I thoroughly enjoyed our conversation.  Glenn is smart and forthright.  He looks you in the eye and listens.  These are  qualities that will stand Redfin in good stead here.

Yankees are direct (Californians think we need therapy), independent and cheap (and, yes, proud).  These consumer qualities will also stand Redfin in good stead.

We know that some agents and some of the large franchises are hostile to Redfin and its business model.  Some angry agents may be tempted to behave badly.  Please don’t.  Refusing to show houses to Redfin buyers or take your buyers to Redfin listings hurts your clients and violates your duty to them – never mind the legal issues.  And to what end?

Redfin represents change in the real estate industry.  Throughout history, those who attempt to suppress change driven by popular perception have been relegated to the past.  This is not a battle traditional agents can win by combative strategies.  Success in the 21st century will depend upon understanding and accepting consumer drivers and creating new approaches that respond to them.

In other words, compete, don’t wage war.

This is not about what agents think is “fair”; it’s about what the consumer thinks is fair.  The costs you bear, particularly if your commissions are paying the huge corporate debts of a major franchisor, are not a consumer concern.  You are still asking them to pay you 5-6% of their major asset in Providence R.I. – and keep in mind that this is a much larger percentage of their actual equity in their major asset.

Redfin uses new technology to provide a choice for certain consumers.  What’s wrong with this?  When you go to a car wash, you may choose to pay to have your interior cleaned, or you may wish to save the money and clean it yourself.  Do you worry about whether this is “fair” to the workers employed there?  Would you like to be told you must let them wash your interior if you want any services at all?  How about a state car wash board governed by owners of car washes passing regulations that require that for your own good, you must accept all services a car wash can provide or wash your car yourself?  How about the manufacturers of turtle wax agreeing that they will provide car cleaning supplies only to licensed car washes?

Can you view this like a consumer?  If you can’t, there is no hope for you.

We welcome Redfin because they represent an attempt to respond to consumers, to give consumers an option. We deplore any activities directed at depriving consumers of this choice.

So, Redfin, welcome to Boston.  If you can learn to drive, you’ll probably do just fine.

ps- it’s the “T”, not the “subway”.

Some people work in different industries, and while having a tool on a lanyard can keep you from losing it, if for some reason it gets caught up or in a piece of machinery, you don’t want it pulling you in. There are lanyards that have the ability to break apart, so that if something like this does happen, the lanyard breaks away so you don’t get hurt. These are a good idea if you are hiking or camping as well, since you don’t want to get snagged on a branch while walking with a heavy back pack.

There are also lanyards that are used for keeping your glasses from falling off, or to keep them handy without putting them down. These lanyards are made from a variety of cloth materials, with loops at the ends to fasten to the ear pieces. For people who want these kinds of lanyards, there are some things you should look for. One is that the loop ends are going to securely fasten to the glasses themselves. They should have an adjustment band that tightens up the loop. Because these are worn for long periods of time, you want the materials to be light, breathable, and washable.

It is also important that the materials are right for you as well. Some people are allergic to certain fabrics, like nylon, so you need to make sure that the lanyard you choose is made from a material that won’t bother your skin, have color fast colors, so they don’t bleed out on you. The next thing you have to make sure of when it comes to the lanyard that is right for you is the hardware. You should always make sure that the clasps or clips that attach to the item you want to secure are strong enough to hold up to your regular use. Some have small clips on the ends, which is great for securing a badge or name tag, but won’t stand up very long holding keys, or keeping a wallet secure.

You can find lanyards from a variety of different retailers, from local stores to online websites. If you still can’t find one that fits you, there are also kits that come with everything you need to make your own.

The advantages of a solar backup generator are numerous. First and foremost are the environmental considerations. Next, consider the convenience and the safety. You will never run out of fuel, the sun visits every day. You will not have flammable fuel stored in your home. If disaster hits, you won’t have to hope that the fuel station has power to pump your fuel for replacement. Your power is free.

There are other advantages, not the least of which the silence of an operational solar backup generator. Fuel operated generators are extremely noisy and can be quite disturbing at night. A solar generator can be operated in your home. This makes convenience another selling point. Gas generators require outdoor use and in the middle of winter when ice storms cause power lines to fall or when the wind disrupts power during a storm, having a generator in the home is a major convenience. No noise and no fumes.

