05-7-14-PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Myth and Fact 7 Most land use professionals and community leaders now agree that creating com- munities with a mix of densities, housing types, and uses could be the antidote to sprawl when implemented regionally. And across the country, the general public is becoming more informed and engaged in making the tough land use choices that need to be made while understanding the consequences of continuing to grow as we have in the past. Many have also come to appreciate the “place-making” bene- fits of density and the relationship between higher-density development and land preservation. Media coverage of the topic of growth and development has also evolved. Past media coverage of growth and development issues was often limited to the heated conflicts between developers and community residents. Many in the media are now presenting more thoughtful and balanced coverage, and several editorial boards support higher-density developments in their communities as an antidote to regional sprawl. Yet despite the growing awareness of the complexity of the issue and growing sup- port for higher-density development as an answer to sprawl, many still have ques- tions and fears related to higher-density development. How will it change the neigh- borhood? Will it make traffic worse? What will happen to property values? And what about crime? Ample evidence—documented throughout this publication—suggests that well-designed higher-density development, properly integrated into an existing community, can become a significant community asset that adds to the quality of life and property values for existing residents while addressing the needs of a growing and changing population. Many people’s perception of higher-density development does not mesh with the reality. Studies show that when surveyed about higher-density development, those inter viewed hold a negative view. But when shown images of higher-density versus lower-density development, people often change their perceptions and prefer higher density.3 In a recent study by the National Association of Realtors®and Smart Growth America, six in ten prospective homebuyers, when asked to choose between two communities, chose the neighborhood that offered a shorter com- mute, sidewalks, and amenities like shops, restaurants, libraries, schools, and pub- lic transportation within walking distance. They preferred this option over the one with longer commutes and larger lots but limited options for walking.4 The 2001 American Housing Survey further reveals that respondents cited proximity to work more often than unit type as the leading factor in housing choice.5 Such contra- dictions point to widespread misconceptions about the nature of higher-density development and sprawl. Several of these misconceptions are so prevalent as to be considered myths. To some degree, these myths are the result of memories people have of the very- high-density urban public housing projects of the 1960s and 1970s that have been subsequently deemed a failure. Somehow, the concept of density became associated with the negative imagery and social problems of depressed urban areas. The reality