Sprawl vs. compact development: reframing the debate in light of fraught definitions

Reid Ewing & Shima Hamidi, "Compactness versus Sprawl: A Review of Recent Evidence from the United States," Journal of Planning Literature 30 (2015): 4

The take-away: This article summarizes literature on urban sprawl, with particular concern for reviving debates between the seminal yet opposed works of Richardson (1997) and Gordon & Richardson (1997). The authors of this article side more with Richardson, arguing that “residential preferences are a major determinant of future urban form,” and they predict that 2025 will bring “a major shift toward compact development”. In terms of policy, the authors advocate for “strong planning interventions” such as “command and control and/or regulation”, rather than capitulating to market forces. In conclusion, the authors problematize the founding assumption of this debate: the idea that sprawl can be coherently defined. In light of this imprecision, the authors call for researchers to study the effects of specific characteristics of built form, rather than making judgments on the basis of which characteristics conform to some definition of “sprawl”.

Abstract: In 1997, the Journal of the American Planning Association published a pair of point–counterpoint articles now listed by the American Planning Association as “classics” in the urban planning literature. In the first article, “Are Compact Cities Desirable?” Gordon and Richardson argued in favor of urban sprawl as a benign response to consumer preferences. In the counterpoint article, “Is Los Angeles-Style Sprawl Desirable?” Ewing argued for compact cities as an alternative to sprawl. It is time to reprise the debate. This article summarizes the literature on urban sprawl characteristics and measurements, causes, impacts, and remedies since the original debate.

Full article (requires access)