Up Above: The Geography of Suburban Sprawl in Southern California’s Antelope Valley

Matt Jalbert

The Role of Government

SINCE GOVERNMENT’S POWERS CAN BE SOMEWHAT distanced from the constraints of the market which developers and consumers face, its role is the most powerful. As I have indicated, a regionally or nationally coordinated development policy is the most rational alternative to current patterns of sprawl. Anything less than regional policy pits economies against each other and invariably drives sprawl out to the very fringes of urbanized areas—those areas where development is cheap and easy, but where it incurs the greatest environmental damage. The absence of region-wide planning gave rise to the Antelope Valley’s recent boom, as it did to Placer County near Sacramento, the suburbs of the outer East San Francisco Bay, and other areas of California and the Southwest in the 1980s.

Local governments in particular must realize that a different development pattern is in the best interest of their city. This could partly be achieved by democratically driven regional coordination. In the case of the Antelope Valley, this would also be enforced by a recognition of booms and busts. The Valley’s nemesis is its belief, so long promoted by boosters, that it is destined to be something very big. Megalopolitan ambitions may play well to investors, but they ignore the realities of the Valley’s minor position in relation to Los Angeles. The long-held notion that the Valley is on the verge of urban greatness fueled the cities’ unquestioning acceptance of the sprawl which visited them. The unchallenged concept of growth as an economic necessity disarmed the Antelope Valley and left it vulnerable to the bust which inevitably came. It also left the Valley, and the Los Angeles region as a whole, saddled with the consequences of another layer of distant suburban development.

Policies implemented at the local level would have the most direct effect on the form growth takes; zoning is the tool cities have at their disposal. Allowing and encouraging greater residential density would be one of the first steps to reducing sprawl. Both Palmdale and Lancaster have significant rural portions where people have a strong desire to maintain very low densities. Residents of these areas usually keep horses and want to maintain their “country” lifestyle which once dominated the Valley; these regions should be preserved. But sections near existing urbanization—especially those along the i-14 corridor—must be zoned for higher density development. This would require the abandonment of density limits such as Palmdale’s 7,000 square foot minimum lot size. Homeowners also need to overcome resistance to mixing with multi-family dwellings. Apartments, condominiums, and trailer parks have been stigmatized in the public eye, which has made these crucial dwelling types appear detrimental to residential neighborhoods. A greater variety of housing type, from owner-occupied single-family home to rental apartment, increases social diversity and guards against the severe economic, social, and racial stratification found along typical urban–suburban transects. Unfortunately, the general preference of many suburban dwellers is for homogeneity. Overcoming race and class prejudices is a crucial component of implementing new development patterns, one which will have to be worked around by economic incentive.

Zoning must also consider mixed-use developments. Newer development in the Antelope Valley is frequently of monolithic tracts of single-family homes, widely separated by the degraded desert scrub of former agricultural land. These kinds of neighborhoods require residents to use cars for nearly every daily errand. Denser developments that have basic stores within one-quarter to one-half mile of homes would encourage walking for many chores (and walking in general), greatly reducing local automobile trips. Palmdale has already taken a step toward mixed-use by allowing home occupancy (people who work out of their home, as previously mentioned). The greater mingling of work, home, and consumption spaces will do much toward forming stronger neighborhood ties and reducing the consequences of commuting.

Though the 1950s-style family with a working dad, a housewife, and two-point-three kids is a statistical relic today, the Antelope Valley seems to successfully deny that. Building for the automobile-based nuclear family was the norm in the Valley, despite a trend away from that in real demographics (especially in Southern California). While builders would be wise to adjust developments to the changing realities of Americans—more single people, more childless couples, more working parents, more single parents—the Antelope Valley’s build-out ostensibly satisfied a demand for traditional homes. In many ways, the Valley is a bastion of conservative, Republican, and very conventional families. The fact that demand for condominiums and apartments is so low in the Antelope Valley indicates that the area is simply too far removed from urban amenities, economic opportunities, and social support networks for anything but the self-contained nuclear household to thrive in. In this sense, the geographic distance of the Valley from the Los Angeles area precluded non-traditional families or even singles from settling unless their job was there; the pattern of homebuilding in the 1980s merely reflected this demographic reality. [Footnote #60]

Requiring that development happen on infill lots or at the immediate edge of current development could have reduced sprawl by many times in the Antelope Valley. As it happened, developers were free to buy land wherever they wanted and conjure up new subdivisions—often on the cheapest lots far from existing urbanization. Annexing the subdivisions became a competitive game between Lancaster and Palmdale, each vying for the title of “biggest” city. Each city also sought the most tax revenue-generating retail developments; car dealers were the biggest prize, and Palmdale’s regional mall was a major coup. But civic egos—the Lancaster mayor told a reporter in 1988 that he wanted “to see our city limits reach all the way to Gorman [about 40 miles away]. That’s how far west I’d like to go” [Footnote #61]—had their price, in stretching city services over a wide area and generating countless automobile trips. Developers could even have saved money on outlays for infrastructure had they been required to build on existing city tracts or at the immediate fringe. (Starting in 1987, cities required that developers pay for the cost of infrastructure improvements when the subdivision lay outside the current city limits.) [Footnote #62]

The zoning changes described are not likely to go unchallenged; all require some sort of deviation from strictly market-driven development patterns. Property owners are a likely source of resistance, especially those who, expecting to sell land to developers, may never realize profits if their land lay outside possible annexation. The tight relations between developers, zoning boards, and politicians also conspire against decisions which would reduce development opportunities and reign in sprawl. In an environment driven solely by the profit motive, growth is indeed likely to happen less than optimally. Most Palmdale and Lancaster residents see no problem with further growth; no “slow growth” movement exists and there is no active group attempting to influence the cities’ development. Because so many Antelope Valley residents have been the beneficiaries of sprawl, [Footnote #63] it is incumbent on government to create the conditions which could make a different growth pattern the sensible—and profitable—choice.

NEXT | Rationalizing Prices and the Hidden Subsidy

© Matt Jalbert 1995–2002