Are Compact Cities a Desirable Planning Goal? :: essays research papers

ar Compact Cities a Desirable Planning inclination?The member written by Peter Gordon and Harry W. Richardson entitled Are Compact Cities a Desirable Planning Goal? shows various arguments against the basis for compact cities to become implemented. They use the city of Toronto in the beginning of the hold to comp atomic number 18 it with cities in the United States. Throughout the article many topics and arguments ar discussed which are agricultural land, density preferences, energy glut, the scope for cover, suburbanization and congestion, the efficiency of compactness, engineering science and agglomeration-congestion trade-offs, downtowns in eclipse, rent-seeking and politics, compactness and equity, and competition among cities. From these issues displayed in the article, many valuable arguments could be agreed with. The authors used valuable data from past research make on the topics discussed in presenting their argument against compact cities.Two main points from the a rticle were considered most evoke. The issues of density preferences and energy glut discussed by the authors were quite interesting and ca-ca made a valid point. First of all as discussed in the article concerning density preferences, the authors make it clear that most lot preferred low-density living as opposed to high-density living. As give tongue to by Gordon and Richardson, The choice for low-density living is influenced by instruments promoting suburbanization, such as preferential income tax treatment of home mortgage interest, subsidies to automobile use, and interstate highway highway system (Gordon and Richardson, 96). The previous quote identifies the preference people have concerning suburbanization. Because of preferential income tax treatment of home mortgage interest, subsidies to automobile use, and interstate highway systems low-density living is preferred. One great factor besides concerning low-density preference is the fact that more funds are presumptio n to highways and parking than transit as stated by the authors. Federal, state and local anesthetic expenditures for highways and parking were $66.5 billion in 91. Federal, state and local expenditures for public transit were $20.8 billion (Gordon and Richardson, 96). As seen in the quote, more subsidies are given to highways reservation having an automobile beneficial. Another come across proponent is that congestion pricing and firing fees are not present in most U.S. states making it less(prenominal) difficult to drive long distances. Since low-density preference is one key issue concerning suburbanization, another compelling argument is that energy costs are low in the U.S. Since energy is cheap, the cost of gasoline is likewise. It is stated in the article that per capita energy consumption is below the level of consumption as it was in 1973 in the U.