The components of a solar powered backup generator consist of a solar panel, charge controller and the generator. They are easier to start than fuel powered and burn on fossil fuels. There is no need to run lines through windows or doors to the items you want to power. You can run the generator in any room you wish to power.

Power grids are connecte4d throughout the country. If a grid fails in New York, it can affect South Carolina. There is a chain reaction that can possibly occur. Brownouts during high volume power needs can also create a need for a generator. Whatever the reason, the need exists in every home.

Another scenario to consider is having to evacuate your home because of potential disaster. A solar generator can be put into your vehicle and will provide power at your destination. Often, power failures do not end at your street and centers for shelter may also be without power.

Keeping one in your home can ensure that your food will not spoil. Having a high efficiency refrigerator will prolong the use of the generator. If it is a snow storm that cause the failure, heat can be a major factor. They not only provide convenience, but safety as well.

Before you dismiss the need for a solar powered generator, keep in mind all of the features mentioned. They are safer than gas operated generators. Solar powered generators can be used anywhere without additional wires being strewn across your home. There are no fumes or toxic emissions generated. You can have 1800 watts of power steadily. That will run more than one appliance in the home. There is always the choice of keeping high-energy appliances plugged in to save money on power bills. Whatever the reason, it is comforting to know that the initial expense may be the only expense associated with the generator.

Because beliefs are designed to enhance our ability to survive, they are biologically designed to be strongly resistant to change. To change beliefs, skeptics must address the brain’s “survival” issues of meanings and implications in addition to discussing their data.

Gregory W. Lester, Skeptical Inquirer magazine: November/December 2000

Because a basic tenet of both skeptical thinking and scientific inquiry is that beliefs can be wrong, it is often confusing and irritating to scientists and skeptics that so many people’s beliefs do not change in the face of disconfirming evidence. How, we wonder, are people able to hold beliefs that contradict the data?
This puzzlement can produce an unfortunate tendency on the part of skeptical thinkers to demean and belittle people whose beliefs don’t change in response to evidence. They can be seen as inferior, stupid, or crazy. This attitude is born of skeptics’ failure to understand the biological purpose of beliefs and the neurological necessity for them to be resilient and stubbornly resistant to change. The truth is that for all their rigorous thinking, many skeptics do not have a clear or rational understanding of what beliefs are and why even faulty ones don’t die easily. Understanding the biological purpose of beliefs can help skeptics to be far more effective in challenging irrational beliefs and communicating scientific conclusions.

Biology and Survival

Our brain’s primary purpose is to keep us alive. It certainly does more than that, but survival is always its fundamental purpose and always comes first. If we are injured to the point where our bodies only have enough energy to support consciousness or a heartbeat but not both, the brain has no problem choosing-it puts us into a coma (survival before consciousness), rather than an alert death-spiral (consciousness before survival).
Because every brain activity serves a fundamental survival purpose, the only way to accurately understand any brain function is to examine its value as a tool for survival. Even the difficulty of successfully treating such behavioral disorders as obesity and addiction can only be understood by examining their relationship to survival. Any reduction in caloric intake or in the availability of a substance to which an individual is addicted is always perceived by the brain as a threat to survival. As a result the brain powerfully defends the overeating or the substance abuse, producing the familiar lying, sneaking, denying, rationalizing, and justifying commonly exhibited by individuals suffering from such disorders.

Senses and Beliefs

One of the brain’s primary tools for ensuring survival is our senses. Obviously, we must be able to accurately perceive danger in order to take action designed to keep us safe. In order to survive we need to be able to see the lion charging us as we emerge from our cave or hear the intruder breaking into our house in the middle of the night.
Senses alone, however, are inadequate as effective detectors of danger because they are severely limited in both range and scope. We can have direct sensory contact with only a small portion of the world at any one time. The brain considers this to be a significant problem because even normal, everyday living requires that we constantly move in and out of the range of our perceptions of the world as it is right now. Entering into territory we have not previously seen or heard puts us in the dangerous position of having no advance warning of potential dangers. If I walk into an unfamiliar building in a dangerous part of town my survival probabilities diminish because I have no way of knowing whether the roof is ready to collapse or a gunman is standing inside the doorway.

