Urban sprawl

Urban sprawl, also known as suburban sprawl, is the spreading of a city and its suburbs over rural land at the fringe of an urban area. [1] Residents of sprawling neighborhoods tend to live in single-family homes and commute by automobile to work. Low population density is an indicator of sprawl. Urban planners emphasize the qualitative aspects of sprawl such as the lack of transportation options and pedestrian friendly neighborhoods. Conservationists tend to focus on the actual amount of land that has been urbanized by sprawl.[1]

The term urban sprawl generally has negative connotations due to the health and environmental issues that sprawl creates.[2] Residents of sprawling neighborhoods tend to emit more pollution per person and suffer more traffic fatalities.[3][4] Sprawl is controversial, with supporters claiming that consumers prefer lower density neighborhoods and that sprawl does not necessarily increase traffic.[5] Sprawl is also linked with increased obesity since walking and bicycling are not viable commuting options.[6] Sprawl negatively impacts land and water quantity and quality and may be linked to a decline in social capital.[4]

Urban sprawl near Paris

Contents

Characteristics

In Utah, which has been one of the top ten fastest growing U.S. states since at least 1990, Jordan Landing has become a byword for suburban sprawl.[7] In response to the rapid population growth of the southern Salt Lake County area, a ten-lane freeway, the Mountain View Corridor, a light rail line, UTA TRAX, and a double-decker commuter train, FrontRunner, are being built to facilitate efficient transportation.

Sprawl is characterized by several land use patterns which usually occur in unison:

Single-use zoning

This refers to a situation where commercial, residential, and industrial areas are separated from one another. Consequently, large tracts of land are devoted to a single use and are segregated from one another by open space, infrastructure, or other barriers. As a result, the places where people live, work, shop, and recreate are far from one another, usually to the extent that walking is not practical, so all these activities generally require an automobile (though a bicycle may also be feasible).[2]

Low-density land use

Sprawl consumes much more land than traditional urban developments because new developments are of low density. The exact definition of "low density" is arguable, but a common example is that of single family homes, as opposed to apartments. Buildings usually have fewer stories and are spaced farther apart, separated by lawns, landscaping, roads or parking lots. Lot sizes are larger, and because more automobiles are used much more land is designated for parking. The impact of low density development in many communities is that developed or "urbanized" land is increasing at a faster rate than the population.

Another kind of low-density development is sometimes called leap-frog development. This term refers to the relationship, or lack thereof, between one subdivision and the next. Such developments are typically separated by large green belts, ie tracts of undeveloped land, resulting in an average density far lower even than the low density described in the previous paragraph. This is a 20th and 21st century phenomenon generated by the current custom of requiring a developer to provide subdivision infrastructure as a condition of development (DeGrove and Turner, 1991).[8] Usually, the developer is required to set aside a certain percentage of the developed land for public use, including roads, parks and schools. In the past, when a local government built all the streets in a given location, the town could expand without interruption and with a coherent circulation system, because it had condemnation power. Private developers generally do not have such power (although they can sometimes find local governments willing to help), and often choose to develop on the tracts that happen to be for sale at the time they want to build, rather than pay extra or wait for a more appropriate location.

Car-dependent communities

Main article: Automobile dependency

Areas of urban sprawl are also characterized as highly dependent on automobiles for transportation, a condition known as automobile dependency. Most activities, such as shopping and commuting to work, require the use of a car as a result of both the area's isolation from the city and the isolation the area's residential zones have from its industrial and commercial zones. Walking and other methods of transit are not practical; therefore, many of these areas have few or no sidewalks. In many suburban communities, even stores and activities that are close by are contrived to be much further, by separating uses with fences, walls, and drainage ditches.

Developments characteristic of sprawl

Housing subdivisions

Housing subdivision in Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Housing subdivisions are large tracts of land consisting entirely of newly-built residences. Duany and Plater-Zyberk claim that housing subdivisions “are sometimes called villages, towns, and neighborhoods by their developers, which is misleading since those terms denote places which are not exclusively residential.”[9] They are also referred to as developments.

