Home › News ›

Review of Sprawl: A Compact History

Posted by: demographia1
Thanks to: Wendell Cox
13 December 2005 - 6:00am

A review of "Sprawl: A Compact History," a book by Robert Bruegmann.

"Mr. Bruegmann, a professor of urban planning and art history at the University of Illinois, takes every assumption about "sprawl" -- a pejorative to be sure -- and turns it on its head. Many of the characteristics associated with sprawl -- such as low-density development and lack of regional or public-use planning -- he argues, have been present in prosperous cities since the beginning of urban history. They are the natural effects of a city's gaining economic maturity -- not the recent consequence of vulgar Americans insisting on living in monstrous, single-use homes, as many sprawl detractors purport. As Mr. Bruegmann persuasively demonstrates, people and businesses have always had good reasons for wanting to leave the city."

Full Story: Why Sprawl is Good
Source: The Washington Times, December 11, 2005
»

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The paradox of sprawl

Submitted by Michael Lewyn on Tue, 12/13/2005 - 11:53.

On the one hand, Ms. DiCarlo claims again and again that sprawl is a matter of "choice." On the other hand, she asserts that Big Brother should build new highways to make sprawl manageable- thus implicitly admitting that this so-called "choice" is dependent on government taxes and spending in order to be adequate. So if sprawl is dependent on government highway spending, it isn't a product of free-market choice any more than teenagers' decisions to have out-of-wedlock babies in reliance on government welfare spending.

By the way, Ms. DiCarlo's claim that politicians are not building new roads to accommodate more sprawl is not at all correct. In Los Angeles, for example, the number of regional freeway miles grew from 4085 to 5850 over the past 20 years, and similarly in Washington the number of freeway miles grew from 1230 to 2040.

And her claim that sprawl has given people choice would be news to the carless poor and disabled, who now can no longer reach suburban jobs.

No paradox here.

Submitted by Dano on Wed, 12/14/2005 - 10:44.

"So if sprawl is dependent on government highway spending, it isn't a product of free-market choice any more than teenagers' decisions to have out-of-wedlock babies in reliance on government welfare spending. "

You're setting up a false dichotomy.

Also, there is no free-market choice in America (or anywhere), so the premise of your argument is false.

Sprawl is a "choice" illustrated in the behavior "drive 'til you qualify". The additional time spent in the car and away from the family or spare time is a choice.

Anyway, the review is just another astroturf product trumpeting how sprawl is good.

What we see here in Washington state - where we have many limits on taxes - is that the tax cutting going on here has an unintended consequence: compact development. Cities have less money to spend, and they are refusing to subsidize sprawl. So you get compact development. The tax-cutting folk don't like compact development, so I like to point out why such development is occurring. I'm not sure the ears are appreciative.

Best,

D

Bookmark and Share
“
It has been estimated that half of all Americans, and two-thirds of urban Americans, live in suburbia. Here are the key questions: Does suburbia exist because it is the natural "culmination of urban development"?
”