Atlantic Cities has some satellite photos that supposedly show the “devastating impact of urban sprawl.” But it is easy to exaggerate the supposed “impact” of sprawl.
First, pick a fast-growing region like Atlanta or Dallas. Second, pick an aerial photo of the region as it exists today. Third, overlay photos of the same land area in the past. Fourth, make sure your audience knows that development is bad so that the expansion of development to cover your entire map makes it appear there is no undeveloped land left in the universe.
When examined from a broader view–such as the entire United States–urban sprawl has almost no impact at all. The U.S. has a land area of just over 3.5 million square miles. The 2010 census found that all urbanized areas of 50,000 people or more cover less than 87,000 square miles, or less than 2.5 percent of the total. This is up from 2.0 percent in 2000, and 73 percent of that change is due to population growth in the urbanized areas including the addition of 45 areas that had less than 50,000 people in 2000.
People across the globe buy this drug, either through online pharmacies because they are readily buy generic viagra available at much lower price than the other ED treatments so you should choose cheap Kamagra to cure ED symptoms. The problem if incapability is critical viagra pills from india because it does not hinder conception adds up as positive. Kamagra have proved effective to treat men’s sildenafil price in india erectile dysfunction. Moreover, some with visual destablization mounts tear formation, fluidy variation in blood stress (hypo & hypertension), sleepiness, shortness of breath, etc. has to be slovak-republic.org levitra samples taen to the doctor. When urban areas of 2,500 to 49,999 people are added, the spread of so-called sprawl is even less significant. The 2000 census found that these areas covered about 20,600 square miles, but in 2010 they covered only 19,600. This may be partly due to changes in Census Bureau definitions of what is developed but it is also because many of the largest areas graduated to populations of 50,000 or more, while few new areas were added. (Most of these data can be found on the Census Bureau’s urban and rural page.)
Altogether, the land that the Census Bureau defines as “urban,” meaning clusters of 2,500 people or more, grew from 2.6 percent to 3.0 percent of the nation’s land area. This can hardly be considered a devastating number, especially considering that nearly 30 percent of the nation’s land area is considered agricultural, which is so much land that only about 40 percent of it (12 percent of the total) is used for growing crops.
Even if all the land that has been urbanized in the past decade was agricultural, which it was not, all this really means is that land was converted from a low-valued use to a much higher-valued use. Nor are urban areas devoid of open spaces: parks, backyards, and other open areas included in the Census Bureau’s definition of “urban” are hydrologically permeable and provide diverse habitat for birds and other wildlife.
The real devastation is caused by policies designed to restrain sprawl. These policies make housing unaffordable, increase costs to businesses, increase traffic congestion, and end up merely pushing growth to regions that don’t have similar policies.
The increase in density in our cities/metropolitan areas is inevitable. As our population grows so will the areas in which we live. City centers will get taller and more intense in land use. Urban neighborhood will transition out of SF to MF (gradually. think duplex or granny flat). Suburban neighborhood will become the urban neighborhoods and green fields will become the suburban neighborhoods.
I believe growth management has it’s place in this process but I’m inclined to agree, in part, with Mr. O’Toole’s conclusion. For me there is a subtle but important difference between directing sprawl and “restraining” sprawl. UGB’s have created more problems than they have solved.
Interesting take, bennett. Nice to hear your perspective.
One thing stuck with me after reading this article, particularly this line: “Nor are urban areas devoid of open spaces: parks, backyards, and other open areas included in the Census Bureau’s definition of “urban” are hydrologically permeable and provide diverse habitat for birds and other wildlife.”
“Diverse habitat for birds and other wildlife” especially stuck with me, since that assertion is unsupported and seems like an oversimplification. What are the effects of suburbs on wildlife? I wondered. With the help of Google Scholar, I found this study: Exploring the Ecology of Suburban Wildlife.
The picture is more complex than the Antiplanner paints:
Like most things in life, suburbia is a mixed bag.
UGB’s have created more problems than they have solved.
IIRC, bennett, several times when we discussed the tendention between the “UGB – unaffordable” that is at the heart of the car culture, I included a paper or two that found the way that UGBs were set and administered was the problem (surely someone will drag that up with a quote mine). That is: they fail when they get jerked around.
At any rate, again, American cities will densify quickly when gasoline goes permanently over 8.00/gal. Then people will remember how to get around without a car, and this argument will go away and the big discussion on these types of sites will be who deserves the scarce water, and why are gummint planners screwing up the distribution of scarce water to the most deserving?
——–
And Frank, there are dozens of more recent papers on synanthropic species and the decline of the rest that do a good job at explaining biodiversity in cities.. We know the species richness and species diversity changes, and the amount and diversity of plant material is a driver, as well as the degree of fragmentation and permeability of corridors. There is someone nearby you who has done an excellent job at teasing out that very question.
DS
“when gasoline goes permanently over 8.00/gal”
When will that happen? And as gas goes higher, isn’t it possible we’d to switch to natural gas, which when adjusted for inflation, is the cheapest it’s been in recent history and half 2008 prices? If I had the money, I’d buy this Honda Civic now, although it would be lousy on National Forest roads.
