The Economy Of Smart Growth
Continuing the sprawl vs. smart growth debate, Todd Littman of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute responds to The Heritage Foundation's recent study that argues lower-density development, or sprawl, is less costly than smart growth.
Littman estimates the savings that can be realized via more compact development within existing urban boundaries and critiques Cox and Utt's analysis, suggesting that their report misrepresents smart growth. He notes that "most current development charges, utility fees and taxes fail to accurately reflect these location-related cost differences, representing a subsidy of sprawl. [PDF, 15 pages, 154 kb]
Thanks to Deborah Myerson
Full Story:
Published on Friday, July 9, 2004 in
Topics
- America's Largest Suburb Flirts With Urbanization
- Gentrification, for Better and Worse
- Baltimore's New Bus System Comes With a Snazzy New Map
- The Scourge of Setbacks
- 'Plansplaining' and its Discontents
- Seattle's New Seawall: An Experiment in Climate Adaptation and Habitat Restoration
- Ramps to Help Ducks in and out of the Capitol Reflecting Pool Make a Big Splash
- YIMBYs Attacked from the (Far) Left
- Is Houston a City of the (Demographic) Future?
- Friday Eye Candy: A Mobile App That Provides a Historic Window Into New York
- The Walking Classroom Benefits Body and Mind
- A First Look at Apple's New Corporate Headquarters
- Court Ruling Could Be a Final Setback for Maryland Purple Line Extension
- As Big Box Retailers Fade, New Uses Are Springing Up
- Court Decision Makes it Final: Washington State Owes $2 Billion for Culvert Repairs
- Back to the Suburbs: Most Metropolitan Are Getting Less Dense
- A Change of Heart by Secretary Chao on California's Oldest Commuter Rail Line
- The Sky's the Limit for Washington, D.C.-Area High Rises
- NYC's Rental Market Returns to the Single Room Occupancy Model of a Century Ago
- As a Driverless Future Dawns, Should We Still Build Parking?
