Talk:Urban sprawl

message: I am making no edits to the article, but this article is very biased--it has so much POV that it is basically an opinion piece. It is full of loaded language and not everyone thinks that "urban sprawl" is a great evil. The truth is most want to live in low density neighbors, otherwise there would be a large market demand showing otherwise. This article needs major work to become less POV.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.107.58 (talk) 03:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article represents the bottom of the pile as wikipedia articles go.  It's conspicuously anti-sprawl, and the arguments for and against are completely OR, with no citations whatsoever.  It all sounds like an op-ed or someone's personal website.  If there are no objections, I'm going to begin the process of stripping this thing down to where it's actually supported by sources.--Loodog 22:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made some effort to consolidate the clear duplication of sections and to give a clearer structure to the rest. Still indeed much work needed to give clearer sources and avoid duplication. I think we need to give the definition of the term a clearer grounding in the relevant literature.  Will work on it as possible. Peregrine981 (talk) 11:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV violations and unverified claims 

message: "Currently, the largest shopping mall in the world is the West Edmonton Mall" actually now the biggest mall in the world is one in china, and over the next 5 years the 4 biggest malls in the world will be there as well...I don't have the info right now as to edit it the way it should. But maybe someone would like to investigate.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.128.75.124 (talk) 03:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate 

message: Here is a website about tall buildings proposed for future cities to stop urban sprawl: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Illinois.  Would you like to add this to the website? Sundiiiiii 04:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only this one is more up-to-date & modern & more beautiful, & it's under "See Also" in the above website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Seed_4000.  Could you please add it? Sundiiiiii 15:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plans for the future? 

message: They claim that segregated and stratified development was institutionalized in the early 1950s and 60s with the financial industries' illegal process of redlining neighborhoods...
Unless this line is meant to demonstrate that "anti-racists" tend to blur the facts when arguing a point, this should be clarified to "...the financial industries' currently illegal process..." as it was legal (and in fact instigated by US Federal Government policies) back in the 50s and 60s.
Contrary to the discussion in the archives on the subject, White Flight is not a false or tenuous concept. While individuals' racial discrimination (bigotry if you prefer) is often speciously ascribed a more conscious, conspiratorial nature than is appropriate, the legislation behind the phenomena of White Flight is a matter of public record.  "New Deal" policies enacted by FDR's administration attempted to prevent forclosures during the depression era by lowering the standards of mortgage lending.  The financing for this govenment-backed program was assured by a property appraisal system, and what "proved" to be the most reliable determining factor for borrower credibility was the distribution of racial demographics in a neighborhood. When this was applied through another New Deal program- the National Housing Authority- (and after WWII the GI Bill, both aimed primarily at stimulating the construction economy) you practically have the Federal Government handing money to white people who want to abandon their current housing (or demand for) and build new houses on undeveloped land- i.e. white flight -> suburban expansion (sprawl).  This was perfectly legal until Civil Rights legislation in the mid-sixties, and then a grey area until 1977.
It seems to me this is more about the background of the subject matter than an "argument for", but I have as of yet not made a direct contribution to the Wiki so I probably shouldn't start with something this controversial... --Jkwala 06:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overselling White Flight? 

message: I spent some time today cleaning up the article.  I added a number of citations so I removed the original research warning box from the page. I also cleaned up the POV in the support / opposition section and removed some uncited text.  Please let me know if you have comments or suggestions on areas that can be further cleaned up. Midwestmax 23:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article clean up and citations 

message: Someone added that higher density correlates to higher prices, indicating a shortage of higher-density housing relative to its demand.   Not true.  Central Falls, Rhode Island has one of the highest densities in the country, yet land value is low, because it's poverty-striken.  Often poverty correlates with density.  At the other end, we have clean and affluent established city neighborhoods like Manhattan, which have high density.  So it's not simply supply and demand on low density neighborhoods against supply and demand on high density ones, so much as which ones they are.--Loodog 19:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Higher density = higher prices? 

