THE QUEST FOR A SMART GROWTH MODEL 

 

Thomas Barraud

Smart growth theory is one thing and reality is often very different. So far in the world there has not been a single country that decided to opt for smart growth as a general model for development.

However, several of them have experienced situations fitting the definition of smart growth without necessarily trying to promote it or purposely reach such a model.

The real issue is then to work out if smart growth – either through a conscious choice or as a result from different sets of actions – is applicable to a majority of countries and could eventually challenge a production-oriented model.  

First we need to inquire about what smart growth supporters endorse as unarguable successes. Cuban agriculture is one of them. Many commentators state that Cuba had to struggle with a sudden collapse in USSR-funded subsidies for its sugar and the loss of supplies of chemical pesticides and herbicides from the Eastern bloc, and therefore was forced to start producing homegrown fruits and vegetables in a massive conversion to organic agriculture in order to supply its needs, all the while emphasizing local farms called agropónicos, to avoid using oil for trucking produce. (See Andrew Buncombe, “Cuba’s Agricultural Revolution an Example to the World”, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 13 August, 2006, as articles by Jason Mark in Earth Island Journal and Bill McKibben in Harpers.)

There is no doubt that such a system is much healthier than artificially emphasizing Cuba’s sugar production which prevented its agriculture from diversifying.

From an economic point of view, the example of Cuba may not serve as a sustainable model for the rest of the world. Cuba is an isolated economy hence not dependent on other economies. Firstly, Cuba is able to set prices that do not correspond to those of the world market without fearing an overflow of foreign products that would cause the Cuban agriculture to disappear. Secondly and as a result of the preceding drawback, prices of many staples in Cuba are artificial because they are not confronted by any competition. Some countries can produce some goods for a lower price than Cuba as they benefit from better soil or more intensive agriculture.

From the Cuban experience must be drawn some conclusions in order to define a workable smart growth model. Smart growth might in some cases trigger an increase in consumption prices. In wealthy countries most customers may be willing to pay more with regards to the social benefits but in developing nations such an increase could have disastrous consequences.

This argument can be partially dismissed if one takes into consideration the fact that many people in developing nations with capital intensive agro-industry still experience starvation.  

Now the possible drawbacks of smart growth have been assessed thanks to the analysis of former smart growth experiences, I will try to give some clues of what a sustainable smart growth model potentially applicable worldwide could be.

First of all, smart growth covers many different fields – transportation, urbanism, agriculture… - which will all have to be incorporated into the model for it to be sustainable.

Secondly, the very idea of a smart growth model might be just an illusion as the term model involves rigidity whereas smart growth needs flexibility to be successful. I will try to define a pattern more than a model, as my goal is to reach out to as many countries and different situations as possible.

Let’s take the example of Paris: there are 11 million people living in Paris and its suburbs¹, owning as many as 5 million private cars (16% of all private cars in France).

These figures must be compared to those of public transportation. There are an estimated 6.8 million public transport journeys every day in the whole Paris area up from 4.5 million in 1970.

So it seems that cars are losing ground. But the situation is more complex and while more and more people use public transport, cars are also increasingly used on a daily basis by the same people. Every day in the Paris area there are about 15.5 million car journeys, double the amount of public transport journeys. The pace of increase is 2% a year, that is to say more than that of public transport.

Paris probably needs to go further towards a real smart growth model, instead of implementing more railways and bus lines. Paris must take a stronger stance against cars in order to change the culture of people, and for instance put taxes on cars entering the city the same way as in London. As previously shown, Paris does not lack public transport (even though the network needs to be enhanced), so no one can argue that people need their cars. They just think they do and only tax incentives could deeply change their behavior which results from a car culture that is not so different from the American car culture.  

Hence my conclusion: a sustainable smart growth pattern needs to focus on mass culture. Public transport is not trendy; nor are smart growth housing patterns which put the emphasis on smaller buildings and denser housing. Smart growth supporters need to invest in the marketing industry and work on building as seductive a model as that of car makers.