Enter beliefs. “Belief” is the name we give to the survival tool of the brain that is designed to augment and enhance the danger-identification function of our senses. Beliefs extend the range of our senses so that we can better detect danger and thus improve our chances of survival as we move into and out of unfamiliar territory. Beliefs, in essence, serve as our brain’s “long-range danger detectors.”

Functionally, our brains treat beliefs as internal “maps” of those parts of the world with which we do not have immediate sensory contact. As I sit in my living room I cannot see my car. Although I parked it in my driveway some time ago, using only immediate sensory data I do not know if it is still there. As a result, at this moment sensory data is of very little use to me regarding my car. In order to find my car with any degree of efficiency my brain must ignore the current sensory data (which, if relied on in a strictly literal sense, not only fails to help me in locating my car but actually indicates that it no longer exists) and turn instead to its internal map of the location of my car. This is my belief that my car is still in my driveway where I left it. By referring to my belief rather than to sensory data, my brain can “know” something about the world with which I have no immediate sensory contact. This “extends” my brain’s knowledge of and contact with the world.

The ability of belief to extend contact with the world beyond the range of our immediate senses substantially improves our ability to survive. A caveman has a much greater ability to stay alive if he is able to maintain a belief that dangers exist in the jungle even when his sensory data indicate no immediate threat. A police officer will be substantially more safe if he or she can continue to believe that someone stopped for a traffic violation could be an armed psychopath with an impulse to kill even though they present a seemingly innocuous appearance.

Beyond the Sensory

Because beliefs do not require immediate sensory data to be able to feed valuable survival information to the brain, they have the additional survival function of providing information about the realm of life that does not deal directly with sensory entities. This is the area of abstractions and principles that involves such things as “reasons,” “causes,” and “meanings.” I cannot hear or see the “reason” called a “low pressure zone” that makes a thunderstorm rain on my parade, so my ability to believe that low pressure is the reason assists me. If I were to rely strictly on my senses to determine the cause of the storm I could not tell why it occurred. For all I know it was dragged in by invisible flying gremlins that I need to shoot with my shotgun if I want to clear away the clouds. Therefore my brain’s reliance on my “belief” in the reason called “low pressure,” rather than on sensory data (or, as in the case of my car, my lack of it) assists in my survival: I avoid an experience of incarceration with myriad dangerous characters following my arrest for shooting into the air at those pesky little gremlins.

The Resilience of Beliefs

Because senses and beliefs are both tools for survival and have evolved to augment one another, our brain considers them to be separate but equally important purveyors of survival information. The loss of either one endangers us. Without our senses we could not know about the world within our perceptual realm. Without our beliefs we could not know about the world outside our senses or about meanings, reasons, or causes.
This means that beliefs are designed to operate independent of sensory data. In fact, the whole survival value of beliefs is based on their ability to persist in the face of contradictory evidence. Beliefs are not supposed to change easily or simply in response to disconfirming evidence. If they did, they would be virtually useless as tools for survival. Our caveman would not last long if his belief in potential dangers in the jungle evaporated every time his sensory information told him there was no immediate threat. A police officer unable to believe in the possibility of a killer lurking behind a harmless appearance could easily get hurt or killed.

As far as our brain is concerned, there is absolutely no need for data and belief to agree. They have each evolved to augment and supplement one another by contacting different sections of the world. They are designed to be able to disagree. This is why scientists can believe in God and people who are generally quite reasonable and rational can believe in things for which there is no credible data such as flying saucers, telepathy, and psychokinesis.

When data and belief come into conflict, the brain does not automatically give preference to data. This is why beliefs-even bad beliefs, irrational beliefs, silly beliefs, or crazy beliefs-often don’t die in the face of contradictory evidence. The brain doesn’t care whether or not the belief matches the data. It cares whether the belief is helpful for survival. Period. So while the scientific, rational part of our brains may think that data should supercede contradictory beliefs, on a more fundamental level of importance our brain has no such bias. It is extremely reticent to jettison its beliefs. Like an old soldier with an old gun who does not quite trust that the war is really over, the brain often refuses to surrender its weapon even though the data say it should.