message: Why should the photograph be removed? Honestly its probably one of the most appropriate images in the article. You have an area experiencing rapid population growth in a state the Census ranked an overall position of number 5 for the entire decade of the 90s and is this year ranked number 6. Jordan Landing has been called a catalyst for igniting growth all around it. Jordan Landing is characterized by a "gone to hell suburban cultural wasteland replete with national chain stores", it was built in a formerly rural area, it is massive and expansive, and it is regularly blamed for overwhelming infrastructure (even the electrical grid). I can point out many other photos on this page that quite frankly add nothing, I mean who hasn't seen one farm turn into an apartment complex? And with Jordan Landing what says suburban sprawl more than one its three "super" stores.  71.219.90.110 15:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jordan Landing is obviously very correlated and archetypical of sprawl.  I concede that.  But a picture of it is better suited to the "Developments characteristic of sprawl" section or "Examples of sprawl" than "Increased transportation costs".  The picture does not convey any information demonstrating tranportation.  A picture of highways or exit ramps leading to it would be appropriate in this section.--Loodog 15:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There you go.  Discuss it in the discussion page rather than merely continue a childish reversion war.  So, the question is whether a particular place makes a good example, and of what.  First step in developing this theme is to put in a mere link to its own Jordan Landing article.  That article should then be expanded to describe how that place fits into various interpretations of "suburbia," "sprawl," "exurb," "edge city," "fast food," "transit oriented," "new urbanism" and whatnot.  Once that's done, then decide how much should go into this article and how much should be reserved to the specific place article.  As of now, the Jordan Landing article seems woefully short, not of references, but of exposition of how it fits into the various theoretical schemes that concern this article.  And no, I know nothing of the place, living on a small island off the coast of New Jersey and not having seen Utah in the past thirty years.  Jim.henderson 15:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, you can write about Jordan's Landing as an example of sprawl in this article; I'm just objecting to the placement of the picture.--Loodog 16:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the suggestions. I'll bolster its page first. 71.219.90.110 16:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jordan Landing

message: In many suburban communities, even stores and activities that are close by are contrived to be much further, by separating uses with fences, walls, and engineered drainage ditches.
Is this really intentional on the part of the designers, or is it just a case of completely automobile centric vision? Is there any evidence that strip mall designs actively want to discourage peds and bikes?  If so, what is their motive? --Jaded-view 17:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange claim about intent 

message: Some of the points in Criticism overlaps with Response, should move them to either side and let the response be actual counterarguments, please... 124.82.15.61 15:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlapping points 

message: I'm very tempted to protect this article for a couple of days. Please stop the edit war and address the issues on this talk page. -- Donald Albury 23:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The war seems to have died down, for the moment. I'll be keeping an eye on this article, as I'm sure others will - but if it gets bad again, feel free to report the incident to the Administrator's noticeboard or Request Page Protection. UltraExactZZ  Claims ~ Evidence  13:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Taking one random claim added, that urban people live shorter lives than suburban people, is not supported by a quick perusal of google scholar (search for 'urban suburban lifespan') where the two papers I found in czech republic and china indicate that urban living is better than suburban and rural lifespan (richer people move to higher densities with greater amenity).  In the US the differences in socioeconomic standing (black slums vs white suburban america) reverse the situation.  The conclusion would be that richer people live longer, something that says nothing about urban sprawl.  I would like to see some serious academic paper citations before accepting anything added by this person. --Jaded-view (talk) 02:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  You have access to healthcare, you live longer.--Loodog (talk) 05:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Historically, cities have been population sinks. Diseases spread more easily in cities. Crowded buildings blocking sunshine from narrow streets and polluted air led to vitamin D deficiencies. Polluted air also caused respiratory problems; people were being directly killed by smog in London as recently as 1952. The relationship of factors affecting the relative health and lifespan of people living in cities, suburbs and rural areas is complex, and any discussion of the topic in Wikipedia calls for the use of solid reliable sources. -- Donald Albury 14:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Until the development of modern public health systems (a concept excoriated by conservatives, who considered it an unconscionable intrusion into private lives), urban life was more unhealthy; history is clear on that. Since the public health revolution led by groups like the Milwaukee Sewer Socialists, this is no longer true; history is also clear on that. So you are both right, and I hope this is in fact over.--Orange Mike  | Talk 14:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are we done? 