Subdivisions often incorporate curved roads and culs-de-sac. Such subdivisions may offer only a few places to enter and exit the development, causing traffic to use high volume collector streets. All trips, no matter how short, must enter the collector road in a suburban system. (Duany Plater-Zyberk 5, 34)

Strip malls

Shopping centers are locations consisting of retail space. In the U.S. and Canada, suburban context these vary from strip malls which refer to collections of buildings sharing a common parking lot, usually built on a high-capacity roadway with commercial functions (i.e., a "strip"). Similar developments in the UK are called Retail Parks. Strip malls/retail parks contain a wide variety of retail and non-retail functions that also cater to daily use (e.g. video rental, takeout food, laundry services, hairdresser). Strip malls consisting mostly of big box stores or category killers are sometimes called "power centers" (U.S.). These developments tend to be low-density; the buildings are single-story and there is ample space for parking and access for delivery vehicles. This character is reflected in the spacious landscaping of the parking lots and walkways and clear signage of the retail establishments. Some strip malls are undergoing a transformation into Lifestyle centers; entailing investments in common areas and facilities (plazas, cafes) and shifting tenancy from daily goods to recreational shopping. European countries such as France, Belgium and Germany have implemented size restrictions for superstores found in strip malls in an effort to limit sprawl (Davies 1995).

Shopping malls

Another prominent form of retail development in areas characterized by "sprawl" is the shopping mall. Unlike the strip mall, this is usually composed of a single building surrounded by a parking lot which contains multiple shops, usually "anchored" by one or more department stores (Gruen and Smith 1960). The function and size is also distinct from the strip mall. The focus is almost exclusively on recreational shopping rather than daily goods. Shopping malls also tend to serve a wider (regional) public and require higher-order infrastructure such as highway access and can have floorspaces in excess of a million square feet (ca. 100,000 m²). Until recently, the largest shopping mall in the world was the West Edmonton Mall, while the largest in the United States is the Mall of America. Now, several larger ones have been built and/or are planned in China. Shopping malls are often detrimental to downtown shopping centers of nearby cities since the shopping malls acts as a surrogate for the city center (Crawford 1992). Some downtowns have responded to this challenge by building shopping centers of their own (Frieden and Sagelyn 1989; consider also Toronto Eaton Centre (1977), Ottawa's Rideau Centre, Boston's Shops at Prudential Center, and Providence's Providence Place).

In the 1970s, the Ontario government created the Ontario Downtown Renewal Programme, which helped finance the building of several downtown malls across Ontario (such as Eaton Centre). The program was created to reverse the tide of small business leaving downtowns for larger sites surrounding the city.

Fast food chains

Fast food chains are common in suburban areas. They are often built early in areas with low property values where the population is about to boom and where large traffic is predicted, and set a precedent for future development. Eric Schlosser, in his book Fast Food Nation, argues that fast food chains accelerate suburban sprawl and help set its tone with their expansive parking lots, flashy signs, and plastic architecture (65). Duany Plater Zyberk & Company believe that this only reinforces a destructive pattern of growth in an endless quest to move away from the sprawl that only results in creating more of it (Duany Plater-Zyberk 26).

Examples

According to the National Resources Inventory (NRI), about 8,900 square kilometers (2.2 million acres) of land in the United States was developed between 1992 and 2002. Presently, the NRI classifies approximately 100,000 more square kilometers (40,000 square miles) (an area approximately the size of Kentucky) as developed than the Census Bureau classifies as urban. The difference in the NRI classification is that it includes rural development, which by definition cannot be considered to be "urban" sprawl. Currently, according to the 2000 Census, approximately 2.6 percent of the U.S. land area is urban.[10] Approximately 0.8 percent of the nation's land is in the 37 urbanized areas with more than 1,000,000 population. In 2002, these 37 urbanized areas supported around 40% of the total American population.[11]

The urban sprawl of Melbourne.

Nonetheless, some urban areas have expanded geographically even while losing population. But it was not just US urbanized areas that lost population and sprawled substantially. According to data in "Cities and Automobile Dependence" by Kenworthy and Laube (1999), urbanized area population losses occurred while there was an expansion of sprawl between 1970 and 1990 in Brussels, Belgium; Copenhagen, Denmark; Frankfurt, Germany; Hamburg, Germany; Munich, Germany and Zurich, Switzerland, albeit without the wholesale dismantling of public transit systems that occurred in the United States.

