Reality time. Sprawl is one of the most destructive forces at work in America today and unless you are a developer, it is hurting you. This is a personal “you,” not a generic “you”. It is your taxes that are rising to support the infrastructure needed by new homes and commercial projects. It is you that is putting up with increased traffic congestion, it is you and yours that are breathing the increasingly polluted air caused by the traffic in which you are sitting. The water that you drink is threatened and the water you don’t drink is threatening you as stormwater turns to floodwater from increased runoff from upstream development. Your schools are packed, children are taught in closets and modulars while your school taxes soar. The landscape, wildlife, critical ecosystems and the history of your community, components that help define your property value, are being destroyed. Sprawl hurts you and the list above is only a starting point.

There is no doubt that sprawl is destructive but there is some confusion about what exactly sprawl is. In fact, what do we even call it? Is it urban sprawl or is it suburban sprawl? Perhaps the best definition of sprawl comes from the National Trust for Historic Preservation which describes it simply as “poorly planned, low-density, auto-oriented development that spreads out from the center of communities.’’ James Howard Kunstler was perhaps even more succinct when he said that sprawl was "the geography of nowhere."

In essence, sprawl is the basic shift from a well defined city/town/village/rural hierarchical structure wherein the city was clearly the source of influence, the population center and the base of commerce. This was the structure that dominated the American landscape until World War II when in very short order it was replaced by a city/suburb/rural matrix that saw the suburbs assume the lead role in many of society’s functions. In and of itself, this shift is not necessarily wrong but it was accomplished and continues without proper planning and in total disregard for the negative consequences that can, and most often do, occur.

It may be easier to identify the characteristics of sprawl than it is to define it. Anthony Downs of the Brookings Institute identified ten traits that have been generally accepted by the planning community as fundamental to sprawl. They are:

 

The Components of Sprawl

The concept of sprawl encompasses more than just tract housing although that may be its most easily discernible characteristic. What we are really dealing with is a very complex system that includes residential, commercial, industrial and retail components and the vast array of infrastructure required to allow them to function. In addition, understanding the true impact of sprawl requires that one deals with the changing social morays that have resulted. It is the historic and continued failure of government and the public to recognize the interrelationship of these varied components that allows sprawl to continue with no end in sight.

 

The Historic Roots of Sprawl

Sprawl is Euclidean. If you are not familiar with the term, don’t worry as it is more than a bit esoteric. In essence, the term describes zoning based on the concept of separate zones for different uses and it derives its name from the 1927 U.S. Supreme Court case, Euclid vs. Ambler, which upheld the right of a municipality to designate areas as single-use zones. The original intent was to separate and thus avoid mixing unhealthy industrial uses with residential areas and to address, through planning, some of the problems that had occurred during the Industrial Revolution. Most zoning since the late 1920s has involved the separation of uses although a mix of residential and retail is not uncommon.

 

Sprawl: An American Tradition?

There are those who argue that sprawl is merely an extension of the American tradition to seek new frontiers, likening the movement away from the cities to the westward expansion of the 1800s. This was the advertising tactic used to market the early growth of the suburbs and is an argument that may enchant those studying the psychology of mobility in the United States. However, it is a position without basis. Moving to the suburbs to battle traffic to the mall in an air conditioned, leather clad land cruiser equipped with an eight speaker stereo is hardly the same as battling wolves in a Conastoga wagon heading over the Rockies. Although there has always been a degree of movement away from cities by some, the sprawl that is now occurring is so fundamentally different than from the expansion of the past that it must be considered in its own right.

 

A New Mobility

Sprawl is a relatively new phenomena. Its foundation may be traced directly to social and political changes between 1945 to 1960, but it was not an unpredictable occurrence. Frank Lloyd Wright (1867-1959) observed that:

"The outcome of cities will depend on the race between the automobile and the elevator, and anyone who bets on the elevator is crazy.”

Several factors during that period combined to create an environment whereby sprawl was almost an assured outcome. Specifically:

To many, the growth of the suburbs was simply the fulfillment of the American Dream and from the beginning, suburban developments have been marketed with that in mind. Idealized images of the suburban homeowner commuting to the city for employment dominated the print media though the underlying message was not that you could commute to but rather escape from urban America. The perception of suburbia as the American Dream was reinforced weekly by popular television programs showing the serenity and happiness inherent with the suburban lifestyle. The importance of television and its impact on the American perception of desired lifestyle cannot be over-stressed. This is clearly illustrated by the reality that “Leave It to Beaver” remains a cultural icon to a simpler time in a better place even though it left prime time some forty years ago.

