Smart Growth Supporters Envision New Urban West By: Heather Clark, Associated Press The Herald, Sierra Vista, AZ

Urban Sprawl Smart growth advocates say part of the nation's current economic turmoil is caused by urban sprawl, particularly too many suburban homes losing their value as Americans demand housing closer to work, stores, restaurants and schools. Organizers of the 8th Annual New Partners for Smart Growth conference held in Albuquerque say they think the Mountain West region is poised to grow differently than it has in the past. They envision development that encourages cities built for walking, biking and public transport, homes near retail areas and workplaces, and green building techniques. In the Mountain West area 86 percent of the population lives in urban areas.

Mountain West The Mountain West area is growing fast and advocates of Smart Growth believe that the area offers the best opportunity for Smart Growth. Five megalopolitan areas make up the Mountain West: – the Front Range from the Denver area to Colorado Springs – The Sun Corridor from Phoenix to Tucson – Albuquerque, Santa Fe and Taos – The Salt Lake City area – The Las Vegas area, which spills into southern Utah These area will be the driving economic forces of the region.

The Future According to Arthur C. Nelson, a professor and director of metropolitan research at the University of Utah, the population will nearly double to almost 27 million people in these five metro areas over the next 35 years. More homes, nonresidential buildings and jobs will be needed. Conference speakers said that with that growth will come changes in how communities are built. The era of single-family homes in disconnected cul- de-sacs that require long commutes is passing, as evidenced by the current economic crisis. The baby boomers are expected to transition to rentals and attached properties. Approximately half of all new homes built need to be rentals, said Nelson. Smart growth planners also envision homes built near transportation centers, such as light rail stops, with pedestrian friendly streets. Open spaces will be preserved and people will live closer together, increasing access to locally grown produce and making public transportation economically viable.

Economics This seemed like a good example of the Simple Consumer Location Model. Remember from Braid’s model: U = U (z, q) q = size of consumer’s land plot z = consumption of other goods Budget Constraint: W = z + R(k)q + tk k = distance from center of urban center R(k) = housing prices 1 = price of composite good z t = commuting cost per mile to center of urban area

Economics cont. Solving the maximization problem gave us: U q /U z = MRS = R(k), and  L/  k = (-q R k –t) = 0.  R k = -t/q Increasing commuting costs lowers rent

Economics Cont. The initial equilibrium is at A, where k = k 1. The consumer decides to move closer to work, school, etc., in order to stay on the same indifference curve, k 1 changes to k 2, such that k 2 < k 1 Thus, the new equilibrium is at point B, where the consumer pays higher rent. This is consistent with a decrease in transportation costs associated with moving. z q W 1 = z + R(k 1 )q + t*k 1 W 2 = z + R(k 2 )q + t*k 2 A B

Questions Moving closer to work, school etc. saves travel costs, but do the savings offset the increase in housing costs? We’ve seen that doubling gasoline prices only increase total commuting costs by about 20%. Could other factors besides commuting costs be contributing to falling home prices? What about the reasons people moved to suburban areas in the first place: flight from blight, more land, cleaner air etc.? Do people want to live in more dense urban areas? What are the causes of urban sprawl and how do communities prevent it?