This article was downloaded by: [Mass Inst of Tech]

On: 21 January 2010

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 917278563]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of the American Planning Association

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t782043358

Is Los Angeles-Style Sprawl Desirable?

Reid Ewing

To cite this Article Ewing, Reid(1997) 'Is Los Angeles-Style Sprawl Desirable?', Journal of the American Planning
Association, 63: 1, 107 — 126
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/01944369708975728
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944369708975728

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 11s Los Angeles-
Style s rgwl
Desiral! le?
I ReidEwing
Downloaded By: [Mass Inst of Tech] At: 00:26 21 January 2010

P
eter Gordon and Harry Richardson (G & R) have made a cottage
industry out of challenging, time and again, planners’ steadfast be-
lief in compact development (Gordon and Wong 1985; Gordon et al.
This article reviews the literature on 1986; Gordon et al. 1988; H. W. Richardson 1988; Gordon and Richard-
characteristics, causes, and costs o f al-
ternative development patterns. In
son 1989; Gordon e t al. 1989a; Gordon e t al. 1989b; Richardson and Gor-
doing so it debunks arguments by Cor- don 1989; Richardson et al. 1990; Gordon et al. 1991; Gordon e t al. 1992;
don and Richardson in favor o f Los Bae and Richardson 1993; Richardson and Gordon 1993; Gordon and
Angeles-style sprawl. Sprawl is not
Richardson 1994a; Gordon and Richardson 1994b; Gordon and Richard-
suburbanization generally, but rather
forms o f suburban development that son 199Ga; Gordon and Richardson 1996b; Gordon and Richardson
lack accessibility and open space. 1997). Their articles tend to counterbalance inflated claims by some on
Sprawl is not a natural response to the other side of the issue. Their arguments are thought-provoking and,
market forces, but a product o f sub-
at least superficially, credible.
sidies and other market imperfections.
The costs o f sprawl are borne by all o f Yet, like most planners, I remain convinced that sprawl is undesirable.
us, not just those creating it, and in- As background to the drafting of Florida’s anti-sprawl rule (part of Flori-
clude inflated public spending, loss o f da’s growth management apparatus), I wrote an article some time ago ti-
resource lands, and a waning sense o f
community. The only realistic cure for
tled “Characteristics, Causes, and Effects of Sprawl” (Ewing 1994). It was
sprawl is active planning o f the sort all negative. Where did I go wrong, or where did Gordon and Richardson?
practiced almost everywhere except Asked to respond to G & R’s latest, I have at last taken the time
the United States (and beginning to to compare our definitions, premises, logic, and empirical claims. Our
appear here out o f necessity).
differences become clearer when the alternative to compact cities is iden-
Ewing is an associate professor in the tified explicitly: Is Los Angeles-style sprawl desirable? This question
College o f Engineering and Design at would be purely rhetorical, of course, were G & R not promoting just
Florida International University. He is that, Los Angeles-style sprawl. These two Los Angeles economists have
the author o f Best Development Practices,
published in September 1996 by APA
got to get out more.
(in cooperation with the Urban Land
Institute); and o f Transportation and Characteristics of Sprawl
Land Use Innovations, to be published
This discussion is divided into four parts, relating in turn to sprawl’s
in 1997 by APA (in cooperation with
the Surface Transportation Policy characteristics, causes, costs, and cures. Both G & R and I use the term
Project). “compact” to describe one end of the development continuum. De-
pending on the context, G & R equate compact development to high den-
journal of the American Planning
sity or monocentric development. This is a most unfortunate
Association, Vol. 63, No. 1, Winter
1997. OAmerican Planning characterization of compactness. High density is not the preferred living
Association, Chicago, IL. arrangement for most Americans; and monocentric development is an

APA JOURNAL-WINTER1997
 REID EWING

anachronism, as downtowns have become just one of TABLE 1. Characterizationsof sprawl

many centers in large metropolitan areas.
Low-Density Strip
My idea of “compact” development is more inclu-
Development Develop ment
sive. Compact development requires some concentra-
tion of employment, some clustering of housing, and Whyte
some mixing of land uses (but neither high density (1 957)
nor monocentric development).
G & R’s concept of sprawl also differs from my Clawson
own. Even our reactions to the term “sprawl” differ. (1 962) X
They avoid the term, thinking it pejorative, while I I
find it descriptive and useful. No term anchors the Lessinger
other end of the development continuum, opposite (1 962) X
compact development, quite as well as does sprawl.
Harvey and
G & R’s concept of sprawl is a moving target,
Clark
sometimes denoting “low density,” sometimes “dis- (1 965) X X
persed,” sometimes “decentralized,” sometimes “poly-
centric,” sometimes “suburban” development. They Bahl
lump the benign with the problematic, disarming (1 968)
would-be critics. This quote is illustrative: “. . . [tlhat
Downloaded By: [Mass Inst of Tech] At: 00:26 21 January 2010

suburbanization itself should be an object of attack is McKee and

amazing, given the expressed preferences of a majority Smith
of Americans for suburban lifestyles and the supposed (1 972) X X
sanctity of the principle of consumer sovereignty.” It
is not suburbanization per se, but the wasteful form it Archer
(1 973)
so often takes that most critics of sprawl attack. Even
the most ardent New Urbanists, however, are drawing
RERC
master plans for projects in the suburbs (Duany and
(1 974)
Plater-Zyberk 1991; Calthorpe 1993; Katz 1994). They
reason that if growth is going to the suburbs anyway, Ottensmann
better it be in the form of compact development (1977) X I
than sprawl.
The forms of development most often character- Popenoe
ized as sprawl are: (1) leapfrog or scattered develop- (1 979) X X X
ment, (2) commercial strip development, or (3) large
expanses of low-density or single-use development (as Mills
in sprawling bedroom communities). (See table 1.) (1981)
This list constitutes a definition of sprawl. It appears
in Florida’s anti-sprawl rule, and certainly has more Heikkila and
Peiser
face-validity than G & R’s characterizations of sprawl.
(1 992) X
Yet it, too, oversimplifies.
Specifically, this definition fails to recognize that Beaumont
sprawl is a matter of degree. The line between scat- (1 994) X X
tered development, a type of sprawl, and multicen-
tered development, a type of compact development by Downs
most people’s reckoning, is a fine one. “At what num- (1 994) X
ber of centers polycentrism ceases and sprawl begins
is not clear” (Gordon and Wong 1985). Equally elusive
is the line between leapfrog development and econom-
ically efficient “discontinuous development,” or be-
tween commercial strips and “activity corridors.” Fulton
(1 995)
Discontinuous development is a settlement pat-
tern in which certain sites are bypassed initially to
leave room for more intense uses later on. This pattern (1995) X

J
108 APA JOURNAL*WINTER1997
 IS LOS ANGELES-STYLE SPRAWL DESIRABLE?

cannot be considered sprawl if the amount of by- More sophisticated measures can be derived with any
passed land is only that required for more intense uses conventional travel demand modeling system. The
(Ohls and Pines 1975; Peiser 1989; Heikkila and Peiser Florida Standard Urban Transportation Model Struc-
1992). Activity corridors are linear developments ture (typical of its ilk) calculates and reports vehicle
along transportation routes. They cannot be consid- miles of travel (VMT), vehicle hours of travel (VHT),
ered sprawl if the corridors have the density and land- and even “accessibility indices” for individual traffic
use mix required to support alternatives to the auto- zones, using travel time, cost, or distance between
mobile (Lessinger 1962; Beimborn and Rabinowitz zones as the measure of accessibility.
1991; Ministry of Transportation et al. 1992). Another indicator is lack offunctional open space. “It
Wherever one draws the line between sprawl and is physically impossible to preserve large open spaces
related forms of development may be challenged un- in reasonable proximity to people when millions of
less the choice is (1)quantifiable and (2) related to im- people are spread out in uniform low densities. The
pacts: it is the impacts of development that render barrack-like development of land leaves people with
development patterns undesirable, not the patterns the monotony of urban space and form at the scale of
themselves. the street and private y a r d (Schneider 1970).
Strip development presents a solid wall of com-
Sprawl Indicators mercial uses. Low-density suburban development sub-
It is for this reason that Florida’s anti-sprawl rule divides land until every developable acre is spoken for;
include “indicators” of sprawl as well as definitions. although, if you count people’s yards, there is abun-
Downloaded By: [Mass Inst of Tech] At: 00:26 21 January 2010

The most important indicator is poor accessibility. Resi- dant open space, it is all in private hands or in hold-
dences may be far from out-of-home activities, a state ings too small for community uses. The ultimate
of poor residential accessibility. Or out-of-home activities caricature of this situation is the walled and gated sub-
may be far from one another, a state of poor destination division, where no land at all (not even street rights-
accessibility. Both types of accessibility affect the effi- of-way) is public.
ciency of household travel patterns (Hanson and Even leapfrog development, which leaves large
Schwab 1987; Williams 1989; Tarry 1992; Handy 1993; areas undeveloped, fails to provide functional open
Ewing et al. 1994; Ewing 1995b; Handy 1995). space. The leftover lands are no longer farmed and yet,
In scattered or leapfrog development, residents being in private hands, are unavailable for public uses.
and service providers must pass vacant land on their Open land in metropolitan areas, if not used for urban
way from one developed use to another. In classic strip purposes, typically is not used at all. It has been esti-
development, the consumer must pass other commer- mated that there is about as much idle land in and
cial uses (usually on crowded arterials) on the way around cities as there is land used (in any meaningful
from one store to the next: the antithesis of one-stop sense) for urban purposes (Clawson 1962).
shopping. Of course, in low-density, single-use devel- The term “functional” applied to open space sim-
opment, everything is far apart as the result of large ply means that the space performs some useful public
private land holdings and segregation of land uses. function. Permanent and public open space may be
The beauty of equating sprawl with poor accessi- used to contain development, link neighborhoods, or
bility is twofold. First, unlike simple archetypes, this buffer incompatible uses (Whyte 1964; Ewing 1991;
indicator recognizes that real-world development pat- Jarvis 1993; Yaro et al. 1993; Girling and Helpband
terns are a matter of degree (as discussed above). No 1994). If left natural, it helps control floods, purify
real-world pattern will exactly match an archetype. By runoff, recharge groundwater, support wildlife, and af-
defining sprawl generically, we need not debate ford scenic views valued by residents (Spirn 1984;
whether a given pattern is enough like “leapfrog de- Shaw et al. 1985; McHarg 1992; Adams 1994). If
velopment” or some other archetype to constitute bounded and amenitized, open space provides gather-
sprawl. ing places for casual social interaction, recreation, and
Second, this indicator is readily operationalized. civic functions. Without such public spaces, there can
A host of accessibility measures are found in the litera- be no authentic public life in a community (Alexander
ture (Ingram 1971; Morris et al. 1979; Pirie 1979; Koe- et al. 1977; Gehl 1987; Whyte 1988; Crowhurst, Len-
nig 1980; kchardson and Young 1982; Handy 1993; nard, and Lennard 1995).
Ewing 1995b; Handy 1995; Kitamura et al. 1995; Cer- Open space can be used in the same way as accessi-
vero and Kockelman 1996). Simple measures of acces- bility, as an indicator to distinguish sprawl from other
sibility, such as average trip length or average travel development patterns. It can be categorized, quantified,
time, can be obtained from household travel surveys. and assessed for functional value (Briggs and France

APA JOURNAL’WINTER 1997 1109

 REID EWTNG

1980; Schroeder 1988; Kaplan and Kaplan 1989; Erwin The second pattern, my version of sprawl, has few
1990; Morrison et al. 1992,221-62; Anderson and Gut- significant centers, low average density, and wide gaps
zwiller 1994; Mertes and Hall 1995). in the urban fabric due to leapfrogging. This is no
straw man. It is a common urban form, and many
Graphic Illustration of Our Different Views planners and policy makers object to it.
Three urban density functions are plotted in fig- The third figure serves reasonably well as either
ure 1, corresponding to G & R’s and my respective G & R’s sprawl pattern or my compact pattern-a clear
views of compact development and of sprawl. The indication of how much our concepts of sprawl differ.
first, G & R’s compact pattern, is European in its very This pattern is multicentered, has moderate average
high central densities, high average densities, and densities, and is continuous except for permanent
abrupt urban-rural boundary. This is a straw man par open spaces, or vacant lands to be developed within
excellence, since it is as yet unseen in the United States. the standard planning time frame.

