Opinion

Has LA's Sprawl Really Hit the Wall?
by Beth Steckler

Southern Sierran - August 2002

The headlines are calling attention to a deepening regional crisis: “No Ideal Boast: L.A. Traffic Worst—Again,” “Prices Soar for Housing in Southland,” “Pasadena’s Poor Lack Housing, Suit Claims,” “LA has Worst Air.” Traffic congestion, deteriorating air quality and loss of open space are the byproducts of urban sprawl. Is there another way?

Planners, academics and policy makers at the state and local levels have been grappling with these questions. Many have come to the conclusion that the model of freeway and suburban housing development that has characterized post-WWII Los Angeles is simply not sustainable—that sprawl has hit the wall.

At the same time, our population is growing—mostly due to births rather than to people moving here. During the last decade large numbers of people left because of the economic and natural disasters and almost no housing was built. Even so, our population grew. The question is no longer one of whether we should encourage growth, but rather, how we will improve the quality of life as we have children? How do we make our neighbors and the region both livable and sustainable?

Are You Ready for More Traffic?
In putting together its 25-year transportation plan, the L.A. County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) concluded that we cannot resolve our traffic problems by building more roads. More roads are not only expensive, but also actually increase the amount of driving. The MTA projects that by 2025 highway speeds at rush hour will drop by half—from 32 mph in 1998 to 16 mph in 2025. A traffic meltdown by anyone’s standards.

Only when the MTA stepped out of the let’s-build-more-roads box and assumed some changes in land use and development patterns did the outlook improve. “Smart Growth”—with new development taking place as infill, rather than on the suburban fringe—was the only scenario under which current rush-hour highway speeds did not fall dramatically.

As the MTA’s analysis shows, the problem isn’t more people, as is commonly assumed. We can accommodate our children and grandchildren if we are smart about where we put our new homes, workplaces, schools, stores, restaurants and parks.

Where Can We Build More Homes?
In the early 1990s, there was a public discussion about where new development should go to accommodate population growth in Los Angeles. First adopted in 1993 after extensive public participation, the L.A. City General Plan Framework puts a high priority on preserving stable neighborhoods of single-family homes. However, recognizing that population growth is likely, the framework calls for housing to be built, as infill, along boulevards and transit corridors. However, very little housing has been built in the city, and even less of it is affordable to people working for an hourly wage.

The Challenge
Albert Einstein once said, “The significant problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them.” The challenge before us is accommodating growth in a way that improves, rather than worsens, the quality of life. At least three things are key to creating a new vision for a more livable region.

First, we have to rethink our obsession with all things automotive. Movement of cars and ample parking take top priority in our planning decisions. We have reached the practical limits of the single-occupant car with our congested freeways and long boulevards dotted with surface parking lots in front of stores and businesses. Los Angeles’ much derided contribution to urban design, the corner mini-mall, is everywhere. Forgotten are the bus rider, the bicyclist and the child walking to school.

Second, we have to let go of the idea that if you don’t build it, they won’t come. Our population is growing because we are here and we are having children. We know firsthand that not planning for growth doesn’t prevent the growth. Not building decent homes for our growing population erodes our quality of life as home prices soar and multiple families crowd into single-family houses or garages.

Third, we need to encourage a more urban design, rather than suburban design, for selected areas. Public transportation and neighborhood shopping districts work better when more people live within walking distance. When thoughtfully designed and located, a four- or five-story apartment building can be an asset for a neighborhood by building in a customer base for neighborhood businesses, providing needed densities for more frequent bus or rail service, and increasing safety by increasing the number of people walking in the neighborhood.

Beth Steckler is the policy director for Livable Places, a nonprofit organization working to build housing and more sustainable communities.

For a full discussion of the problems facing the region and recommendations for addressing them see: “Sprawl Hits the Wall,” USC Southern California Studies Center and the Brookings Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, 2001.

Top