Going Up
Implicit in the arguments for high density, transit-oriented development (TOD) is the assumption that a noticeable percentage of people who move to these neighborhoods will either forgo a car entirely or keep it parked in a garage or on the street for long periods at a time. Dense, mixed use developments close to transit are supposed to allow for hassle free carless living – all essential destinations can be accessed either by foot, bike or public transit. When properly designed, these developments should also actively discourage car ownership through limited parking space and narrow, pedestrian friendly streets. The reality is that these developments aren’t outlawing car ownership, but relying on the logic and good intentions of the people who live there. Even if you are a supporter of TOD, it is fair to wonder how many residents of such neighborhoods will actually live the dream. This debate is occurring in Los Angeles, where the city has explicitly promoted residential development in the downtown core, near multiple subway lines and an array of bus routes. Some critics claim that, rather than decrease traffic, the addition of thousands of new housing units downtown heightens already crippling congestion. Counter to the naïve assumptions of planners, the argument goes, each of these new residents will bring along at least one car, and, instead of living in a smart growth utopia, downtown residents will find themselves strangled by congestion worse than what afflicts people in the suburbs.
While it would be nice to hear that new residents of downtown L.A. are giving up their cars in droves, I’m not the least bit surprised that the opposite may be true. Changing the car culture takes decades of perseverance and commitment to an alternative vision, especially in a place like L.A. Planners may have visions of turning the region into an alternative transportation mecca, but local residents are as car-addicted as any on the planet. The ultra-convenient bus stop or train station that causes residents of New York, Chicago or Portland to rave about their neighborhood is just another obstacle for the Angeleno to avoid on his or her path to the garage. High density development near transit by itself cannot fight this culture. The impediments to driving need to be as well-designed and thoughtful as the developments themselves.
Thankfully, there aren’t any other options for L.A. Every corner of Southern California is already built out, and densities are increasing throughout the region, not just in L.A. The demand for housing in the region continues to grow, and will increase residential density wherever it goes. Development that doesn’t happen downtown, where transit options exist to wean people from their cars, will occur where people are permanently tied to their cars and 90 minute commutes. Forcing new development into downtown will be messy in the short run, but is a necessary step in the region’s evolution to a more sustainable future. The impediments created by the heavy concentration of residents and vehicles downtown will slowly wear away at even the most stubborn driving habits. Plus, the funneling of residents into downtown allows for more expedient implementation of stringent measures like congestion pricing, higher parking fees and tougher parking enforcement. None of this is possible if growth is pushed away from the center city.
The ongoing debate in L.A. is fascinating but ultimately an academic exercise. Southern California’s hands are tied from decades of uncontrolled sprawl. Smaller metropolitan areas throughout the U.S., however, still have serious choices about where growth will occur, and have the unfortunate luxury of looking the other way as their cities expand out instead of up. Hopefully, leaders in these areas will pay attention to the lessons of L.A. rather than the rhetoric of critics long on complaints but short on solutions.