Not Just Planners

For at least 25 years, the Urban Land Institute
(representing large land developers) and the Na-
tional Association of Home Builders have promoted
mixed use and clustered development (Urban Land
Institute 1961; Witherspoon e t al. 1976; Priest et al.
Downloaded By: [Mass Inst of Tech] At: 00:26 21 January 2010

1977; Council on Development Choices for the 80s

1981; David Jensen Associates 1985; National Associ-
ation of Home Builders 1986a; Schwanke et al. 1987;
Ewing 1991; Jarvis 1993; Bookout 1994; and Ewing
Distance from Downtown 1996). They have done so because complementary
land uses and permanent open spaces enhance the
value of nearby residential properties and offer econ-
omies in site development. So it is not only the plan-
ning profession, with its tendency to “deny market
My Sprawl Pattern processes,’’ that sees some advantage in compact de-
velopment.

Vacant Land Causes of Sprawl

Conceiving sprawl differently, G & R and I cite dif-

\/-\- Distance from Downtown

ferent reasons for its proliferation. To G & R, it is the
market at work, and the market works just fine (see, in
particular, Richardson and Gordon 1993): Consumers
and businesses prefer outlying locations where land is
inexpensive and congestion moderate. Modern tele-
communications make clustering of businesses.unnec-
G & R’s Sprawl My Compact Pattern essary. The low cost of auto travel allows people to live

I Activitv Centers
far from their places of work, shopping, etc. The re-
sulting decentralized settlement patterns are economi-
cally efficient, in G & R’s view.
For them, the only sources of market failure-
which might render settlement patterns inefficient-
are subsidies for the automobile (encouraging long-
distance driving) and local land use regulations (dis-
couraging higher densities and mixed uses).
Distance from Downtown Unlike G & R, I view land markets as fraught with
imperfections, imperfections that induce sprawl. Re-
FIGURE 1. Three views of compact development and call from Economics 101 that perfectly functioning
sprawl, in terms of urban density markets require many buyers and sellers, good infor-

J
110 APA JOURNAL’WINTER 1997
 IS LOS ANGELES-STYLE SPRAWL DESIRABLE?

mation about prices and quality, homogeneous prod- small-lot houses (Becker 1996; also W. J. Richardson
ucts in each market, no external costs or benefits, and 1988; Kreager 1992; Bradford 1993; Bradford 1995).
so forth. Land markets meet none of these require- From surveys, residents are as satisfied with housing
ments. The rate of land appreciation is uncertain, at six or seven units per acre as they are at three or
causing land speculation and (where speculators guess four units per acre (Lansing et al. 1970; Flachsbart
wrong or land becomes legally encumbered) sprawl 1979; also see Nelessen 1994, 99-102). The National
(Schmidt 1968; Lindeman 1976; Mills 1981; Fischel Association of Home Builders and Urban Land Insti-
1985, 265-6; Nelson 1990, 1992). Single-family hous- tute have published entire volumes filled with ex-
ing is subsidized through the tax code, a public policy amples of dense housing that affords privacy, quiet,
that benefits primarily suburban residents (Peterson and ample outdoor space (Jensen 1981; NAHB 198Gb;
1980; Fischel 1982; Black 1996). Outlying develop- Wending and Bookout 1988).
ment is subsidized through utility rate structures in- Given the choice between mixed- and single-use
dependent of distance from central facilities (Archer areas, the public divides fairly evenly (Shlay 1986;
1973; Sullivan 1985; OTA 1988; Frank 1989). The land Bookout 1992). As long as the proportion of land de-
market is rife with externalities (Clawson 1971; Lee voted to commercial uses remains low, and as long as
1979, 153-4). And government regulation may intro- commercial uses are separated from residential, the
duce additional market distortions (Moss 1977; Lee effect on residential property values is neutral-to-
1979,159-60; Fischel 1985,259-61; Fischel, 1990; Bar- positive (Stull 1975; Grether and Mieszkowski 1980;
nett 1995). Li and Brown 1980; Cao and Cory 1981). People are
Downloaded By: [Mass Inst of Tech] At: 00:26 21 January 2010

We now consider four possible causes of sprawl in especially taken with the idea of neighborhoods clus-
more detail. Two are market-related and emphasized by tered around a town or village center (American Lives
G & R. The other two are related to market failure and 1995).
were emphasized in my earlier article (Ewing 1994). Given the choice between compact centers and
commercial strips, consumers favor the centers by a
Consumer Preference wide margin (Howe and Rabiega 1992). Aesthetics are
G & R are absolutely correct that, given the choice only part of the reason. In contrast to stores in a cen-
between low-density suburban living and high-density ter, stores strung out along a strip are too far apart to
urban living, Americans overwhelmingly choose the permit one-stop shopping (Berry 1971; Boa1 and John-
former.’ They are not correct when they suggest that son 1971; Jakle and Mattson 1981; Ewing 1996, 37-
compact alternatives to sprawl have only “boutique 41). Strips can be difficult and dangerous to drive
appeal.” Given a more complete set of choices than along, as cars constantly pull in and out of individual
those posed by G & R, compact development can hold driveways (Stover e t al. 1982; Ismart 1991; Long e t al.
its own in the marketplace. 1993; Levinson 1994). These same driveways and turn
There is a strong consumer preference for new movements make strip development unpleasant and
single-family detached housing-a housing type con- dangerous for pedestrians (Untermann 1984; Smith
centrated in the suburbs (Fannie Mae 1996). But most et al. 1987).
people could do without the rest of the suburban
package. The suburbs rank low in residential prefer- Technological Innovation
ence surveys, well below small town, village, and rural G & R state that agglomeration economies are
settings (Center for Public Interest Polling 1988; Aud- now available throughout metropolitan regions (Gor-
irac et al. 1990; Constantine 1992; Duany and Plater- don and Richardson 1996a). They suggest that mod-
Zyberk 1992; Nelessen 1994, 81-96; American Lives ern telecommunications have rendered geography
1995). (read “centers” of any type) irrelevant.
Given the choice between low and medium-to- G & R exaggerate. Agglomeration economies re-
high densities, home buyers split almost evenly. While main concentrated in metropolitan activity centers.
they might prefer estate homes, many simply cannot While losing market share, downtowns still house five
afford them. Tony Downs defines low suburban densi- to ten times as much office space as do large subur-
ties as anything below 3-4 dwellings per net acre ban centers, in the five metropolitan areas studied by
(Downs 1994, 142-53). By this definition, at least half Gary Pivo (1990). Edge cities, suburban downtowns,
of all new detached homes sold in the U.S. are at medium- suburban business centers, office clusters, and other
to-high densities (Bureau of the Census 1995). concentrations (large and small) have captured dispro-
In high-priced housing markets, the most popular portionate shares of suburban employment growth
products are often zero-lot-line, courtyard, and other (Erickson 1986; Cervero 1989; Pivo 1990; Garreau

APA JOURNAL-WINTER1997
 REID EWING

1991; Hartshorn and Muller 1992; Leinberger 1995; would require an additional gas tax of $6.60 per gallon
Cervero 1996a). just to internalize air pollution, congestion, and park-
“. . . [Sluburban economic development does not ing costs.2
take place evenly across the outlying area but rather is Without referring to the theory by name, G & R
centered in key or magnet areas where economies of invoke the Theory of the Second Best when they sug-
agglomeration arise, growth is rapid, and the export gest that large auto subsidies are somehow neutralized
sector develops” (Stanback 1991, 81). by large transit subsidies. Briefly, in this context, the
Telecommunications innovations have caused theory holds that if one mode is underpriced relative
many activities to disperse (back-office processing and to its marginal social costs, it may improve social wel-
consumer services, for example). Others remain cen- fare to artifically lower the price of another mode.
tralized (front-office decision-making and advanced G & R are using the same argument turned on its
business services) (Moss P987a; Moss 1991; Stanback head, to justify auto subsidies.
1991, 69-76; O’hUallachain and Reid 1992; Schwartz Such pricing policies assume that the goods or ser-
1992; Stanback 1995). While profoundly important, vices in question are substitutes for one another: sub-
electronic communications are (and probably always sidizing one leads to its overconsumption relative to
will be) imperfect substitutes for the kind of rapid the other. Thus economic efficiency is served by treat-
face-to-face communications made possible by cities. ing them equally. But if the goods or services in ques-
There is a texture and subtlety to face-to-face ex- tion are not substitutes-and G & R have argued
changes that cannot be reproduced electronically. Even repeatedly that transit is no substitute for the auto-
Downloaded By: [Mass Inst of Tech] At: 00:26 21 January 2010

where electronic communications can substitute for mobile-a subsidy for motorists simply results in a
those face-to-face, the infrastructure for advanced tele- windfall (something economists first pointed out 30
communications is not uniformly distributed, but years ago; see Meyer et al. 1965; Morgan 1974).
concentrated in hub cities (Moss 1987b; Daniels 1991;
Moss 1991).
Public and Quasi-Public Goods
Subsidies Home buyers purchase a whole bundle of attri-
Consumer preference and technological innova- butes, some specific to the house itself and some to
tions help explain suburbanization and decentraliza- its environs. So-called residential and environmental
tion of activities within metropolitan areas. But they amenities are part of the bundle. Most are public
cannot explain the extent of dispersal, nor the absence goods, in the sense that one resident’s consumption
of mixed land uses, nor the loss of valuable natural does not affect another’s, and no resident can be de-
areas. We must look to market failures to explain nied access to these goods. Public goods tend to be
these phenomena. undersupplied by the private market because of the
Raup (1975) and OTA (1995, 193-218) list all “free rider” problem, that is, the inability to charge
manner of subsidies for urban sprawl. The biggest are beneficiaries for the value they receive (or even to as-
subsidies for the highway system. If motorists had to certain what it is worth to them).
cover the full costs of auto use-including air pollu- The best example is open space. Greenbelts and
tion, parking, and other external costs-they would other open spaces, if designed for physical or visual
opt for residential, work, shopping, and other loca- access, can enhance the property values of nearby de-
tions that require a fraction of their current travel. velopable lands (Davies 1974; Correll et al. 1978; Lacy
This is exactly what happens in Europe, where gaso- 1990; National Park Service 1990; King et al. 1991;
line prices are about three times higher than in the Nelson 1992). Yet, as a public or quasi-public good,
United States (Pucher 1988, 1995a, 1995b; Davis open space tends to be undersupplied, because land
1995). In the United States, motorists bear only a owners cannot capture the value to those around
fraction of the full costs (Hanson 1992; MacKenzie et them. This is particularly true of small development
al. 1992; Miller and Moffet 1993; Apogee Research, sites, where most of the value of any preserved open
Inc. 1994; Moore and Thorsnes 1994; OTA 1994; Lee space accrues off-site.
1995; Litman 1995). William Fischel, who sides with G & R on many
G & R dismiss such concerns with the comment issues, nonetheless sees the need for collective action
that “the full auto subsidy adds up to little more than to preserve open space. “The benefits of looking at
22 cents per passenger mile and still falls short of the farmland are perceived by many people, but each one
transit subsidy” (Gordon and Richardson 1997). They may understate his individual willingness to pay for
must not realize that at 22 cents per passenger mile, it such benefits. A collective arrangement may be re-

1
112 APA JOURNAL-WINTER1997
 IS LOS ANGELES-STYLE SPRAWL DESIRABLE?

