Restoring Society's Urban Fabric

I've thought this for decades now. It took an economic crash and expensive gas to make it a reality.

What am I talking about?

Dubbed "smart growth," the (new urbanist) movement favors the development of a mix of housing and businesses in and near existing cities. At the same time, it discourages the Topsy-like growth of peripheral suburbs, known disparagingly as "sprawl."

The unexpected revival of a number of cities, from Rockville to Sacramento, stands in contrast to plunging home prices in the suburbs. "America is catching on to this trend," said Peter Calthorpe, who co-founded the Congress for the New Urbanism in 1993 to create alternatives to the conventional suburb.

He says the previous model was based on the assumption that the United States could prop up the single-family home in a distant location by keeping the cost of oil and mortgages low. But that era is over. "The true cost of transportation and housing is going to start to surface," he warns.

When oil got scarce (relative to demand), the cost of commuting soared. The farther you need to commute, the more you need to spend to get to work; the commute becomes, as it were, the Gas Ceiling, through which you can never soar. The only solution -- get thee to the once-despised city. The home values reflect this trend:

Now citizens with real estate savvy are honing in on the cities. Unlike the suburbs, and despite the downturn, homes closer to downtowns tended to retain their value, according to a 2008 Zillow report which analyzed the change in value for 1.65 million homes between the first quarter of 2007 and the first quarter of 2008.

I'm glad to see someone clarified the trend I recently suspected might be the case. Oh, and it gets better:

The Senate Banking Committee voted 12-10 yesterday in favor of the Livable Communities Act, legislation that would bolster the Obama administration's initiatives to link together transportation, housing, economic development, and environmental policy. . . .

The initial round of grants would fund comprehensive plans -- local initiatives to shape growth by coordinating housing, transportation, and economic development policies. Most of the funding -- $3.75 billion -- would be distributed over three years to implement projects identified in such plans.

What specifically would this legislation do? From the bill's summary and status page:

Establishes in the executive branch an independent Interagency Council on Sustainable Communities. . . .

Requires the use of a sustainability challenge grant to: (1) promote integrated transportation, housing, energy, and economic development activities carried out across policy and governmental jurisdictions; (2) promote sustainable and location-efficient development; and (3) implement projects identified in a comprehensive regional plan.

Directs the OSHC Director to study and report to specified congressional committees on incentives for encouraging lenders to make, and homebuyers and homeowners to participate in, energy-efficient mortgages and location-efficient mortgages.

Finally, laws might be changing back, allowing all of us a rest from the decades of constant Californication. People might finally be able to build and zone their neighborhoods according to the length of their strides rather than the horse power under their hoods.