At the same time, the urban cores of these and nearly all other major cities in the United States, Western Europe and Japan that did not annex new territory experienced the related phenomena of falling household size and "white flight", sustaining population losses.[12] This trend has slowed somewhat in recent years, as more people have regained an interest in urban living.

The term Los Angelization is also sometimes used for urban sprawl, though this may be misleading. Los Angeles was one of the world's first low density urbanized areas, as a result of wide automobile ownership. However, Los Angeles has become more dense over the past half-century, principally due to small lot zoning and a high demand for housing due to population growth. Los Angeles increased its density to 2240/km² (5,801 per square mile) in 1990. Land consumption per resident in 1990 was 0.11-acre (450 m2), which made Los Angeles the most densely populated urbanized area in America.[13]

Smart growth

Main article: Smart growth

The first urban growth boundary in the U.S. was in Fayette County, Kentucky in 1958. Fifteen years later, the state of Oregon enacted a law in 1973 limiting the area urban areas could occupy, through urban growth boundaries. As a result, Portland, the state's largest urban area, has become a leader in smart growth policies that seek to make urban areas more compact (they are called urban consolidation policies). After the creation of this boundary, the population density of the urbanized area increased somewhat (from 1,135 in 1970 to 1,290 per km² in 2000) USA Urbanized Areas 1950-1990 USA Urbanized Areas 2000. While the growth boundary has not been tight enough to vastly increase density, the consensus is that the growth boundaries have protected great amounts of wild areas and farmland around the metro area.

Many parts of the San Francisco Bay Area have also adopted urban growth boundaries; 25 of its cities and 5 of its counties have urban growth boundaries. Many of these were adopted with the support and advocacy of Greenbelt Alliance, a non-profit land conservation and urban planning organization.

In other areas, the design principles of District Regionalism and New Urbanism have been employed to combat urban sprawl.

Transit-oriented development

Main article: Transit-oriented development

While cities such as Calgary are well known for sprawling suburbs, policies and public opinion are changing. Transit-oriented development is also helping to reduce urban sprawl, mainly in cities which have light and heavy rail transit systems.

Criticism and response

Rural neighborhoods in Morrisville, North Carolina are rapidly developing...
...into affluent, urbanized neighborhoods and subdivisions. These two images are on opposite sides of the same street.

Criticism

Arguments opposing urban sprawl run the gamut from the more concrete effects such as health and environmental issues to more abstract consequences involving neighborhood vitality.

Health and environmental impact

Urban sprawl is associated with a number of negative environmental and public health outcomes, with the primary result being increased dependence on automobiles.

However, this is mitigated significantly with nearby development of shopping and recreation areas. Also, many people prefer to live close to their place of business which is increasingly centered less around urban areas.[2]

Increased pollution and reliance on fossil fuel

In the years following World War II, when vehicle ownership was becoming widespread, public health officials recommended the health benefits of suburbs due to soot and industrial fumes in the city center. However, air in modern suburbs is not necessarily cleaner than air in urban neighborhoods. In fact, the most polluted air is on crowded highways, where people in suburbs tend to spend more time. On average, suburban residents generate more pollution and carbon emissions than their urban counterparts because of their increased driving.[2]

Increase in traffic and traffic-related fatalities

A heavy reliance on automobiles increases traffic throughout the city as well as automobile crashes, pedestrian injuries, and air pollution. Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for Americans between the ages of five and twenty-four and is the leading accident-related cause for all age groups.[14] Residents of more sprawling areas are at greater risk of dying in a car crash.[15]

Increased obesity

The American Journal of Public Health and the American Journal of Health Promotion, have both stated that there is a significant connection between sprawl, obesity, and hypertension.[6] Presumably, living in a car centered culture forces inhabitants to drive everywhere, thus walking far less than their urban (and generally healthier) counterparts.

