More Smart Growth Claims Refuted
The indispensable Wendell Cox is out with another excellent piece questioning the messianic conception of Smart Growth. Cox details a new study in the Journal of the American Planning Association that either refutes or diminishes the most significant assumptions of Smart Growth. A major conclusion of the study found that “Smart growth principles should not unquestioningly promote increasing levels of compaction on the basis of reducing energy consumption without also considering its potential negative consequences. In many cases, the potential socioeconomic consequences of less housing choice, crowding, and congestion may outweigh its very modest CO2 reduction benefits.”
In Wendell’s review of the study, he uses loaded words like “messianic” and “sacred foundations” when referring to the key assumptions of Smart Growth. For those of us who follow closely this urban planning doctrine, we recognize that Wendell is a lot closer to being literal instead of figurative. Smart Growth acolytes have elevated this planning doctrine to the status of a clique religion. Smart Growth principles were cast in stone and are articles of faith that simply need not be challenged, so any effort to challenge them must be derived from ill motives. Contrarians – even outstanding researchers like Wendell – are heretics. Evidence (to the contrary) is ignored because evidence is unnecessary.
Smart Growth is a faith … a pretty pathetic faith.