quired to overcome this free rider problem when bene- county, I found that households living in the most ac-
ficiaries are numerous” (Fischel 1985, 287). cessible locations spend about 40 minutes less per day
traveling by vehicle than do households living in the
Costs of Sprawl least accessible locations (thus generating hundreds of
fewer vehicle hours per year) (Ewing et al. 1994; Ewing
Like many economists, G & R are not concerned
1995b). The savings are due almost entirely to shorter
about resource consumption levels in the United
auto trips, not shifts to other modes. The land-use
States because real prices of oil, farmland, and other
variable that proves significant is regional accessibility,
appropriable resources are still relatively low. They as-
not local density.
sume that technological prowess will allow indefinite
G & R make another mistake that is far less com-
economic growth. The paradigm to which they sub-
mon-using macro travel statistics to draw inferences
scribe is sometimes called “empty world economics.
about micro travel behavior. There has been so much
In that view, ours is a world of unlimited natural re-
solid research lately using household-level travel data
sources. The only constraint on development is the
and neighborhood-level land use data, that G & R’s
amount of man-made capital. Natural and man-made
continued reliance on highly aggregate data is hard to
capital serve as substitutes for one another; a housing
fathom. For reviews of household-level studies that
tract is a perfectly good substitute for a forest.
reach conclusions different from G & R‘s, see Kita-
I subscribe to another world view, tied to the idea
mura et al. 1995; Messinger and Ewing 1996).
of sustainable development. Mine is not “full world
Even on their own terms, G & R s macro compari-
economics, but it is closer to that than to empty world
Downloaded By: [Mass Inst of Tech] At: 00:26 21 January 2010

sons are suspect. In one paper after another, they have

economics. Natural capital is limited, and natural and
argued that decentralization of firms and households
man-made capital are complements rather than sub-
raises average travel speeds enough to compensate for
stitutes. More fishing boats will not substitute for de-
longer trips. Recent evidence suggests otherwise. Aver-
pleted fish stocks. Mankind must learn to live on the
age commute times worstened during the 1980s in 35
annual “income” derived from our remaining stock of
of the 39 metropolitan areas with more than one mil-
natural assets.
lion population (Rossetti and Eversole 1993, table
Sustainable development implies not only eco-
4-13). By the end of the decade, average commute
nomic sustainability, but ecological sustainability (the
times were significantly greater in the suburbs than in
continued productivity of ecosystems) and social sus-
central cities (Pisarski 1992, table 4; Vincent et al.
tainability (the maintenance of social values, tradi-
1994, table 3-20).4
tions, and institutions). Such concerns do not even
As for G & R’s comment about density and VMT,
register with these two economists.
every shred of evidence points to a strong link between
Our different world views cause us to assess the
the two. As densities rise, trips get shorter, transit and
costs of sprawl very differently.
walk mode shares increase, and vehicle trip rates drop
(Wilbur Smith and Associates 1968; Neels et al. 1977;
Vehicle Miles Traveled Pushkarev and Zupan 1977; Hunt et al. 1986; Spillar
The award for least defensible statement in a JAPA and Rutherford 1990; Prevedouros 1991; Dunphy and
article goes to G & R, hands down: Fisher 1994; Frank and Pivo 1994; Kitamura et al.
“. . . [Tlhe link between high-density development 1995; Messinger and Ewing 1996). All of this trans-
and reduced VMT (vehicle miles of travel), and hence lates into lower VMT (Harvey 1990; Holtzclaw 1991;
reduced energy consumption, is by no means clear.” By Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade Douglas 1993; Dunphy
way of evidence, G & R cite a simulation study show- and Fisher 1994; Holtzclaw 1994; Cervero and Kockel-
ing a low transit market share even if suburbanites man 1996). By various estimates, doubling urban den-
could somehow be persuaded to live in high-density sity results in a 25-30 percent reduction in VMT, or
“transit-oriented developments.” G & R also cite sta- a slightly smaller reduction when the effects of other
tistics on average trip times for city versus suburban variables are controlled (Holtzclaw 1994, 6-8 and 21).
residents, statistics which suggest that longer subur-
ban trip distances are offset by higher suburban Energy Consumption and Air Pollution
travel speed^.^ G & R point to the “global energy glut,” the weak-
G & R make the common mistake of emphasizing ness of the OPEC cartel, and the low real price of gaso-
density over other land-use variables, and transit line as evidence that energy impacts of sprawl are not
mode share over other travel variables. From an analy- worth worrying about. They are probably right.
sis of household travel patterns in a sprawling Florida But what if they are wrong? Conservatively,world-

APA JOURNAL’WINTER 1997

 wide demand for oil will grow by 30 million barrels a in the atmosphere is causing global climate change,
day between now and 2015, as Asia begins to catch up and that the long-term effects could be catastrophic
with the West in its standard of living (EIA 1996; for (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 1995).
less conservative forecasts, see IEA 1995; PIRA 1995). Worldwide emissions are expected to rise by one-third
This increment is greater than the current level of oil between now and 2015, this despite the United Na-
production in all OECD countries combined. During tions Framework Convention on Climate Change. The
this period, Persian Gulf oil exports will surpass their United States produces more carbon dioxide than any
previous high of two-thirds of the world’s total, other nation, and transportation accounts for a large
reached in the dark days of 1974. While the best case and growing share of our total (USEPA 1993b; Mar-
envisioned by G & R has the real price of gasoline land et al. 1994; EIA 1994). .
holding steady, it is the worst case that worries others The findings reported above, relating energy con-
(Flavin and Lenssen 1994; Romm and Curtis 1996). sumption to urban form, apply to air quality as well.
“The fact that the most recent large-scale war fought Like fuel consumption, vehicle emissions increase with
was in the Persion Gulf is itself a testament to the risk VMT and decrease with average operating speed (up
of relying on the political stability of this region for to about 50 mph for carbon monoxide and hydro-
a commodity so essential to economic activity” (The carbons,and to 35 mph for nitrogen oxides; carbon di-
Roving Advocate 1996). oxide emissions track fuel use exactly). This gives
The relationship of energy consumption to urban compact development an edge over sprawl (figure 2;
form parallels that of travel to urban form. In energy
Downloaded By: [Mass Inst of Tech] At: 00:26 21 January 2010

studies, centralized development patterns consistently

outperform low-density sprawl (Haines 1986; Newman 20
and Kenworthy 1989). Though vehicles operate less
fuel-efficiently in congested areas, per capita fuel con-
sumption is much lower in central cities because people
drive so much less (Newman and Kenworthy 1988).
Still, as urban areas grow, the central city becomes
less and less accessible to development on the periph-
ery. A t some point, emergence of other centers is bene-
ficial from the standpoint of transportation and
energy. When energy studies include polycentric devel-
opment as an alternative, that emerges as the pre-
ferred settlement pattern, even over monocentric
development (Small 1980; Haines 1986). Thus, in
large metropolitan areas, energy efficiency is served by
concentrating development to some extent (but not to
the extent of a single dominant enter).^
Elsewhere, Richardson has argued that advances
in vehicle emission control technology will solve our
air quality problems (Bae and Richardson 1993). 128
million people, about half of all Americans, now live in
urban areas that exceed one or more federal air quality
standards for carbon monoxide, ozone, or nitrogen di-
oxide. Even with new emission controls mandated by
the federal Clean Air Act, reductions in hydrocarbons
(ozone precursors) will fall far short of what is re-
quired to meet federal air quality standards by the year Vehicle VMT Air Pollutant
2010 (E.H. Pechan and Associates 1992; Kessler and Hours of Emissions
Schroeer 1995). The reason: Growth of VMT and vehi- Delay (kg/day)
cle trips will wipe out gains achieved through stricter
vehicle emission controls. FIGURE 2. Sprawl versus compact development: perfor-
Being unregulated, carbon dioxide emissions rep- mance measures. The figure compares a “Highways Only”
resent a bigger threat to national welfare than do regu- alternative to the LUTRAQ alternative, which clusters jobs,
lated emissions. There is now a near-consensus within houses, and shopping near transit lines.
the scientific community that carbon dioxide build-up Source: Cambridge Systematics e t al. 1996, 21, 24-5.

APA JOURNAL’WINTER 1997

 IS LOS ANGELES-STYLE SPRAWL DESIRABLE?

also Scheuernstuhl and May 1979; San Diego Associa- the shape that emerges (except for one data point; see
tion of Governments 1991). But the edge is dimin- figure 3).
ished by the fixed hydrocarbon emissions associated Whatever cost savings are realized as densities rise
with “cold starts” and “hot soaks.” If an auto is used at are almost certainly diminished by the “harshness” of
all, even for a short trip to a transit line or a suburban the environment at higher densities (see above). Total
activity center, such emissions are produced. public spending, including public service costs, may
follow the curve suggested by Ladd, be more U-
Infrastructure and Public Service Costs shaped, or assume some other form. Even the most
Many studies report savings on infrastructure careful studies to date-Ladd’s, Frank‘s, and CUPR’s-
costs as densities rise (for literature reviews, see Priest have limitations that make the exact shape of the cost
et al. 1977; Frank 1989; Burchell and Listokin 1995). function anyone’s guess.
This makes sense. Infrastructure costs, some of which Having said this, it turns out that density may not
are fixed, are amortized over more units at higher den- be the most important land-use variable after all. Den-
sities. Economies of scale kick in. sity largely pays for itself, in the sense that developers
G & R view such studies, even the most carefully pay for on-site infrastructure and successive property
crafted, as badly flawed. These studies adopt a “pro- owners pay for public services through their property
spective view of the comparative costs of alternative taxes. Controlling for socioeconomics, there may be
types of development under sets of very precise as- little cross subsidy (and hence inefficiency) in one den-
sumptions.” This is G & R’s way of saying that such sity pattern versus another (Frank 1989, 41-2; Avin
Downloaded By: [Mass Inst of Tech] At: 00:26 21 January 2010

studies are purely hypothetical. As a more credible al- 1993, 5). The same cannot be said of leapfrog or strip
ternative, G & R cite a study of actual public spending commercial development.
per capita by Helen Ladd (Ladd 1992; also Bradbury Archer (1973) analyzed a case of leapfrog develop-
et al. 1984; Ladd and Yinger 1989). Public spending ment in Lexington, Kentucky. By bypassing tracts of
dips initially, but quickly rises with density. land well-suited for residential development, develop-
Why the difference in study results? For starters, ers drove up private and public costs by hundreds of
the two types of studies focus on different costs-cost- thousands of dollars per year. Some of the extra costs
of-sprawl studies focus on infrastructure costs, and were incurred by residents of the outlying develop-
public spending studies focus on public service costs. ment in the form of higher travel costs; they presum-
More importantly, the two types of studies relate to ably paid less for land and housing than they would
different types of government outputs-cost-of- have at a more accessible site, in keeping with efficient
sprawl studies to “intermediate outputs” and public resource allocation. The remaining costs, however,
spending studies to “final outputs” (using Ladds ter-
minology). A t higher densities, there are savings on in-
termediate outputs such as lane miles of street. But
given the “harshness” of the environment (again,
Ladds term), the cost of producing a unit of final out-
put may be higher, enough to offset the savings on
intermediate outputs. “. . . [Ilncreased density may re-
I 40
quire more traffic lights and traffic control officers to
achieve a given Ievel of traffic safety or traffic flow”
(Ladd 1992).
So who is right about costs versus density? It all
depends. Within the normal range of urban-suburban
densities, per capita infrastructure costs almost cer-
tainly fall as densities rise. However, at the density ex-
tremes, there could be some surprises. A t very low
densities, the use of septic systems, open drainage,
and rural street cross sections may cause the cost
function to turn downward. At very high densities,
the special needs of high-rise structures may cause the ” 125 250 500 750 1,250 1,750 24,OOC
cost function to turn upward. Thus, the infrastruc- Persons/Square Mile
ture cost function could assume the shape of an
equivalence sign (-). Indeed, plotting the capital out- FIGURE 3. Capital outlays versus density
lay equation from Ladds paper, this is approximately Source: Ladd 1992, table 8.

