PP 23-25
10/20/98 2:03 PM
Page 23
Pr o v e I t
T h e Co st s a n d Be n e f it s
of Sprawl
B Y
P E T E R
G O R D O N
A N D
H A R R Y
W
.
R I C H A R D S O N
Cit ies have been generat ing suburbs f or as long as records have exist ed. Mos t of t he w or l d’ s l ar ge ci t i es ar e gr ow i ng out w ar d now , and ver y l i kel y t he
pac e w i l l ac cel er at e i n t he new age of i nf or m at i on net w or ki ng. Unpopul ar as t he
w or d i s i n s om e quar t er s, i t i s har d t o av oi d c onc l udi ng t hat “ s pr aw l ” i s m os t peopl e’ s pr ef er r ed l i f e- st y l e. Bec aus e no one w ant s t o appear t o c ont r adi c t popul ar
c hoi ces and i nt er f er e w i t h t he pr i nci pl e of c ons umer s over ei gnt y, t he c r i t i c s of
s pr aw l i nst ead bl am e di s t or t ed pr i ces , suc h as aut om obi l e s ubs i di es and mor t gage
i nt er es t deduc t i ons , and c l ai m ed but
unr egi st er ed c os t s of spr aw l , suc h as
unpai d- f or i nf r ast r uc t ur e, l ost agr i cul t ur al out put , c onges t i on, and di r t y ai r .
has f ollowed workers int o t he suburbs and exurban areas, and most commut ing now t akes place
suburb-t o-suburb on f ast er, less crowded roads.
The last t hree surveys by t he Nat ionwide Personal
Transport at ion Survey ( NPTS) show increasing
The cost posit ion, however, is encumbered wit h
average work t rip speeds—2 8 mph in 1 9 8 3 , 3 2 .3
at least t wo problems. First , most of us are not
mph in 1 9 9 0 , and 3 3 .6 mph in 1 9 9 5 .
cost minimizers. Rat her, we t rade of f cost s f or
The alleged loss of prime f armlands is, in t he
perceived benefi t s. And second, t he cost s arguwords of t he lat e Julian Simon, “ t he most conclument is empirically shaky. Traf f ic “ doomsday ”
sively discredit ed environment al-polit ical f raud of
f o rec ast s, f o r ex am ple, have
recent t imes.” U.S. cropland use
gone t he way of most ot her dire Pet er Gordon and Harry W. Richardson are p e ak e d in 1 9 3 0 . Ea c h y e ar
predict ions. Why? Because sub- prof essors in t he Universit y of Sout hern A m eric an f arm ers g ro w mo re
urbanizat ion has t urned out t o Calif ornia’s School of Policy, Planning, and crops using less land and labor.
b e t he t r af f ic saf et y v alv e . De v e lo p m e n t , as w e l l a s t h e USC
A s f o r t h e “ c o m p ac t n e s s
Increasingly f oot loose indust ry Depart ment of Economics.
eq u als ef f ic ienc y ” ar g u m en t ,
B R O O K I N G S
R E V I E W ,
F A L L
1 9 9 8
23
PP 23-25
10/20/98 2:03 PM
Page 24
t echnological change t akes us in t he direct ion of
bet t er approach is t o use developer impact f ees
ef f icient small-scale provision, weakening t he old
( f ees per resident ial unit imposed on new developidea t hat scale economies of ut ilit y generat ion are
ment ) t o recoup any dif f erence bet ween t he fi scal
t here t o be exploit ed by more compact urban
cost s and revenues f rom resident ial development .
f orms. Large ret ail est ablishment s, f or example,
can now keep low-kilowat t nat ural gas t urbines on
T h e N e e d f o r C l a r i t y
t he premises.
