About Smart Growth

What Is Smart Growth?

Smart growth is development that serves the economy, the community, and the environment. It changes the terms of the development debate away from the traditional growth/no growth question to "how and where should new development be accommodated."

Smart Growth answers these questions by simultaneously achieving:

• Healthy communities -- that provide families with a clean environment. Smart growth balances development and environmental protection -- accommodating growth while preserving open space and critical habitat, reusing land, and protecting water supplies and air quality.
• Economic development and jobs -- that create business opportunities and improve local tax base; that provide neighborhood services and amenities; and that create economically competitive communities.
• Strong neighborhoods -- which provide a range of housing options giving people the opportunity to choose housing that best suits them. It maintains and enhances the value of existing neighborhoods and creates a sense of community.
• Transportation choices -- that give people the option to walk, ride a bike, take transit, or drive.

Though supportive of growth, communities are questioning the economic costs of abandoning infrastructure in the city and rebuilding it further out. They are questioning increasing commute times and longer distances to stores, schools and other daily needs. They are questioning the practice of abandoning older communities while developing open space and prime agricultural lands at the suburban fringe.

Smart growth recognizes the many benefits of growth. It invests time, attention, and resources in restoring community and vitality to existing cities and older suburbs. Smart growth in new developments is more town centered, is auto-accessible but also accommodates transit and pedestrian activity, and has a greater mix of housing, commercial and retail uses. It also preserves open space and protects sensitive areas such as wetlands. Smart growth recognizes connections between development and quality of life.

Many studies show that a more balanced pattern of growth may benefit the environment. Smart growth developments can minimize air and water pollution, facilitate brownfields cleanup and reuse, and preserve open space.

Air Quality -- Smart growth improves air quality by reducing automobile emissions. According to an evaluation of the environmental benefits of infill versus greenfield development, siting a new development in an existing neighborhood instead of on open space at the suburban fringe, can lower vehicle miles traveled by as much as 60%. Smart growth's emphasis on developing walkable communities and providing transportation choices - like transit, walking, and biking - can also reduce air pollution by reducing auto mileage and smog-forming emissions.

Water Quality -- Smart growth emphasizes compact development and open space preservation. Both can help protect water quality. Runoff from developed areas often contains toxic chemicals, phosphorus and nitrogen, and is the second most common source of water pollution for lakes and estuaries nationwide and the third most common source for rivers.

Brownfields Redevelopment -- Brownfields are abandoned, idled, or under-used industrial and commercial facilities where expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination. Brownfields redevelopment is an integral component to smart growth. By redeveloping a brownfield in an older city or suburban neighborhood, a community can remove blight and environmental contamination, create a catalyst for neighborhood revitalization, lessen development pressure at the urban edge, and use existing infrastructure.

Open Space Preservation -- Smart growth helps to protect farmland and open space by preserving these lands and encouraging growth in existing communities. Open space provides habitat and wildlife protection, outdoor recreation, and natural water filtration to ensure clean drinking water. Open space also provides buffers along stream beds to protect water quality.

A study for the State of New Jersey found that, compared to sprawl, planned growth could reduce the conversion of farmland by 28 percent, open space by 43 percent and environmentally fragile lands by 80 percent.

Development decisions have always been within the purview of local and state governments and should remain so. However, federal actions have had a profound impact on those decisions and ultimately on the shape of communities nationwide. In a 1999 survey conducted by the Fannie Mae Foundation, urban experts were asked to rank the top 10 influences on the American metropolis over the last 50 years. The two top-ranking influences cited were the 1956 Interstate Highway Act and the Federal Housing Administration's mortgage financing program. The Housing Act of 1949 was ranked fourth. The single most important message, according to the report, is the overwhelming impact of the federal government on the American Metropolis. In general, the federal impacts intentionally or unintentionally accelerated the spread of low density development and businesses at greater distances from towns and cities.

Development decisions should be made at the local level. The EPA cannot and should not be a national or regional development board. But the federal government can help states and municipalities better understand the impacts of development patterns. EPA can help states and communities realize the economic, community, and environmental benefits of smart growth by:

• Providing information, model programs, and analytical tools to inform communities about growth and development.
• Working to remove federal barriers that may hinder smarter community growth.
• Creating new resources and incentives for states and communities pursuing smart growth.

Communities and individuals across the country are realizing that growth patterns are having significant impacts on their ability to enjoy a good quality of life:

Environmental Degradation -- Open space and farmland loss has been increasing at an alarming rate. Between 1982 and 1997, the United States lost almost 500,000 acres of "prime" farmland to development every year. This translates into 56 acres per hour, every day.

Between 1980 and 1997, population growth increased at an annual rate of 1%, while vehicle miles driven increased 3.1% annually. Between 1990 and 1996, carbon dioxide emissions from transportation increased roughly 11%. Transportation accounted for over 30% of all carbon dioxide emissions. Carbon dioxide emissions contribute to global warming, and impair water quality through airborne pollutants deposited into water bodies.

As more land is developed, more surface area becomes impervious -- affecting ground water recharge and the volume and rate of surface water runoff. The National Water Quality Inventory: 1998 Report to Congress identified runoff from development as one of the leading sources of water quality impairment. Runoff from development was ranked as the sixth leading source of impairment in rivers, fourth in lakes, and second in estuaries.

