DEFINITION OF SPRAWL . . .
Over the past few years, many writers have confused urban development sprawl with density Рthe lower the density, the greater the sprawl. Others have simply used sprawl to describe any type of urban development they personally find distasteful. The word has become a clich̩ for a wide variety of urban conditions without specific definition.
Webster’s Dictionary describes sprawl as “to spread or develop irregularly” -- a definition that applies to a great many urban areas at any density. The linear blight caused by major city streets suffering from unregulated peripheral development, both old and new, is likely to be accepted by most observers as fitting the negative image of sprawl. On the other hand, a pleasantly wooded subdivision of well-maintained homes and lawns does not deserve the same designation just because of its low density. Yet, the latter often is classified by this negative term simply because it is part of a low density suburb.
Few urban planners would argue with the public efficiency of servicing urban areas of high density in comparison with suburban areas of low density. And fewer still would argue with the private efficiency of living in a neighborhood sufficiently dense to support shops and other facilities within walking distance. And a significant segment of our society (recent estimates suggest about one-third) appear to prefer to live in these more efficient higher density neighborhoods. But an even larger segment appear to prefer lower density housing locations, despite the annoyance of higher utility costs and the inconvenience of longer travel distances to support facilities. And, of course, an unfortunate minority has very little choice in living environment because of limited resources (and we have both high density city slums as well as low density rural slums).
These are choices open to a majority of Americans. Public planners and other officials are free to influence persons to select more efficient lifestyle locations. And they also can attempt to influence developers to build more dense neighborhoods and housing. But they are not charged with regulating such decisions except as specifically defined in public legislation (and minimum density is seldom included in legislation, only maximum density).
Therefore, whereas the term sprawl is a negative term for “irregular” development, planners and politicians should refrain from using it generically to describe urban growth that is equated to lower density. Higher rather than lower density does not equate to good and bad. It does equate to more efficient services and walking distances, but the value of these elements is judgmental for most persons. Americans will select the types of living environments they prefer regardless of definitional inconsistencies from advocates of higher density environments.
DFP/July 2009