message: I think it's misleading to give Helsinki as an example of urban sprawl. True, it has a very low population density but this is planned and distributed in a very different manner to the American and Australian cities otherwise listed. Much of Helsinki is composed of relatively small clusters of medium-high density housing, often three-story apartment blocks, surrounded by woodland and parks, rather than an endless array of large, detached houses with private gardens. Helsinki was actually carefully planned in this manner, and it creates walkable, centered, serviced communities whilst giving a great deal of space per person as well as a semi-rural feel.212.20.248.186 (talk) 14:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Helsinki

message: The petroleum consumption graph in the article should be removed. The data is over 20 years old and is probably horribly inaccurate. UrbanNerd (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Petroleum Consumption Graph 

message: I don't know why UrbanNerd is determined to keep a low resolution landsat of Boston, but Boston and the surrounding communities comprise one of the densest regions in the United States (see List of U.S. states by population density with Massachusetts ranked third, the Boston metro area of course being the densest region of Massachusetts).    This region is not only dense, but also old, with settlements (including those outside of Boston proper) dating to the 17th century.  No doubt, there must be some modern subdivisions captured in the landsat image, but the resolution is so poor that readers will not be able to differentiate new from old.  Lastly, the region is served by the third largest commuter rail system in the United States by ridership, and the fourth largest rapid transit system.  It is, therefore, a terrible image with which to depict sprawl, which is defined in this article as more recent, car-dependent suburbs.  Fletcher (talk) 17:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, DO NOT single out a user. Secondly you would have to be completely clueless to think Greater Boston does not have a sprawl problem. Just because it has less of a sprawl problem than other cities does not mean it does not have sprawl. The image clearly shows car dependent suburbs and "sprawling" from the inner city. The image is of low resolution and could be replaced. If you wish to find a better landsat image of say Chicago, St.Louis, Houston ? Than go ahead. But simply deleting the image with an ignorant comment is foolish. The excuse of "elsewhere has more sprawl" is not relevant. If you actually think Boston does not have sprawl I encourage you to reread this article and perhaps go to a local library and research the topic further. Also edit warring is not an effective way to get your point across. Please follow the revert, discuss cycle process. UrbanNerd (talk) 18:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to single you out; I don't have a disagreement with anyone else here.  And please don't threaten me about 3RR or warn me about edit warring; you are in fact at three reverts yourself, and no less culpable of edit warring.   So my comments are "ignorant"?  It's pretty rich that you give me a sanctimonious lecture on wiki policy while flagrantly violating the civility policy in the same comment. To address your points, I did not say Boston does not have a sprawl problem; maybe it does, but a picture of metro Boston showing dense, old settlements that are served by public transportation does not illustrate the topic of this article.  To show sprawl around Boston we should find a more detailed photo in which the reader can easily see the sprawl and won't confuse it with what is not generally considered sprawl.  For example, one might look to the west of Boston and think, "oh, there's sprawl," but you'd be looking at Watertown and Waltham, both settled in the 1630s.  So where, specifically, is the sprawl in this photo, and more importantly how is the reader supposed to tell where there's sprawl and where there isn't?  Because sprawl is not "any development," but is defined in a more specific way in this article.  I see from the edit history that you were the one who added the image, and I remind you that you don't own the article and you should be willing to accept people changing it.  The article is already illustrated by several images and isn't harmed by losing this one. Fletcher (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with "replacing" the image. I do have a problem with deleting the image citing Boston having no sprawl. The image clearly shows communities outside the beltway (I-95) with sprawl. (Dover, Wayland, etc) Perhaps the image could be replaced with another that better shows sprawl. UrbanNerd (talk) 21:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Landsat image 

message: It looked like someone added a sentence from a paper in the 2nd paragraph just to have it on the wiki page...it was out of place and made no sense whatsoever so I removed it Random2001 (talk) 16:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random Paper Sentence 

message: If urban places are defined in terms of walkability, and sprawling places are defined in terms of their drivability and lack of walkability, then urban sprawl is an oxymoron.  At best, "urban" and "sprawl" are difficult to reconcile.  To the uninitiated, it would appear that sprawl is a characteristic of urban places since it's usually referenced by the term "urban sprawl. 
Similar confusions arise from terms like "urban development" and "urbanization." Both of these terms are used to refer to all forms of metropolitan development, even suburban greenfield development, which is universally understood to be suburban, by both proponents and detractors of suburbs. 
The term "urban sprawl" is misleading.  For the purposes of Wikipedia, maybe there should be a change in the name of the article to "Sprawl," with a disambiguation page listing of "Sprawl (planning concept)."
Oldsanfelipe (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "Urban" in this context refers to development of the kinds of facilities and infrastructure historically unique to cities. That is why the word is retained in the situations you reference. Nobody calls it "sprawl"; "urban sprawl" is the :WP:COMMONNAME, regardless of whether this offends your sense of logic or not. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Orange Mike wrote, "Nobody calls it 'sprawl.'" At best this statement is an exaggeration. Clearly "somebody" uses the term sprawl: James Howard Kunstler is one example.  If you are claiming that "urban sprawl" is the common word, how many sources do you have for this?Oldsanfelipe (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is "urban sprawl" an oxymoron?  

