Can Sprawl Be Good?
by Wayne A. Lemmon

Ever since publication of the landmark study, The Costs of Sprawl, in the mid-1970's, planners have been chanting a sort of mantra, which sounds something like: "Sprawl is Bad! Must Fight Sprawl!"And without too much discerning thought, suburban growth in nearly all forms has frequently been equated to sprawl. When new subdivisions or major road projects are proposed, suburban growth is often portrayed as an evil, consuming force, which must be fought and stopped in its tracks wherever it rears its ugly head.

Anti-growth activists tell anyone who will listen that:

Growth and sprawl are expensive drains on capital budgets and tax dollars.

Growth and sprawl are inherently harmful to the environment.

Growth needs to be confined to developed areas already served by public facilities and mass transit.

Growth and sprawl consume land and spoil natural landscapes.

This is not to say that the anti-growth activists are wrong. As frequently practiced and implemented, all of these alleged evils attributed to suburban growth can be found and do indeed occur. I'm simply suggesting that these unfortunate consequences do not always occur, and with good planning and the proper taxing and land use policies, they don't have to occur. Let me share a few specific examples to illustrate my point.

Low density residential development in general, and large lot home sites (two acres or larger) in particular, are frequently held up as the epitome of inefficient, costly and wasteful land use. Governments should not promote, or in many cases not even allow such development, because it costs so much more to extend public services over a larger land area, according to anti-growth activists. However, upon closer examination, a different picture can emerge.

The large lot home site is typically a premium product, with a premium price tag and a commensurate tax bill. It appeals to affluent families who can afford it, and who also tend to be older and further along in their career cycles. This means substantial real estate taxes are generated, with very little demand per household on social services, public recreation amenities, or public safety operations. The road which provides access to this house is a two-lane road with very low traffic volume and thus low frequency of repair needs. The large lot home site is typically served by on-site well and septic, further avoiding the need for these public services.

Of course, additional demand is created for expanded school capacity, but even here there are compensating factors.

Premium home values imply higher incomes, which imply more advanced careers, with older parents, and significantly, older children.

A smaller, less expensive house may tend to have younger parents and younger children who may be entering the public school system for the full 13 years of public education, from kindergarten through high school graduation. The children of more mature families may have half their public school careers already behind them. Summed together, large lot premium housing will tend to place a lower average level of demand on elementary school capacity than denser forms of development appealing to younger families.

But, with appropriate tax and fee policies, whatever demand for school capacity is generated can still be addressed. Many county governments have adopted schedules of impact fees through which the subdivision developer, and ultimately the home buyer, pays for a pro-rated cost per home site, earmarked for school construction funds. With such policies in place, each new home pays its fair share of school construction costs, substantially mitigating this burden on public funds or avoiding it entirely. Residential development, and low-density development is often portrayed as representing a drain on the public treasury. Notable exceptions to this rule occur, however. With certain tax and fee policies in place, higher valued, low density housing can actually provide a net benefit to the general fund, and pay its own fair share of school and other capital facilities costs.

Low density, dispersed development is often portrayed as harming the environment. In particular, the argument is made that this pattern of growth spreads air pollution as a result of more commuters and increased automobile trips. Anti-growth arguments are often heard to the effect that land use policies should limit growth to areas served by mass transit, and to encourage higher density developments within these areas so as to make public transit more economically viable. With greater public transit use, air pollution generated by cars would be reduced.

Another policy which is often advocated is to focus development into areas served by existing public facilities. In general, this makes obvious fiscal sense. But again, there are limits and exceptions. There is an unspoken assumption in such policies that the developed areas actually have unused capacity in the public facilities which serve them. Think for a moment of an urbanized area, with sidewalks directly abutting the street, and buildings edged directly on the sidewalk. What is the cost of widening the street here, as opposed to adding five miles of two-lane highway with no demolition? Can the urban street widening even be done? In a heavily developed area, what does it cost to upgrade a 12-inch water main to an 18-inch line, including the night construction and overtime to avoid crippling traffic delays while the streets are torn-up? Is this really more cost-effective than running six-inch lines alongside a country road with no construction obstacles? Which is more easily fixed if it springs a leak? Which repair job causes the least disruption?