“Inconsequential” Beliefs

Even beliefs that do not seem clearly or directly connected to survival (such as our caveman’s ability to believe in potential dangers) are still closely connected to survival. This is because beliefs do not occur individually or in a vacuum. They are related to one another in a tightly interlocking system that creates the brain’s fundamental view of the nature of the world. It is this system that the brain relies on in order to experience consistency, control, cohesion, and safety in the world. It must maintain this system intact in order to feel that survival is being successfully accomplished.
This means that even seemingly small, inconsequential beliefs can be as integral to the brain’s experience of survival as are beliefs that are “obviously” connected to survival. Thus, trying to change any belief, no matter how small or silly it may seem, can produce ripple effects through the entire system and ultimately threaten the brain’s experience of survival. This is why people are so often driven to defend even seemingly small or tangential beliefs. A creationist cannot tolerate believing in the accuracy of data indicating the reality of evolution not because of the accuracy or inaccuracy of the data itself, but because changing even one belief related to matters of the Bible and the nature of creation will crack an entire system of belief, a fundamental worldview and, ultimately, their brain’s experience of survival.

Implications for Skeptics

Skeptical thinkers must realize that because of the survival value of beliefs, disconfirming evidence will rarely, if ever, be sufficient to change beliefs, even in “otherwise intelligent” people. In order to effectively change beliefs skeptics must attend to their survival value, not just their data-accuracy value. This involves several elements.
First, skeptics must not expect beliefs to change simply as the result of data or assuming that people are stupid because their beliefs don’t change. They must avoid becoming critical or demeaning in response to the resilience of beliefs. People are not necessarily idiots just because their beliefs don’t yield to new information. Data is always necessary, but it is rarely sufficient.

Second, skeptics must learn to always discuss not just the specific topic addressed by the data, but also the implications that changing the related beliefs will have for the fundamental worldview and belief system of the affected individuals. Unfortunately, addressing belief systems is a much more complicated and daunting task than simply presenting contradictory evidence. Skeptics must discuss the meaning of their data in the face of the brain’s need to maintain its belief system in order to maintain a sense of wholeness, consistency, and control in life. Skeptics must become adept at discussing issues of fundamental philosophies and the existential anxiety that is stirred up any time beliefs are challenged. The task is every bit as much philosophical and psychological as it is scientific and data-based.

Third, and perhaps most important, skeptics must always appreciate how hard it is for people to have their beliefs challenged. It is, quite literally, a threat to their brain’s sense of survival. It is entirely normal for people to be defensive in such situations. The brain feels it is fighting for its life. It is unfortunate that this can produce behavior that is provocative, hostile, and even vicious, but it is understandable as well.

The lesson for skeptics is to understand that people are generally not intending to be mean, contrary, harsh, or stupid when they are challenged. It’s a fight for survival. The only effective way to deal with this type of defensiveness is to de-escalate the fighting rather than inflame it. Becoming sarcastic or demeaning simply gives the other person’s defenses a foothold to engage in a tit-for-tat exchange that justifies their feelings of being threatened (“Of course we fight the skeptics-look what uncaring, hostile jerks they are!”) rather than a continued focus on the truth.

Skeptics will only win the war for rational beliefs by continuing, even in the face of defensive responses from others, to use behavior that is unfailingly dignified and tactful and that communicates respect and wisdom. For the data to speak loudly, skeptics must always refrain from screaming.

Finally, it should be comforting to all skeptics to remember that the truly amazing part of all of this is not that so few beliefs change or that people can be so irrational, but that anyone’s beliefs ever change at all. Skeptics’ ability to alter their own beliefs in response to data is a true gift; a unique, powerful, and precious ability. It is genuinely a “higher brain function” in that it goes against some of the most natural and fundamental biological urges. Skeptics must appreciate the power and, truly, the dangerousness that this ability bestows upon them. They have in their possession a skill that can be frightening, life-changing, and capable of inducing pain. In turning this ability on others it should be used carefully and wisely. Challenging beliefs must always be done with care and compassion.

