Mayberry or Metropolis?

Increasingly, we are becoming a world of human anthills. The modernization of our world, both in developed and developing countries, has resulted in the creation of the megalopolis, giant cities with millions of people crammed together in comparatively small spaces. It’s hard to say which part of this equation drives the other. Does the migration to the cities prompt modernization or does the modernization tempt the people to come? Which came first, the chicken or the egg? In either case, the two parts feed off of each other and the cities continue to grow, stretching the resources that provide infrastructure and covering the land with concrete. The result is a lifetime of waiting in long lines on the streets and in the shops, a landscape of infinite buildings, a disconnect with the natural world and with our fellow citizens through sensory deprivation in the former case and sensory overload in the latter. In our haste to be great, we have become bogged down by the massive pressure of millions of people all trying to do the same basic thing at the same time. Quality of life, the very thing that modernization promises to increase, becomes just another ideal that we dream about.

Our large city models have many positive attributes, to be sure. They offer diversity and variety in business and industry, and any number of recreational and educational opportunities. But they also bring traffic congestion and slums and blight. And yet each year, the largest cities in the country continue to grow as more and more people flock to them in search of prosperity. The suburbs become metropolises in their own right and like a cancer, the culture of concrete envelops the natural world until it is but a shadow of its former self. How is it that we have forgotten our connection with the natural world? As we build our buildings and pave our streets, we have no thought to either ourselves or to our environment.

The current standard of multiple residential suburbs around a greater metropolis doesn’t really fit the needs of a technological society that can network many jobs from multiple locations. While the populations increase, public services become more taxed upon and the quality is diminished as the costs go up. In many cases, these effects are already being felt as hospitals become overcrowded or schools become less effective or commutes to business sectors become unbearable. And don’t forget the increase in air and water pollution created by a larger population coupled with the deforestation of natural plants in favor of development. Or the inability to maintain existing roads, pipes, and public buildings, even as new ones are connected to the suburbs. Or the inadequate number of fire and police personnel to protect such large populations. The list could go on and on, but the fact of the matter is that this model for civilization is no longer conducive to a higher quality of life, nor is it necessarily economically or ecologically the wisest course to continue.

In addition to the aforementioned problems, our suburban model creates an environment of unnecessary competition between the suburban cities and the metropolis, and an overlapping of governmental regulation and enforcement within a region. Often, cities within this megalopolis structure find themselves at odds with each other, sometimes to the detriment of the region as a whole, and certainly to the detriment of the taxpayers.

So, if this model is no longer acceptable, what model is? Some regions of the country have created so called urban growth boundaries in an effort to constrain the spread of suburbia, but these efforts have only slowed the growth, not changed its pattern. But at least it is a step in the right direction. If there is one thing to be gained by our experiment with suburbia, it is the concept of master planning. While its present application gives us identical residential sections and look-alike strip malls, at least the concept has promise. Just because we are stuck in a rut with regards to creative land use doesn’t mean we have to stay there. City planning and land use measures should reflect an attitude of efficiency for both citizen and business, recognize the importance of coexisting with the natural world, and promote better regional planning.

The first place to start is by creating regional development zones. Each zone could have a maximum population limit to decrease the negative social effects of overcrowding and a maximum growth boundary to maintain a better grasp on infrastructure management. In this model, a central zone, or hub, could act as a central manufacturing, governmental, and public resource focal point, with services for the region being coordinated and disbursed from this general location. Surrounding the central hub could be an area of development for shopping centers, higher education facilities, entertainment centers and high-density, vertical residential units. Beyond this “nucleus” would be a mandatory “green space” separation of at least 5 miles but no more than about 20 miles, which would provide natural parkland spaces for outdoor recreation as well as ecological preservation and wildlife habitat. Beyond this “green zone” would be smaller sectors for residential living, schools, hospitals, and all the other small businesses that are necessary for daily life. Farther out, more “green space” would separate regional developments from each other, creating natural buffer zones between settlement areas.



High-speed, efficient commuter transportation would be established to transport people to and from the central zone for work while the outer sectors would be connected to each other with more conventional transportation structures. Separate regional developments could be connected by highway systems similar to those in place today as well as by rail operations. Such transportation techniques could help alleviate lengthy commutes and also diminish air pollution problems. The time and money saved by individuals and governments alike could contribute to better services and a more sustainable pace of life for everyone.

Of course, this kind of regional model would necessitate a change in attitude among our leaders both in business and in government. More jobs would need to be done by employees working from their homes through telecommuting. Regions could decide to specialize on certain industries in their central hubs, creating regional economies rather than the mega-economies of our current city structures. Each regional zone could become a piece of a larger economic puzzle, rather than the whole puzzle itself. But the upshot for individuals would be less time standing in lines and more time spent with each other. The upshot for our environment would be more concentrated development in smaller areas with less overall expansion and encroachment. And the upshot for our tax dollars would be a more focused plan for infrastructure and a lessening of duplicated services and irrational competition between neighbors of a region.

The thing to remember is that this is only one idea to address the problems with our urban model. It represents an effort to rethink the path of our future development with quality of life and efficiency being the primary forces driving development rather than simple profit. It requires a determination to coexist with our natural world while eliminating the stresses that overpower daily life in megalopolises. It requires a dedication to the development of new methods of transportation and infrastructure delivery. But as our cities continue to grow and become more impersonal and fatigued, it may be time to try something new.

