Their Argument Against Compact Cities example essay topic

Reaction Paper: Are Compact Cities a Desirable Planning Goal? The article written by Peter Gordon and Harry W. Richardson entitled; Are Compact Cities a Desirable Planning Goal? shows various arguments against the reason for compact cities to become implemented. They use the city of Toronto in the beginning of the article to compare it with cities in the United States. Throughout the article many topics and arguments are discussed which are; agricultural land, density preferences, energy glut, the scope for transit, suburbanization and congestion, the efficiency of compactness, technology and agglomeration-congestion trade-offs, downtown's in eclipse, rent-seeking and politics, compactness and equity, and competition among cities. From these issues displayed in the article, many valuable arguments could be agreed with. The authors used valuable data from past research done on the topics discussed in presenting their argument against compact cities.

Two main points from the article were considered most interesting. The issues of density preferences and energy glut discussed by the authors were quite interesting and have made a valid point. First of all as discussed in the article concerning density preferences, the authors make it clear that most people preferred low-density living as opposed to high-density living. As stated by Gordon and Richardson, "The choice for low-density living is influenced by instruments promoting suburbanization, such as: preferential income tax treatment of home mortgage interest, subsidies to automobile use, and interstate highway system" (Gordon and Richardson, 96). The previous quote identifies the preference people have concerning suburbanization. Because of preferential income tax treatment of home mortgage interest, subsidies to automobile use, and interstate highway systems low-density living is preferred.

One great factor also concerning low-density preference is the fact that more funds are given to highways and parking than transit as stated by the authors. "Federal, state and local expenditures for highways and parking were $66.5 billion in '91. Federal, state and local expenditures for public transit were $20.8 billion" (Gordon and Richardson, 96). As seen in the quote, more subsidies are given to highways making having an automobile beneficial. Another key proponent is that congestion pricing and emission fees are not present in most U.S. states making it less difficult to drive long distances. Since low-density preference is one key issue concerning suburbanization, another compelling argument is that energy costs are low in the U.S. Since energy is cheap, the cost of gasoline is likewise.

It is stated in the article that per capita energy consumption is below the level of consumption as it was in 1973 in the U.S. (Gordon and Richardson). Given that energy consumption is low in the U.S., the prices for gas have been relatively low. Although it is said in the article that gas prices are low, present day gas prices are relatively increasing. Meanwhile there is an increase in gas prices, it still does not seem to impact suburbanization.

Because of the low energy consumption, energy constraints are not a valid argument (Gordon and Richardson). The arguments made by the authors about energy consumption are convincing. Since it is said that energy is cheap and gasoline prices are rather low, it does not mention the increases in gasoline as were experienced. One thing that is noticed is that although gas prices rise, people do not seem to be affected by its constraints.

People will still pay for gas even if it were to be very expensive. Having gas prices rather high will also not make transit rider ship increase. Gasoline prices will have little, if no, affect on suburbanization. All issues discussed in the article, as stated before, seem quite valid and the authors have shown research. One concern is that when mentioning statistical information in a research finding it is expected to be shown the information gathered by the researcher instead of just being cited. Showing numbers and comparing those numbers is always useful when comparing two or more ideas or issues like the ones being discussed in the article.

Another issue is that when discussing cities in the U.S. the authors could mention cities in other countries. Finding information on other countries and how they deal with compactness or suburbanization can be very useful. Many cities are very different from U.S. cities and are quite successful. Although the article is geared towards suburbanization instead of compact cities, the authors have been convincing in their arguments. Since many planners advocate compactness, the authors are convinced compactness is not always beneficial. Many planners also favor neo-traditional neighborhoods solving many social problems downtown areas have.

Although many planners make convincing arguments on new urbanism, they are not always successful. Making the new urbanism communities pedestrian oriented does not mean people will stop using their automobile. In a new urbanism community distances are shortened making travel costs very cheap. Since travel costs are cheap, the automobile will still be used often making new urbanism not much of a difference. While reading the article it was noticed that many of the issues conversed were in the situation of the Phoenix Metropolitan Area. Phoenix, as many people know, is suburbanized with growth away from the central business district.

This is true because many industries moving towards the suburbs causing people to reside away from the downtown area. Another issue with people moving to the suburbs is the many social problems many downtown's have. One lecture that was attended dealt with theory of urban design. In one of the lectures it was mentioned that Latin American cities were considered open and U.S. cities were considered closed. Latin American cities are considered open because the way cities are structured is by having the poor living away from the downtown area and in the outer region. U.S. cities are the opposite having the upper middle class living in the suburbs and not in the downtown area. All in all the article was very convincing leading to understanding of why many U.S. cities are suburbanized and not compact.

The basic ideas shared by the authors helped realized that suburbanization is not a bad thing. Of course according to environmentalists suburbanization is not supported because of the vast land that is being used. Never the less one question has been asked: will the increase in gas prices affect automobile and transit use in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area? Gordon, Peter and Harry W. Richardson. 'Are Compact Cities a Desirable Planning Goal?'.

APA Journal. Winter 1997. vs. 63. n. 1. pg 95-105.