The sprawl discussion is dist ort ed by a high degree
U.S. public policies do not have a singular spat ial
of misinf ormat ion. To t ake one example, st at e and
t hrust . Some policies, such as subsidized downlocal growt h management , “ smart growt h,” and
t own renewal, subsidized and downt own-f ocused
ant i-spraw l p rot agonist s f requen t ly cit e Los
t ransit , subsidized downt own convent ion cent ers,
Angeles as t he sprawl capit al of t he Unit ed St at es,
sport s st adia, and similar f acilit ies, f avor cent ralwit h a land use pat t ern t o be avoided at all cost s.
ized set t lement . Ot hers, including inflexible zoning
In f act , t he urbanized area of t he Los Angeles
codes and t he deduct ibilit y of mort gage int erest
met ropolit an region has t he highest resident ial
and real est at e propert y t ax, f avor dispersal.
densit ies in t he Unit ed St at es—higher even t han
The much vaunt ed subsidies t o t he aut o-hight he New York urbanized region—largely t he result
way syst em consist mainly of decisions by governof it s high land prices.
ment policymakers not t o t ax drivers t o recover
Casual observers have been deceived by looking
t he cost of such ext ernalit ies as congest ion and
at only t he gross densit ies based on all t he land
environment al damage. And t hat issue recedes in
area, much of which consist s of vast unbuildable
impor t ance as highw ay
areas such as mount ains
s p e e d s i n c r e as e an d
and p eripheral desert s.
in t e r n al
co m bust ion
Anot her f alse concept ion
engines become cleaner.
is
t hat suburban areas are
Som e o bse rv e rs se e
The m or t gag e int ere st
dominat ed by single-f amico mp ac t and hig h- r ise
t ax deduct ion raises land
ly homes on large lot s. In
de v e lopm e nt a s a n
v alues t hr o ug ho ut t he
f ac t , t he suburban and
ac com m oda t ion t o inf e rio r
m et r opo lit an r eg ion . It
exurban “ at t ached house”
h as c o nt r i bu t ed m uc h
share of t he met ropolit an
f o rm s of t ra nspor t a t ion
l e s s t o c e n t r a l- c i t y
housing st ock is about 5 0
t hat hav e b e e n e clipse d by
decline t han have suburpercent . Of t he nat ion’s
t he aut om ob ile . Th e
b an m in i m u m lo t siz e
presumably higher-densiuniv e rsa l c ho ic e is f or t he
rest rict ions an d poorer
t y a t t ac h e d h o u s in g ,
f re e do m a nd fle xib ilit y t ha t
cent ral-cit y amenit ies. In
t hen, half is locat ed out any event , reducing subside cent ral cit ies.
c om e o nly w it h pe rsona l
sidies makes more sense
Increasingly, t he at t ack
t r ansp ort at ion .
t han equalizing t hem, as,
on sprawl is being just ifi ed
f or example, t hrough t ryby t he need t o achieve
ing t o equat e aut omobile
t he goal of “ sust ainable
and t ransit subsidies.
urbanizat ion.” But no one
The evidence t hat has
has defi ned t he t erm sat been assembled on t he
isf act o r ily . Rat her , t he
dif f icult issue of inf r at al k i s o f r e c y c l in g ,
st ruct ure services cost s
increasing densit ies, and
is, at best , mixed. Even if
p r o m o t i n g t r a n s it as
it could be conclusively
inst rument s f or preservdemonst rat ed t hat suburing resources f or f ut ure
ban and exurban inf rau se . T h e c o n c e r n f o r
st ruct ure cost s are higher
f ut ure gener at ions t hat
t han cent ral-cit y c ost s,
s u s t a in ab i li t y i m p l ie s
t he solut ion is not t o ban
gives insuf f icient weight
su b u r b an i z at i o n
an d
t o t oday’ s pr oblems of
low-densit y development
povert y and inequalit y. In
or int roduce st rict growt h
t h e w o r d s o f No b e l
management cont rols. A
Prize–winning economist
24
B R O O K I N G S
R E V I E W ,
F A L L
1 9 9 8
PP 23-25
10/20/98 2:03 PM
Page 25
Robert Solow, “ There is at
There is a small, if growing,
least as st rong a case f or
scat t ering of compact new
r ed u c in g c o n t e m p o r ar y
development s in t he subinequalit y ( and probably
ur ban and , m ore o f t en,
st ronger) as f or worrying
exurban environment s, but
about t he uncert ain st at us
t heir impact on ant i-sprawl
of f ut ure generat ions.” In
goals is minimal. There is,
our view, t hese problems
f or example, no evidence
c a n n o t b e a ll e v ia t e d
t hat t hey reduce of f -sit e
significant ly via t he social
t r ip s. A n y r e a so n ab l e
e n g i n e e r in g o f u r b an
assu m p t io n s ab ou t t h e
space.