 

Cities in Flames

In less than 15 years, the “new” suburbia was firmly entrenched in the American lifestyle by 1960. Developments spread like wildfires throughout the nation (over 1,000 subdivisions were concurrently under construction in Long Island, New York in 1960) that were remarkable only for their sameness. Sociologists and planners expressed their fears and concerns about the radical shift in community structure only to have them ignored by builders, government and the general public. By 1960 the die was cast and the mass exodus to the promised land of the suburbs was in full swing. The once peaceful potato fields of Long Island were now home to the largest population growth in the nation increasing from 604,003 people in 1940 to 1,966,995 by 1960, the vast majority of whom were white.

" White Flight” became a commonly accepted, though rarely admitted, justification for the movement of middle class whites from the cities to the suburbs and was promoted by the developers themselves. When Levittown opened in New York in 1947, William J. Levitt included in his sales contract the clause that: “The tenant agrees not to permit the premises to be used or occupied by any person other than members of the Caucasian race.” (Clause 25 - 1947 Levittown Sales Agreement) Levitt justified his action with the explanation that “The plain fact is that most whites prefer not to live in mixed communities.” (New York Newsday)

For an excellent history on the development of Long Island, New York, please see The New Frontier.

White Flight turned into a White Stampede as the 1960’s progressed and the nonviolent attempts to promote civil rights gave way to riots in urban America. Americans will never forget the graphic images of the riots in Watts, Newark, Boston, Chicago or Detroit that filled television screens of the era. Literally, our cities were burning and just as literally, the white middle class (as a group) had no interest in hanging around to find why or how to fix the problems that were at the root of the violence.

Equally as important as the shift in residential patterns, corporations that had long considered cities to be the location of choice decided to move to suburban areas as well. A massive corporate exodus from urban America began in the late 1960s and has not abated since. Often cited as the justification for such moves are lower tax rates, availability of transportation, proximity to a wider labor pool, decreased cost of living for employees and lower cost of operations. That cities have found it increasingly hard to attract large corporations is clearly illustrated by the fanfare recently attached to the news that a 700 person financial firm was moving into rather than out of Philadelphia. Although a relatively small operation by many standards, this move represented the largest new corporate commitment to the city in the last 20 years.

 

1975 - Today

As one would expect, the early development of the suburbs was a somewhat radial process in that the land most accessible to the urban center was that which was most likely to be developed first. Accompanying those leaving the cities were retail business which found new homes in that most American of inventions, the “Mall.” The advent of enclosed malls represented a massive realignment in the retail structure of the nation and commercial sprawl began in earnest.

By the mid 1970s, the “outer” regions of metropolitan areas became targets for developers. These areas often lacked the general infrastructure to support large scale development and projects were met with greatly varying degrees of resistance from local officials. Thus developers seeking to maximize their profits began the process of building where it was easiest and development took on a much more random pattern than it had in the past.

Residents in the outer fringes got a short reprieve in the late 1970s through mid-1980s when the building industry collapsed as a result of mortgage rates as high as 18% and the gas crisises of the era caused people to rethink (but only for a moment) their driving habits. Although development certainly occurred during this time period, the frenzy of the proceeding decades had abated and a period of relative tranquility from development pressure ensued. (It is interesting to note that many school districts on the fringes of developing metropolitan areas actually closed schools as a result of declining enrollment.)

In many ways, this period represented the calm before the storm, because as interest rates came down and the national economy pulled out of recession, we entered a period of unparalleled growth. The building of suburbia began anew with a vengeance, this time with a big difference. Now, residential sprawl was accompanied by big box retailers. Many local merchants who had managed to survive the economic war with the malls found themselves unable to compete with Walmart or Home Depot and have disappeared to the detriment of the local economy. (Interestingly, now many malls find themselves in the same position, unable to compete with big box retailers!)

This latest expansion of the suburbs continues today and was fueled in part by pent up consumer demand. However, massive advertising campaigns touting the availability of low cost financing and promoting the perception of lower taxes and greener pastures has played a key element. The constant claim by developers that they are only meeting the demands of the market ignores the reality that they are investing millions in advertising to create the market they claim to be satisfying.