-
APA JOURNAL WINTER 1997
 REID EWING

were defrayed by other consumers and taxpayers in the density sprawl preserved no open space, while planned
area, who ended up subsidizing sprawl. prototypes at the same gross densities (but much
Other studies comparing costs of leapfrog or scat- higher net densities) preserved anywhere from 18 per-
tered development to those of compact development cent to 57 percent of the total land area (RERC 1974,
include Dougharty e t al. (1975), Downing and Gustely table 43). Studies of actual planned communities sug-
(1977), and Frank (1989, 39-41). gest that these hypothetical percentages are not far off
the mark (Ewing 1991,84-6; Ewing 1996,21).
Loss of Resource Lands There are differing views on the extent to which
As with concerns over wasteful energy use, G & R rural-urban land conversion results from market im-
dismiss concerns over loss of farmlands and open perfections, and on the corresponding need for public
spaces by citing statistics on the abundance of such intervention to preserve farmlands. Arguing that the
lands. They also cite agricultural surpluses in the U.S. problem is illusory or at least overstated are Gardner
and an optimistic forecast of world carrying capacity (1977), Fischel (1982; 1985, 272-92), and Heimlich
(“The world is perfectly capable of feeding 12 billion (1989). On the other side of the issue are Raup (1975),
people 100 years from now”). Volkman (1987), and Nelson (1990; 1992).
Official forecasts of world food production tend Market failure may result from:
to support G & R’s view. But a few voices of caution, Urban spillover effects (externalities) that make
led by the Worldwatch Institute, question the underly- nearby farming operations less profitable and cause
ing premise of such forecasts: that agricultural yields farmers to disinvest; such effects may extend up to
Downloaded By: [Mass Inst of Tech] At: 00:26 21 January 2010

will continue to rise at about the same rate they have three miles from urban development (Nelson 1986;
historically. World agricultural production is running also Peterson and Yampolsky 1975; Andrews and
up against several constraints: Chetrick 1986; Lopez et al. 1988).
The “impermanence syndrome” that causes farmers
Declining productivity of the world‘s rangelands and to abandon operations prematurely in anticipation
fisheries, placing added pressure on croplands of urban development; perhaps as much as one addi-
Failure of biotechnology to produce break-throughs tional acre is idled for every acre converted to urban
in the yield potential of major crops, the easy gains uses (Plaut 1976; also Berry 1978; Berry and Plaut
having been made already 1978; Lopez e t al. 1988).
Aquifer depletion in certain regions, putting an end The substitution of marginally productive farmland
to irrigated agriculture for prime farmland lost to urbanization, with re-
Failure of available crop varieties to respond to addi- sulting increases in public subsidies and environ-
tional fertilizers. mental costs (Peterson and Yampolsky 1975; Platt
1985; Nelson 1990). “The more prime farmland that
Taking these constraints into account, U.S. grain sur-
is farmed the less there is need to raise productivity
pluses may fall far short of world needs by the year
of marginal lands by brute force” (Nelson 1990).
2030 (Brown and Kane 1994).
What if we stop playing breadbasket to the rest of As for the loss of natural areas, it is a classic case
the world? Is sprawl still a problem? The answer is of public goods being undervalued by private property
“yes” if the loss of resource lands is (1) peculiar to owners. The public goods in question are stormwater
sprawl-type development and (2) a result of market management, groundwater recharge, water pollution control,
failure. habitat, and biodiversity. There is little market value in
Sprawl consumes much more land in total than any of them, and private property owners understand-
does compact development. An assessment of two de- ably discount public purposes as they make land-use
velopment plans for the State of New Jersey, one a con- decisions. But the loss to society as natural areas are
tinuation of current sprawl and the other a more paved over is quite real. (For an overview of natural
compact pattern, found that sprawl would consume resource valuation, see Lipton and Wellman 1995.)
two-and-one-half times as much land (CUPR 1992). That is why our most valuable natural areas are now
The loss of environmentally sensitive land would be protected by environmental regulations.
five times greater with sprawl, and the loss of prime Habitat fragmentation is a particularly good
farmland two-thirds greater. example of sprawl’s intangible costs. Because frag-
Sprawl leaves little or no land in its natural (unim- mented ecosystems cannot support the most imper-
proved) state. In the landmark study, The Costs of iled species (species requiring large, undisturbed areas
Sprawl, a community prototype representing low- to accomplish their life cycles), scattered development

.A
116 APA JOURNAL.WINTER 1997
 IS LOS ANGELES-STYLE SPRAWL DESIRABLE?

leaves habitat only for generalist species that are abun- (Moss 1987a; Moss 1991; Persky et al. 1991; Warf and
dant to begin with (Harris 1984; Saunders et al. 1991; Wije 1991; Schwartz 1992; Sclar 1992; Ihlanfeldt
Morrison et al. 1992, 41-97; Florida Game and Fresh 1995). They remain intake points for immigrants with
Water Fish Commission 1994). The loss of biodiversity entrepreneurial talent, who pump life into city econo-
is well-documented (IUCN 1980; Harris 1984; Kautz mies before moving on (Cutler 1991).
1993). As for downtown renewal programs, the national
experience has been mixed. There are apparent failures
Impacts on Central Cities and Downtowns like Los Angeles, the case cited by G & R. But many
G & R dismiss central cities as economic losers in downtowns around the U.S. have made grand come-
the competition for jobs. They denounce downtown backs since their low ebb in the 1950s and 1960s, and
renewal programs as wastes of public money. While now can claim lively, mixed-use environments. Their
they stop short of calling for the outright abandon- office, hotel, convention center, and neighborhood
ment of central cities and their downtowns, G & R‘s building booms are documented in Downtown, Inc.-
wistful reference to “creative destruction” by market How America Rebuilds Cities (Frieden and Sagalyn 1989;
forces reveals their true feelings. Frieden 1989). The booms were catalyzed in part by
Some central cities are basket cases, per G & R‘s the same downtown renewal efforts so roundly criti-
depiction. 0thers, however, have robust economies cized by G & R.
(Bradley and Berens 1993; Chinitz 1993; Rusk 1993,
14-5; Downs 1994,68-9; Leinberger 1995; OTA 1995, Psychic and Social Costs
Downloaded By: [Mass Inst of Tech] At: 00:26 21 January 2010

77-88). The economic winners are cities that have G & R fail to acknowledge the psychic and social
made the transition from industrial economies to ad- costs of sprawl. These costs are intangible, to be sure,
vanced service economies or have piggybacked on but they are as real as travel costs and wetland losses.
high-tech industrial growth within their regions. In utility theory and welfare economics, no distinction
As for the losers, “creative destruction” might is made between intangibles and other goods.
make economic sense (though never social sense, given In the article, “Urban Sprawl: Some Neglected So-
the populations left behind), were suburbs and cities ciological Considerations,” Popenoe (1979) identifies
independent of one another. G & R treat them as such. sprawl with two types of psychic costs: deprivation of
But common sense suggests that cities and their sub- access and environmental deprivation. Deprivation of
urbs are inextricably linked within the metropolitan access is straightforward. In a sprawling urban area,
economy, and that cities and their suburbs function those who cannot drive have limited access to com-
not only as substitutes, but as complements to one an- munity facilities, services, and even employment. The
other. negative impacts on the young, elderly, and poor are
Again, G & R ignore external (spillover) effects of well-documented (Schaeffer and Sclar 1975; Popenoe
sprawl, in this case the effects of central city decline 1977; Berg and Medrich 1980; Carp 1980; Millas 1980;
on the surrounding suburbs. There is a direct relation- Carp 1988; Rosenbloom 1988; Hillman et al. 1990;
ship between city population, employment, and in- Hughes 1991; Kain 1992; Burchell and Schmeidler
come growth and parallel growth in the suburbs 1993; Newman 1996).
(Linneman and Summers 1991; Voith 1992, Ledebur Environmental deprivation is subtler. Popenoe de-
and Barnes 1993; Rusk 1993; Savitch et al. 1993; Voith fines it as the absence of elements that provide activity
1994; Ihlanfeldt 1995; also Downs 1994,Sl-7; Adams and stimulation. The physical uniformity of sprawl is
et al. 1996). If cities and suburbs were close substi- a source of environmental deprivation. So is the lack
tutes, we would expect an inverse relationship between of neighborly interaction.
their growth rates. Even controlling for state and re- The modern metropolis has communities of inter-
gional growth patterns, a weak but direct relationship est by the thousands, that is, groups with common
exists between city and suburban economic health interests organized around work, recreation, church,
(Voith 1992, 1994; Blair and Zhang 1994; but see the etc. But strong communities of place, where neighbors
exchange between Hill, Wolman, and Ford 1995a and interact, have a sense of belonging, and have a feeling
1995b, and Savitch 1995). of responsibility for one another, are harder to find.
Cities remain centers of culture, law, and other Communities of place are a casualty of sprawl.
higher-order central place functions (Bradley and Be- Whether they can be fully or partly replaced by com-
rens 1993; OTA 1995, 87-8). They remain premier lo- munities of interest is, frankly, an unresolved issue
cations for finance, legal services, advertising, and (Heller 1989; Etzioni 1993, 121-3).
other industries requiring rapid face-to-face contact One study measured residents’ sense of commu-

APA JOURNAL. WINTER 1997

 REID EWING

nity in a sprawling suburb versus that in a nearby State Plan, Florida’s anti-sprawl rule, and Florida’s
master-planned community; the latter’s clear bound- Best Development Practices are examples of initiatives to
aries, public space at its center, and pedestrian connec- upgrade the quality of development, wherever and
tions to the center fostered greater interaction, whenever it should occur (Oregon Land Conservation
satisfaction, and sense of community (Glynn 1981). and Development Commission 1991; New Jersey State
Another study compared sense of community across Planning Commission 1992; Florida Department of
areas with single and with mixed land uses; residents Community Affairs 1994; Ewing 1996).
of mixed-use areas had a greater sense of community, Lest my answer to sprawl appear hopelessly Euro-
presumably because they interacted more (Nasar and pean or Canadian, I offer a current example from Or-
Julian 1995). lando. City government has entered into a partnership
For more on physical design and the sense of com- with the owners of multiple tracts southeast of the
munity, see Burby and Weiss (1976, 352-5)) Etzioni city. Through a cost-sharing arrangement, the part-
(1993, 127-30), and Cochrun (1994). nership has prepared a master plan and development
standards for the 12,000-acre site.
Cures The plan itself is neotraditional, featuring neigh-
The only policy intervention endorsed by G & R is borhood, village, and town centers that are compact
the imposition of congestion charges and emissions and walkable. It provides for jobs/housing balance-
fees as shadow prices for external costs of auto use, specifically, for 29,000 residential units, and millions
specifically for delay and air pollution imposed on oth- of square feet of retail, office, and industrial space.6
Downloaded By: [Mass Inst of Tech] At: 00:26 21 January 2010

ers. This is a safe endorsement for sprawl lovers. While It preserves more than 40 percent of the total land
congestion pricing and emissions fees have been area as parks or natural open spaces in a clustered
touted by economists for decades, those in political pattern.
power have not exactly rushed to meter their constit- Property owners have bought into the plan be-
uents’ travel (Orski 1992; Arrillaga 1993). cause it promises more dwelling units (at higher net
The first federal demonstration program on con- densities) and more commercial space (at higher FARs)
gestion pricing, 1973- 1978, produced no demonstra- than would a standard suburban master plan. They
tions. The current Congestion Pricing Pilot Program, have also come to realize that compact, mixed-use de-
started five years ago, has produced one limited pilot velopment, with quality features, will sell better than
project (and many planning studies) (FHA 1996). Mil- sprawl.
lions of dollars of spending authority were recently re- Here, a public-private partnership has taken the
scinded. Most candidates for future congestion place of G & R’s unfettered market. Here, a handshake
pricing are individual bridges or expressways that al- has replaced the invisible hand so revered by G & R.
ready charge tolls, but would charge a premium at
peak hours. Areawide congestion pricing is a good idea
whose time has apparently not come. AUTHOR’S NOTE
My answer to sprawl is active planning of the type Three individuals collaborated with me on the final draft:
practiced almost everywhere except the United States Uri Avin of LDR International, Inc.; Robert Cervero of
(and beginning to appear here out of necessity). What Berkeley; and Ben Chinitz of the Lincoln Institute of Land
G & R refer to as “command-and-control” policies, or Policy. Cervero’s imprint is particularly evident. Two re-
less charitably in an earlier point-counterpoint as search associates at Florida International University, Bob
“Maoist planning methods” (Gordon and Richardson Gross and Edith McClintock, helped acquire background
materials. Additional reference materials were provided by
1989), is really just planning. The posture usually as-
k c k Bernhardt of the Orlando Planning & Development
sumed by local governments in the US., waiting for
Department, Mitchell Moss of New York University, Arthur
property owners to come forward with rezoning re- C. Nelson of Georgia Tech, Gary Pivo of the University of
quests, is not planning but reacting. Washington, and Will Schroeer of the U.S. Environmental
Planning initiatives should be supplemented by Protection Agency.
policies that reward good development and discour-
age bad. In the first wave of growth management na-
tionally, the concern was how much growth would be NOTES
allowed. In the second wave, the focus shifted to where 1. There are two theories of suburbanization,both based
and when growth would be permitted, and who would on changing locational preferences (Mieszkowski and
pay for it. The third wave is upon us, shifting the em- Mills 1993; Adams et al. 1996). The “natural evolution”
phasis to what kind of growth is allowed or encour- theory explains decentralization of firms and house-
aged. Oregon’s Transportation Rule, New Jersey’s holds in terms of changes in demand for land, due in