ext ent of f ut ure compact
So m e o b se r v e r s se e
development s must yield
c o m p ac t a n d h ig h - r is e
t he conclusion t hat t heir
development as an accominfl uence on t omorrow’ s
modat ion t o inf erior f orms
urban landscape is minusof t ransport at ion t hat have
cule.
been eclipsed by t he aut oProponent s of t he New
T h e g oa l s of t h e a nt i - s pr a w l p os i t i on
m o b il e . T h e u n i v e r s al
Urbanism claim t he abilit y
a r e un a t t a i na b l e . Opp or t un i t i e s f o r
choice is f or t he f reedom
to
d e s ig n
and fl exibilit y t hat come
communit y-f riendly neighi nfi l l de v e l opm e n t i n c e n t r a l c i t i e s
only wit h personal t ransborhoods, t hus joining t he
port at ion. Collect ive t rans- e x i s t , b ut t h e y a r e l i m i t e d. T h e r e i s a
movement t o revive comp o r t at io n l o se s i n an y
munit arianism. While t here
head-t o-head cont est , as
is a lively debat e over t he
s m a l l , i f g r o w i n g, s c a t t e r i ng o f
t he widespread operat ions
current st at e of civil socic o m p a c t n e w de v e l op m e n t s i n t he
of large numbers of clanet y ( as t he cont ribut ors t o
dest ine “ gypsy” cabs and
t his Rev ie w ’ s f all 1 9 9 7
s ub ur ba n a nd, m or e o f t e n, e x ur ba n
v an s ab o v e o ne o f t he
issue make clear) , t he case
w o r ld ’ s p r em ier sub w ay
of t he New Urbanist s is
e nv i r onm e n t s , b ut t h e i r i m pa c t on
syst ems in New York Cit y
m uc h
l e ss
clear .
make clear. Even in New
Resident ial development s
a nt i - s pr a w l g oa l s i s m i ni m a l .
Yo r k , m any o r ig ins an d
and whole neighborhoods
dest inat ions are t oo disare being supplied by marpersed t o be serviced by fixed-rout e syst ems. The
ket -savvy builders at t ent ive t o t he t rade-of f s t hat
record of conv ent ional t ransit t hroughout t he
t heir cust omers are eager t o make. People in comUnit ed St at es is t he same t heme writ large. Af t er
pact communit ies live as privat ely as t hose in
hundreds of billions of dollars of public subsidy,
low-densit y suburbs. Were people t o demand cozit ransit use per capit a is now at a hist oric low. The
er spat ial arrangement s, t hey would soon get
evolut ion of American cit ies and lif e-st yles has
t hem. Moreover, t he public’s demand f or “ commuo ut g r o w n 1 9 t h- cen t ur y - st y le urb an t r ansit .
nit y” is being met in ot her ways, f acilit at ed by t he
Ironically, t he mass t ransit f avored by ant i-sprawl
aut o and even Int ernet access. In t erms of t ransact ivist s—st reet cars, subways, and urban rail
p o rt at io n, w e kno w t hat t he o v er w helm ing
syst ems of earlier days—was t he prime inst ruam ou nt o f t rav el is nonw o r k t rav el. A bo ut
ment of suburbanizat ion. The aut omobile merely
one-fif t h of person-t rips are f or work-relat ed purdiversified it s radial pat t ern.
