Contributor Blog

Some commentators argue that sprawl is an inevitable result of affluence, based on European development patterns. These pundits tell a simple story: European urban cores are losing population and becoming more automobile-dependent - just like American cities. So if Europe can’t beat sprawl, neither can America.

Once every few semesters, I teach a seminar on "Sprawl and the Law." On the first day of the seminar, I ask students what "sprawl" is. After getting a variety of answers, I reveal the truth: most definitions of sprawl involve one of two separate definitions:

"Where we grow"- Sprawl as movement from the core to the fringe of a region.

"How we grow"- Sprawl as development oriented towards drivers as opposed to nondrivers.

Both supporters and opponents of the sprawl status quo often refer to suburbia as “The American Dream.” One sprawl-defending organization even calls itself “The American Dream Coalition”. Sprawl critics use similar language; for example, in 1998, the Sierra Club issued a report titled “Sprawl: The Dark Side of the American Dream.” (www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/report98/)

American commercial streets are often designed almost exclusively for cars; streets are often as many as eight or ten lanes wide, lengthening pedestrian trips and encouraging motorists to drive at speeds unsafe for pedestrians.

Some transportation writers seem to believe that the interests of drivers and those of nondrivers are irreconcilable. For example, I just searched on google.com for websites using the terms “traffic calming” and “anti-automobile” together, and found over 60 such sites. But in fact, the interest of pedestrians in calmer, more walkable streets sometimes intersects (pun intended) with the interests of at least some motorists.