A Realistic View of Live, Work, Play

Suwanee, Georgia- poster child of a live, work, play community

Many major cities and large suburban cities are beginning to promote a mixed use lifestyle of live, work, play. The idea being that you can live your entire life within one town. One can supposedly live within this town, go to work at the office park in this town, and then go to its town center for lunch or dinner completing the triad with "play." And its not a bad lifestyle to try to emulate. Before the highway era, most American towns were live, work, play environments because the lack of the automobile restricted growth and provided dense, mixed-use towns to live in. Towns like Suwanee, Georgia whose slogan is in fact "Live, Work, Play" are moving in the right direction by focusing on new job growth, an expanded town center and historic district, new urbanists' walkable developments, and bike and walking trails to promote multi-modal life.

These efforts should and must be applauded because the alternative (sprawl) is no productive way to live. Of course, there are faults with this plan, and Suwanee is still almost entirely a car-only town with their new approach, but it is a movement in the right direction to correcting our original mistakes of suburban sprawl.

Yet having grown up just outside Suwanee and knowing people who live within, I only know of one family who really could fulfill the live, work, play scenario after ten years of this approach. Suwanee is still a commuter town with I-85 filling up to the brim everyday right through Suwanee. Most people's lives do not levitate around one place, its encompasses the entire region now. People live in a place like Suwanee, commute an hour down the road to work at the Perimeter Center (Sandy Springs/Dunwoody), and take their family or spouse out for a special night in Midtown or Buckhead. We are no longer people of one community, but people of one region. 

Yet, we are only able to vote for representatives in one community. A resident of Suwanee can only have a say in the city of Suwanee government and Gwinnett County government even if they spend more than eight hours a day outside of the county. This doesn't really make sense. If the majority of your day is spent in another place, you should have a say in what goes on there.

Atlanta's Metropolitan Statistical Area- encompasses almost all of North Georgia now

Is there a possible solution to this region-wide issue? (Of course there is!) It is to create more government! Libertarians don't fret though. I am not proposing bigger government, just one coordinated regional government. A similar system already is in place for Atlanta's MSA (Metropolitan Statistical Area) called the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC). The ARC is technically not elected by the people; they are chosen representatives by their fellow politicians. For instance, all of the mayors of Gwinnett select one mayor to represent them at the commission. In addition, the ARC has little real power in creating change throughout the region. As of right now, they are more of a tool that municipalities and counties rely on for planning research, additional funding, or other various needs.

So what if instead of the ARC being a commission it became an ARG. An Atlanta Regional Government would be elected by the people of the region and would have more leniency to create change in the region. The region would be set up into sub-sects, and each sub-sect could vote on a representative to represent them at the regional level. This government would then have the power to take all of the transportation agencies under its wing and create one coordinated system, have the power to accept or deny large developments, coordinate zoning between municipalities and counties, create smart corridors of equitable growth, organize an urban growth boundary, control regional land use decisions, and even have the ability to tax.

While I certainly see an argument against this regional government being an abuse of power by the government over the people, the irony in that argument is that most people have no choice, no voice even, as to what happens around the majority of their lives right now. If you disagree with Dunwoody building massive office towers right along the interstate due to traffic concerns but live in Cobb County then you have no ability to stop these developments. If Atlanta had a regional government, suddenly you would have a way to make sure your concerns are voiced.

Portland, Oregon's Regional Government: Metro

Only one American region has successfully implemented a regionally elected government. Portland, Oregon has the Metro government. Metro government includes all the towns and communities surrounding the city of Portland, and its main responsibilities are running the region's transportation agency Tri-Met, controlling land-use decisions, and solving disputes over its urban growth boundary. People elect representatives to this collective body, and from there, the regional government makes decisions affecting the entire region. Metro has had significant success with Portland, Oregon being one of the most livable and walkable regions in the country. The region of Portland works, and the reason it "works" is because it has a regional government that makes collective decisions that benefit all.

It is my opinion that all American regions should have a democratically elected government that makes decisions for the collective whole because our lives do not live, work, and play in just one place anymore. Instead, our lives span across multiple cities and counties on a day-to-day basis. So if our lives span across over multiple places, why don't we have a government that represents us across these places? The sooner we recognize that transportation, land use, and growth are collective issues, the sooner our region will become a better place to live for the collective self. 

A New Start

I know it has been a while since I have last posted on my planning blog (over a year in fact), but lately, I have been feeling an urge to rekindle my love for policy, innovation, and writing on this public platform. I've have made a few changes of course: this blog will cover a broader range of subjects in the field of planning (beyond just Atlanta developments), so the name has changed and you may find a different direction in my approach to the new posts. Looking back over my old posts, I find it interesting what posts have become true and what posts have been left for the shelves. I encourage you to look over them too, for the change Atlanta has seen in just this small amount of time is remarkable.