Skeptics must remember to always keep their eye on the goal. They must see the long view. They must attempt to win the war for rational beliefs, not to engage in a fight to the death over any one particular battle with any one particular individual or any one particular belief. Not only must skeptics’ methods and data be clean, direct, and unbiased, their demeanor and behavior must be as well.

About the Author
Gregory W. Lester, Ph.D. is a psychologist on the graduate faculty of the University of St. Thomas in Houston, Texas, and in private practice in Houston and in Denver, Colorado. Address correspondence to: Gregory W. Lester, Ph.D., 111 Harrison St., Suite 1, Denver, Colorado 80206.

It’s a strange world out there on the roads these days. On the one hand, it seems that everyone is concerned about increased traffic congestion and, on the other, they are concerned about increased speeding within their own communities. While it may seem that the two issues are diametrically different, they are not. They are part of the same problem and that problem really comes down to “us”.

Consider the fact that between 1985 and 1998 the number of vehicle miles traveled increased by 47% while the total lane miles of road increased by only 3%. To make matters worse, there are over 40 million more cars in service today than there were in 1985.

Households with three or more cars have jumped from 2.8 million in 1969 to over 18.9 million in 1998 while the number of trips per day per household has almost doubled in the same period. In total, the number of trips has gone from 87.2 million in 1969 to 229.7 million in 1998. The number of “person miles traveled” increased by 65% percent between 1969 and 1990 but went up by a staggering 47% between 1990 and 1995. Family and personal trips doubled in the 21 years between 1969 and 1990 and then soared by another 52% in just five years between 1990 and 1995.

The answer to many is as simple as it is obvious. We have many more vehicles, making many more trips and traveling many more miles on our roads. Thus, by logical extension, we need more roads.

However, perhaps before jumping on to the steamroller and laying down miles of new asphalt it would be wise to consider the warning in the words of H. L. Mencken when he said, “For every complex, difficult problem, there is a simple, easy solution… and it is wrong.”

There are few instances where these words are more prophetic than when addressing the problems of congestion. We cannot build our way out of congestion.

Consider that for road construction to have kept pace with the increased demand between 1985 and 1998 that 1,815,000 miles (yes, that’s millions) of new roads would have been required nationwide. To put this into a smaller, more comprehensible scale, let’s consider Pennsylvania with its 119,000 miles of road. For the state to catch up to the average increase in road usage that has occurred since 1985 it would need to add nearly 56,000 miles of new roads.

When considered from this perspective, the easy answer no longer sounds quite as reasonable. From a purely financial point of view, the taxpayers could not afford such an undertaking. From a purely practical point of view, we are doing a pretty miserable job of maintaining the roads that we do have. It is of questionable intelligence to keep adding more roads to a network that is already crumbling because we lack the wherewithal to keep them in good repair. Lastly, it would be wise to consider the environmental impacts that constructing 1.8 million miles of road might have. While a faster trip to the mall may be appreciated by some, we suspect that others would place an equal value on access to clean air and water.

We strongly suspect that some readers will suggest that linking road growth to the increase in usage in the manner that we have done is merely a manipulation of statistics. To a degree, they are right. The impact of increased usage is not necessarily linear, but rather it is conditional.

Hopefully, those same readers will recognize that the benefits of new road construction also are not linear and are likewise conditional. Unfortunately, accepting that reasoning wrecks havoc with the simplified argument that we have more vehicles, thus, we need more roads.

The point really is not to claim that a linear relationship exists but rather to illustrate the extreme severity of the problem and that should have been perfectly clear to everyone. We have a mess on our hands and it is going to get an awful lot worse unless viable solutions are implemented.

Elusive Solutions

If you recall, we started out this section with a famous quote from Pogo, “We have met the enemy and he is us.” In this case, we really are our own worst enemy.

The statistics above came from the US Census Bureau in their section Land Transportation. This link will provided access to the referenced document in a PDF format and we would urge you to take a look the data on page 15 of 32 (their Page 631). If you spend a couple of minutes studying the raw numbers and considering the trends, it is almost impossible to come to any other conclusion than we are simply driving too much.

