Challenging The Costs Of Sprawl

Is low-density development, a.k.a. sprawl, really more costly than more compact development? Wendell Cox and Joshua Utt of The Heritage Foundation question the assumptions behind the popularity of "smart growth."

1 minute read

July 22, 2004, 10:00 AM PDT

By Deborah Myerson

Cox and Utt refute arguments that smart growth is cost-effective and challenge what they call "Current Urban Planning Assumptions," i.e., government spending is lower in older municipalities with higher population densities and slower rates of population growth. The authors evaluate census data and conclude that the lowest public expenditures per capita tend to be in newer, faster-growing communities of medium and lower densities.

Thanks to Deborah Myerson

FULL STORY: The Costs of Sprawl Reconsidered: What the Data Really Show

Friday, June 25, 2004 in The Heritage Foundation

Land Use United States

I love the variety of courses, many practical, and all richly illustrated. They have inspired many ideas that I've applied in practice, and in my own teaching. Mary G., Urban Planner

I love the variety of courses, many practical, and all richly illustrated. They have inspired many ideas that I've applied in practice, and in my own teaching.

Mary G., Urban Planner

Get top-rated, practical training

Start Learning

Advertise with us

Urban Design for Planners 1: Software Tools

This six-course series explores essential urban design concepts using open source software and equips planners with the tools they need to participate fully in the urban design process.