Decrease in social capital

Urban sprawl may be partly responsible for the decline in social capital in the United States. Compact neighborhoods can foster casual social interactions among neighbors, while low-density sprawl creates barriers to interaction. Sprawl tends to replace public spaces such as parks with private spaces such as fenced-in backyards. Residents of sprawling neighborhoods rarely walk for transportation, which reduces opportunities for face-to-face contact with neighbors.[4]

Decrease in land and water quantity and quality

Due to the larger area consumed by sprawling suburbs compared to urban neighborhoods, more farmland and wildlife habitats are displaced per resident. As forest cover is cleared and covered with concrete in the suburbs, rainfall is less effectively absorbed into the ground water aquifers.[2] This threatens both the quality and quantity of water supplies. Sprawl increases water pollution as rain water picks up gasoline and oil runoff from parking lots and roads. Sprawl fragments the land which increases the risk of invasive species spreading into the remaining forest.

Increased infrastructure costs

Living in a larger, more spread out space makes public services more expensive. Since car usage often becomes endemic and public transport often becomes significantly more expensive, city planners are forced to build large highway and parking infrastructure, which in turn decreases taxable land and revenue, and decreases the desirability of the area adjacent to such structures. Providing services such as water, sewers, and electricity is also more expensive per household in less dense areas.[16]

Increased personal transportation costs

Residents of low density areas spend a higher proportion of their income on transportation than residents of high density areas.[17] The RAC estimates that the average cost of operating a car in the UK is £5,000 a year.[18] In comparison, a yearly underground ticket for a suburban commuter in London (where wages are higher than the national average) costs £1,000-1,500.

Major cities - per capita petrol use vs. population density[19]

Neighborhood quality

Quality of life has been argued to be eroded by lifestyles sprawl promotes. Duany and Plater-Zyberk believe that in traditional neighborhoods the nearness of the workplace to retail and restaurant space that provides cafes and convenience stores with daytime customers is an essential component to the successful balance of urban life. Furthermore, they state that the closeness of the workplace to homes also gives people the option of walking or riding a bicycle to work or school and that without this kind of interaction between the different components of life the urban pattern quickly falls apart. (Duany Plater-Zyberk 6, 28). James Howard Kunstler has argued that the poor aesthetics of suburban environments make them "places not worth caring about", and that they lack a sense of history and identity.

White flight

Main article: White flight

Some blame suburbs for what they see as a homogeneity of society and culture, leading to sprawling suburban developments of people with similar race, background and socioeconomic status.[20] They claim that segregated and stratified development was institutionalized in the early 1950s and 1960s with the financial industries' then-legal process of redlining neighborhoods to prevent certain people from entering and residing in affluent districts. Sprawl may have a negative impact on public schools as finances have been pulled out of city cores and diverted to wealthier suburbs.[21] They argue that the residential and social segregation of whites from blacks in the United States creates a socialization process that limits whites' chances for developing meaningful relationships with blacks and other minorities, and that the segregation experienced by whites from blacks fosters segregated lifestyles and can lead to positive views about themselves and negative views about blacks.[22]

Groups that oppose sprawl

The American Institute of Architects recommends against sprawl and instead endorses smart, mixed-use development, including buildings in close proximity to one another that cut down on automobile use, save energy, and promote walkable, healthy, well-designed neighborhoods.[23] The Sierra Club, the San Francisco Bay Area's Greenbelt Alliance, and other environmental organizations oppose sprawl and support investment in existing communities.[24][25]

Response

Consumer preference for sprawl

Peter Gordon, a professor of planning and economics at the University of Southern California's School of Urban Planning and Development, argues that many households in the United States, Canada, and Australia, especially middle and upper class families, have shown a preference for the suburban lifestyle. Reasons cited include a preference towards lower-density development (for lower ambient noise and increased privacy), better schools, less crime, and a generally slower lifestyle than the urban one. Those in favor of a "free housing market" also argue that this sort of living situation is an issue of personal choice and economic means.[5] One suburban Detroit politician defends low-density development as the preferred lifestyle choice of his constituents, calling it "...the American Dream unfolding before your eyes."[26] However, a number of studies have suggested that many affluent "empty nesters" are heading back towards the inner city areas to "downsize" their housing and take advantage of the increased cultural offerings that such areas often have to offer.[27] In many other cities across the Western world, evidence of this trend can be found in geographic patterns of property values, where the highest prices are increasingly commanded in higher-density, inner-urban areas, reflecting their desirability as places to live for people with the finances to make a free choice.

