Minority Thoughts on Major Municipal Development

Being a suburb of Austin, Pflugerville is a highly desirable area for development. Because of this development and the increase in population, Pflugerville is doing a major study of the FM 685 traffic corridor as well as planning the new 29 acre Downtown East development. 

A couple of the boys and I attended an open house at the library to look at the plans and ask some questions about the study. The organizers had a table with some snacks and cookies on it, so the boys mainly focused their attention on the snack table. 

Everyone I spoke with was knowledgeable and encouraged feedback about the projects. However, I realized the one bit of feedback that was absent, or really the one way of thinking that was completely absent from the FM 685 corridor study or any city planning documents I’ve seen, is the idea that NOT growing might be a good thing. That maybe continuous municipal growth isn’t always a net positive. 

I know, it’s capitalistic, it’s progressive, it’s American to say growth is good. But is it always? Unrestrained growth in cells is called cancer. 

Is it possible that a city can be too big? Is it possible that humanity could, in ignorance or even well-intentioned planning, dehumanize towns? What if “development” had non-economic components? I’ve regularly heard city leaders (from all over the country) talk about the importance of maintaining a sense of place and the goal of having a “small town feel” but what if that sense of place was tied to actually being a small town instead of just feeling like one? 

We look around and say that traffic is bad so we need more roads. But that conclusion isn’t the only option. What if we said, traffic is so bad, let’s not make more roads because it will only get worse. There are certainly ample examples of Parkinson’s Law (work expands to fill the time allotted for its completion) playing out in roadways (traffic expands to fill the roadways to capacity). 

Yet, the same pattern unfolds in small town after small town. The assumption is the only way forward is to grow the population, which means building roads, developments, and infrastructure. Which brings more people. Which means… You get the picture. It’s very “If You Give a Mouse a Cookie.”

Texas is filled with small towns. Most Texans don’t want to live in a metropolis. And yet, we keep doing all the things to bring that to fruition. As we move toward bigger, the assumption is better is coming too. But as these towns become cities, and then large cities and then metropolitan areas when does this ever NOT lead to not only a loss of a sense of place but directly in the direction of dehumanization?

The anonymization of the individual (another brick in the wall, another number on the list) is a byproduct of living in a big city. Sure, that anonymity provides the efficiency of being able to do errands near home without running into anyone you know, but is that a net gain? With the digitized shopping environments ubiquitous in big cities, you can do most errands in a fraction of the historical time and without any human interaction. Is society better off for this? 

Smaller may be less efficient. Smaller may mean less convenience. Smaller may mean more modest amenities. But when it comes to municipalities, I think consideration of the idea that smaller may be better is a big thing we’re missing.