Challenging The Costs Of Sprawl
22 July 2004 - 10:00am
Is low-density development, a.k.a. sprawl, really more costly than more compact development? Wendell Cox and Joshua Utt of The Heritage Foundation question the assumptions behind the popularity of "smart growth."
Cox and Utt refute arguments that smart growth is cost-effective and challenge what they call "Current Urban Planning Assumptions," i.e., government spending is lower in older municipalities with higher population densities and slower rates of population growth. The authors evaluate census data and conclude that the lowest public expenditures per capita tend to be in newer, faster-growing communities of medium and lower densities.
Source:
The Heritage Foundation, June 25, 2004
»
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
- Using Adaptive Reuse to Scale the Urban Future - Feb 08, 2012
- Why Tea Party Criticism Should Matter to Planners - Feb 08, 2012
- Saving the Mall By Returning to Its Ideals - Feb 07, 2012
- Ranking Housing Affordability in America - Jan 25, 2012
- In Defense of the Grid - Jan 23, 2012
“
Ecological theory would suggest a balance, that we, to the health of all concerned, think about with the plants and animals serving one another equally in a dynamic balance slowly changing through evolutionary time.
”

















