strip malls and all, to the hinterland. In a free country, we have the right to choose. Unless we want to issue internal passports a la Stalin or Mao, Americans will continue to live where they want. And that means sprawl.

In the end, I'm confident that urban sprawl will be its own solution. The residents of suburbia may decide - or their children may decide - that there is a better way. It's already happening here in Atlanta, where older homes such as ours in "in town" neighborhoods are soaring in value, and people are rediscovering abandoned textile mills and converting them into apartments. These "problems" tend to work themselves out; it is when the social engineers and those convinced they know what is best for everyone else start to meddle that we are all in trouble.

Mark Vakkur, M.D.

1751 Vickers Circle

Decatur, GA 30030

(404) 377-8684 (home); (404) 964 9883 (cell)

email: mvakkur@hotmail.com

homepage: www.vakkur.com