Boulder, Colorado and its distinct growth boundary seen along its periphery

In regards to this blog post, I will be focusing on a piece of policy that I find particularly interesting: urban growth boundaries. Urban growth boundaries (referred to as UGBs) are instituted by usually city (but sometimes state) government where the city draws a line around how far they're willing to develop the land. These boundaries usually stem from an environmentalist movement to protect the surrounding environment outside the city. What these boundaries do is much more than protect the environment, though. Urban growth boundaries sets a defined piece of land where the government will provide services such as electricity, plumbing, and safety. Beyond that line, the boundary signifies that the city will no longer provide for development. It is a wonderful resource to curb sprawl and help protect the environment. In addition, it forces development in on top of itself. Instead of creating more sprawling housing estates, the government has indicated they want more orderly, defined, and organized housing estates that reduce sprawl and increase walkability. It takes focus off the road and toward alternative ways of getting around such as walking, biking, or taking mass transit. It reutilizes spaces previously thought useless inside the boundary because people are forced to make the most (and the best) use of their land. Cities such as Boulder, Colorado have successfully instilled urban growth boundaries, and the improved quality of life certainly sings praise to this policy's effectiveness.

Portland, Oregon- and its regional growth

One state that requires all of its municipalities to have an urban growth boundary is Oregon. Back in the 1970's, the state acted upon its maverick culture and produced a law that would require every municipality to make a precise boundary, and viewing the state today, it is clear that gamble has paid off. Where in most of rural America, small towns are dying out, farming communities failing due to a lack of investment, main street being moved to the Wal-Mart that opened up on the highway, in Oregon, its small towns still seem to have remained vibrant centers of commerce. The same has occurred to its larger cities. Instead of sprawling over the valley it is based off of, Portland and its suburbs are instead a dense, connected, organized region of growth. The urban growth boundary has really impacted all parts of life in Oregon. The rural parts remain agriculturally-bounded due to strict zoning, and the general authentic nature of the state is preserved. In its suburbs, while the car does dominate mobility, but they are still what their name indicates: extension of the urban ring. Portland suburbs are connected to downtown by different forms of mass transit, and when people need to go shopping, instead of driving to the local mall, they take the local train to the downtown's shopping district. The old urban neighborhoods are thriving in Oregon, too. Instead of being forgotten by newer and newer neighborhoods on the fringes of the region, these neighborhoods have been redeveloped and new infill has made them vibrant, exciting neighborhoods to live in. And maybe the best centerpiece to the urban growth boundary are that Oregon's cities have thriving downtowns. Downtown Portland is 150 blocks of life. Its walkable streets exude life on every corner because the urban growth boundary has preserved just that: life in downtown.

So, if urban growth boundaries had such a profound effect on Oregon and its major city, I wondered what it could do for Georgia and its major city. Ryan Gravel, who originally thought of the Atlanta Beltline and author of Where We Want to Live, argues that Atlanta needs an urban growth boundary immediately, if any essence of order is to be preserved in Atlanta. Yet, I wonder if the state of Georgia government put forth a UGB would it even make a difference for the sprawling behemoth or is it too late for Atlanta? (Comment below what you think! I'd love to hear your thoughts.)  

Savannah, GA- perfect place to implement UGB

Personally, I find there is need for UGB law in Georgia, but its necessity isn't for Atlanta, yet its second-tier cities such as  Augusta, Savannah, Macon, and Columbus. These cities and their regions could really benefit from a UGB. They're still small enough in size that restricting and channeling growth to certain areas could really benefit and dramatically improve the quality of life for these small cities. One reason I believe UGB was so successful in Portland's region is because the size of the region was around 1 million people, a still very manageable number. All of Georgia's second-tier cities are less than 1 million people, so I find this good news. In addition, they all have either strong rural industries or natural beauty that desire protection from regional encroachment. Putting forth boundaries could really alter and rehabilitate some of Georgia's smaller cities.

Atlanta's current MPO includes 18 counties

I also think Atlanta (or its region I should say) needs an urban growth boundary. Specifically, one line that encircles the entire region and is an end to all new sprawling development. Within this line, I propose the sprawl and sporadic development that has accompanied Atlanta's growth can still happen, but outside of it, there needs to be an immediate stop. If we don't draw a boundary, if we don't say enough is enough, then what we recognize as "Atlanta" will literally become one long suburb from Alabama to South Carolina and from Macon to Tennessee. I do think its too late in that urban growth boundaries won't produce the same effects as it had for Portland, but it will curtail and change the way we grow and live very gradually.  

One argument against UGB is that it prevents businesses and developers from expanding and developing. But this is not true. In Portland, even after 30+ years with UGB, there are still lots of developable land within the region. So UGB isn't anti-business, but it is anti- letting businesses do whatever they wish anymore. Allowing corporations like Pulte to buy massive tracts of land and convert them into gigantic housing estates needs to be stopped because it hurts our region. But, it nevertheless won't be stopped because doing that makes the biggest bang for your buck with these corporations, and their main focus isn't design and livability but money. We shouldn't prevent a better Georgia because business says otherwise, we should make a better Georgia and show the businesses who really owns this land.    

I am a proponent of urban growth boundaries. They're an excellent way to reshape, redefine, and recreate a city and its region. I believe putting them into law in Georgia could provide the state with what this post is: a new start.