Debate over traffic and commute times

Those not opposed to low density development argue that traffic intensities tend to be less, traffic speeds faster and, as a result, ambient air pollution is lower. (See demographia's report.) Kansas City, Missouri is often cited as an example of ideal low-density development, with congestion below the mean and home prices below comparable Midwestern cities. Wendell Cox and Randal O'Toole are the leading figures supporting lower density development.

Longitudinal (time-lapse) studies of commute times in major metropolitan areas in the United States have shown that commute times decreased for the period 1969 to 1995 even though the geographic size of the city increased.[28] More recent data suggests that this trend has reversed, with the 2000 U.S. Census showing commute times increased over all previous periods.[29]

Risk of increased housing prices

There is also some concern that Portland-style anti-sprawl policies will increase housing prices. Some research suggests Oregon has had the largest housing affordability loss in the nation,[30] but other research shows that Portland's price increases are comparable to other Western cities.[31] Another report suggests that zoning and other land use controls play the dominant role in making housing expensive.[32]

In Australia, it is claimed by some that housing affordability has hit "crisis levels" due to "urban consolidation" policies implemented by state governments.[33] In Sydney, the ratio of the price of a house relative to income is 9:1.[34] The issue was being debated between the major political parties in the lead up to the Australian federal election.[35]

Freedom

There are some sociologists such as Durkheim who suggest there is a link between population density and the number of rules that must be imposed. The theory goes that as people are moved closer together geographically their actions are more likely to noticeably impact others around them. This potential impact requires the creation of additional social or legal rules to prevent conflict. A simple example would be as houses become closer together the acceptable maximum volume of music decreases, as it becomes intrusive to other residents.[36]

Crowding and increased aggression

There have been numerous studies that link increased population density with increased aggression. Some people believe that increased population density encourages crime and anti-social behavior. It is argued that human beings, while a social animal, need significant amounts of social space or they become agitated and aggressive.[37]

Urban sprawl in popular culture

Urban sprawl in nonfiction

See also

Related topics

Related terminology

  • Los Angelization
  • Megacity
  • McMansion
  • Microdistrict
  • Middle class
  • New town
  • NIMBY
  • Over-consumption
  • Peak oil
  • Prime farmland
  • Regional planning
  • Rural exodus
  • Simple living
  • Spatial planning
  • Streetcar suburb