message: The Northeast Megalopolis (Boston, New York, Washington, and areas in between) is a horrible example of urban sprawl. It's large, and taken in aggregate it's not very dense, but the majority of the population is clustered in urban centers with density far higher than, say, Los Angeles. Many people in New York who can afford cars choose not to buy them because the public transportation infrastructure really is that good. Just because a metropolitan area is geographically large doesn't mean it's sprawling. I've taken down the satellite image of BosWash. Hopefully someone can find a better image to illustrate the phenomenon. Quodfui (talk) 23:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  New York as an example of Urban Sprawl 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Urban sprawl's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Jenkins":
From Lawn: Jenkins, Virginia S. The Lawn: A History of an American Obsession. Smithsonian Institution, 1994.
From Sunbury Pop Festival: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Urban sprawl]] 

message: Urban planners and geographers define, measure and describe sprawl mainly by the physical characteristics of urban development and land use. They are mostly focused on discovering various adverse effects associated with a sprawled pattern of urban development. Economists first try to understand the human behavior that causes urban sprawl. Secondly, economists focus on whether more or less urban sprawl is a consequence of a more efficient allocation of resources. Armed with such understanding, economists then can evaluate various fiscal instruments and government policies that improve resource allocation and see how such improvements change urban sprawl. The tools used by economists are theoretical models of urban development that can be solved under simple assumptions, as well as more advanced models of various degrees of complexity and sophistication that are calibrated with data and are solved numerically using computers.
Geographic versus economic sprawl
Anas and Rhee made a distinction between geographic and economic sprawl. Their definition of geographic sprawl is the total land in an urban area that is covered by roads, buildings or other structures and private yards and this is either the same or similar to the various physical definitions used by non-economists. They defined economic sprawl as the total cost of the trips that people make in commuting, in shopping, and in interacting with each other etc. The challenging idea here is that there can be enormous geographical sprawl with little economic sprawl or a great deal of economic sprawl with little geographic sprawl. It all depends on the preference for and feasibility of low density living on the one hand, which increases geographic sprawl; and the cost of travel which depends on the technology of travel on the other hand.
Actual versus optimal sprawl
An important issue for economists is the difference between actual sprawl and optimal sprawl. Economists have tried to understand whether the actual sprawl that we observe in the real world is too much or too little. And this question can be asked both for geographic and for economic sprawl. To understand the optimal amount of sprawl, economists examine whether resources are optimally allocated according to the principles of economic efficiency. Resources are allocated by markets and, in the case of urban sprawl, the most relevant markets are the land, housing and labor markets of urban areas. Urban areas are characterized by important externalities that cause resources to be allocated inefficiently. Perhaps the most important such externality is road traffic congestion and it is intimately related to land use. Each car traveler produces a trip by getting on the road and thus occupying some road capacity which delays others, but the traveler does not pay for the cost of the delay that he/she imposes on others. Therefore traveling is underpriced and the private cost of traveling experienced by the traveler on a trip that takes place under congested conditions is below the social cost of the trip. This means that there will be too many trips and too much congestion. With too much congestion, the economic sprawl measured as aggregate travel cost, will be too high. But it is not clear a priori whether too much congestion will cause too much or too little geographic sprawl. Policy should be aimed at pricing traffic congestion better, the source of the externality, not aimed at reducing sprawl directly. If this is done, the level of congestion will decrease. But whether urban sprawl increases or decreases will depend on various factors. The key point is that overall economic well-being will increase by pricing congestion. Such higher economic welfare can be associated with more sprawl or with less sprawl.
Urban sprawl in the monocentric model
The monocentric model refers to a very simple tool used by urban economists to understand cities. In this model, it is assumed that all work happens in only one city center or downtown but workers reside in housing spread all around the downtown. In the basic monocentric model, economists assume that job locations in the downtown are not allowed to change no matter what happens. Using such a model in the 1970s, before urban sprawl had entered common parlance, Arnott [2] and Kanemoto [3] showed that if congestion is unpriced the urban area would be too spread out, covering too much land. Pines and Sadka [4] took this result a step further by arguing that urban growth boundaries that limit urban land expansion would work as a good substitute for congestion tolling in a monocentric city in which congestion pricing cannot be implemented.
When is more geographic sprawl a consequence of optimal resource allocation?
