In the American sense of ‘liberal,’ of course. And I’ve wondered the same thing; you can even find evidence in the comments on this blog.
An explanation in The Urban Edge:
.
Smart growth has positioned itself as a centrist solution to population growth: it pleases the left by providing social equity and environmental sustainability and the right with the promise of increased development potential for private developers.
Yet studies have repeatedly shown the type of compact, urban development characteristic of smart growth is favored primarily by liberals, not conservatives.
Those studies, however, don’t offer a particularly good explanation for why that’s the case.
In his paper “Moral Intuitions and Smart Growth: Why do Liberals and Conservatives View Compact Development so Differently,” Arizona State University professor Paul G. Lewis draws on social psychology to propose another explanation: it’s all about gut-based, emotional responses. …
Essentially, liberals and conservatives are predisposed to certain flash judgments that they don’t recognize, then they rationalize explanations for their views.
The moral intuitionism explanation suggests liberals prioritize an openness to experience, a need for stimulating environments and don’t care as much about preserving existing social structures.
Conservatives’ views are explained by vigilance against outside threats, identification with existing social norms and a concern with “purity.”
Lewis hypothesizes that you could use the moral intuitions that are typical of liberals and conservatives, respectively, to explain their feelings towards dense urban development. …
Ultimately, his study suggests some preliminary support for his idea that residents’ views on land use and development patterns aren’t ideological, they’re emotional.
And it could help explain why, despite the seemingly centrist appeal of smart growth – for liberals, social equity and environmental sustainability, for conservatives, economic opportunity and a less intrusive government – the urbanist movement has been disproportionately embraced by liberals.
Because Smart Growth is more concerned with the “Commonwealth” (the original strand of American collectivist thinking) than it is with “Liberty” (which is fortified by life at the end of a cul-de-sac with a built in gun closet).
Ne c’est pas?
P
Too bad that George Carlin is no longer here to advise us on this. One might easily come to the conclusion that the very term ‘Smart Growth’ excessively oozes nausiating righteousness, that anyone with a speck of brain would spontaneously and smartly veer clear of, as they would any scripture thumping pea brain.
Clearly, our little academic in Az has succumbed to squawking the expected gospel at his acolytes and his funders because he believes that insult and generalization works better than more considered thinking. Maybe he thinks there might be a book in his wholesale bulk smearing of half the population.
That’s quite the simplistic, emotional reaction: Ridicule the person or group, not the ideas.
That can go both ways. The antithesis of Smart Growth principles could be simplistcally termed Stupid Growth, notably after a rational analysis of examples of both.
Growth is not conjured out of a vacuum. It has its limits and inefficiencies and is always encapsulated by the laws of physics and available physical and financial resources no matter what handle people put on others, whether Greenie or Libertarian. Smart Growth is one philosophy that attempts to recognize these limits.
The antonym is really ‘shabby’. Perhaps it’s the misuse of the word ‘smart’ in an attempt to be casual. Nevertheless, Jane Jacobs would have considered it futile and inorganic as a planning concept.
And; indeed, it is the academic above that conducts the stupid ridiculing of a group, which prompted me to comment.