J
118 APA JOURNAL-WINTER 1997
 ~
IS LOS ANGELES-STYLE SPRAWL DESIRABLE?

turn to changes in technology and incomes. Consumers REFERENCES

are attracted to cheap land in the suburbs. The “flight-
from-blight’’ theory explains the same phenomenon in Adams, Lowell W. 1994. Urban Wildlife Habitats-A Landscape
terms of residential amenities. Consumers are driven Perspective. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
from cities by high taxes, low-quality schools, crime, 40-80.
and racial tensions. Adams, Charles F., et al. 1996. Flight from Blight and Metro-
2. This estimate assumes an average fuel efficiency of 20 politan Suburbanization Revisited. Urban Affairs Review
mpg and average auto occupancy of 1.5 persons per ve- 31,4: 529-43.
hicle. While G & R overestimated some of the external Alexander, C., S. Ishikawa, and M. Silverstein. 1977. Com-
costs of auto use, they missed others. From the most mon Land. In A Pattern Language-Towns-Buildings-Con-
careful studies conducted to date, unreimbursed acci- struction. New York: Oxford University Press. 336-40.
dent costs amount to 4 cents per vehicle mile, highway American Lives, Inc. 1995. New Urbanism Report. San Fran-
patrol and other public safety costs to 2 cents per ve- cisco, CA.
hicle mile, and energy subsidies (including military ex- Anderson, S. H., and K. J. Gutzwiller. 1994. Habitat Evalua-
penditures to protect Persian Gulf oil supplies) to 3 tion Methods. In Research and Management Techniquesfor
cents per vehicle mile. Wildlqe and Habitats, edited by T. A. Bookhout. Bethesda,
3. G & R make one additional point to buttress their posi- MD: The Wildlife Society. 592-605.
tion: that compact development has the potential to Andrews, Margaret S., and Joel Chetrick. 1986. Suburbaniza-
generate new vehicle trips by lowering the average cost tion, Agricultural Productivity, and Right-to-Farm. Paper
per trip, thereby increasing overall VMT. The effect of presented at the National Conference on Sustaining Agri-
accessibility on vehicle trip rates depends on the price culture Near Cities. Boston, MA.
Downloaded By: [Mass Inst of Tech] At: 00:26 21 January 2010

elasticity of demand for activities outside the home and Apogee Research, Inc. 1994. The Costs of Transportation:Final
on the elasticity of substitution between vehicle and Report. Boston, MA: Conservation Law Foundation.
walk/bicycle travel. Most of the evidence to date, includ- 82-162.
ing my own study of household travel in two Florida Archer, R. W. 1973. Land Speculation and Scattered Devel-
metropolitan areas, suggests that activity demand is rel- opment: Failures in the Urban-Fringe Market. Urban Stud-
atively inelastic, that total trip rates are independent of ies 10,3: 367-72.
location, and that vehicle trip rates are either constant Arrillaga, B. 1993. U.S. Experience with Congestion Pricing.
or decline with density (Ewing et al. 1996). ITEJournal63,12: 39-43.
4. One issue is finessed here, mainly because I am so am- Audirac, Ivonne, Anne H. Shermyen, and Marc T. Smith.
bivalent about it myself. G & R’s use of trip times as 1990. Ideal Urban Form and Visions of the Good Life-
their bottom-line performance measure implies indiffer- Florida’s Growth Management Dilemma. Journal of the
ence between long-distance travel at high speeds and American Planning Association 56,4: 470-82.
short-distance travel at low speeds; a 20-mile trip at 60 Avin, Uri P. 1993. A Review of the Cost of Providing Government
mph is equivalent to a 10-mile trip at 30 miles per hour, Services to Alternative Residential Patterns. Columbia, MD:
since both take 20 minutes. Clearly, the two are not ex- LDR International.
actly the same, because the social costs of auto travel Bae, Chang-Hee C., and Harry W. Richardson. 1993. Auto-
depend on VMT as well as VHT. Yet, I agree that VHT mobiles, the Environment and Metropolitan Spatial
is a good bottom-line performance measure, perhaps as Structure. Paper presented at the National Conference on
good as VMT (Ewing 1995a). The Nationwide Personal Metropolitan America in Transition: Implications for
Transportation Survey (NPTS) shows dramatic in- Land Use and Transportation Planning. Cambridge, MA:
creases in average trip length and VMT between 1983 Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
and 1990 (Pisarsky 1992, 11-4, 57-65; Vincent et al. Bahl, Roy W. 1968. A Land Speculation Model: The Role of
1994, Chapters 2 and 3). Comparing city and suburban the Property Tax as a Constraint to Urban Sprawl. Journal
averages, differences are equally dramatic (Pisarsky ofRegional Science 8,2: 199-208.
1992, 62-3; Vincent et al. 1994, Table 3-9). By these Barnett, Jonathan. 1995. Suburban Sprawl: Its Prevention
travel measures, decentralization of firms and house- and Cure. In The Fractured Metropolis-Improving the New
holds has been a disaster. City, Restoring the Old Cip, Reshaping the Region. New York:
5. Compact development also saves on residential space HarperCollins. 47-74.
cooling and heating. Due to their common walls, multi- Beaumont, Constance E. 1994. How Superstore Sprawl Can
family and attached single-family dwellings have less Harm Communities-And What Citizens Can Do About It.
surface area exposed to the elements than do single- Washington, DC: National Trust for Historic Preser-
family detached dwellings. This cuts down on heat gain vation.
and loss. Becker, T. J. 1996. Hottest Hits in Single-Family Housing. Ur-
6. While G & R do not, in this particular article, attack the ban Land 55,2: 25-8.
idea of jobs-housing balance, one can anticipate their Beimborn, Edward, and Harvey Rabinowitz. 1991. Guidelines
reaction to Orlando’s initiative. For reviews of the em- for Transit Sensitive Suburban Land Use Design. Washington,
pirical evidence in favor of balance, see Ewing (1996, 19- DC: Technology Sharing Program, U.S. Department of
20) and Cervero (1996b). Transportation. 42-7.

APA JOURNAL.WINTER 1997 1119

 REID EWING

Berg, Mary, and Elliot A. Medrich. 1980. Children in Four Calthorpe, Peter. 1993. The Next American Metropolis-Ecology,
Neighborhoods: The Physical Environment and Its Effect Community, and the American Dream. New York: Princeton
on Play and Play Patterns. Environment and Behavior 12,3: Architectural Press. 142-68.
320-48. Cao, Than Van, and Dennis C. Cory. 1981. Mixed Land Uses,
Berry, Brian J. 1971. General Features of Urban Commercial Land-Use Externalities, and Residential Property Values:
Structure. In Internal Structure of the City, edited by L. S. A Reevaluation. Annals of Regional Science 16: 1-24.
Bourne. New York: oxford University Press. 361-7. Carp, Frances M. 1980. Environmental Effects Upon the Mo-
Berry, David. 1978. Effects of Urbanization on Agricultural bility of Older People. Environment and Behavior 12,2:
Activities. Growth and Change 9,3: 2-8. 139-56.
Berry, David, and Thomas Plaut. 1978. Retaining Agricul- Carp, Frances M. 1988. Significance of Mobility for the Well-
tural Activities under Urban Pressures: A Review of Land Being of the Elderly. Transportation in an Aging Society. Spe-
Use Conflicts and Policies. Policy Sciences 9: 153-78. cial Report 218. Washington, DC: Transportation Re-
Black, J. Thomas. 1996. The Economics of Sprawl. Urban search Board. 1-20.
Land 55,3: 6 , 52. Center for Public Interest Polling. 1988. Housing Prefer-
Blair, John P., and Zhongcai Zhang. 1994. “Ties That B i n d ences-Results of a Poll. Urban Land 473: 32-3.
Reexamined. Economic Development Quarterly 8,4: 373-7. Cervero, Robert. 1989. America’s Suburban Centers-The Land
Boal, F. W., and D. B. Johnson. 1971. The Functions of Retail Use-Transportation Link. Boston, MA: Unwin Hyman.
and Service Establishments on Commercial Ribbons. In Cervero, Robert, 199Ga. Subcentering and Community: Evidence
Internal Structure of the City, edited by L. S. Bourne. New @om the San Francisco Bay Area, 1980-1990. Berkeley, CA:
York: Oxford University Press. 368-79. University of California Transportation Center.
Downloaded By: [Mass Inst of Tech] At: 00:26 21 January 2010

Bookout, Lloyd W. 1992. Neotraditional Town Planning: Cervero, Robert, 1996b. Jobs-Housing Balance Revisited:
The Test of the Marketplace. Urban Land 5 1,G: 12-7. Trends and Impacts in the San Francisco Bay Area.Journal
Bookout, Lloyd W. 1994. Value by Design-Landscape, Site Plan- of the American Planning Association 62,4: 492-5 10.
ning, and Amenities. Washington, DC: Urban Land In- Cervero, Robert, and Kara Kockelman. 1996. Travel Demand
stitute. and the 3Ds: Density, Diversity, and Design. Paper sub-
Bradbury, Katherine L., et al. 1984. State Aid to Offset Fiscal mitted to Transportation Research D.
Disparities Across Communities. National Tax Journal Chinitz, Benjamin. 1993. Urban Growth Patterns. Paper pre-
37,2: 151-70. sented at the National conference on Metropolitan America
Bradford, Susan. 1993. Pushing the Density Envelope. in Transition: Implications f i r Land Use and Transportation
Builder 16,2: 148-52. Planning. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land
Bradford, S. 1995. Density. Builder 18,12: 79-86. Policy.
Bradley, Richard H., and Gayle L. Berens. 1993. Center Clawson, Marion. 1962. Urban Sprawl and Speculation in
Cities. Land Use in Transition-Emerging Forces &Issues Shap- Suburban Land. Land Economics 38,2: 99- 111.
ing the Real Estate Environment. Washington, DC: Urban Clawson, Marion. 1971. Externalities and Interdependencies
Land Institute. 52-61. in Urban Land Uses and Values. Suburban Land Conversion
Briggs, D. J., and J. France. 1980. Landscape Evaluation: A in the United States: An Economic and Governmental Process.
Comparative Study. Jownal of Environmental Management Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Press. 166-87.
10,3: 263-75. Cochrun, Steven E. 1994. Understanding and Enhancing
Brown, Lester R., and Hal Kane. 1994. Full House-Reassessing Neighborhood Sense of Community. Journal of Planning
the Earth’s Population Carrying Capacity. New York: W. W. Literature 9,1: 92-9.
Norton & Company. 161-84. Constantine, James. 1992. Design by Democracy. Zand Devel-
Burby, Raymond J., and S. F. Weiss. 1976. New Communities opment 5,l: 11-15.
U.S.A. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company. Correll, Mark R., Jane H. Lillydahl, and Larry D. Singell.
Burchell, Robert W., and David Listokin. 1995. Development 1978. The Effects of Greenbelts on Residential Property
Patterns and Infrastructure Costs. In Land, Infastructure, Values: Some Findings on the Political Economy of Open
Housing Costs, and Fiscal Impacts Associated with Growth-The Space. Land Economics 54,2: 207-17.
Literature on the Impacts of Tradtional versus Managed Growth. Council on Development Choices for the 80s. 1981. The Af-
New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research, fordable Community: Adapting Today’s Communities to
Rutgers University. 9-20. Tomorrow’s Needs. Washington, DC: Urban Land In-
Burchell, Robert W., and Emilie Schmeidler. 1993. The Dem- stitute.
ographic and Social Difference Between Central Cities Crowhurst, Lennard, Suzanne H. Lennard, and Henry L.
and Suburbs as They Relate to the Job Fulfillment of Ur- Lennard. 1995. Public Space Design. In Livable Cities
ban Residents. Paper presented at the National Confer- Observed-A Source Book of Images and Ideas. Carmel, CA:
ence on Metropolitan America in Transition: Implications Gondolier Press. 25-47.
for Land Use and Transportation Planning. Cambridge, CUPR-Center for Urban Policy Research. 1992. Impact As-
MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. sessment of the New Jersey Interim State Development Plan.
Bureau of the Census. 1995. Characteristics of New Housing: Trenton, NJ: New Jersey Office of State Planning.
Current Construction Reports. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart- Cutler, Blayne. 1991. Growing Through the Cracks. American
ment of Commerce. Table 21. Demographics 13,s: 38-43, 54.

