Suburban Assault: The Impact of Single-Family Dominance in Omaha

In Omaha, the city’s planning decisions wield immense influence over our community and environment. Omaha’s city planning mandates suburban developments, emphasizing a sprawl of single-family dwellings at the expense of alternative housing or mixed-use options. However, this short-sighted approach to city planning carries far-reaching and often destructive consequences.

Mandatory single-family housing requires builders to consume land at frightening rates, destroying the environment in the process. It’s low density for the sake of an image and doesn’t consider the harm involved to the environment and the people who live here. The suburban landscape in this city is designed for cars, not people, leaving pedestrians at the mercy of a dangerous road system. When only cars are welcome in a city, it’s no surprise that people feel left as an afterthought.

These policies impact the lowest earners the most. With limited options for building, housing continues to grow more expensive and out of reach for an increasingly large portion of our population. As we continue this pattern of suburban developments, our sense of culture and society faces a slow erosion. The sprawling expanses of homogeneous housing contribute to a social disconnect. Isolation becomes the default state, and people are left without common places to gather. These sprawling suburban neighborhoods and sterile shopping centers don’t create a city with character, they destroy the social fabric of our community.

I’ve put together an image related to this in the style of this NYT article, which inspired me to look at this issue locally. This shows how much of the Omaha area is hard-coded to single-family housing (pink) vs mixed-use type development (blue) and helps illustrate how widespread this problem is. Click the image to open a super high-resolution version.

In the following sections, we will dive deeper into these issues and explore the impact that a prevalence of single-family zoning has on our city. Each layer peeled back will reveal a cityscape shaped more by outdated mandates than by thoughtful consideration of the needs of its residents.

Mandatory Wastelands

The allure of the suburban dream, complete with a white picket fence and a lush, sprawling lawn, has become synonymous with success and achievement. However, beneath this picturesque facade lies a wasteful and ecologically damaging reality.

The emphasis on single-family zoning results in a disregard for nature, devouring farmland and natural areas at rates significantly higher than if the city embraced a more balanced development. This results in the loss of valuable green spaces and the disruption of established ecosystems. This clear-cutting extends beyond necessity; it becomes a practice embedded in the culture of suburban development. The quest for uniformity and conformity trumps the preservation of nature, it’s become a case of profit over well-being.

Every additional house is accompanied by a neatly manicured lawn, requiring significant space, often at the expense of old trees, creatures, and diverse flora. The iconic American lawn, a symbol of prosperity, comes at a considerable environmental cost. Grass, the largest irrigated crop in America by far, contributes almost nothing positive to our environment or our economy. Maintaining the lush and monoculture image deemed necessary by homeowners associations entails substantial water and chemical usage and consumes spaces previously occupied by native vegetation.

The environmental toll of this choice is significant. Chemicals applied to lawns leach into waterways, disrupting ecosystems and threatening aquatic life. Chemicals designed to kill will indiscriminately eradicate harmful and beneficial organisms alike. The ripple effect is profound, extending from insects to birds and impacting the delicate balance of our ecosystems. The homogeneity of suburban lawns creates a wasteland for biodiversity. The manicured uniformity is a monoculture that stifles any possibility of diverse native plant and animal life. Invasive species often thrive in this controlled environment, crowding out the rich biodiversity that existed before.

The consequences are far-reaching, impacting everything from pollinators crucial to agriculture to the delicate balance of predator and prey relationships. Omaha’s landscape, dominated by single-family zoning and manicured lawns, inadvertently transforms once vibrant ecosystems into ecological deserts. In the pursuit of an idealized suburban aesthetic, Omaha sacrifices not only its natural spaces but also the intricate tapestry of life that once thrived within them.

Cities for Cars, Not for People

Omaha’s urban landscape, shaped by single-family zoning, is a testament to a city designed for cars, not people. While seemingly convenient, this design choice gives rise to myriad issues that extend beyond mere traffic congestion.

In the pursuit of suburban living, Omaha’s neighborhoods are composed of vast stretches of winding roads, resulting in an unfortunate lack of walkability. Sidewalks often don’t exist between locations, and where they do exist, they are in disrepair or border fast and busy roads, making it perilous for pedestrians to navigate their own communities. This intentional design discourages walking and renders alternatives such as cycling impractical and often unsafe. The absence of comprehensive pedestrian infrastructure forces residents into a car-dependent lifestyle, contributing to an array of social and environmental issues. Pedestrians are forced to compete against people wielding their Suburban Assault Vehicles as weapons in their road wars.

