New subject: INNOVATION BRIEFS Advisory

17 Jun 2002

Ken,

As the MPO Executive Director in the Austin Texas metropolitan area, I hear
a lot about "Smart Growth".  I like the term used by the North Central Texas
COG better - "Development Excellence."  I agree with the NCTCOG that quality
of life in land use and transportation is what we're after, whether that be
in low density or high density development.   All metropolitan areas have
some similarities, e.g. predominance of the automobile, but they have some
differences, too, e.g. propensity for passenger rail systems in congested
corridors.  I don't think national trends are helpful to planners in
individual areas trying to find solutions to problems with specific local
conditions.  There is a lot of situation diversity between metropolitan
areas and within them, too.  Therefore, different solutions work in
different places and under different conditions.  The solutions should be
customized for each area, taking advantage of applicable lessons learned
from peer cities. 

I think that opinionated positions on land use and transportation lead to a
"I'm right/ you're wrong" mentality driven by egos that only leads to a
lot
of heat and not much light in solving urban problems. 

Thanks for the opportunity,
Michael Aulick

...
  -----Original Message-----
 From:	C Kenneth Orski [SMTP:korski@erols.com]
 Sent:	Sunday, June 16, 2002 10:57 AM
 To:	Ed Herlihy
 Cc:	ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
 Subject:	Re: [CTPP] INNOVATION BRIEFS Advisory

 Ed -
 Perhaps my point of view will become clearer if you see the entire
 Brief, which is attached. Unlike you, most "smart growth" and
 anti-automobile crusaders refuse to accept the implications of the
 trends revealed by the 2000 census. You would understand what I mean if
 you took part (as I do) in some of the other forums devoted to "smart
 growth" and anti-automobile proselytizing, such as CNU (Congress of New
 Urbanism), STPP and TLC-net. Unfortunately, many "smart growth" and
 anti-auto zealots are not as reasonable and clear thinking as you. They
 do not let facts interfere with their  ideology.
 Regards, 
 Ken Orski
 ----------------      

 Ed Herlihy wrote:

 Ken:

 As one of those who happens to support the Smart Growth movement you can
 rest assured that I was not at all "surprised" by the new data in the 
Year
  2000 Census.  Most of us who follow these things,
even casually, knew  full
  well that the aggregate trends were (and are)
still going in the "wrong"
 direction.  Lets remember, the Smart Growth movement is just a "babe in  the
  woods" and it may take decades for the
message to take hold.

 Perhaps the message of Smart Growth will not take hold and perhaps there  are
  some land speculators who still expect to derive
huge profits from  sprawl
  and the proliferation of large lot McMansions. 
So be it.

 But it is not the job of the "new Census data" to send us a message that 
all
  of the Smart Growth ideas are a
"failure".  And it was never the message
 from the Smart Growth folks that the car was going to be obsolete at any
 time in the future.

 It is  the job of planners to seek out solutions that best serve our
 communities.  And, as we dig into the census data, we will most likely  find
  some exceptions to the overall trends that will
tell a good story about
 Smart Growth and its benefits.

 Ed Herlihy
 Reston, VA

 PS. OK, I fully agree the CTPP may not the best list to start a  discussion
  about the merits of Smart Growth.  If the list
moderators have a  suggestion,
  I will be glad to move the discussion to a more
appropriate forum, if  there
  is one.  Any suggestions? << File: New
Census Data Provides Reality 
 Check.doc >>  

RE: [CTPP] INNOVATION BRIEFS Advisory