What about cultural facilities, like parks and libraries? A dispersed development pattern can be served with smaller facilities and/or less intensive facilities, with smaller buildings, smaller sites, and lower overall costs. Yes, if the established areas have excess capacity, then costs for providing these facilities can be avoided by focusing development towards the urbanized areas. But at some point in that process, that available capacity is consumed, and new facilities or expansions are then needed. With a more concentrated service population, you will need larger, more versatile facilities, larger buildings, and larger sites.

Consider the cost of land and construction for a small neighborhood branch library in an outlying area with relatively modest land costs for a small site, against the cost of a major library addition or new regional branch, requiring a larger site with land costs several times the cost per square foot of more remote sites. In outlying areas, sites for new ball fields and parks can be found without too much difficulty. Finding a suitable site for an equivalent facility in a developed, urbanized area may well be impossible. Concentrating development in areas already served by public facilities makes good sense, but only up to the point where available capacity is fully utilized. Beyond that point, further expansion can be prohibitively expensive.

The one complaint made against dispersed development that is obviously true is that it does consume more land. Which land is consumed, and which land is left in "natural" or rural state can be a matter of conscious policy rather than random market forces. Describing development as "consuming" land does not tell the whole story, however.

This act of consumption frequently means that private, inaccessible lands, often held fallow without crops or tree cover, are converted into attractive and vibrant neighborhoods. This is not always a bad thing. And, with the current state of the land planning art, parks, recreational facilities, nature trails and open spaces are typically included in larger, planned subdivisions. This is not the old slash and bulldoze, all-in-a-row tract housing of the 1950's.

Community planning and development today is extraordinarily sensitive to the natural amenities and aesthetics of the land as a result of developers' enlightened self-interest - - such an approach adds value to the finished product. Yes, an old rustic farm can have a certain charm. But an attractive, landscaped neighborhood street can be stunning. The "consumption" of land for such purposes can in some cases make the land more truly green than it ever was in its natural, undeveloped state.

From all of these observations, I am not trying to suggest that all low-density, dispersed development is a good thing. To be sure, there are ample examples of unwisely located, poorly planned developments with minimal amenities, which have cost far more taxes than ever generated by the new development. My overall point, here, is that this need not be the situation, and in fact is not the situation, in all cases without exception. Not all low density, dispersed development is inherently bad. Not all higher density, concentrated development is inherently beneficial. The details of each situation need to be carefully examined on a case-by-case basis to tell the difference. In the right context, with certain policies in place, and quality planning, sprawl can be good.

In theory, this seems to be good land use policy. But does this approach really reduce pollutants in the air? Modern automobiles, particularly the small-to-mid-sized vehicles preferred by single-driver commuters, generate a lot less pollution than was the case just ten years ago. The amount of pollution given off by a late model car running at 30 to 50 miles an hour over low traffic roads is very, very small. Consider this the next time you are driving behind a bus. Watch the cloud of dense, oily smoke expanding into the air you're about to breathe with every acceleration it makes. And then realize that clouds of smoke just like this are coming from every stop-and-go this bus makes, again and again, for the whole ride. And then, multiply all those smog clouds times the number of busses in the mass transit fleet which are doing the same thing. Can this really be less pollution than generated by one- and two-passenger cars carrying the same number of people? Does it really make sense to concentrate development so that stop-and-go traffic is inevitable?

A dispersed development pattern can spread out trip origins and destinations reducing the frequency of traffic jams. Dispersion can avoid "hot spots" and spikes which can violate federal air quality standards. Concentration of development may be causing more environmental problems than a marginal increase in transit usage can solve.

Please note that you are welcome to download or print the article for your own personal use -- or to provide a link to this article from another Web site. For other use of the article, please contact the Planning Commissioners Journal.