Omaha’s reliance on a car-centric design makes implementing cost-effective transit solutions extremely difficult to the point of being impossible. Housing density is low, and essential locations such as workplaces, entertainment venues, and commercial hubs are dispersed. Even where businesses are somewhat centrally located, they are enshrouded by parking sprawl. This dispersal undermines the feasibility of transit options, even less infrastructure-intensive ones like buses. The vast expanse between destinations exacerbates commute times and contributes to traffic congestion. This inefficiency strains the city’s resources and places an undue burden on the residents who must contend with long, dangerous, and often frustrating daily commutes.

The car-dependent nature of Omaha amplifies the dangers associated with driving, which is generally one of the riskiest activities people do in their lives. Traffic congestion, compounded by a lack of alternative transportation, leads to more accidents. Distracted driving, amplified by cell phones, further compounds the risks on the road. The reliance on cars not only endangers lives but also exacts a toll on the mental and emotional well-being of the community. This car-centric approach to city planning inadvertently transforms the simple act of commuting into something that should require hazard pay.

Compounding Social Inequality

In a city designed for car dependency, the car is not considered a necessary expense when it comes to social benefits. This status fails to recognize the harsh reality of life in a car-centric city where alternative modes of transportation are often impractical or nonexistent. The inability to classify a car as a necessary expense for social benefits creates a stark disconnect between policy assumptions and the lived experiences of many residents. Policy that makes no consideration for those with less and their need for transportation to try and provide demonstrates how little the policymakers care about the people affected.

The mandate for single-family zoning creates significant barriers to affordable housing. With limited housing options due to zoning restrictions, the prices of available homes are driven up, disproportionately affecting low-income earners. The shortage of affordable housing places a proportionately heavier financial burden on those who can least afford it, forcing them to allocate a larger percentage of their income to secure basic housing. This policy-driven scarcity of affordable housing exacerbates existing social disparities, limiting opportunities for upward mobility and perpetuating cycles of poverty. The inability to explore alternative housing solutions due to zoning constraints reinforces a socio-economic hierarchy that restricts access to housing for vulnerable populations.

Omaha’s zoning policies directly affect wealth distribution by excluding a significant and increasing portion of the population from participating in the traditional homeownership model. As the cost of homes rises due to restricted supply, those with means benefit from property appreciation, while those without face insurmountable barriers to entry. The exclusionary nature of single-family zoning perpetuates social divisions, creating neighborhoods defined by economic homogeneity. The socio-economic exclusivity embedded in zoning choices limits the diversity of communities and further entrenches disparities in education, employment, and overall quality of life.

Harming Our Social Fabric

The consequences of Omaha’s zoning decisions extend beyond physical and economic realms, seeping into the very fabric of social life and community connection. The sprawling nature of Omaha’s suburban developments ultimately promotes social isolation. The inherent design of these neighborhoods purposefully creates space but fosters a disconnect between people, even within the bounds of the city. The lack of communal spaces and shared amenities encourages isolation, breeding suspicion and mistrust among residents who, despite being neighbors, remain strangers.

The absence of immediate, accessible, and vibrant social spaces drives residents to seek entertainment and social interaction elsewhere. Without viable local options, people resort to driving across town to bars or other public places, contributing to traffic congestion and compounding the hazards of the road. The lack of affordable and efficient public transportation further limits the choices available, leaving residents with costly alternatives like cabs, rideshare services, or dangerous choices such as drinking and driving.

Omaha’s dedication to single-family zoning results in the creation of neighborhoods devoid of character and communal identity. Mega shopping centers, sprawling parking lots, and homogenous suburban developments contribute to a bland, sterile environment where only cars might feel welcome. The lack of access to diverse gathering places, or what sociologist Ray Oldenburg terms the “third place” (apart from home and work), robs communities of opportunities for spontaneous interactions and shared social experiences.

Where Do We Go From Here?

Omaha’s commitment to single-family zoning has profound implications for the city’s landscape, its residents, and the community’s overall well-being. It is imperative for city planners and policymakers to reevaluate the current trajectory of Omaha’s urban development. The continuation of single-family zoning, without consideration for its wide-reaching consequences, jeopardizes the city’s future sustainability and the welfare of its population.

Omaha has an opportunity to redefine its urban planning strategies, embracing inclusivity, sustainability, and social cohesion. By diversifying housing options, prioritizing public spaces, and fostering a sense of community, the city can overcome the limitations imposed by outdated zoning practices. Omaha is growing and has the potential to become a model for progressive, community-centric urban planning. We can be a city with an identity, a culture, and a people living in harmony with themselves and the world around us. I want to see that happen here and elsewhere in the United States, where this problem is pervasive. The future of our country, our people, and our planet depends on it.