Apparently the pattern of choice! (discuss supply vs. demand)

Urban and rural alternatives still exist, so people can still choose other patterns

So, why all the hubub?

Anti-sprawl groups

Pro-development groups

The concern over sprawl is Cyclical: when growth is fast, people worry about sprawl and demand that gov do something.

Is there enough land for sprawling development? The answer is very much yes, only a small fraction of the land in the US has been developed, though this fraction is poorly enumerated. Conservative estimates (in this case conservative also means those offered by conservative think tanks) is that about 5% of the US land area is developed. So it looks like there is lots of land left.

But, almost a third of the US is federal land not open to development, and another, unknown fraction (Gillham has a few estimates) is in state and local protection or private protection. So, maybe something like 10% or more of the "developable" land I the US is already developed. (I think this is an underestimate because it neglects a lot of infrastructure, low density development, and developments on agricultural lands, but I can’t back up my estimate better than anybody else, and I do thin that agricultural land loss is over-stated).

Don’t get hooked on these numbers, they won’t be on the exam, but just realize that the bruhaha is about local landscapes, some of which are heavily developed, with vanishing open spaces near where people live, and important farmland and wildlife habitat being developed. Essentially Gillham is saying that not all undeveloped land is equally valuable, so that sprawl skeptics who quite the 5% figure but include all land (incl federal) in their base are trying to understate the problem.

[Note: we did not get into the "Equity" part of this chapter, and that material won’t be on the exam]

Indictment: sprawl costs more than compact development, is subsidized in various ways.

Questions:

• Comparative capital infrastructure costs
• Hidden and open subsidies
• Costs of inefficient growth patterns
• Tax issues, commercial development

Benfield and Chen: review shows sprawl costs more than early-suburban patterns and than more dense alternatives, when compared in the typical way of such studies: Schools, roads, sewer, water, etc. compared to higher vs lower densitiy residential and commercial development (Burchell et al --- NJ studies)

Infrastructure costs per unit are higher in suburban compared to urban, but maybe there are some surprises---O’Toole, Peter Gordon and Harry Richardson at Univ of So Calif. argue that dense costs are as high or higher (think about the costs of re-doing a road or pipeline in Manhattan!).

Old subsidies the new. Tallahassee sewer hookup: 5K in dev areas, 11K outside.

State and federal highway funds spread out the costs to all tax payers, including drivers in uncongested areas.

Auto transport infrastructure is subsidized, but so is mass transit, at an even higher rate per user (proponents argue that as we move to more transit then the unit costs will come down).

New areas cannabalize older neighborhoods and communities; e.g., core area Boulder schools closed downtown for new ones outside of the core area here all the growth in student numbers is.

Retail malls built that steal business form other malls.

Residential does not pay for itself, commercial taxes make up costs.

Is this really a debate about aesthetics, about how cookie-cutter subdivisions don’t "look" very nice?

Discuss this proposition in class.