Urban Sprawl is it Good or Bad?

Many people believe that poor planning by municipalities and government institutions is what has led to uncontrolled sprawl in some areas. Other researchers believe sprawl to be the unavoidable result of car-based living, or people's increasing reliance on automobiles. What's for certain is that there is no solid consensus about whether sprawl is really a bad thing after all. Here are some of the reported downfalls and the perks of sprawl.

You name it, sprawl is alleged to have caused it (although it's nearly impossible to pinpoint all of­ the blame). One of the most obvious and talked-about consequences of sprawl is the loss of farmland at a rate of approximately 1.2 million acres (500,000 hectares) every year. Environmental devastation, including the loss of tree cover and wildlife habitats as well as polluted drinking water, is commonly attributed to urban sprawl. Water pollution is caused by an increase in hard surfaces, such as pavement, that cannot absorb rainfall or runoff the way that soil can. This causes pollutants to be diverted into water sources, rather than be absorbed by the ground. Tree cover has been reduced by more than one-third over the past 25 years in Atlanta, Chesapeake Bay and Puget Sound alone.



Increased automobile usage goes hand in hand with sprawl because people live farther away from work and because business districts in the suburbs aren't built in walking distance from homes. This has caused higher levels of smog and air pollution, resulting in more cases of asthma and other respiratory ailments. Furthermore, the United States, Europe and other parts of the world affected by urban sprawl have noted that increased amounts of driving beget greenhouse gas emissions that are believed to be linked to global climate changes.

Longer commutes have resulted in high levels of automobile crashes, despite safer vehicles and safe driving campaigns. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), lower driver and passenger fatality rates are seen in dense cities as opposed to sprawl-friendly counterparts. Pedestrian fatalities and injuries may also be related to sprawl because of pedestrian unfriendly walkways and increased traffic. Atlanta, considered by many experts to top the list of sprawl-offending cities, had an increase in pedestrian fatalities despite a national decline in the amount of these accidents. Car-based living is also credited in part with obesity.

Many experts believe that urban sprawl results in higher costs for the government agencies responsible for building streets, schools, utilities and other services required to support new residents in sprawling communities. Often, these costs result in higher taxes.

Although the pros of urban sprawl may be less numerous than the cons, it's hard to qualify which factors outweigh one another. And clearly the advantages of suburban living are pretty substantial, considering its popularity and the continuing influx of people migrating to the suburbs.

Thanks to less expensive land in outlying areas around cities, people are able to afford larger houses on larger lots. For growing families tired of shoving all their worldly possessions into tiny urban closets, this is a huge benefit. Also, it's no secret that homes closer to most urban areas are usually more expensive than homes farther out in the suburbs. Simply put, it's easier to own your share of the American Dream out in the suburbs.



In addition, better school systems are often available in the suburbs. According to the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), in 1999, 73 percent of suburban New Jersey students scored "at or above" the basic reading level, whereas only 27 percent of urban students in New Jersey achieved the same goal. Of course, some of the more affluent residents can afford to send their children to private schools in urban areas, but many people do not have that luxury.

Crime rates tend to be lower in the suburbs than in urban areas, providing further incentive for families in particular to seek the white-picket fence safety of the outlying districts. In one study conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice, violent crime in cities in the period from 1993 to '98 was 37 percent higher than it was in the suburbs and 74 percent higher than in rural areas.

The NCPA also asserts that the United States as a whole has plenty of land to grow on, since not even 5 percent of its total land has been developed. The organization states that urbanization is only responsible for one-fourth of the farmland lost since 1945.

Traditionally, Europe and much of the rest of the world haven't followed the "American model of suburbia" based on suburban living and reliance on vehicles for day-to-day activity. Rather, most of these populations have trended toward urban life and suburbs located immediately outside cities instead of the sprawling areas that Americans live in. However, the European Environment Agency (EEA) reports that times are changing. Although sprawl hasn't reached the proportions in Europe that it has in the United States, it's certainly on the rise. Since the 1950s, for example, European population has grown by 33 percent, while European cities have grown by 78 percent. Sprawl in Europe is becoming especially prevalent around areas featuring strong economic activity and high levels of population density, such as Paris, northern Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands.



One prime example of international sprawl is in Australia, which has quickly become one of the most urbanized countries in the world -- the majority of residents living in or around the Sydney coastline. Traffic, air pollution and rising costs of living are a few of the problems blamed on sprawl in the area. As such, planners are working overtime to figure out how to handle the expected population increase of 1.1 million by 2031. One of the current plans is to build more than 600,000 new homes directly to the south and west (to ease pain on the coastline), that will be in close proximity to train and bus stations and that will also have cycling and walking trails.

One major city that many people probably assume to be the biggest offender is Los Angeles. In fact, L.A. has managed to curb sprawl despite an intense increase in population. The city has accomplished this largely through zoning requirements that kept housing lots small and close together. Not only has land consumption in the area not increased, it actually decreased by 8 percent while L.A.'s population density was on the rise between 1970 and 1990. Given the popularity of the area, sprawl would have been far worse if L.A. planners hadn't planned ahead of time by encouraging high population density through strong live, work and play incentives for residents of the city proper.

Yet another city that flies in the face of sprawl-related reason is Detroit. The city experienced a 7 percent population decline between 1970 and 1990; however, the land area consumption increased by 28 percent. This is believed to be due to factors not related to population (like crime and cost of living) that pushed people toward outlying areas around the city. Despite this seeming exception to the population growth rule, Census Bureau data still shows that cities experience population growth sprawl at a much faster rate than large cities that experience decline.

Free Movies Tube
smart technology
latest nokia mobile phones
brand technology