“permeability of corridors”
This was my first hunch. Cities and highways can sever wildlife routes. I remember seeing some bighorn in the eastern dry stretch of the Columbia River Gorge. There was the river for water, if only they could access it, but they couldn’t due to I-84. Interestingly enough, in Portland, there is a corridor from Forest Park virtually to the coast. I’ve always wanted to try to hike that, as this guy did. But I digress.
Thanks for the crow link. I’d read something similar recently. I love crows. When I walk along the Sound at low tide, I see them dropping shellfish on the sidewalk or road to break them open. I also saw one take a hard piece of bread and dip it in a backed up water fountain to soften it. One thing’s certain: their species will outlast ours.
Dan, as Wendell Cox has pointed out repeatedly, there is plenty of “suburban sprawl” around urban cores in numerous (perhaps all) metropolitan areas of the EU. Heck, even Harry Potter lived on suburban Privet Drive when he wasn’t away at Wizarding School, in spite of the very high (as compared to the U.S.) motor fuel prices. And real suburban sprawl can be found in places like Surrey, in spite of the UK’s Town and Country Act and efforts by Prince Charles to discourage it.
Why do you think motor fuel prices will rise to $8 per gallon anyway?
Why do you think motor fuel prices will rise to $8 per gallon anyway?
This is the typical evil planner mentality. They have created this vision of the world that doesn’t jibe with what the average person prefers, and to thugs like planner boy, the only way to fulfill their dream is to wish for, and even work to ensure, that fuel is simply too expensive for the average person to afford. Of course, planner boy never stopped to think what the consequences of such expensive energy would be. For example, he wouldn’t be able to afford his little Jeep jaunts in the Colorado wilderness anymore, and it might be a little unaffordable to travel to the planner conferences to spew more CO2 as they lambast stupid Americans for daring to want to live in “sprawl”.
“American cities will densify quickly when gasoline goes permanently over 8.00/gal. ” – Dan
That what the peak oilers said in the 90s about $4 / gallon gas
CPZ, I’m well aware of the Bruegmann-type arguments, I can see his book on my shelf as I type this. What we say here is that when options are given, some people make other choices; if that’s not my most common argument on this site it is top three. We see it on the ground everywhere.
Frank, the axiom that “Corvid” operates on is ‘man is the simplifier of ecosystems’. Urban ecosystems are especially degraded because of construction techniques and impervious surfaces storing and reflecting heat – when we nod at descriptions like “leafy neighborhood’, lots of things are happening around that phrase. If we can make more of those – and ‘quality spaces’, not just green, we might get some biodiversity back.
And I think it is clear that spot oil prices are remaining high for several reasons – none of which look to be solvable – and within a decade we will be paying closer to full actual price for carbon fuel. This will require adjustments, one of them being proper market signals – pricing being a market signal.
DS
“At any rate, again, American cities will densify quickly when gasoline goes permanently over 8.00/gal.”
or
the retorts.
My point is that American urbanized areas are already densifying quickly regardless of gasoline prices. Density Increases in America are inevitable. It has been happening since the inception of the US. People that hate MF living can go densify green fields, but it doesn’t matter. Cities a growing. And despite what you hear around here, it’s not a pissing match between which built environment typology is growing marginally faster. It’s all getting denser. Until we stop growing economically and in population, there is no avoiding increases in density. This is America. Self sort. Live where you want to live. But it’s going to get denser eventually.
I guess I missed the part where they showed the “devastating impacts”.
MJ, hit the ‘play’ on the videos.
DS
Dan,
I just see a bunch of GIFs showing land cover change over time. No videos. Is the devastation implied? Or metaphorical?
Species diversity: I live in Portland SW; a fairly densely-packed environment. At my last property, also in an urban/suburban environment in Portland SW, there was a small stream running through the back of the property, which I managed for wildlife by removing blackberries and other non-native species of plants, leaving snags standing, etc. By the time we left, some 15 years later, we’d recorded over 120 species of birds at the site, from buntings to waterfowl. Beaver built a dam there, leading to increased diversity of aquatic wildlife. We lived four miles from the heart of downtown Portland.
We left primarily because Portland Bureau of Environmental Services slapped an “environmental overlay” on over half of our property, and sent us some 200 pages of dead trees telling us what we could not do as a result of the designation. In order to replace a rotting deck on the back of the house, we were informed that we now must send BES architectural renderings and $1200, after which they would inform us as to whether or not they would allow the replacement. No vegetable garden could be planted in the yard, because vegetables are non-native plant species. I could go on, but you get the idea.
I replaced the deck anyway, sold the property to a realtor, and we moved to a hilltop a couple of miles away – safe from BES and their thirty-something know-it-alls.
MJ, most of these places you can clearly see the gray increasing, which is impervious cover. Those watersheds with over ~40% impervious are de facto under a disturbance event which certainly is devastating to to those ecological communities that are no more.
DS
Dan,
I’m not sure about that. The GIF maps don’t have a legend, so is it not clear whether the gray-shaded area represents actual impervious surface or just urban development of some type. Nor is there an indication of the share of each cell in the map’s grid that is covered with impervious surface.
MJ, urban development _is_ impervious surface. And large-lot lawns are considered semi-pervious in many humid areas.
Nevertheless, there are – literally – dozens of studies out there that quantify the development type, the $ impervious, and the resulting eutrophication and channel scour by % impervious. These effects have many costs, not the least of which is the requirement for water treatment plants to upgrade their facilities.
Happy long weekend.
DS