Should We Have a Kid

ID: 0799460

ENG1510

4/23/2014

Should We Have A Kid?

        In the world we live in it seems that more and more cities nationwide are basing their city structure around the idea that society has become to dependent on their cars as a main source of transportation, instead of other friendly modes of transportation. According to Randal O’Toole ““Smart growth” is a land use and transportation planning concept that calls for higher density, compact urban areas, mixing commercial with residential uses and emphasizing pedestrian-friendly design and transit-oriented development over automobile-oriented development, all aimed at reducing the amount of driving people need to do” (O’Toole 1).  Although this may be an innovation to city structure around the nation, one question stands out in particular; Are cities that base their structure around the idea of “Smart Growth” ideal areas for raising a family?

In Randal’s article called “Smart Growth Policies Will Harm Urban Areas” he raises the proposal that humans have reached a point where we rely on the automobile as a main source of transportation and introduces the ideas around a smart growth community.  He then reflects a brief history about how the term first became existent, followed by the misconception of what causes people to drive as opposed to walk or take the bus in a “smart growth” community.  The population growth between suburbs and downtown has risen in the suburbs nearly 100 times more than the community growth in downtown, urban areas over the past twenty years. Randal also introduces many other ideas, reinforcing his view on smart growth, such as how the auto-mobile became more convenient over time, how high taxes are in the downtown areas as opposed to suburbs.  Complimenting those two points, he then talks about how there are areas that already have low automobile use levels such as college towns, and brings the reader back into time, describing the different ways cities were constructed around different modes of transportation given the time period.  Wrapping up the article, Randal shows how all of his points prove that the results of smart growth have become “more disastrous than the effects of the urban renewal programs of the 1950’s and 1960’s (O’Toole 6).

There is one small point that Randal raises earlier in the article that grabbed my interest and sparked new ideas.  He talks about how the population that is moving into downtown (more dense) areas are childless families, or single individuals, which sparked the question; “Is a smart growth community an ideal area to raise a family”?  First consider the dangers that are associated with living in an area where urban city life meets life in the suburbs.  This would cause more neighborhoods that are usually private to be introduced to the homeless.  Not all homeless people raise a threat to the community, but in reality there is a bad apple in every batch.  It is impossible to gauge the extent of what a homeless person would do for food, shelter, or to fulfill other pleasures, and it’s obvious that a couple would not want their kids exposed to this kind of lifestyle.  The idea of smart growth also would make it much easier for a child to be introduced to dangerous gangs and street drugs.  Drugs such as crack, meth, and heroin would be located closer to rural communities giving children easier access to these discussing, unwanted, deadly drugs.