1
120 APA JOURNAL.WINTER 1997
 IS LOS ANGELES-STYLE SPRAWL DESIRABLE?

Dalvi, M. Q., and K. M. Martin. 1976. The Measurement of Ewing, Reid. 1991. Developing Successfit1 New Communities.
Accessibility: Some Preliminary Results. Transportation Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute.
5,l: 17-42. Ewing, Reid. 1994. Characteristics, Causes, and Effects of
Daniels, P. W. 1991. Internationalization, Telecommunica- Sprawl: A Literature Review. Environmental and Urban Is-
tions and Metropolitan Development: The Role of Pro- sues 21,2: 1-15.
ducer Services. In Collapsing Space and Eme: Geographic Ewing, Reid. 1995a. Measuring Transportation Perfor-
Aspects of Communications and Information, edited by S. mance. Transportation Quarterly 49,l: 91-104.
Brunn and T. Leinbach. London: HarperCollins Aca- Ewing, Reid. 1995b. Beyond Density, Mode Choice, and
demic. 149-69. Single-Purpose Trips. Transportation Quarterly 49,4: 15-24.
David Jensen Associates, Inc. 1985. Community Design Ewing, Reid. 1996. Best Development Practices-Doing the Right
Guidelines. Washington, DC: National Association of Thing and Making Money at the Same Time. Chicago, IL:
Home Builders. American Planning Association (in cooperation with the
Davies, Graham. 1974. An Econometric Analysis of Residen- Urban Land Institute).
tial Amenity. Urban Studies 11: 217-25. Ewing, Reid, MaryBeth DeAnna, and Shi-Chiang Li. 1996.
Davis, Stacy C. 1995. Transportation Energy Data Book: Edttion Land-Use Impacts on Trip Generation Rates. Transporta-
15 . Washington, DC: Office of Transportation Techno- tion Research Record 1518: 1-7.
logies, US. Department of Energy. Table 1.3. Ewing, Reid, Padma Haliyur, and G.William Page. 1994. Get-
Dougharty, Lawrence A,, Sandra Tapella, and Gerald Sum- ting Around a Traditional City, a Suburban PUD, and
ner. 1975. Municipal Service Pricing: Impact on Fiscal Position. Everything In-Between. Transportation Research Record
Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. 1466: 53-62.
Downing, P. B., and R. D. Gustely. 1977. The Public Service Fannie Mae. 1996. National Housing Survey. Washington, DC.
Downloaded By: [Mass Inst of Tech] At: 00:26 21 January 2010

Costs of Alternative Development Patterns: A Review of 2 7.

the Evidence. In Local Service Pricing Policies and Their Effect Federal Highway Administration (FHA). 1996. Report on the
on Urban Spatial Structure, edited by P. B. Downing. Van- Congestion Pricing Pilot Program. Washington, DC: U.S.
couver, B.C.: University of British Columbia Press. Department of Transportation.
Downs, Anthony. 1994. New Visionsfor Metropolitan America. Fischel, William A. 1982. The Urbanization of Agricultural
Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. Land: A Review of the National Agricultural Lands Study.
Drennan, M. P. 1989. Information Intensive Industries in Land Economics 58,2: 236-59.
Metropolitan Areas of the United States of America. Enui- Fischel, William A. 1985. The Economics of Zoning Laws-P
ronment and Planning A21: 1603-18. Property Rights Approach to American Land Use Controls. Balti-
Duany, Andres, and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk. 1991. Towns and more, MD. 252-71.
Town-Making Principles. New York: Rizzoli International Fischel, William A. 1990. Do Growth Controls Matter? A Review
Publications. of Empirical Evidence on the Effectiveness and Eficiency of Local
Duany, Andres, and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk. 1992. The Sec- Government Land Use Regulation. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln
ond Coming of the American Small Town. The Wilson Institute of Land Policy.
Quarterly 16,l: 19-48. Flachsbart, Peter G. 1979. Residential Site Planning and Per-
Dunphy, Robert T., and Kimberly M. Fisher. 1994. Transpor- ceived Densities. Journal of Urban Planning and Development
tation, Congestion, and Density: New Insights. Paper pre- 105: 103-17.
sented at the 73rd Annual Meeting. Washington, DC: Flavin, Christopher, and Nicholas Lenssen. 1994. Oil Shock.
Transportation Research Board. In Power Surge-Guide to the Coming Energy Revolution. New
E. H. Pechan and Associates. 1992. Clean Air Act Amendments York: W. W. Norton and Co. 29-49.
of 1990: General Preamble Implementation of Tztle I Cost Analy- Florida Department of Community Affairs. 1994. Minimum
sis. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Requirements for the Review of Local Comprehensive
Agency. 5-10. Plans. Rule 9J-S.O06(5), Florida Administrative Code.
EIA-Energy Information Administration. 1994. Energy Use Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. 1994. Clos-
and Carbon Emissions: Some International Comparisons. Wash- ing the Gaps in Floridai- Wild& Habitat Conservation System.
ington, DC: 30,38. Tallahassee, FL. 3-6.
EIA-Energy Information Administration. 1996. Interna- Frank, James E. 1989. The Costs ofAlternative Development Pat-
tional Energy Outlook 1996. Washington, DC: Table A2. terns: A Review of the Literature. Washington, DC: Urban
Erickson, Rodney. 1986. Multinucleation in Metropolitan Land Institute.
Economies. Annals of the Association of American Geographers Frank, Lawrence D., and Gary Pivo. 1994. Relationships Be-
76,3: 331-46. tween Land Use and Travel Behavior in the Puget Sound Region.
Erwin, Kevin L. 1990. Wetland Evaluation for Restoration Seattle, WA: Washington State Department of Transpor-
and Creation. In Wetland Creation and Restoration-The Sta- tation. 14-34.
tus of the Science, edited by J. A. Kusler and M. E. Kentula. Frieden, Bernard J. 1989. The Downtown Job Puzzle. The
Washington, DC: Island Press. 429-58. Public Interest 97 (Fall): 71-86.
Etzioni, Amitai. 1993. The Spirit of Community: Rights, Responsi- Frieden, Bernard J., and Lynne B. Sagalyn. 1989. Downtown,
bilities, and the Communitarian Agenda. New York: Crown Inc. -How America Rebuilds Cities. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Publishers. Press. 259-85.

APA JOURNAL. WINTER 1997

 REID EWING

Fulton, William. 1995. Beyond Sprawl: New Patterns of Growth Gordon, Peter, Harry W. Richardson, and Myung-Jin Jun.
to Fit the New Caltfornia. San Francisco: Bank of America. 1991. The Commuting Paradox-Evidence from the Top
Gardner, B. Delworth. 1977. The Economics of Agricultural Twenty. Journal of the American Planning Association 57,4:
Land Preservation. American Journal OfAgricultural Econom- 416-20.
ics 59,s: 1026-36. Gordon, P., H. W. Richardson, and H. L. Wong. 1986. The
Garreau, Joel. 1991. Edge City-Life on the New Frontier. New Distribution of Population and Employment in a Poly-
York: Doubleday. 3-15, 423-39. centric City: The Case of Los Angeles. Environment and
Gehl, Jan. 1987. Life Between Buildings-Using Public Space. New PlanningA 18: 161-73.
York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. 10-31. Grether, David M., and Peter Mieszkowski. 1980. The Effects
Girling, Cynthia L., and Kenneth I. Helpband. 1994. Yard of Nonresidential Land Uses on the Prices of Adjacent
Street Park- The Design of Suburban Open Space. New York: Housing: Some Estimates of Proximity Effects. Journal of
John Wiley & Sons. 42-5. Urban Economics 8,l: 1-15.
Glynn, Thomas J. 1981. Psychological Sense of Community: Haines, Valerie A. 1986. Energy and Urban Form: A Human
Measurement and Application. Human Relations 34,7: Ecological Critique. Urban Affairs Quarterly 21,3: 337-53.
789-818. Handy, Susan. 1993. Regional Versus Local Accessibility: Im-
Gordon, Peter, and Harry W. Richardson. 1989. Gasoline plications for Nonwork Travel. Transportation Research Re-
Consumption and Cities-A Reply. Journal of the American cord 1400: 58-66.
Planning Association 55,3: 342-6. Handy, Susan. 1995. Understanding The Link Between Ur-
Gordon, Peter, and Harry W. Richardson. 1994a. Sustainable ban Form and Travel Behavior. Paper presented at the
Congestion. In Cities in Competition:The Emergence ofproduc- 74th Annual Meeting, Washington, DC: Transportation
tive and Sustainable Citiesfor the 21st Century, edited by J. Research Board.
Downloaded By: [Mass Inst of Tech] At: 00:26 21 January 2010

Brothchie et al. Melbourne, Australia: Longman Austra- Hanson, Mark E. 1992. Automobile Subsidies and Land Use:
lia. 348-58. Estimates and Policy Responses. Journal of the American
Gordon, Peter, and Harry W. Richardson. 1994b. Congestion Planning Association 58,l: 60-7 1.
Trends in Metropolitan Areas. In Curbing Gridlock:Peak Pe- Hanson, S., and M. Schwab. 1987. Accessibility and Intra-
riod Fees to Relieve Trafic Congestion.Report for the National urban Travel. Environment and Planning A 19,G: 735-48.
Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Harris, Larry D. 1984. The Fragmented Forest-Island Biogeogra-
Press. 1-31. phy Theory and the Preservation of Biotic Diversity. Chicago,
Gordon, Peter, and Harry W. kchardson. 1996a. Beyond Po- IL: University of Chicago Press. 71-92.
lycentricity-The Dispersed Metropolis, Los Angeles, Hartshorn, Truman A., and Peter 0. Muller. 1992. The Sub-
1970- 1990. Journal of the American Planning Association urban Downtown and Urban Economic Development To-
62,3: 289-95. day. In Sources of Metropolitan Growth, edited by E. S. Mills
Gordon, Peter, and Harry W. Richardson. 1996b. The Case and J. F. McDonald. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Ur-
for Suburban Development. Report prepared for the Build- ban Policy Research, Rutgers University. 147-58.
ing Industry Association of Northern California and Harvey, Greig. 1990. Relation of Residential Density to VMT Per
the Home Ownership Advancement Foundation. Los Resident. Oakland, CA: Metropolitan Transportation
Angeles, CA: Lusk Center Research Institute, University Commission.
of Southern California. Harvey, Robert O., and W.A.V. Clark. 1965. The Nature and
Gordon, Peter, and Harry W. Richardson. 1997. Are Compact Economics of Urban Sprawl. Land Economics 41,l: 1-9.
Cities a Desirable Planning Goal? Journal of the American Heikkila, Eric J., and Richard B. Peiser. 1992. Urban Sprawl,
Planning Association 63,l (this issue). Density, and Accessibility. Papers in Regional Science 71,2:
Gordon, P., and H.L. Wong. 1985. The Costs of Urban 127-38.
Sprawl-Some New Evidence. Environment and Planning A Heimlich, Ralph E. 1989. Metropolitan Agriculture-Farm-
17,s: 661-6. ing in the City‘s Shadow. Journal of the American Planning
Gordon, Peter, Ajay Kumar, and Harry W. Richardson. 1988. Association 55,4 457-66.
Beyond the Journey to Work. Transportation Research Heller, Kenneth. 1989. The Return to Community. American
22A,6: 419-26. Journal of Community Psychology 17,l: 1-15.
Gordon, Peter, Ajay Kumar, and Harry W. Richardson. Hill, Edward W., Harold L. Wolman, and Croit C. Ford.
1989a. The Influence of Metropolitan Spatial Structure 1995a. Can Suburbs Survive without Their Cities? Exam-
on Commuting Time. Journal of Urban Economics 26,2: ining the Suburban Dependence Hypothesis. Urban Affairs
138-51. Review 31,2: 147-74.
Gordon, Peter, Ajay Kumar, and Harry W. Richardson. Hill, Edward W., Harold L. Wolman, and Coit C. Ford.
1989b. Congestion, Changing Metropolitan Structure, 1995b. Response to Straw Men, Etc. Urban Affairs Review
and City Size in the United States. International Regional 31,2: 180-3.
Science Review 12,l: 45-56. Hillman, Mayer, John Adams, and John Whitelegg. 1990.
Gordon, Peter, Harry W. Richardson, and Y. Choi. 1992. ONE FALSE MOVE . . . A Study of Children’s Independent
Tests of the Standard Urban Model: A Micro (Trade-off) Mobility. London: Policy Studies Institute. 77-97.
Alternative. Review of Urban and Regzonal Development Stud- Holtzclaw, John. 1991. Explaining Urban Density and TransitIm-
ies 4,l: 50-66. pacts on Auto Use. San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club.