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 What is Sprawl?. SprawlCity.org. Retrieved on 2008-02-07.
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Frumkin, Howard (May-June 2002). Urban Sprawl and Public Health. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved on 2008-02-07.
  3. ↑ Norman, Jonathan; Heather L. MacLean and Christopher A. Kennedy (March 2006). "Comparing High and Low Residential Density: Life-Cycle Analysis of Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions". Journal of Urban Planning and Development (Reston, Virginia: American Society of Civil Engineers) 32 (1): 10–21. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9488(2006)132:1(10). ISSN 0733-9488. http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=JUPDDM000132000001000010000001. Retrieved on 2008-02-07. 
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 Van Pelt, Julie (ed.) (2006) (PDF). Cascadia Scorecard 2006. Cascadia Scorecard. Seattle, Washington: Sightline Institute. ISBN 1-886093-16-4. http://www.sightline.org/publications/books/CS2006/CS06/CS06-nomaps. Retrieved on 2008-02-07. 
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Moore, Adrian; Rick Henderson (June 1998). "Plan Obsolescence", Reason Magazine. Retrieved on 2008-02-07.
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 McKee, Bradford. "As Suburbs Grow, So Do Waistlines", The New York Times, The New York Times Company, 2003-09-04. Retrieved on 2008-02-07.
  7. ↑ Fattah, Geoffrey. "Jordan Landing's popularity ties up traffic", Deseret Morning News, Deseret News Publishing Company, 2003-10-18. Retrieved on 2008-02-08.
  8. ↑ DeGrove, John and Robyne Turner (1991), "Local Government in Florida: Coping with Massive and Sustained Growth" in Huckshorn, R. (ed.) Government and Politics in Florida. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.
  9. ↑ Duany, Andres, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk and Jeff Speck. Suburban Nation. New York: Farrar Straus & Giroux, 2001 [1]
  10. ↑ Lubowski, Ruben N.; Marlow Vesterby, Shawn Bucholtz, Alba Baez, and Michael J. Roberts (2006-05-31). Major Uses of Land in the United States, 2002. Economic Research Service, . Retrieved on 2008-02-07.
  11. ↑ USA Urbanized Areas: 2000 Ranked by Population. Demographia, 2002-08-25. Retrieved on 2008-02-08.
  12. ↑ High-Income World Central City Population Losses. Demographia. Retrieved on 2008-02-08.
  13. ↑ The L.A. Smart Growth Model. SprawlCity.org. Retrieved on 2008-02-08.
  14. ↑ U.S. Death Statistics. The Disaster Center. Retrieved on 2008-02-08.
  15. ↑ Elements of Smart Growth: Health. Smart Growth America. Retrieved on 2008-08-08.
  16. ↑ http://www.smartcommunities.ncat.org/articles/sprawl.pdf
  17. ↑ McCann, Barbara. Driven to Spend. Surface Transportation Policy Project (2000). Retrieved on 2008-02-08.
  18. ↑ "Is your car worth it?", The Guardian, Guardian Media Group, February 15, 2003. Retrieved on 2008-02-08.
  19. ↑ Newman & Kenworth 1989, Andrew White Associates, DETR
  20. ↑ Ray, Brian. "The Role of Cities in Immigrant Integration", Migration Information Source, October 2003. Retrieved on 2008-02-08.
  21. ↑ Cincinnati Challenge to Sprawl Campaign. Sierra Club. Retrieved on 2008-02-08.
  22. ↑ "Every Place Has a Ghetto...": The Significance of Whites' Social and Residential Segregation Eduardo Bonilla-Silva and David G. Embrick Symbolic Interaction Summer 2007, Vol. 30, No. 3, Pages 323-345
  23. ↑ Issue Brief: Smart-Growth: Building Livable Communities. American Institute of Architects. Retrieved on 2008-02-08.
  24. ↑ Building Better. Sierra Club. Retrieved on 2008-02-08.
  25. ↑ Smart Growth. National Resources Defense Council. Retrieved on 2008-02-08.
  26. ↑ http://www.oakgov.com/exec/brooks/sprawl.html
  27. ↑ Sohmer, Rebecca R. and Lang, Robert E. (May 2001). "Census Note 3: Downtown Rebound". Fannie Mae Foundation. Retrieved on 2007-01-12.
  28. ↑ US Commuting Travel Times Down Over Quarter Century. PublicPurpose.com. Retrieved on 2008-02-08.
  29. ↑ Journey to Work 2000: Census 2000 Brief. U.S. Census Bureau, March 2004. Retrieved on 2008-02-08.
  30. ↑ Housing Affordability Trends: USA States. Demographia. Retrieved on 2008-02-08.
  31. ↑ Lewyn, Michael (2005-10-04). Sprawl, Growth Boundaries and the Rehnquist Court. Social Science Research Network. Retrieved on 2008-02-08.
  32. ↑ Glaeser, Edward L.; Jesse M. Shapiro (October 2002). The Benefits of the Home Mortgage Interest Deduction. Harvard Institute of Economic Research. Retrieved on 2008-02-08.
  33. ↑ "Seeking solutions to the housing affordability crisis", University of South Australia, 2005-10-24. Retrieved on 2008-02-08.
  34. ↑ Saunders, Peter (2005). "After the House Price Boom: Is this the end of the Australian dream?", Policy. Retrieved on 2008-02-08.
  35. ↑ Archer, Lincoln. "Kevin Rudd says John Howard is ignoring housing", News Limited, 2007-11-05. Retrieved on 2008-02-08.
  36. ↑ Unnever, James D. On Durkheim. Retrieved on 2008-02-08.
  37. ↑ Sennett, Richard (ed.) (June 1969). Classic Essays on the Culture of Cities. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. pp. pp. 67-83. 

Bibliography of works cited

Further reading

External links