poses, one-fif t h are f or shopping, and t hree-fif t hs
And t hough mass t ransit support ers argue f or
are f or “ social” reasons ( including t he NPTS cat ehigher densit ies t o reduce congest ion and improve
gories “ ot her f amily and personal business,”
air qualit y, in f act t he relat ionship bet ween densi“ school/ church,” “ visit f riends or relat ives,” and
t y and t raf f ic congest ion is posit ive rat her t han
“ ot her social or recreat ional” purposes) .
negat ive, and t he link bet ween congest ion and air
qualit y is very complex and highly t echnical.
D e a l i n g w i t h t h e C o s t s o f
In t he end, t he goals of t he ant i-sprawl posit ion
S p r a w l
are unat t ainable. Opport unit ies f or infill developWe are not advocat ing a “ laissez-f aire” approach
ment in cent ral cit ies exist , but t hey are limit ed.
t o t he development of our cit ies. Cit ies are,
B R O O K I N G S
R E V I E W ,
F A L L
1 9 9 8
25
PP 23-25
10/20/98 2:03 PM
Page 26
almost by defi nit ion, t he cause of myriad unint ended cost s. Many problems (not all) can, and should,
be resolved by low-cost negot iat ion bet ween t he
af f ect ed part ies ( f or example, developers and
environment alist s) or by t he exchange of expanded propert y right s ( using such measures as emission f ees, congest ion prices, and development
credit s) . The more radical measures proposed by
crit ics of American cit ies—maximum densit ies,
rest rict ions on aut omobile use, and mandat ory
f ees and t axes t o pay f or t ransit —are grounded in
misconcept ions and are unlikely t o achieve t heir
st at ed goals.
The principle of consumer sovereignt y has
played a powerf ul role in t he increase in America’s
wealt h and in t he welf are of it s cit izens. Producers
( including developers) have responded rapidly t o
households’ demands. It is a giant st ep backward
t o int erf ere wit h t his ef f ect ive process unless t he
benefi t s of int ervent ion subst ant ially exceed it s
cost s. Bans on t he amount of land t hat individuals
can consume, or ev en worse, on driving, are
ext remely dif f icult t o just if y. In f act , when households purchase a single-f amily home in t he suburbs, t hey are not consuming land per se. Rat her,
t hey are buying a number of at t ribut es—good
public schools, relat ive saf et y f rom crime, easy
access t o recreat ion and shopping opport unit ies,
low t axes, responsive public services. Lot size is
rarely crucial t o t he decision. In any event , lot
sizes are becoming smaller as a result of rising land
prices, and t here may be opport unit ies f or developers t hrough creat ive design t o reduce lot sizes
st ill f urt her while preserving privacy. But smaller
lot s are not going t o revive t he cent ral cit y or alt er
significant ly t he consequences of suburban and
exurban development .
Parad oxically , as t he U.S. polit ical sy st em
increasingly emphasizes deregulat ion and market
processes at t he f ederal, and somet imes t he
st at e, lev el, command-and-cont rol rest rict ions
and int erest -group imposit ions at t he local level
are growing and are f requent ly being reinf orced
by act ions in t he court s. Much of t his shif t , exemplified by t he expansion of land use regulat ions,
refl ect s a ret arget ing of regulat ory act iv it y f rom
economic sect ors t o such social concerns as educat ion, healt h, and t he environment . But f or t he
c o st - b e n e fi t c al c u l u s ad v o c a t e d b y t h e
ant i-spraw l prot agonist s t o prevail, t he qualit y of
■
t heir empirical evidence must be improved.
B R O O K I N G S
R E V I E W ,
F A L L
1 9 9 8
26