Sprawl As Where We Grow: Or, How Government Spreads Suburbia (original) (raw)

Suburban Sprawl: Not Just an Environmental Issue

Marquette Law Review, 2005

Many conservatives believe that (1) sprawl is merely the result of the free market at work; (2) even if sprawl has negative effects, it cannot be limited without implementation of the liberal/environmentalist agenda of larger and more intrusive government; therefore, (3) conservatives should do nothing to fight sprawl. This article rejects all three propositions. Specifically, I argue that: (1) sprawl is in large part a result of runaway statism rather than the free market; (2) sprawl threatens conservative values such as consumer choice, the work ethic, and social stability, and (3) free-market, anti-spending solutions can limit sprawl and revitalize cities.

The Challenge of Urban Sprawl

Cities and Society, 2005

The growth of suburbs has been one of the most important features of cities since the 1950s. Early studies documented the negative effects of suburbanization on central cities, such as declining jobs, dwindling tax bases, increasingly expensive services, property abandonment, and the loss of the middle class. More recently, studies have shown that continued growth of the suburbs may create problems for suburban communities themselves. Thad Williamson, David Imbroscio, and Gar Alperovitz show that unplanned suburban growth (''sprawl'') negatively affects the quality of life, hurts the environment, wastes money and land, and hurts small businesses. They review a number of policy initiatives to discourage future sprawl and to address the economic, social, and environmental costs of existing sprawl.

Private Benefits and Public Costs: Policies to Address Suburban Sprawl

Policy Studies Journal, 1999

The uneven development and disparities that exist in most metrqolitan regions are the consequence of a combination of private decisions and public policies. Public policy can also redress some of these inequities and redirect the pattern of growth. The article discusses individual policie~anging from congestion pricing to regional governanceAn detail. Each policy is assessed in terms of its contribution to slowing metropolitan deconcentration, its feasibility of implementation. and its power to redress inequities. Four policies appear most promising: the utilization of impact fees, especially on a supra-local level; reverse commuting program; special taxing districts for regionwide amenities; and continued revitalization efforts in the central city.

Deconstructing Urban Sprawl: Differing Perspectives on a Pervasive Problem

2021

Urban sprawl, broadly defined, describes the uncontrolled geographic expansion of cities and towns, oftentimes resulting in haphazard developments with relatively low-density land use and heavy dependence upon automobiles. This is, however, only one of many definitions, as urban sprawl, while an increasingly popular term in many disciplines, does not seem to have a standard definition. This poses numerous problems for those who wish to delve deeper into understanding it and its implications. Consequently, this project offers a discussion and analysis of the various conceptions of urban sprawl throughout an array of different academic disciplines with an emphasis on the environmental, public health, and most importantly, the economic. This project explores the role of the economist in regard to urban sprawl: how can they contribute to a meaningful definition and discussion of the issue at hand? By evaluating the positions of experts across disciplines, this paper will come to terms with urban sprawl in its various forms, ultimately offering a more comprehensive definition of urban sprawl to be used throughout the disciplines. Urban sprawl currently lacks a clear definition. Instead there are several vague definitions across several disciplines. For example, in his University of Pennsylvania Law Review article, Timothy Dowling defines sprawl as: "low-density, land-consuming, automobile-dependent, haphazard, non-contiguous (or "leapfrog") development on the fringe of settled areas, often near a deteriorating central city or town, that intrudes into rural or other undeveloped areas," (Dowling 2000, 874), while in his Housing Policy Debate article, Anthony Downs adds more to this, citing at least 10 components. He argues that in addition to those mentioned above, sprawl consists of: "fragmentation of powers over land use among many small localities… lack of centralized planning or control of land uses, (7) widespread strip commercial development, (8) great fiscal disparities among localities… and (10) reliance mainly on the trickle-down or filtering process to provide housing to low-income households" (Downs 1999, 956). While there are many other qualities that are often discussed regarding sprawl, there appear to be several key components that most experts agree on: 1) low-density, segregated land use, 2) leapfrog developments, and 3) automobile dependence. As Debnath Mookherjee writes in his Focus on

The urban sprawl debate: Myths, realities and hidden agendas

2001

To some observers, sprawl applies to any extension of the suburban margin; toothers it is synonymous with the spread of development onto sensitive greenlands and agricultural soils, increases in highway congestion, or the proliferation of new subdivisions of homogeneous and lowdensity, single-family housing. The traditional definition of sprawl, however, is much more specific: it refers to suburban development that is "haphazard, disorganized, poorly serviced , and largely unplanned. " By this rather strict standard, urban Canada has relatively little sprawl. Instead, the larger urban regions, notably Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver, exhibit extremely rapid growth, most of which inevitably occurs on the outer suburban margin, typically at lower densities. Does such growth constitute sprawl? Does suburbia's negative image reflect poor planning or media hype?