1. Leif Hinterberger
From: noreply+feedproxy@google.com on behalf of The Urbanophile [the.urbanophile@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 8:48 PM
To: Leif@CarreauDesign.Com
Subject: The Urbanophile: Chuck Banas: This Is Sprawl
The Urbanophile: Chuck Banas: This Is Sprawl
Chuck Banas: This Is Sprawl
Posted: 27 Apr 2010 12:27 PM PDT
[ I stumbled across this incredible post via a link from Buffalo Rising. The author, Chuck Banas, posted it on his blog, Joe the Planner, which has only a few posts, but boy do
they pack a wallop. Chuck, who is the Chair of the Buffalo SmartCode Committee at The New Millennium Group of WNY, kindly gave me permission to repost. - Aaron ]
Sprawl is a word familiar to most people, but few can tell you exactly what it means. Even experts don’t always agree on a precise definition.
The term itself is somewhat ambiguous, and often divisive. This is especially true when the word is preceded by the modifiers suburban or urban, which is commonly the case. Then
the term is really loaded. Political discussion of the topic regularly provokes the already contentious relationships between cities and suburbs. This needlessly causes communities
that should be cooperating to take sides against each other.
Here in the Buffalo-Niagara region, only one other word is as divisive: regionalism. Yeah, I said it. First the s-word, and now the r-word. Good thing I’m not a politician, because
my career would probably have just ended. The r-word, as I shall call it from now on, became a four-letter word in this area just shy of a decade ago, after a certain County
Executive decided to make city-county consolidation his focus. He got pretty far, too, before allegations of political corruption, a county bankruptcy, and public dissension finally
killed the idea. Too bad.
But I’m getting ahead of myself. The intent of this post is to provide some conceptual clarity regarding the concept of sprawl, both nationally and locally. I’ll also be explaining what
sprawl and the r-word have to do with one another, and why this is fundamentally important to the future of everyone in the Buffalo-Niagara region. As usual, I’ll do this by
providing a big-picture narrative combined with some statistics and visuals.
A Case Study for Sprawl
No matter what the wording, sprawl refers to the spreading-out of a population of people and its effects—effects that are often harmful to our individual lives and counterproductive
to our shared goals. Of course, sprawl is not unique to us in Western New York, or even to the United States. It occurs everywhere throughout the world in varying forms, but we
Americans arguably lay claim to inventing a most peculiar and pernicious strain of it. This has resulted in the virtual trashing of our traditional cites and towns, along with the
paving-over of agricultural lands and other countryside that surrounds them.
But the argument against sprawl is not simply an aesthetic one; some of the most debilitating effects are social, cultural, and economic. You might wish to check out my previous
post for a provoking take on sprawl as a national phenomenon.
As it turns out, the Buffalo Metro area is a nearly ideal case for the study of sprawl and its effects. This is for two main reasons: (1) the region has well-established pre-World War II,
pre-automobile cities and towns, and (2) the metro population has essentially remained unchanged since the end of WWII.
Yep, you read that right. Buffalo’s metro population has essentially remained unchanged for the last 60 years. With all the talk about population loss, it seems that many people
don’t realize this. Buffalo hasn’t shrunk; it’s just spread-out. This makes the effects of sprawl quite obvious because there’s been no significant statistical muddying caused by
changes in population.
Same Number of People, Three Times the Stuff
What does this mean? Put simply, the same number of people spread over an area over three times larger means there is three times the amount of stuff that the same number of
people have to pay for.
1