This country has plenty of open space where new city models could be tried. Cooperation between government, business, and citizens could begin to establish these areas, drawing city dwellers to new opportunities and effectively allowing existing over-populated areas to thin out in time. By adopting a long view towards development, we can increase the quality of life for ourselves today and for future generations to come, and also begin to reverse some of the damage we’ve done to the natural world.

Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle

When you mention recycling to most people, they instantly conjure images of aluminum cans, soda bottles, and old newspapers. For most of us, that is where recycling begins and ends. In our culture of replaceable products, the idea of reusing something, anything, is almost antithetical. Western culture and the rise of consumerism has instilled in us the idea that new is better and that old is garbage. No matter that a product may be perfectly serviceable, if a "new and improved" product is sent to market, we rush to replace what we have with the new thing. And the thing being replaced is relegated to the trash heap. This attitude not only permeates the products that we use, but also extends to the way we view natural resources and our public infrastructure.

The problem with this kind of thinking is that we end up wasting more than just the material that these products or things or created from. We also waste valuable time, space, and money by discarding that which still has use and we defile land and water resources through the creation of bigger cities and larger landfills. The end result is a cultural mentality that encourages wastefulness at every turn. All of us, due to our cultural upbringing, have fallen into this mindset, and the effects of this attitude can be seen in our landfills, in our cost of living, and in our assumption of entitlement. And while we may not be at fault for having this attitude instilled in us, we are to blame if we make no effort to change it.

Let's start with the first "R," which is reduction. The concept of reduction embraces the idea of eliminating wastefulness and curbing unnecessary materialism. We all need certain "things" to sustain our lives and the quality of our lives. From food and shelter to transportation and energy, our need for "things" is not, in and of itself, a negative quality. The problem occurs when we become wasteful of what we have in order to replace our things with updated versions, despite the fact that the original things still work just fine, or when we purchase duplicate items we don't really need just to have more stuff. This problem is exacerbated when we become callous or indifferent to this wastefulness and even encourage it through the advancement of "throw away consumerism." If you've ever eaten at a modern buffet restaurant and watched the amount of discarded food, you know what I mean by wastefulness. If you've ever driven through a deserted downtown on your way to the newest outlet mall, you've seen the result of mindless construction and the waste of materials. If you've ever left every light on in the house or ignored a leaky faucet because you couldn't take the time to turn them off or fix the leak, you've contributed to the problem. If you've ever purchased a new cellular telephone in order to get the latest added techno-gadget, you've fallen into this trap too. Americans in particular have been force fed the notion that more is better and newer is necessary. Yet in a world where thousands of millions struggle to feed their children every day, the absent minded wastefulness practiced by each of us on a daily basis is nothing less than ridiculous. By reducing our consumption to more moderate levels we not only save ourselves money, we make available more of the resources required to create "things" to others who strive for a better life.

The second "R" stands for reuse. If through reduction we can eliminate (or at least significantly decrease) societal wastefulness, it is through the concept of reuse that we can extend the life of our products and infrastructure. In addition to our culture of consumerism, we have been taught, through the efforts of our business and government leaders, that everything is replaceable an, in fact, should be replaced. We have been conditioned to accept the fact that all things are created with a preplanned obsolescence. Goods are designed to either break down or become outdated in a relatively short span of time. Yet from a Common Sense point of view, this type of planned uselessness creates an unnecessary strain on both our resources and our budgets. Sure, many of us donate our old computers or televisions to organizations like Goodwill when we get a new product. But just as often, when the new stuff enters the home, the old stuff goes out to the curb for the trash man to collect. These products can be reused by others, or at the very least, disassembled so that their components can be recycled and reused in other products. This same attitude can be applied to the abandoned buildings that litter our landscape, the broken down furniture that fill our dumps, and on and on.

Our final "R" is the one that many millions are already used to hearing about, recycling. But recycling must go beyond our pop cans and newspapers. Recycling is a concept that needs to be expanded to include all produced goods that have become unwanted or unworkable. Recycling is a concept that makes a lot of sense from an economic standpoint, but it also allows us to limit our use of nonrenewable resources. Everything we make uses resources from the natural world, and in many cases, once these resources are transformed into goods they become forever unavailable for any other purpose. Unless we recycle them. Recycled products can be either refurbished and redistributed or they can be broken down to their original elements and used to create new goods. Either way, recycling lessens our need for raw materials by reusing those which have already been through the process of refinement.

So, you may ask, what is the point of reducing my consumption when no one else does? Why should I reuse or recycle when none of my neighbors do? What is the benefit to me? The answer to all of these questions is simple: We should reduce, reuse, and recycle because it makes sense, both economically and environmentally, and it shows the rest of the world that we are willing and able to share the limited resources of this planet more equitably. But it is not enough to simply apply these concepts to our own daily lives. We must also push for governmental policies that require our businesses and individuals to reduce the use of resources. We must push for an end to the culture of planned uselessness by requiring our manufacturers to create products that have a long shelf life, even as technology makes things more versatile. We must insist that our cities limit new development to building things that are needed rather than to things that are just wanted. And we must develop the processes and infrastructure that can facilitate recycling of all things.

These concepts are not new ones, by any means, but they are ideas that are often swept to the wayside in our ever-growing desire for bigger and better. Changing the way we think about resources and changing the way we use raw materials could do more to show the world that we are willing to be equal partners in the quest for a better life for all citizens than forcing our culture of consumerism on the world has done. There is nothing wrong with wanting the best things that mankind can make. But there is something inherently wrong with the proliferation of a culture that advocates, through ignorance or laziness or callousness, the wanton wastefulness for the sake of having more.