The congestion we face on a daily basis is more a result of our own driving patterns than it is a failure of our infrastructure. We are creating the congestion that we sit in and then have the audacity to complain about it. We want what we want, when we want it and get angry if there is anything that makes getting what we want inconvenient. It seems to be the American way.

It is time for a reality check because no matter how one defends it, we are the cause of the problem. We make our decisions based on our desires. People are driving more often and driving further to acquire something that they consider to be important.

Let’s say that a person drives 30 miles to work because they want to live in a particular community. That’s fine but they shouldn’t complain about their travel times and congestion because they are intrinsically part of the problem. In addition, they have an alternative that would eliminate the problem for themselves and lessen it for everyone else. That is, they can move closer to their place of employment.

They may not want to; but the rejection of that alternative totally changes the argument. Now it becomes I want to live where I want and get to wherever I want without being inconvenienced. Sorry to say, that’s not going to happen. If you don’t want congestion, don’t create it by your life decisions.

Unfortunately, you probably won’t find one politician that would be willing to say that a major part of the answer to our problems of congestion is that people need to drive less. It is a quick way to get “unelected”. But the reality is that if people drove 10% less we would reduce congestion enormously because congestion is non-linear.

This is an incredibly important concept when discussing traffic congestion and one that is dealt with in detail in other parts of the Transportation section. For now, we will try to clarify it with a simplistic example.

If a road has a capacity of 2,000 vehicles per hour (vph), that traffic will flow acceptably at 2,000 vph but will probably be a real mess if there are 2,200 vph. Think about how one car going 35 mph on a 65 mph expressway backs everything up and you will understand that even this small percentage increase over capacity can cause significant delays. However, to correct the problem you don’t need to get all 2,200 vehicles off the road but rather you only need to reduce them by 200 to get the traffic moving along nicely.

Obviously, driving less is not the only answer but it is the major component to reducing congestion. Changes in our driving habits need to be combined with innovative technologies such as roundabouts to improve the capacities of our existing roads. When necessary, we will need to build new roads but we have to do so with a level of intelligence and forethought that has been lacking in the past.

Reality time. Sprawl is one of the most destructive forces at work in America today and unless you are a developer, it is hurting you. This is a personal “you,” not a generic “you”. It is your taxes that are rising to support the infrastructure needed by new homes and commercial projects. It is you that is putting up with increased traffic congestion, it is you and yours that are breathing the increasingly polluted air caused by the traffic in which you are sitting. The water that you drink is threatened and the water you don’t drink is threatening you as stormwater turns to floodwater from increased runoff from upstream development. Your schools are packed, children are taught in closets and modulars while your school taxes soar. The landscape, wildlife, critical ecosystems and the history of your community, components that help define your property value, are being destroyed. Sprawl hurts you and the list above is only a starting point.

There is no doubt that sprawl is destructive but there is some confusion about what exactly sprawl is. In fact, what do we even call it? Is it urban sprawl or is it suburban sprawl? Perhaps the best definition of sprawl comes from the National Trust for Historic Preservation which describes it simply as “poorly planned, low-density, auto-oriented development that spreads out from the center of communities.’’ James Howard Kunstler was perhaps even more succinct when he said that sprawl was “the geography of nowhere.”

In essence, sprawl is the basic shift from a well defined city/town/village/rural hierarchical structure wherein the city was clearly the source of influence, the population center and the base of commerce. This was the structure that dominated the American landscape until World War II when in very short order it was replaced by a city/suburb/rural matrix that saw the suburbs assume the lead role in many of society’s functions. In and of itself, this shift is not necessarily wrong but it was accomplished and continues without proper planning and in total disregard for the negative consequences that can, and most often do, occur.

