How localism's rationales limit new urbanism's success and what new regionalism can do about it.

• Author: Polmateer, Timothy
• Position: Introduction through II. Localism A. The Theory of Localism 2. Proponents of Localism Suggest Efficiency, Democratic, and Motivational Benefits, p. 1085-1111

Introduction I. New Urbanism as a Land Use Archetype A. The Principles of New Urbanism B. Tools for Implementing New Urbanism C. Why Is New Urbanism an Important Planning Tool for the Twenty-First Century? D. Incentives for Implementing New Urbanism II. Localism A. The Theory of Localism 1. Localism as an Autonomy Argument 2. Proponents of Localism Suggest Efficiency, Democratic, and Motivational Benefits 3. Localism's Arguments Dissected for Flaws B. Localism's Connection to New Urbanism 1. Local Land Use Autonomy Leads to a Void in Comprehensive Approaches 2. Municipal Self-Interest Disincentives Interlocal Bargaining 3. Isolationist Tendencies Create a Patchwork of Suburban Implementation 4. Inequalities Between Municipalities Produce Exclusionary Regimes 5. High Property Prices and the Need to Increase the Tax Base Limits Diversity III. New Regionalism and New Urbanism Working Together A. New Regionalism Defined as an Interlocal Cooperation B. The Obstacles to New Regionalism C. Filling the Gaps of New Urbanism by Overlaying New Regionalism D. Regional Cooperation Proves Successful in the Delaware Valley Conclusion INTRODUCTION

Thomas Jefferson dreamt of an agrarian republic for his newly liberated country. (1) He envisioned a nation populated with small, independent farmers, each cultivating the land to provide just enough sustenance for economic self-sufficiency. (2) Jefferson said, "Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition." (3) For Jefferson, the city epitomized this vitriolic view of dependence. (4) He wrote, "The mobs of great cities add just so much to the support of pure government, as sores do to the strength of the human body." (5) Jefferson believed urban living was detrimental to the health of society and preferred other forms of settlement. (6)

Consequently, this anti-urban rhetoric became encoded in early national opinion and strategy. (7) For example, while in the Continental Congress, Jefferson authored the Land Ordinance of 1785 (the Ordinance). (8) Among other things, the Ordinance established a system of surveying the land west of the Appalachian Mountains and east of the Mississippi River to create ten new states. (9) The sale of that land provided a revenue stream to pay the debts of the American Revolution. (10) The Ordinance initiated a rectangular system for dividing the land within six-mile square townships. (11) Each square was divided thirty-six times into 640-acre sections. (12) Of the total sections, one section was reserved for public education, and thirty-five were offered for sale to the public at one dollar per acre. (13) This arrangement would lay the foundation of American land policy for the next century. (14) Although the Ordinance did not mention anti-urban policies, it clearly discouraged urban growth by providing a system for people to literally sprawl across large plots of land. (15) Through his political vision and actions, Jefferson linked the future of American development to what we classify today as suburban sprawl. (16)

Not coincidentally, over the last one hundred years, American land use policy has embodied Jefferson's sprawl philosophy. Regulations were designed to segregate uses of land, reduce population density, and facilitate the use of automobiles. (17) Residential areas became segregated from commercial developments, and neighborhoods were thinly spread across vast tracts of open land. (18) Originally hailed as a solution to the "evils of city life," suburban sprawl has come to represent the American dream, where citizens can own a home, two-car garage, both back and front yards, and if you are truly lucky, a pool. (19)

Unfortunately, suburban sprawl has also had regrettable side effects. Critics of sprawl claim that it causes a splintered and segregated development of society, which leads to social and economic inequalities. (20) Additionally, sprawl displaces agrarian and natural spaces while emptying American cities of their populations and resources. (21) Additionally, as more space on the outskirts of development is consumed, people must travel further to their workplace and to places of commerce. Accordingly, suburbanites spend more time in their personal automobiles and less time interacting with one another, (22) which can have a deteriorating effect on American communities. (23)

