The conservative case for better urbanism

Overview

I’ll preface this post by saying that I’ve wanted to write on this topic for a *very* long time, perhaps since I started writing this blog nearly four years ago. I think I just needed the right inspiration, and last week I found it from an unlikely source.

Ken Burns’ Prohibition is a three-part documentary series that explores the temperance movement in the United States throughout the late 19th century and the early 20th century, culminating in the passage of the 18th Amendment of the Constitution barring the sale and distribution of alcoholic beverages in 1919. Divisions along geographic and religious lines were especially stark leading up to and during Prohibition— the predominantly white Protestants of rural America were by and large in favor of the measure, while the Catholic immigrant urban class viewed banning alcohol as discriminatory and asinine amidst flagrant disregard for the law from bootleggers and politicians alike.

As I was watching, I couldn’t help but think about the parallels between then and the divisions that persist in our country a century later. Nowadays, the urban/rural divide can be best defined by political ideology and affiliation. Although neither is a monolith, the country’s modern progressive movement is centered in its cities and inner suburbs, while rural America remains quite conservative. This generally correlates to presidential election results, as Donald Trump’s electoral success has been largely attributed to his base of white, rural, evangelical voters. Much of his movement has also been built on a disdain for urban American, fomenting sentiments that have existed since even before Prohibition. For the past century, the messaging has been relatively consistent— America’s cities are simultaneously dangerous dens of crime and corrupt concentrations of power, both of which siphon off from real, hardworking people in middle America. It’s been used to justify positions on a myriad of issues: D.C. statehood (or the lack thereof), school choice, and highway construction.

The rationale behind freeway building as a tool of urban renewal from traffic engineers, many of whom came from a rural background themselves, was that constructing thoroughfares through depressed neighborhoods would eliminate urban slums while connecting suburbanites and rural communities to downtown cores to boost economic development. Generations later, our urban freeways continue to spur further sprawl beyond the suburbs, drawing the ire of urban progressives and rural conservatives alike. What used to be farms and fields and forests are now cheaply-built subdivisions and sprawling parking lots and big box stores. All of this infrastructure is expensive to maintain, resulting in local governments raising property taxes or cutting vital public services just to maintain the ever-expanding infrastructure.

The enemy of sprawl

It should be a surprise to few readers where my politics lie. I’m very much a left-leaning individual with significant criticisms of the American capitalist, imperialist system who values the critical public services our tax dollars fund and believes the ultra-wealthy should be taxed substantially higher to improve these services. This puts me very much at odds with the opinions of the average Trump voter, but I would argue not necessarily the values. In theory, the average conservative and myself both want to see our tax dollars utilized prudently, regardless of how we might differ on what the definition of prudence is. However, we both likely view urban sprawl in a negative light. The homes built in the suburbs nowadays are exorbitantly expensive and are taking over previously natural lands. With downtown commuters living further and further out in the suburbs, traffic is getting worse and worse, and taxes are getting higher and higher while services are getting worse and worse. Depending on your perspective, government zoning regulations that require what housing a developer can build and how much parking a developer must provide are also to blame for the current state of infrastructure.

I think we can all agree that expensive housing, congested roads, and higher taxes are all bad. Not only are taxes higher because there’s more infrastructure to maintain, but less of the land in sprawling suburban communities is taxable than in denser, urban areas. Driveways, parkways, and parking lots are all just impervious slabs of asphalt that don’t generate any revenue and require constant maintenance. When cities build up and not out, there is more property to tax and less burden is shifted on residents and local residents. Dense, affordable housing is both a tax-effective and a land-preserving alternative to the sprawling, expensive homes that dominate the suburban landscape, and are especially critical in a era of an affordability crisis with housing as the epicenter.

That same tax revenue can be used to address another pressing issue in America’s car-dependent metropolitan areas— traffic congestion. The average Charlotte commuter loses the equivalent of two days a year sitting in traffic, oftentimes due to the fact that the vast majority of commuters are traveling by single-occupancy vehicle. Conversely, a modest investment (compared to what we already spend on highway construction) in commuter alternatives such as public transportation is a far more fiscally responsible strategy to maintain regional growth. Not only does it accommodate denser, more affordable housing that staves off sprawl into rural areas, but it takes drivers off the road who make the financial decision to take public transportation. It eases the burden of transportation, the second-highest household budget cost in both money and time. Even if folks only ride public transportation occasionally, it puts less wear and tear on their vehicles and delays having repairs and even replacements. And most importantly, it takes (some of) those drivers who just don’t know what they’re doing behind the wheel off the road, reducing the likelihood of accidents that only worsen the current state of congestion.

Whether we are progressive urbanites or conservatives in middle America and rural communities, we have significantly more in common than Prohibition, Donald Trump, or any other force might have us believe. Better cities is something that helps both of our ecosystems thrive and reach their true potentials.

Conservative urbanism

All of the reasons I’ve shared above as to how proper urbanization lends itself to conservative values are more measurable— you can see housing prices, traffic congestion, and taxes go up and down. However, urbanization helps spur cultural change that can’t be quantified. Neighbors aren’t isolated from one another and can develop bonds. Kids can walk or bike to a neighborhood school or park. Families can have neighborhood cookouts. So much more is possible in neighborhoods when cars and car infrastructure take up less space, time, and money for families. Ignoring the blatant racist dogwhistle behind ‘make America great again,’ there’s a kernel of truth in that ideal for many conservatives where their country is becoming unrecognizable. Enabling dense housing and public transportation in our urban cores not only reduces sprawl and taxes, but it promotes (in theory) those same values of an America once lost that many on the right yearn for.