We've been hearing a lot about the pros and cons of Measure L in Pacifica. Supporters describe it as "Smart Growth," using New Urbanism concepts developed by some very good urban planners. As a professional geographer I've heard a good deal over the years about New Urbanism, and have even served as an advisor on Masters Theses examining transit-oriented development, a common component of New Urbanism designs.
One basic premise of New Urbanism is that development over the last century in North America has promoted a low-density residential pattern, with its attendant societal and environmental problems. So-called "urban sprawl" is difficult to serve by public transit and increases dependence on the automobile. It also wastes tremendous amounts of open space, decimating and isolating natural habitats for plants and animals, and requiring that residents travel long distances to escape from "the city." New Urbanists point to the European model, with more compact residential and commercial areas, where residents can do much of their travel on foot or by public transit. Instead of having vast private yards and parking lots, we could have more nearby open space to support wildlife and recreation.
Clearly, Pacifica is a good example of urban sprawl development. Most homes (including mine) are uninspired single-family detached structures, and most were built in the post-war baby boom which generated the urban sprawl phenomenon nationwide. Still, due to its unique geography, Pacificans enjoys access to beautiful open spaces from mountain-sides to the coast. We are fortunate that many have fought to limit the development of open space.
Proponents of Measure L have observed that Pacifica suffers from haphazard development and poor building practices, especially a concern in an area with natural hazards like coastal erosion, earthquakes and landslides. Many would probably like to see us go back and do it right this time, employing New Urbanism concepts. I'm certainly in agreement with this: Pacifica would be much better if we could go back and change the plans before it was built. If Pacifica were more walkable, with higher-density residential areas, we could easily support a high-quality, reliable public transit system, with viable commercial areas not dependent on the automobile. (If you can walk, why drive over the hill?) Serving the same population, we would have much larger and more diverse areas of open space. We would also have a creek system still connected to its floodplain, and not threatening creek-side residents' back yards.
However, the assumption that the development of the quarry site using a New Urbanism model would fix all of Pacifica's ills is naive. We'd still have all of the other low-density homes and no better public transit, but with a much greater volume of traffic to deal with. A "town center" sounds nice and looks nice when drawn out by a landscape architect, but it ignores the fact that you can only reach it by automobile (so we'll need a new parking lot) since it's placed far from most residents. And the laundry list of other improvements attributed to this measure clearly shows that many people hear what they want to hear.
A new development is not going to change Pacifica's dependence on the automobile. The "Measure L will fix traffic" argument made in the glossy flyer I just received is based solely on assumed increased tax revenue "allowing our city to fix problems". There are major problems with this argument: (1) increased revenues are short-term, and studies repeatedly show that increased revenues from housing are always less than the increased municipal infrastructure costs for supporting those houses; and (2) throwing money at freeway expansion rarely helps: increased capacity is always overwhelmed, just as in Los Angeles. Arguments that traffic would be much worse with a large commercial development (assuming that is a realistic possibility) ignores the fact that Pacifica's traffic problems come at commute time.
I'd like to propose an alternative to Measure L: investment in a good time machine. Then perhaps we could take some of these good ideas back to when they could have made a real difference, when our neighborhoods were being (poorly) planned in the first place. A new development today, albeit higher density, doesn't turn back time but only increases the sprawl we're already living in.
Dr. Jerry Davis is Professor of Geography and Director of the Institute for Geographic Information Science, San Francisco State University.
The above was printed as a Guest Column in the October 25th, 2006 Pacifica Tribune, and is republished here with the author's permission.