1
122 APA JOURNALmWINTER 1997
 IS LOS ANGELES-STYLE SPRAWL DESIRABLE?

Holtzclaw, John. 1994. Using Residential Patterns and Transit to Laidet. 1995. A Micro-Analysis of Land Use and Travel in
Decrease Auto Dependence and Costs. San Francisco, CA: Nat- Five Neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area. Paper
ural Resources Defense Council. presented at the 74th Annual Meeting, Transportation
Howe, Deborah A,, and William A. Rabiega. 1992. Beyond Research Board, Washington, DC.
Strips and Centers-The Ideal Commercial Form. Journal Koenig, J. G. 1980. Indicators of Urban Accessibility: Theory
of the American Planning Association 58,2: 213-9. and Application. Transportation 9: 145-72.
Hughes, Mark A. 1991. Employment Decentralization and Kreager, William H. 1992. Building Small-Lot Homes in
Accessibility-A Strategy for Stimulating Regional Mobil- Your Community. Land Development 4,3: 22-6.
ity. Journal of the American Planning Association 57,3: 288-98. Lacy, Jeff. 1990. An Examination ofMarket Appreciationfor Clus-
Hunt, David T., et al. 1986. A Geodemographic Model for tered Housing with Permanent Open Space. Amherst, MA:
Bus Service Planning and Marketing. Transportation Re- Center for Rural Massachusetts, University of Massachu-
search Record 1051: 1-12. setts.
Ingram, D. R. 1971. The Concept of Accessibility: A Search Ladd, Helen F. 1992. Population Growth, Density and the
for an Operational Form. Regional Studies 5,2: 101-7. Costs of Providing Public Services. Urban Studies 29,2:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 1995. IPCC Sec- 273-95.
ond Assessment-Synthesis of Scientzfic-Technical Information Ladd, H. F., and J. Yinger. 1989. America’s Ailing Cities: Fiscal
Relevant to Interpreting Article 2 of the U N Framework Conven- Health and the Design of Urban Policy. Baltimore, MD: Johns
tion on Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland. Hopkins University Press.
IEA-International Energy Agency. 1995. World Energy Out- Lansing, John B., Robert W. Marans, and Robert B. Zehner.
look. Paris, France. 1970. Planned Residential Environments. Ann Arbor: Survey
Ihlanfeldt, Keith R. 1995. The Importance of the Central Research Center, University of Michigan. 117.
Downloaded By: [Mass Inst of Tech] At: 00:26 21 January 2010

City to the Regional and National Economy: A Review of Ledebur, L. C., and W. R. Barnes. 1993. All In It Together:
the Arguments and Empirical Evidence. Cityscape: A Jour- Cities, Suburbs and Local Economic Regions. Washing-
nal ofpolicy Development and Research 1,2: 125-50. ton, DC: National League of Cities.
Ismart, Dane. 1991. Access Management-State of the Art. Lee, Douglass B. 1979. Land Use Planning as a Response to
Proceedings of the 3rd National Conference on Transportation Market Failure. In The Land Use Policy Debate in the United
Planning Applications. Washington, DC: Transportation Re- States, edited by J. I. de Neufville. New York: Plenum Press.
search Board. Lee, Douglass B. 1995. Full Cost Pricing of Highways. Paper
IUCN-International Union for the Conservation of Nature presented at the 74th Annual Meeting. Washington, DC:
and Natural Resources. 1980. World Conservation Strategy: Transportation Research Board.
Living Resources Conservation for Sustainable Development. Leinberger, Christopher B. 1995. The Changing Location of
Gland, Switzerland. Development and Investment Opportunities. Urban Land
Jakle, John A,, and k c h a r d L. Mattson. 1981. The Evolution 54,s: 38-42.
of a Commercial Strip. Journal of Cultural Geography 1,l: Lessinger, Jack. 1962. The Case for Scatterization. Journal of
12-25. the American Institute ofplanners 28,3: 159-69.
Jarvis, Frederick D. 1993. Site Planning and Community Design Levinson, Herbert S. 1994. Access Management on Suburban
for Great Neighborhoods. Washington, DC: National Associ- Roads. Transportation Quarterly 48,3: 3 15-25.
ation of Home Builders. 20-3, 52, 128-9. Li, Mingche M., and H. James Brown. 1980. Micro-
Jensen, David R. 1981. Zero Lot Line Housing. Washington, Neighborhood Externalities and Hedonic Housing Prices.
DC: Urban Land Institute. Land Economics 56,2: 125-41.
Kain, John F. 1992. The Spatial Mismatch Hypothesis: Three Lindeman, Bruce. 1976. Anatomy of Land Speculation. Jour-
Decades Later. Housing Policy Debate 3,2: 371-459. nal of the American Institute ofPlunners 42,2: 142-52.
Kaplan, Rachel, and Stephen Kaplan. 1989. The Prediction Linneman, Peter D., and Anita A. Summers. 1991. Patterns
of Preference. In The Experience of Nature-A Psychological and Processes of Employment and Populution Decentralization in
Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press. 40-71. the U S , 1970-1987. Wharton Real Estate Center Working
Katz, Peter. 1994. The New Urbanism-Toward an Architecture Paper #106. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania.
of Community. New York: McGraw-Hill. Lipton, Douglas W., and Katharine F. Wellman. 1995. Eco-
Kautz, Randy S. 1993. Trends in Florida’s Wildlife Habitat nomic Valuation of Natural Resources. Washington, DC: Na-
1936-1987. Floridd Scientist 56,l: 7-24. tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Kessler, Jon, and William Schroeer. 1995. Meeting Mobility Department of Commerce.
and Air Quality Goals: Strategies that Work. Transporta- Litman, Todd. 1995. Transportation Cost Anulysis: Techniques, Es-
tion 22,3: 241-72. timutes and Implications. Victoria, British Columbia: Victo-
King, David A., Jody L. White, and William W. Shaw. 1991. ria Transport Policy Institute. 3.0-1 through 3.16-2.
Influence of Urban Wildlife Habitats on the Value of Resi- Long, Gary, Cheng-Tin Gan, and Bradley S. Morrison. 1993.
dential Properties. In Wildlife Conservation in Metropolitan Safe9 Impacts of Selected Median and Access Design Features.
Environments, edited by L. W. Adams and D. L. Leedy. Co- Gainesville, FL: Transportation Research Center, Univer-
lumbia, MD: National Institute for Urban Wildlife. sity of Florida. 36-59.
165-9. Lopez, Rigoberto A,, Adesoji 0. Adelaja, and Margaret S. An-
Kitamura, Ryuichi, Patricia L. Mokhtarian, and Laura drews. 1988. The Effects of Suburbanization on Agri-

APA JOURNAL-WINTER1997 1123

 REID EWING

culture. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 70,2: cal Change, edited by J. Brotchie, P. Hall, and P. Newton.
346-58. London: Croom Helm. 75-88.
MacKenzie, James J., Roger C. Dower, and Donald T. Chen. Moss, Mitchell L. 1991. The Information City in the Global
1992. The Going Rate: WhatIt Really Costs to Drive. Washing- Economy. In Cities of the 21st Century-New Technologies and
ton, DC: World Resources Institute. 10-9. Spatial Systems, edited by J. Brotchie et al. Melbourne, Aus-
Marland, G., R. J. Andres, andT. A. Boden. 1994. Global, Re- tralia: Longman Cheshire. 181-9.
gional, and National C 0 2 Emissions. In Trends ’93:A Com- Nasar, Jack L., and David A. Julian. 1995. The Psychological
pendium ofData on Global Change, edited by T. A. Boden et Sense of Community in the Neighborhood. Journal of the
al. Oak Ridge, TN: Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis American Planning Association 6 1,2: 178-84.
Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 505-84. National Association of Home Builders (NAHB). 1986a. Cost
McHarg, Ian L. 1992. Nature in the Metropolis. In Design Effective Site Planning: Single Family Development. Washing-
with Nature. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 55-65. ton, DC.
McKee, David L., and Gerald H. Smith. 1972. Environmental National Association of Home Builders (NAHB). 1986b.
Diseconomies in Suburban Expansion. American Journal of Higher Density Housing-Planning-Design-Marketing. Wash-
Economics and Sociology 31,2: 181-8. ington, DC.
Mertes, James D., and James R. Hall. 1995. Park, Recreation, National Park Service. 1990. Real Property Values. Economic
Open Space and Greenway Guidelines. Alexandria, VA: Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors.
National Recreation and Park Association. San Francisco, CA. 1-1 through 1-18.
Messinger, Todd, and Reid Ewing. 1996. Transit-Oriented Neels, Kevin, et al. 1977. An Empirical Investigation of the
Development in the Sunbelt-Get Real (and Empirical). Effects of Land Use on Urban Travel. Washington, DC:
Transportation Research Record, number not yet assigned. The Urban Institute. 17-30,56-66.
Downloaded By: [Mass Inst of Tech] At: 00:26 21 January 2010

Meyer, J. R., I. F. Kain, and M. Wohl. 1965. The Urban Trans- Nelessen, Anton C. 1994. Visionsfor a New American Dream.
portation Problem. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Chicago, IL: American Planning Association.
Press. 341-53. Nelson, Arthur C. 1986. Using Land Markets to Evaluate Ur-
Mieszkowski, Peter, and Edwin S. Mills. 1993. The Causes of ban Containment Programs. Journal of the American Plan-
Metropolitan Suburbanization. Journal of Economic Perspec- ning Association 52,2: 156-71.
tives 7,3: 135-47. Nelson, Arthur C. 1390. Economic Critique of Prime Farm-
Millas, Aristides J. 1980. Planning for the Elderly within the land Preservation Policies in the United States. Journal of
Context of a Neighborhood. Ekistics 47,283: 264-73. Rural Studies 6,2: 119-42.
Miller, Peter, and John Moffet. 1993. The Price ofMobility- Nelson, Arthur C. 1992. Preserving Prime Farmland in the
Uncoveringthe Hidden Costs of Transportation. New York: Nat- Face of Urbanization-Lessons from Oregon. Journal of the
ural Resources Defense Council. 14-62. American Planning Association 58,4: 467-88.
Mills, David E. 1981. Growth, Speculation, and Sprawl in a New Jersey State Planning Commission. 1992. Communities
Monocentric City. Journal of Urban Economics 10,2: 201-26. of Place. Trenton.
Ministry of Transportation et al. 1992. Develop Major Tran- Newman, Peter W. G. 1996. Reducing Automobile Depen-
sit Routes as Medium Density, Mixed-Use “Activity Corri- dence. Environment and Urbanization 8,l: 67-92.
dors.” Transit-Supportive Land Use Planning Guidelines. Newman, P.W.G., and J. R. Kenworthy. 1988. The Transport
Toronto, Ontario. 23-6. Energy Trade-off: Fuel-Efficient Traffic versus Fuel-
Moe, Richard. 1995. Growing Wiser: Finding Alternatives to Efficient Cities. Transportation Research A 22A,3: 163-74.
Sprawl. Design Quarterly 164 (Spring): 4-9. Newman, Peter W. G., and Jeffrey R. Kenworthy. 1989. Cities
Moore, Terry, and Paul Thorsnes. 1994. The Transportation,’ and Automobile Dependence. Aldershot, England: Gower
Land Use Connection. Chicago, IL: American Planning Technical. 34-67.
Association 48. Ohls, James C., and David Pines. 1975. Discontinuous Urban
Morgan, E. Victor. 1974. Pricing Investment Decisions and Development and Economic Efficiency. Land Economics
Subsidies in Transport. Manchester School of Economic and 51,3: 224-34.
Social Studies 3 (September): 240-58. O’hUallachain, Breandan, and Neil Reid. 1992. The Intra-
Morris, J. M., P.L. Dumble, and M. R. Wigan. 1979. Accessi- metropolitan Location of Services in the United States.
bility Indicators for Transport Planning. Transportation Re- Urban Geography 13,4: 334-54.
search A 13A, 2: 91-109. Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission.
Morrison, Michael L., Bruce G. Marcot, and R. William Man- 1991. Transportation Planning Rule. Oregon Administration
nan. 1992. Wildlife-Habitat Relationships-Concepts and Appli- Rule 660-12, Salem, OR.
cations. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Orski, C. Kenneth. 1992. Congestion Pricing: Promise and
Moss, William G. 1977. Large Lot Zoning, Property Taxes, Limitations. Transportation Quarterly 46,2: 157-67.
and Metropolitan Area. Journal of Urban Economics 4,4: OTA-Office of Technology Assessment. 1988. Technology
408-27. and the American Economic Transition: Choices for the
Moss, Mitchell L. 1987a. Telecommunications, World Cities, Future. Washington, DC: Congress of the United States.
and Urban Policy. Urban Studies 24,6: 534-46. OTA-Office of Technology Assessment. 1994. Saving En-
Moss, Mitchell L. 1987b. Telecommunications and Interna- ergy in U.S. Transportation. Washington, DC: Congress
tional Financial Centres. In The Spatial Impact of Technologi- of the United States. 98-134.