Fiscal Concerns -- Many communities are questioning the practice of abandoning existing infrastructure in older communities only to rebuild similar services on the fringe. Serving poorly planned dispersed development stretches limited resources thin. A recent study for the City of Reno, Nevada found that city taxpayers subsidize development in unincorporated parts of Washoe County by more than $16 million each year (Economic and Planning Systems, 5/2000).

These subsidies are often in the form of increased costs of new infrastructure (such as sewers, power, phones) and of providing services (police, fire, schools, libraries) to a growing but scattered population. A regional Bell telephone operating company provided a rough estimate that, compared to the monthly costs of serving customers in the central business district, it costs twice as much to serve households in the rest of the central city and 10 times as much to serve households on the urban fringe. Yet all customers pay the same rates. This subsidization of low-density development is repeated in other services as well. Smart growth can help improve returns on existing public investment, reduce costs for infrastructure extensions, school transportation, and preserve fiscally beneficial farmland.

Traffic Congestion -- Since World War II, it has been common practice to separate different types of land uses, such as work places, shopping, and homes. This separation increases reliance on driving and the distance between destinations. Dispersed land uses do not provide options for walking or biking to stores, schools, workplaces, community centers, or transit stations. From 1983 to 1995, the average length of work trips increased by 36%, reflecting the fact that jobs and housing have become increasingly separated (Department of Transportation, 1997). One quarter of all trips are one mile or less, but three quarters of these trips are made by car (DOT, 1997).

Demographic Changes -- Demographic changes including declining household size and the aging of homebuyers are increasing the market for compact, easy to maintain housing that is close to urban amenities. Married couples with children now account for only 26% of all households. This is down from 40% a generation ago. One-third of the homebuying market is over the age of 45 years. According to a survey by the National Association of Home Builders, most respondents in this age group want to live in communities with diverse incomes and access to transportation options.

Development patterns are influenced by both market forces and by local, state, and federal policies and initiatives. As discussed earlier, the 1999 survey conducted by the Fannie Mae Foundation identified the 1956 Interstate Highway Act and the Federal Housing Administration's Mortgage financing program as the two top-ranking influences on metropolitan development.

Starting in 1934 the Federal Housing Administration began protecting homeowners and home sellers against default by insuring long-term, low down payment mortgages. These loans were exclusively for homes in areas that were thinly populated and dominated by lower density development. This policy created a clear non-market influence on consumer choices and a bias towards dispersed growth in ex-urban areas.

The 1956 Interstate Highway Act resulted in another example of government influencing market forces. While the benefits associated with America's extensive road network are well recognized, federally funded transportation projects have also substantially influenced development patterns. During the first decade of Interstate construction, 335,000 homes were demolished and urban highways bisected communities in the South Bronx, Nashville, Austin, Los Angeles, Durham and many other medium-sized or large American cities.

This new network of roads also enabled people to live further away from their jobs. Soon after residential development occurred along these transportation corridors, commercial development followed -- frequently locating around government provided infrastructure such as interchanges.

Policies at the state level have also had significant impacts on development patterns and decisions. For instance, state government school funding policies influence the land use patterns. For parents,schools can be a major factor in deciding where to live. Some states have funding policies which favor construction of new schools over renovation of existing school buildings. Barriers to renovating schools can influence parents to choose housing where new schools can be built - often on the edge of town.

There are many other government influences on development patterns. For instance:

• Local zoning regulations determine the size, type, and density of housing that can be provided in specific areas.
• Roads, sewers, parks, and schools provided by government influence private investment decisions.
• Housing codes can stifle rehabilitation efforts.
• Environmental rules can create barriers to redevelopment of abandoned property.
• Tax laws create an incentive to buy larger houses.
• School siting standards often direct new schools away from existing communities.
• Linear utilities such as water and sewer, phone service, and even mail often fail to reflect efficiencies associated with clustered development.

Clearly, development patterns are influenced by a variety of factors .The market is clearly important in shaping our current development patterns. However, it is equally clear that many non-market factors have also played a substantial role in creating our current built environment. Many of these non-market factors exist to accomplish specific public policy goals (housing, transportation, environmental protection) and have influenced development patterns in an accidental or unintended fashion. It is important to recognize and support the goals of these policies while better understanding and mitigating their impacts on development patterns. Smart growth policies seek to do just that.

All levels of government can promote smarter growth. Local governments, for example, can encourage a regional approach to metropolitan planning, promote walkable neighborhoods, facilitate the development of public transit systems, charge the actual cost of providing new utility services instead of the average cost, and zone communities for multiple uses and mixed-incomes. Cities as diverse as Portland, Oregon, Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Cleveland, Ohio, have successfully promoted such policies.

State governments can provide incentives to local governments by creating guidelines for growth management plans, grant infrastructure construction funds in exchange for smart growth innovations, use federal transportation funds to promote mass transit systems and pedestrian walkways, and help protect farmland and natural habitat. For example, Maryland's Smart Growth Initiative establishes a ten-agency sub-cabinet that uses the state's $16 billion budget to induce development in areas with existing or planned infrastructure.

The Federal government can promote smart growth through transportation, tax, housing and other policies. It already has increased transportation choices with the Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century of 1998 (TEA-21). TEA-21 surpassed its predecessor, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), by guaranteeing an even higher percentage of federal transportation funds for mass transit.

The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 curbs another incentive to ex-urban growth. It exempts the first $250,000 of a home sale from capital gains tax even for home buyers who do not reinvest the gain in a new home. This allows homebuyers to move to smaller homes in the city instead of purchasing more expensive homes on the suburban fringe simply to protect their capital gains from taxation.