Recently, however, greater metropolitan areas that include suburban enclaves have grown more dense as people move back towards the city center. (24) "Over the past 60 years, the urbanized areas of the planet have gone from 29 percent in 1950, to half of the world's population today, and by 2050, 70 percent of the world's population is expected to live in urban regions." (25) Similarly, reflecting these trends, in the United States the suburban metropolis contains more than half of its citizens, compared with roughly twenty-three percent in 1950. (26) In fact, according to the 2000 census, one third of all Americans live in twenty of the largest metropolitan areas. (27) Some predict that by 2050, ninety percent of the United States population will live in cities. (28)

These metropolitan areas have also emerged as single, cohesive economic units that compete in the world economy. (29) This phenomenon has made economic interdependence of the smaller municipalities within the metropolitan area a reality. (30) Problems of the typical "inner city" were previously seen as independent from the suburbs, but it is now necessary to examine these issues from a regional perspective. (31) Even if a person lives and works in a single municipality, his economic and ecological footprints reverberate throughout the region. (32)

As urbanization develops, its patterns of growth follow the path of least resistance. (33) For instance, urban revitalization offers developers an opportunity to reclaim previously abandoned lots. (34) Reclamation of individual lots creates the possibility for disorganized development with little potential to be "stable, self-sustaining, and self-renewing." (35) Additionally, empty lots have become integrated into the communities of the inner city by utilizing them as parks and gardens. (36) As these types of places are consumed by economic demand, inner cities run the risk of losing their sense of community. This potential consequence of urbanization, coupled with sporadic patterns of development, presents a risk to stability. Therefore, it is imperative that the redevelopment of inner cities occurs under a conscious plan to retain the culture of the inner city, while addressing some of the traditional downsides of the urban environment.

As a result of sprawl's negative consequences along with the trending return to city living, a few urban planners met in the 1990s to rethink traditional zoning codes. (37) One possible remedy that emerged was "new urbanism," and the Congress for New Urbanism. (38) Instilled with the principles of restoring the walkability of the urban landscape, revitalizing communities through the diversification of land uses and social interactions, and preserving the natural and national legacy of America, new urbanism aims to restore the once vital and influential city center. (39) To sustain these principles, new urbanists intend to create a coherent and supportive physical framework. (40) However, this concept does not attempt to replicate the blueprints of past development styles. (41) Rather, new urbanists plan and design using traditional community principles, such as individual home ownership, shared common spaces, and small localized businesses, while also integrating modern technology and amenities. (42) The approach attempts to address the social and economic deterioration of the American urban landscape through precise planning and development. (43)

A major challenge for new urbanism, however, is that planners are dependent on municipal actors who implement localized land use regimes. (44) Traditionally, municipalities have relied on the land use concept known as "Euclidean zoning." (45) Euclidean zoning segregates uses by area, such as residential from commercial, and both from industrial. (46) Euclidian zoning regulation is also associated with the expansion of sprawl. (47) Even though many local planners and public officials may not advocate for sprawl, controlling governments using Euclidean principles continue to approve sprawl-related projects, and thus perpetuate the defective structure. (48) However, new urbanism depends on integrating uses and the flexibility to work around Euclidean boundaries. (49) New urbanist planners will have to evolve their municipalities' land use regimes.

Local municipalities control their land use regulations, and have the ability to amend or modify the ordinances and processes used. (50) Even with this flexibility, local land use planners have not created systems for the successful implementation of new urbanism, and it has failed to become a dominant land use form. (51) Some argue that local municipalities' failure to implement new urbanism lies in market force manipulation like developer pressures or even individual suspicion and backlash from citizens. (52) Others argue that the failure lies in the local governments' inability to establish a policy framework that supports the underlying principles. (53) A third argument focuses on the patchwork implementation of new urbanism and lack of connection between new developments and surrounding areas. (54)

This...