Reaction to Article:are Compact Cities a Desirable Planning Goal

Reaction Paper: Are Compact Cities a Desirable Planning Goal?

The article written by Peter Gordon and Harry W. Richardson entitled; Are Compact Cities a Desirable Planning Goal? shows various arguments against the reason for compact cities to become implemented. They use the city of Toronto in the beginning of the article to compare it with cities in the United States. Throughout the article many topics and arguments are discussed which are; agricultural land, density preferences, energy glut, the scope for transit, suburbanization and congestion, the efficiency of compactness, technology 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 done on the topics discussed in presenting their argument against compact cities.

Two main points from the article were considered most interesting. The issues of density preferences and energy glut discussed by the authors were quite interesting and have made a valid point. First of all as discussed in the article concerning density preferences, the authors make it clear that most people preferred low-density living as opposed to high-density living. As stated 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 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 also concerning low-density preference is the fact that more funds are given to highways and parking than transit as stated by the authors. “Federal, state and local 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 making having an automobile beneficial. Another key proponent is that congestion pricing and emission fees are not present in most U.S. states making it less 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.S. (Gordon and Richardson). Given that energy consumption is low in the U.S., the prices for gas have been relatively low. Although it is said in the article that gas prices are low, present day gas prices are relatively increasing. Meanwhile there is an increase in gas prices, it still does not seem to impact suburbanization. Because of the low energy consumption, energy constraints are not a valid argument (Gordon and Richardson).

The arguments made by the authors about energy consumption are convincing. Since it is said that energy is cheap and gasoline prices are rather low, it does not mention the increases in gasoline as were experienced. One thing that is noticed is that although gas prices rise, people do not seem to be affected by its constraints. People will still pay for gas even if it were to be very expensive. Having gas prices rather high will also not make transit rider ship increase. Gasoline prices will have little, if no, affect on suburbanization.

All issues discussed in the article, as stated before, seem quite valid and the authors have shown research. One concern is that when mentioning statistical information in a research finding it is expected to be shown the information gathered by the researcher instead of just being cited. Showing numbers