It may be easier to identify the characteristics of sprawl than it is to define it. Anthony Downs of the Brookings Institute identified ten traits that have been generally accepted by the planning community as fundamental to sprawl. They are:

• unlimited outward extension
• low-density residential and commercial settlements
• leapfrog development
• fragmentation of powers over land use among many small localities
• dominance of transportation by private automotive vehicles
• no centralized planning or control of land-uses
• widespread strip commercial development
• great fiscal disparities among localities
• segregation of types of land uses in different zones
• reliance mainly on the trickle-down or filtering process to provide housing to low-income households

The Components of Sprawl

The concept of sprawl encompasses more than just tract housing although that may be its most easily discernible characteristic. What we are really dealing with is a very complex system that includes residential, commercial, industrial and retail components and the vast array of infrastructure required to allow them to function. In addition, understanding the true impact of sprawl requires that one deals with the changing social morays that have resulted. It is the historic and continued failure of government and the public to recognize the interrelationship of these varied components that allows sprawl to continue with no end in sight.

The Historic Roots of Sprawl

Sprawl is Euclidean. If you are not familiar with the term, don’t worry as it is more than a bit esoteric. In essence, the term describes zoning based on the concept of separate zones for different uses and it derives its name from the 1927 U.S. Supreme Court case, Euclid vs. Ambler, which upheld the right of a municipality to designate areas as single-use zones. The original intent was to separate and thus avoid mixing unhealthy industrial uses with residential areas and to address, through planning, some of the problems that had occurred during the Industrial Revolution. Most zoning since the late 1920s has involved the separation of uses although a mix of residential and retail is not uncommon.

Sprawl: An American Tradition?

There are those who argue that sprawl is merely an extension of the American tradition to seek new frontiers, likening the movement away from the cities to the westward expansion of the 1800s. This was the advertising tactic used to market the early growth of the suburbs and is an argument that may enchant those studying the psychology of mobility in the United States. However, it is a position without basis. Moving to the suburbs to battle traffic to the mall in an air conditioned, leather clad land cruiser equipped with an eight speaker stereo is hardly the same as battling wolves in a Conastoga wagon heading over the Rockies. Although there has always been a degree of movement away from cities by some, the sprawl that is now occurring is so fundamentally different than from the expansion of the past that it must be considered in its own right.

A New Mobility

Sprawl is a relatively new phenomena. Its foundation may be traced directly to social and political changes between 1945 to 1960, but it was not an unpredictable occurrence. Frank Lloyd Wright (1867-1959) observed that:

“The outcome of cities will depend on the race between the automobile and the elevator, and anyone who bets on the elevator is crazy.”

Several factors during that period combined to create an environment whereby sprawl was almost an assured outcome. Specifically:

The G.I. Bill of Rights (Serviceman’s Readjustment Act of 1944) made the dream of home ownership a reality for 5.5 million Americans and created the largest building boom in the nation’s history by providing low cost federal housing loans.

The Federal Aid-Highway Act of 1956 was signed into law by President Eisenhower, which created of the Interstate Highway System (now formally known as the Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways). Under this act, 41,000 miles (later expanded to 42,700 miles) of new superhighways were built, dramatically increasing the mobility of Americans. As a result, areas that had been considered too distant from which to “commute” were now within range of the employment opportunities of many urban centers.

The availability of inexpensive land within close proximity to urban centers.

The popularity of the concept of “developments” with the Levittowns of Long Island and Pennsylvania being the preeminent examples.

The desire of local officials to attract new growth opportunities (i.e. development) and their willingness to create the public infrastructure needed to accommodate the new construction.

The victory of the automobile over public transportation as the preferred commuting option.

The advent of television and shows like “Leave it to Beaver,” illustrating comfortable suburban living.

To many, the growth of the suburbs was simply the fulfillment of the American Dream and from the beginning, suburban developments have been marketed with that in mind. Idealized images of the suburban homeowner commuting to the city for employment dominated the print media though the underlying message was not that you could commute to but rather escape from urban America. The perception of suburbia as the American Dream was reinforced weekly by popular television programs showing the serenity and happiness inherent with the suburban lifestyle. The importance of television and its impact on the American perception of desired lifestyle cannot be over-stressed. This is clearly illustrated by the reality that “Leave It to Beaver” remains a cultural icon to a simpler time in a better place even though it left prime time some forty years ago.

