Compact vs Sprawled Development and its Effect on Congestion


As an environmental science and management (ESM) student, the adverse impacts of development are frequently a topic of conversation; urban development and sprawl are killing the environment, little natural areas are still left, and development has to be restricted. Cities such as Portland and Boulder, CO are looked to as an example. Portland for its strong held urban growth boundary and Boulder for its innovative greenbelt, an area of open land around a city where building is restricted. London, England is another famous example of green belt development See Figure 1.

Figure 1

In the course reading, “Are Compact Cities a Desirable Planning Goal?” (written through a lens of traffic congestion) the common testaments in my ESM courses are challenged. The authors are a proponent of sprawled development, claiming the US has a “major problem of agricultural surpluses” and the argument that “agricultural land must be preserved in the U.S. because the future growth in the world population will result in insufficient production of food” is weak and inaccurate (Gordon and Richardson 96).

In ESM, compact development is a debated topic but experts are generally in favor of restricted land development with an emphasis on community development and institutional changes. Gordon and Richardson write that people’s natural preference is sprawl; more space and privacy is a benefit few are willing to sacrifice. They continue by stating, “Industry moves to the suburbs, following the labor force, which allows many workers to enjoy a shorter work trip in time if not in distance and reduces congestion pressures in traditional centers” (Gordon and Richardson 98). Furthermore, in class, students have discussed congestion pricing or free transit for all riders as a congestion mitigation method. The projected benefits of congestion pricing are highlighted in Figure 2.

Figure 2

Given the opposing views of ESM and Gordon and Richardson, what do students feel is a practical method to tackle congestion? Do you advocate for compact development or sprawled development? How does this impact the ecosystem? Can there be a balance struck between the environmental and sociological views described above? If so, what does this look like?

Edited by Sarah Friedman

Works Cited

Gordon and Richardson. 1997. Are Compact Cities Desirable Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 63(1), 95-106.

Comments

  1. This is a really interesting post! Thank you for posting! About the compact city, although different countries and different cities have different history and context, in my opinion, mixed-use land development (planning) is still necessary for compact development. This is because I believe that sprawling is caused by the housing policies, growth in the auto industry (or car-dependent communities), and the road building rather than the individual preference. Moreover, I think that the compact city could make people give up driving their car. On the other hand, congestion pricing is one of the good ideas for better transportation network and environment and I agree with the domino effect of the congestion pricing illustrated in figure 2.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Invisible Cyclists

Bicycle Parking/Storage Arrangements

Intersection of gender and age in transportation