27 
5. A high level of employment through the creation of new markets 
by coordinating housing, and. transportation, programing with in- 
dustrial relocation to the suburbs. | | 
6. A wider range of cultural opportunities through, higher density 
and more heterogeneous development of suburban areas.*t 
Existing patterns of urban growth and development are conditioned 
by an interrelated set of public and private decisions. ‘While the 
private market by and large sets the tone, scale and pace of develop- 
ment, public actions directly or indirectly affect, influence, and struc- 
ture the shape of development.*? Thus, a critique of present urban 
development patterns must take into account the full range of political 
and economic forces at work. 
What are the specific consequences of urban sprawl or unplanned 
urban growth? It has been shown that— * 
1. Asprawled or discontinuous suburban development is more costly 
and less efficient than a more compact one, each at the same density 
within settled areas. Many costs depend on maximum distance or maxi- 
mum area; if these were reduced, costs would be lower per capita or 
per family served. 
2. Sprawl wastes land since the intervening lands are typically not 
used for any purpose.** 
3. Sprawl encourages land speculation which is unproductive, 
absorbs capital, manpower and entrepreneurial skill without com- 
mensurate public gains. It destroys or impairs economic calculations 
that ideally lead to maximum general welfare. 
4. It is nequitable to allow a system in which the new land occupier 
is required to shoulder such a heavy burden of capital charges and 
debt mainly for site costs—costs which in large part are unnecessary 
and unavoidable. 
Most of the problems of sprawl relate to density. Since there are 
fewer houses per acre in the suburbs than in the city, it follows that, 
with respect to infrastucture, there are fewer requirements per family 
for infrastructure in the city than in the suburbs. Thus, if the suburbs 
could be developed at higher, more urban densities, less money/family 
would have to be devoted to infrastructure costs.*° This assertion was 
recently given some support in a study undertaken for Fairfax County, 
Va., which demonstrated that an expenditure of $20 million for sewers 
could support a new community population of 465,000 people—twice 
as many people as under sprawl conditions. These savings accrue for 
other infrastructure items, such as streets: For example a Baltimore 
study indicated that a new community development may require up 
to 200 fewer miles of streets—a savings approaching $800 million.*° 
8! See Herbert Gans, People and Plans, ‘‘“Homogeneity versus Heterogeneity” (New York, N.Y.: Basic 
Books), 1968. 
32 Kaplan, op. cit., p. 3. 
33 Marion Clawson, ‘‘Urban Sprawl and Speculation in Suburban Land,’”’? Land Economics, May 1962. 
34 Two articles, “The Case for Scatteration’’ by Lessinger and ‘‘The Nature and Economics of Urban 
Sprawl” by Harvey and Clark are often cited to show that sprawl] works effectively to withhold land from 
premature development at low densities. While sprawl does seem to have this effect the wasteful sprawl 
pattern is haphazard and uncontrolled. A public policy to create land banks or to channel suburban develop- 
ment by means of coordinated public programing of capital improvements or by offering incentives (tax 
abatements, etc.) to private developers would have the same effect but would be much more predictable 
and would also serve to capture the increase in land values that usually accrues to the private developers 
(who artificially hold land off the market) and return it to the public coffers. 
8 Cited by Prof. Charles Harr in testimony presented before the Subcommittee on Banking and Cur- 
rency, Oct. 22, 1969, p. 7. The question of a breakpoint is unanswerable because different services operate 
more peutelently at different levels—the optimum point is unknown. 
id. 
57—242—71——_3 
