Challenging The Costs Of Sprawl

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."
July 22, 2004, 10am PDT | Deborah Myerson
Share Tweet LinkedIn Email Comments

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.

Thanks to Deborah Myerson

Full Story:
Published on Friday, June 25, 2004 in The Heritage Foundation
Share Tweet LinkedIn Email