2. Most visibly, that’s over three times the infrastructure costs: three times
the roads, power lines, water lines, sewer systems, gas service, schools, fire stations, police, etc. This stuff doesn’t get magically built and maintained on its own; the money has to
come from somewhere. And it does: it comes out of all of our pockets directly or indirectly through higher local, county, and state taxes and fees; through the personal requirement
to own and maintain one or more automobiles; through the wasted time and money of longer commutes to/from work, shopping, and entertainment; and from chauffeuring the
kids back and forth to hockey practice or piano lessons.
All of this extra space we occupy has precisely the effects you’d predict. We in Erie and Niagara Counties now drive 53% more miles per year than we did in 1980. Nationally, the
effects are even more stark: from 1977 to 2001, the number of miles driven every year by Americans rose by 151%—about five times faster than the growth in population. Americans
spend four times as much on transportation as Europeans. It costs over $7,000 per year to maintain a single car. And, if you can believe it, the average American household today
makes 14 individual car trips per day. (An interesting study found that if only one car trip per day were eliminated, this would result in an annual savings of about $1,100 per
household.)
Statistics aside, all of these additional obligations in time and money make us poorer—both individually and collectively. Over the last 60 years, we’ve been too busy trying to keep
up with basic infrastructure maintenance to invest much in our future. Individually, people have less to spend on housing, food, transportation, health care, entertainment, etc.
There are fewer public resources available for schools, parks, cultural institutions, and other public services. There is less disposable income at all levels, and little capital left in
society to invest in new business and new forms of wealth creation.
The cycle goes like this: We spread out and build more stuff. Costs go up. Taxes go up. Services get cut. Institutions languish. The quality of everyone’s life diminishes. Citizens
complain about the corruption and inefficiency of government. And it repeats in a vicious cycle.
That’s not the only cost. In this zero-sum game, every winner in the region creates one or more losers. As we’ve subsidized new development in the region, older neighborhoods
have suffered. Every new house built on a greenfield means a house somewhere else blighted, abandoned, or demolished. Every new square-foot of retail space devalues or destroys
a square-foot elsewhere. Poverty and crime grow like a cancer, which are huge economic drags on the region. Without the resources for proper maintenance, older roads, bridges,
sewers, and other infrastructure deteriorate. And that cycle repeats itself, too.
The result is we’re less able to compete against other, growing, lower-taxed areas. We have a hard time attracting new people or new investment because we’re continually
burdening ourselves with new costs that add no real value to our region.
In fact, it’s not too much to say that virtually all the so-called ‘growth’ that we’ve seen here in the last half-century has been an illusion. Sure, it kinda looked like real growth—new
roads, new homes, new strip malls, new schools—but because there has been no increase in population, it’s really a rigged shell game. For the last three generations, we’ve spent the
greater part of our collective regional wealth moving about a third of our population further and further out into the countryside.
“So what?” you say? “People voted with their feet.” But if you think this has been solely a matter of consumer choice, a free-market phenomenon, think again. It is well documented
that sprawl is driven mainly by destructive public policy, bad planning, and a lack of municipal coordination (again, read my previous post).
There is another significant cost to the low-density, auto-oriented living arrangement we’ve constructed. Vitality, be it economic, cultural, or otherwise, requires a critical mass. If
too many elements of the economy and society are spread too thin across the landscape, then even a million people can’t create a healthy, dynamic economy, let alone pay for the
required infrastructure. Economic and social capital don’t work if spread too thin. Markets don’t work if too many ingredients are isolated from each other.
The result? We end up exactly in the type of situation we find ourselves today. Surprised, anyone?
The Big Picture
At this point, all of this blather about strip malls, taxes, and blight might have you a bit glassy-eyed. It’s often easy to get lost among the details, so sometimes it helps to step back
and look at the big picture.
Specifically, I’m referring to the picture below, which may help bring the issue of sprawl into even sharper focus. This map tells the story of our region’s problems perhaps more
clearly than any of the reams of reports issuing from governments or foundations. The diagram also suggests a obvious solution to our regional problems.
2

3. Shown on the map at left is the extent of urbanized area in Metro Buffalo in 1950 and
2000 (yellow and red, respectively). The wording of the official U.S. Census Bureau definition is a little tricky, but for these purposes urbanized area refers to just about any census
block within Erie and Niagara Counties that has a population density greater than 1,000 people per square mile.
What does this simple measure mean? Well, a high-ish population density of 1,000 or more implies an urban or suburban settlement—and all of the infrastructure required to
support it; namely, roads, sewers, electric, schools, police, etc. All that stuff we covered above. So as the map shows, we’ve now got over three times the amount of stuff to maintain
for the same amount of people we had in 1950.
If this isn’t a shocking call to action, I don’t know what is. This shows the vital critical mass of people and money and ideas diffused and squandered. This shows our region bleeding
to death.
In simplest terms, this is sprawl. This is arguably our area’s essential problem, summarized neatly in a single picture. And bear in mind that this is only a snapshot of a ongoing
trend. When the 2010 figures are released, there is sure to be a bunch more red on this map.
The R-Word
What’s the solution? Well, in a word: the r-word. Some people call it regional government (which for me is way too close to the r-word). Others call it metropolitan government or
inter-municipal coordination. Whatever the term, it refers to a layer of governance and planning at the regional scale, so that all of the region’s resources can be coordinated
effectively.
Currently, there are 64 separate municipalities in Buffalo-Niagara, with virtually no coordination or cooperation between them. Towns poach development from each other. Villages
plan independently of their surrounding towns. Developers know the game, and play government entities against one another for public subsidy. There is duplication of services
and unnecessary waste. And no one is steering the big ship.
In short, we spend most of our time fighting one another instead of working to compete effectively against other regions—many of which already have their metro-government acts
together. If we want things to change, we can’t keep doing what we’ve always done. More of the same old self-inflicted harm won’t turn things around.
There is hope, however. The city-county merger almost came to a vote before county bankruptcy, a control board, and the events of 9/11 put a stop to it. Metro Buffalo already
includes respected regional government entities that address certain cross-jurisdictional functions, including an excellent metro transportation system (NFTA) and the Buffalo &
Erie County Public Library system.
Also, it must be noted, most other regions have leadership that’s just as slow and incompetent as ours seems to be. Nationally, the bar isn’t set that high.
Suffice it to say that, as a region, it is our choice to work together. Or not. We have it within our power to shape our own future, but only if we see that all of us—all the cities, towns,
and villages in this thing we call Buffalo-Niagara—are in this together.
The metropolitan area is the only meaningful social and economic unit that exists in this region. We share the same history, culture, climate, sports teams, and cultural assets—and
we all ultimately share the same fate. Perhaps, after decades of declining fortunes, we’ve forgotten this fact. Fear has made our politics dysfunctional and turned our leaders into
3

4. insular cowards. Decades of tough times will do that.
The good news is this: some of the groundwork is already laid. The good ideas are out there. Most people in this area would agree that we need to change how we do things, and a
significant number would advocate a regional approach to governance.
But we must choose to govern not based on fear, but on the faith in our ability to shape our future. And each new day hands us the same choice.
This post originally ran at Joe the Planner under the title “Sprawl and the r-word, a Buffalo-Niagra Case Study.” Reprinted with permission of the author.
You are subscribed to email updates from The Urbanophile Email delivery powered by Google
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.
Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610
4