Cities in Flames

In less than 15 years, the “new” suburbia was firmly entrenched in the American lifestyle by 1960. Developments spread like wildfires throughout the nation (over 1,000 subdivisions were concurrently under construction in Long Island, New York in 1960) that were remarkable only for their sameness. Sociologists and planners expressed their fears and concerns about the radical shift in community structure only to have them ignored by builders, government and the general public. By 1960 the die was cast and the mass exodus to the promised land of the suburbs was in full swing. The once peaceful potato fields of Long Island were now home to the largest population growth in the nation increasing from 604,003 people in 1940 to 1,966,995 by 1960, the vast majority of whom were white.

” White Flight” became a commonly accepted, though rarely admitted, justification for the movement of middle class whites from the cities to the suburbs and was promoted by the developers themselves. When Levittown opened in New York in 1947, William J. Levitt included in his sales contract the clause that: “The tenant agrees not to permit the premises to be used or occupied by any person other than members of the Caucasian race.” (Clause 25 – 1947 Levittown Sales Agreement) Levitt justified his action with the explanation that “The plain fact is that most whites prefer not to live in mixed communities.” (New York Newsday)

For an excellent history on the development of Long Island, New York, please see The New Frontier.

White Flight turned into a White Stampede as the 1960’s progressed and the nonviolent attempts to promote civil rights gave way to riots in urban America. Americans will never forget the graphic images of the riots in Watts, Newark, Boston, Chicago or Detroit that filled television screens of the era. Literally, our cities were burning and just as literally, the white middle class (as a group) had no interest in hanging around to find why or how to fix the problems that were at the root of the violence.

Equally as important as the shift in residential patterns, corporations that had long considered cities to be the location of choice decided to move to suburban areas as well. A massive corporate exodus from urban America began in the late 1960s and has not abated since. Often cited as the justification for such moves are lower tax rates, availability of transportation, proximity to a wider labor pool, decreased cost of living for employees and lower cost of operations. That cities have found it increasingly hard to attract large corporations is clearly illustrated by the fanfare recently attached to the news that a 700 person financial firm was moving into rather than out of Philadelphia. Although a relatively small operation by many standards, this move represented the largest new corporate commitment to the city in the last 20 years.

1975 – Today

As one would expect, the early development of the suburbs was a somewhat radial process in that the land most accessible to the urban center was that which was most likely to be developed first. Accompanying those leaving the cities were retail business which found new homes in that most American of inventions, the “Mall.” The advent of enclosed malls represented a massive realignment in the retail structure of the nation and commercial sprawl began in earnest.

By the mid 1970s, the “outer” regions of metropolitan areas became targets for developers. These areas often lacked the general infrastructure to support large scale development and projects were met with greatly varying degrees of resistance from local officials. Thus developers seeking to maximize their profits began the process of building where it was easiest and development took on a much more random pattern than it had in the past.

Residents in the outer fringes got a short reprieve in the late 1970s through mid-1980s when the building industry collapsed as a result of mortgage rates as high as 18% and the gas crisises of the era caused people to rethink (but only for a moment) their driving habits. Although development certainly occurred during this time period, the frenzy of the proceeding decades had abated and a period of relative tranquility from development pressure ensued. (It is interesting to note that many school districts on the fringes of developing metropolitan areas actually closed schools as a result of declining enrollment.)

In many ways, this period represented the calm before the storm, because as interest rates came down and the national economy pulled out of recession, we entered a period of unparalleled growth. The building of suburbia began anew with a vengeance, this time with a big difference. Now, residential sprawl was accompanied by big box retailers. Many local merchants who had managed to survive the economic war with the malls found themselves unable to compete with Walmart or Home Depot and have disappeared to the detriment of the local economy. (Interestingly, now many malls find themselves in the same position, unable to compete with big box retailers!)

This latest expansion of the suburbs continues today and was fueled in part by pent up consumer demand. However, massive advertising campaigns touting the availability of low cost financing and promoting the perception of lower taxes and greener pastures has played a key element. The constant claim by developers that they are only meeting the demands of the market ignores the reality that they are investing millions in advertising to create the market they claim to be satisfying.

preservationist@preservationist.net