Introduction
Urban sprawl is the expansion of cities based on low-density, single-use development models. On the other hand, compact development is based on a high-density model, where residential households are concentrated in high-rise housing developments that do not take up large areas of land to set up. There are obvious differences in the advantages and disadvantages of both models of development. As a consequence of these differences, there have been extensive discourses on which model is best suited for contemporary cities. Arguments about the merits of sprawl and compact development strategies are wide and varied. However, in recent times, they have become increasingly centered on four main categories of thinking: environment-friendliness, economic efficiency, social equity and necessity regarding telecommunication technologies. These categories may best be examined by juxtaposing Gordon and Richardson’s article to Reid Ewing’s. Gordon and Richardson seem to favor sprawl development while Ewing favors compact development. In light of their articles, this essay compares compact development to sprawl development in terms of environment-friendliness, economic efficiency, social equity and necessity with reference to telecommunication technologies.
Gordon and Richardson approach the environment-friendly question in terms of conservation of agricultural land. In the United States, there is no apparent danger of the encroachment of agricultural land by cities. To this end, Gordon and Richardson (96) allude to research by Fischel in 1985. The research intimated that even though the entire population of the United States lived in conditions of “suburban sprawl,” agricultural land would still be available in abundance. If every 4-person household occupied one acre of land, only three percent of the land area in all the 48 states would be utilized. This finding indicates that compact development is not necessarily economically efficient than sprawl in terms of agriculture. The rural/agricultural land preservation argument is weak. Ewing, on the other hand, indicates that one of the “sprawl indicators” is poor accessibility and lack of functional open spaces (Ewing 109). He underlines the importance of functional open spaces by indicating that they are useful for controlling flooding, purifying runoff, supporting wildlife, and affording scenic views to residents. In this regard, Ewing (109) favors compact development over sprawl in terms of their use of space. An advantage of compact cities as compared to urban sprawl that Gordon and Richardson ignore is that compact cities produce less pollution than sprawl. Urban sprawl structures contribute to a higher degree of air pollution per household as compared to compact cities. In terms of energy consumption, I believe that compact developments conserve more energy than their urban sprawl counterparts. For example, there are obvious economies of scale involved in heating or disposing waste in compact developments. In this regard, compact developments are more environment-friendly.
Gordon and Richardson (96) further argue that compact development is not necessarily economically efficient because preferences and tastes usually drive residential housing. Building at higher densities may not be profitable or economically efficient for the developer. Developers must remain market-conscious because “the risks of building an unacceptable product” are considerably high (Gordon and Richardson 96). This argument means that compact development may end up not being profitable to developers of residential structures. Most people favor a single-family, stand-alone residential structure for their family. Also, Gordon and Richardson (97-98) note that claims that compact developments are less wasteful of resources including energy because they make high-capacity transport systems unattractive are not entirely accurate. The efficiencies of compact development have not been demonstrated adequately. In this regard, Ewing argues that despite the fact that most people prefer single-family detached housing, most of them to not prefer the attendant suburban setting. According to residential preference surveys, the suburbs rank low. There is a strong preference for new single-family detached residential housing according to Ewing (111). In this regard, home builders or developers are likely to find higher financial efficiency when developing compact housing as opposed to sprawl. Sprawl development results in commercial strips. When faced with the choice between commercial strips and compact centers, consumers prefer compact centers by a big margin. I believe that any comparisons of economic efficiency between the two models of development must examine the scale of the development. In different scenarios, economic efficiency may be higher in compact or sprawl development.
Gordon and Richardson (100) argue that in light of today’s communication technologies, compact development is not necessary. They argue that compact development would only be considered necessary in terms of telecommunications if communication costs are high. However, they further indicate that communications costs have been falling for many years now. Initially, there were trade-offs expected between inevitable costs (such as congestion) and prospective benefits agglomeration and others such as the economies realized due to increased accessibility, interaction, and communication. However, as communication technologies continue to improve, the congestion-agglomeration trade-offs. Barriers that arise from distance (brought about by sprawl/ spread-out development continue to be dissolved by innovativeness in the transport and communications sectors. Ewing argues that even with improvements in telecommunication technologies, some activities have remained centralized. This statement means that the centralized nature of activities such as front-office decision-making and complex business services is likely to disadvantage people living in sprawl developments more than those living in compact housing. Further, Ewing (112) argues that electronic communications, no matter how advanced, will never be perfect substitutes for face-to-face interactions that continue to drive business and make people appreciate their residential areas. Face-to-face interactions are limited in sprawl cities.
Gordon and Richardson (100) also address the question of the social equitability of compact versus sprawl development. They indicate that the claim that compact cities are more socially equitable than sprawl ones is weak. Market processes in urban areas are largely affected by political forces that are controlled by upper-income rent seekers who prefer socio-economic segregation (Gordon and Richardson 102). In this regard, they argue that the motivation behind compact development is often selfish and not geared towards social equity. As such, sprawl development ends up being more equitable than compact development. Ewing argues that compact housing is more equitable than urban sprawl. Costs are not only relatively low but that they are also equally distributed across social classes.
Conclusion
Comparisons between sprawl and compact models of urban development may be examined along four main categories: environment-friendliness, economic efficiency, social equity and necessity regarding telecommunication technologies. Gordon and Richardson favor urban sprawl while Reid Ewing underlines the advantages of compact development. I believe that different scenarios may make a clear determination of the better model of development very difficult. Undoubtedly, on large scale considerations, compact development provides better land use, energy consumption, environment-friendliness and social equity. This discussion is unlikely to end soon unless clear and unbiased metrics are established.
Work Cited
Ewing, Reid. 'Is Los Angeles-Style Sprawl Desirable?'. Journal of the American Planning Association 63.1 (1997): 107-126. Web.
Gordon, Peter, and Harry W. Richardson. 'Are Compact Cities A Desirable Planning Goal?’ Journal of the American Planning Association 63.1 (1997): 95-106. Web.