This issue was studied in three different contexts that depart from the assumptions of the monocentric model, and in each context it was shown that more geographic sprawl can indeed be the consequence of reducing the congestion externality and the total road cost of travel. The first context is the suburbanization model of Anas and Rhee [5]. They showed that when congestion tolls are levied on road traffic, it can occur that more residents choose to reside and work in the suburbs in order to avoid the higher congestion tolls associated with the longer commuting from the suburbs to the city. As this happens, the suburban and total urban land areas expand. So economic sprawl decreases while geographic sprawl increases as economic welfare improves. The actual geographic sprawl before the tolls are levied is too little. The policy implication of this result is that when pricing congestion is not possible, planners could adopt policies that give suburbs more room to expand at the expense of agriculture (expansive as opposed to restrictive urban growth boundaries), lowering the price of suburban residential land, thus inducing more people to live and work in the suburbs, which in turn reduces the cost of travel but does so by increasing the total suburban land area. In a different context, Anas and Pines [6] showed that if there are two unequal-in-population cities in which all residents are employed in the downtowns only, then when congestion is priced in both cities, population will shift from the larger more congested city to the smaller less congested one causing congestion to decrease in the larger city, and to increase in the smaller city, while the sum of congestion in both cities decreases. Geographic sprawl in the large city decreases, but it increases by more in the smaller city, as economic welfare improves. Such an outcome occurs, when the elasticity of substitution between residential land and other goods is small enough so that the residents that move from the larger city to the smaller city in order to avoid the impact of the higher congestion tolls in the larger city on their disposable incomes, demand houses with sufficiently large land areas. In this case, when congestion tolls cannot be used, welfare can be improved by using a restrictive urban boundary that limits the land area of the larger city while at the same time using an expansive growth boundary that increases the land area of the smaller city. In the third context, Anas and Pines [7] modeled a system of many identical cities or towns where each city is created by a required infrastructure investment. In each city, workers can only work in the downtown. When congestion is priced, each city can become smaller in population and in land area, less dense and less congested but more cities are created which alleviates congestion by spreading the total population over more cities. While the geographic sprawl in each city decreases, the sum of the land areas of the towns increases. Again, more sprawl across the system of cities is associated with an improvement in economic welfare. These insights are important for several reasons. First, planners and geographers should not reach conclusions about the desirability or undesirability of urban sprawl unless they first understand the economic behavior that causes urban sprawl. Second, there are situations as explained above where the conclusions about urban sprawl depend on whether we are looking at only one urban area or many interconnected urban areas. Where the aim is to reduce economic sprawl, the correct policy may well be to reduce urban sprawl in each urban area, but creating more urban sprawl in the aggregate by creating more but smaller urban areas. Or the opposite may be true: to create more urban sprawl in each urban area while reducing it in the aggregate by creating fewer but larger urban areas  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andromeda501 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economic analysis of urban sprawl 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Urban sprawl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070409092844/http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/EIB14/ to http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/EIB14/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924102819/http://www.smartcommunities.ncat.org/articles/sprawl.pdf to http://www.smartcommunities.ncat.org/articles/sprawl.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060619175741/http://www.transact.org/PDFs/DriventoSpend.pdf to http://www.transact.org/PDFs/DriventoSpend.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.sightline.org/publications/books/CS2006/CS06/CS06-nomaps
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070830033549/http://unisa.edu.au/news/2005/241005.asp to http://www.unisa.edu.au/news/2005/241005.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: I moved the history section to Greater London Built-up Area --PJ Geest (talk) 08:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section 

message: The definition of urban sprawl should be updated to include all infrastructure that feeds the "growing needs" of cities and their fringes.
There are too many excuses for industrial wind power sprawl, which puts huge eyesores on the skyline and also requires new transmission lines through rural and wild areas. Fracking sprawl is another big problem, though not as visually evident at ground level.
The root problem is population growth, which we're not supposed to question either, along with "economic growth" driven by it and a debt-based system.
https://www.google.com/search?q=energy+sprawl+land+use  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.115.118 (talk) 01:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no mention of wind "farms," the most visible form of sprawl today? 

message: H 2001:8F8:1471:C763:A816:B0DD:44C1:D384 (talk) 08:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Environment affects by transportation