Sprawl from Within

We can't understand "Sprawl from Within" until we first handle the idea of sprawl itself. We're not going into depth here, but suffice it to say that it addresses the idea of one type of environment, usually low-density "suburban-type" development, spreading out to engulf other types of development.

Sprawl is usually the inevitable result of growth. When Buffalo gained more and more population, it spread well beyond its original boundaries and expanded beyond areas such as Forest Lawn Cemetery that were formerly on the very edge of town. Such a process is natural, but, when uncontrolled, it can lead to unexpected and sometimes negative results, particularly when the original areas are not preserved as high-quality living spaces.

Sprawl without Growth

When sprawl occurs without an accompanying population increase, its effects are usually devastating. Suddenly basic infrastructure elements such as roads, water, sewers, utility distribution, are dramatically more costly per househould. What's more, the cost of getting somewhere goes way up. Rather than walking to a store in your neighborhood, residents become accustomed to driving everywhere for any level of purchase. This in of inself adds to the already high cost of providing for a family's daily needs.

Now the costs of basic municipal infrastructure are going up. This is reflected in things like property taxes, but local leadership is usually so emotionally and financially tied to development and developers that reactions that could stem the tide rarely happen.

Locked in a blind development-led cycle of sprawl without growth, we see our costs per household skyrocket. Election campaigns recognize this and voice their intentions to control costs, but they place the blame on amorphous government inefficiency rather than disastrous public policy. In the face of sprawl without growth, the hard reality is that it is impossible to maintain service levels without increasing the public burden. Consequently we now are experiencing a steadily degraded level of service, sustained or increasing taxation levels and an inability to perform projects for the good of the public—both now and for future generations.

What's worse, we're encouraging continued economic stratification that is already causing inefficient circulation of dollars in the local economy (see the GFA issue Why Focus on Local Business First), increasing corruption of our judicial and legislative processes, continued social and political dysfunction, and a weakening of our ability to adapt to changing economic, political and social conditions.

Desperation Sets In

Local leadership is now desperate for tax revenues. Their jobs depend on it and tax levels can go only so high. The long-term solution is to rebuild neighborhoods as an attractive place to live, thus regaining lost population, strengthening social institutions such as schools, and reducing costs. But long-term solutions are not attractive for short-term thinkers whose jobs are determined at the polling place. It may be that a well considered plan may only take two or three years to realize, but panicked public officials feels the need to deliver "big news" that will mollify a less than thoughtful public, particularly when combined by a non-challenging local press. So the lure of what we have grown used to calling "silver bullets" grows to the pont where it is impossible to resist.

Today, the term "silver bullet" is in of itself a problem for political spin. Local press has made it a negative phrase, but a lack of vigilance from that same press keeps it thriving under new identities. The Silver Bullet approach is still alive and well, though such tactics are now disguised in clothing that speaks of public-private partnerships, spin-off effects, physical transformation, etc. One need only look at the proposed casino development to see this in action, but that is far from the only example.

Neighborhood Abandonment: the Essense of Sprawl from Within

A commonplace tactic now used in intra-urban development is neighborhood abandonment, though it will never be labeled as such. A few primary elements are always present and make this tactic easy to identify:

• New development proposals that combine residential development and commercial services on previously vacant or dramatically underused land, often combined with educational alternatives such as charter schools.
• An absence of planning for commercial districts in existing neighborhoods.
• Abandoned or severely reduced enforcement efforts on the part of building inspection personnel.
• Abandoned or severely reduced infrastructure investements in existing neighborhoods.
• Obscure references to "land-banking" combined with "containment" policies.
• Reliance on "poverty industry" programs to address social problems.

It is always easier to "start from scratch" which is what makes new neighborhood development so enticing. Such a mentality is the very foundation for suburban development and sprawl. That it ignores much of our present population, supports social stratification at an economic level, and concentrates both poverty and social problems seems of little interest to ongoing municipal leadership.

Another Path

We can choose the easy (some would say lazy) path of building new neighborhoods while ignoring our most pressing problems, or we can strike a new path that prepares our city to recover our population and put mechanisms in place to ensure that we keep it while building a better standard of living for all.

The first element is the development of a master plan focused on infrastructure - utilities, roads, communication, public transit, public education and service provision via neighborhood commercial districts.

The second element is the support of commercial districts through the establishment of neighborhood-based "Main Street" associations (see our discussion of Commercial District Revitalization and the National Trust for Historic Preservation's "Main Street" site). Not only will this solidify economic development at a neighborhood level, but it will also help usher in a more organic approach to municipal governance, replacing our current model which is both reactive and exclusionary.

The third element is building new neighborhoods, but as a phased effort produced after existing neighborhood revitalization is well underway and incorporating all the lessons learned and principles applied to the redevelopment of existing neighborhoods.

At all times, the focus should be on building neighborhoods with at least some level of economic diversity. We can't afford to continue our socially destructive path of severe income stratification.