1
124 APA JOURNAL.WINTER 1997
 IS LOS ANGELES-STYLE SPRAWL DESIRABLE?

OTA-Office of Technology Assessment. 1995. The Techno- United States and Europe: A Comparative Analysis of
logical Reshaping of Metropolitan America. Washington, Public Policies. Transport Reviews 15,3: 21 1-27.
DC: Congress of the United States. Pushkarev, Boris S., and Jeffrey M. Zupan. 1977. Public Trans-
Ottensmann, John R. 1977. Urban Sprawl, Land Values, and portation and Land Use Policy. Bloomington, IN: Indiana
the Density of Development. Land Economics 53,4: University Press. 24-55.
389-400. Raup, Phillip M. 1975. Urban Threats to Rural Lands.]ournal
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade Douglas, Inc. 1993. The Pedes- ofthe American Institute ofPlanners 41: 371-8.
trian Environment. Portland, OR: 1000 Friends of Ore- RERC-Real Estate Research Corporation. 1974. The Costs of
gon. 30-2. Sprawl, Detailed Cost Analysis. Washington, DC: U.S. Gov-
Peiser, Richard B. 1989. Density and Urban Sprawl. Land Eco- ernment Printing Office.
nomics 65,3: 193-204. Richardson, A. J., and W. Young. 1982. A Measure of Linked-
Persky, Joseph, Elliott Sclar, and Wim Wiewel. 1991. Does Trip Accessibility. Transportation Planning and Technology 7:
America Need Cities? An Urban Investment Strategy for Na- 73-82.
tional Prosperity. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Insri- Richardson, Walter J. 1988. Designing High-Density Single-
tute. 14-9. Family Housing-Variations on the Zero-Lot-Line
Peterson, George E. 1980. Federal Tax Policy and the Shap- Theme. Urban Land 47,2: 15-20.
ing of Urban Development. In The Prospective City, edited hchardson, Harry W. 1988. Monocentric vs. Polycentric
by A. P. Solomon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Models-The Future of Urban Economics in Regional
Peterson, George E., and H. Yampolsky. 1975. Urban Develop- Science. Annals of Regional Science 22,2: 1-12.
ment and the Protection of Metropolitan Farmland. Washing- Richardson, Harry W., and Peter Gordon. 1989. Counting
ton, DC: The Urban Institute. Nonwork Trips-The Missing Link in Transportation,
Downloaded By: [Mass Inst of Tech] At: 00:26 21 January 2010

PIRA-Petroleum Industry Research Associates, Inc. 1995. Land Use, and Urban Policy. Urban Land 48,9: 6-12.
Annual Retainer Client Seminar-World and US. Oil. New Richardson, H. W., and P. Gordon. 1993. Market Planning-
York. Oxymoron or Common Sense? Joournal of the American
Pirie, G. H. 1979. Measuring Accessibility: A Review and Pro- Planning Association 59,3: 347-9.
posal. Environment and Planning A 11,3: 299-312. Richardson, H. W., et al. 1990. Residential Property Values,
Pisarski, Alan E. 1992. Travel Behavior Issues in the 90s. Wash- the CBD, and Multiple Nodes: Further Analysis. Environ-
ington, DC: Office of Highway Information Management, ment and Planning A 22,G: 829-33.
Federal Highway Administration. Romm, Joseph J., and Charles B. Curtis. 1996. Mideast Oil
Pivo, Gary. 1990. The Net of Mixed Beads-Suburban Office Forever? The Atlantic Monthly 277,G: 57-74.
Development in Six Metropolitan Regions. ]ournu1 of the Rosenbloom, Sandra. 1988. The Mobility Needs of the El-
American Planning Association 56,4: 457-69. derly. In Transportation in an Aging Society. Special Report
Platt, Rutherford H. 1985. The Farmland Conversion De- 2 18. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
bate. Professional Geographer 37,4: 433-42. 21-71.
Plaut, Thomas. 1976. The Effects of Urbanization on the Rossetti, Michael A,, and Barbara S. Eversole. 1993. Joourney
Loss of Farmland at the Rural-Urban Fringe: A National to Work Trends in the United States and Its Metropolitan Areas.
and Regional Perspective. Discussion Paper Series No. 94. Cambridge, MA: National Transportation Systems Cen-
Amherst, MA: Regional Science Research Institute, Uni- ter. Table 4-13.
versity of Massachusetts. Rusk, David. 1993. Cities without Suburbs. Baltimore, MD:
Popenoe, David. 1977. The Suburban Environment. Chicago: Johns Hopkins University Press. 40-3.
University of Chicago Press. San Diego Association of Governments. 1991.Jobs/Housing
Popenoe, David. 1979. Urban Sprawl-Some Neglected So- Balance and Transportation Corridor Densities. In Re-
ciological Considerations. Sociology and Social Research gional Growth Management Strategy. San Diego, CA. Appen-
63,2: 255-68. dix 3.
Prevedouros, Panos D. 1991. Trip Generation: Different Sassen, Saskia. 1991. Dispersal and New Forms of Central-
Rates for Different Densities. Paper presented at the 71st ization. The Global City. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univer-
Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, sity Press. 22-34.
Washington, DC. Saunders, Denis A., Richard J. Hobbs, and Chris R. Mar-
Priest, Donald, et al. 1977. Large-Scale Development: Benefits, gules. 1991. Biological Consequences of Ecosystem Frag-
Constraints, and State and Local Policy Incentives. Washington, mentation: A Review. Conservation Biology 5,l: 18-32.
DC: Urban Land Institute. 37-45. Savitch, H. V., et al. 1993. Ties That Bid: Central Cities, Sub-
Pucher, John. 1988. Urban Travel Behavior as the Outcome urbs, and the New Metropolitan Region. Economic Devel-
of Public Policy: The Example of Modal-Split in Western opment Quarterb 7,4: 341-57.
Europe and North America. Journal of the American Plan- Savitch, H. V. 1995. Straw Men, Red Herrings, . . . and Sub-
ning Association 54,4 509-20. urban Dependence. Urban Affairs Review 31,2: 175-9.
Pucher, John. 1995a. Urban Passenger Transport in the Schaeffer, K. H., and Elliott Sclar. 1975. Access for All. Balti-
United States and Europe: A Comparative Analysis of more, MD: Penguin Books. 103-20.
Public Policies. Transport Reviews 15,2: 99-1 17. Scheuernstuhl, George J., and Jeffrey May. 1979. Analysis of
Pucher, John, 1995b. Urban Passenger Transport in the Air Quality Sensitivity to Development Pattern Changes

APA JOURNAL. WINTER 1997 1125

 REID EWING

and Growth Levels. Transportation Research Record 714: Tarry, Stephen. 1992. Accessibility Factors at the Neighbor-
12-7. hood Level. In Environmental Issues. London: PTRC Educa-
Schmidt, A. Allan. 1968. Converting Landfi-om Rural to Urban tion and Research Services Ltd. 257-70.
Uses. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. The Roving Advocate. 1996. Oil Supply Worries Surface
Schneider, Kenneth R. 1970. The Destruction of Urban Again in the US. Petroleum Economist 63,s: 18.
Space. Trafic Quarterb 24,l: 59-76. Untermann, k c h a r d K. 1984. Accommodating the Pedestrian-
Schroeder, Herbert W. 1988. Environment, Behavior, and Adapting Towns and Neighborhoods f i r Walking and Bicycling.
Design Research on Urban Forests. In Advances in Environ- New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company. 222-4.
ment, Behavior, and Design-Volume 2, edited by E. H. Zube Urban Land Institute (ULI). 1961. New Approaches to Residen-
and G. T. Moore. New York: Plenum Press. 87-117. tidl Land Development, Technical Bulletin No. 40. Washing-
Schwanke, Dean, et al. 1987. Mixed-Use Development Hand- ton, DC.
book. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute. USEPA-U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993a. Costs
Schwartz, Alex. 1992. Corporate Service Linkages in Large of Providing Government Services to Alternative Residential Pat-
Metropolitan Areas: A Study of New York, Los Angeles, terns. Report prepared for the Chesapeake Bay Program's
and Chicago. Urban Affairs Quarterb 28,2: 276-96. Subcommittee on Population Growth and Development.
Sclar, Elliot D. 1992. Back to the City. Metropolitan Hubs, Washington, DC.
Now Considered Passe, Are Vital to National Economic USEPA-U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993b. In-
Growth. Technology Review 95,G: 29-33. ventory of U S . Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sink: 1990-
Shaw, William W., William R. Mangun, and James R. Lyons. 1993. Washington, D.C. ES-5.
1985. Residential Enjoyment of Wildlife Resources by Vincent, Mary J., Mary Ann Keyes, and Marshall Reed. 1994.
Americans. Leisure Sciences 7,3: 36 1-75. NPTS Urban Travel Patterns. Washington, DC: Office of
Downloaded By: [Mass Inst of Tech] At: 00:26 21 January 2010

Shlay, Anne B. 1986. Taking Apart the American Dream: The Highway Information Management, Federal Highway Ad-
Influence of Income and Family Composition on Residen- minstration.
tial Evaluations. Urban Studies 23,4: 253-70. Voith, Richard. 1992. City and Suburban Growth: Substi-
Small, Kenneth A. 1980. Energy Scarcity and Urban Develop- tutes or Complements? Business Review-Federal Reserve
ment Patterns. International Regional Science Review 5,2: Bank of Philadelphia (September/October): 21-33.
97-117. Voith, Richard. 1994. Do Suburbs Need Cities? Working Pa-
Smith, S. A., et al. 1987. Planning and Implementing Pedestridn per No. 93-27/R. Philadelphia, PA: Federal Reserve Bank
Facilities in Suburban and Developing Rural Areas- Research of Philadelphia.
Report. National Cooperative Highway Research Program Volkman, Nancy J. 1987. Vanishing Lands in the USA-The
Report 294A. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Use of Agricultural Districts as a Method to Preserve
Board. 50. Farm Land. Land Use Policy 4,1: 14-30.
Spillar, Robert J., and G.Scott Rutherford. 1990. The Effects Warf, Barney, and Chand Wije. 1991. The Spatial Structure
of Population Density and Income on Per Capita Transit of Large U.S. Law Firms. Growth and Change 22,4 157-74.
Ridership in Western American Cities. ITE 1990 Compen- Wentling, James W., and Lloyd W. Bookout. 1988. Density By
dium of Technical Papers. Washington, DC: Institute of Design. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute.
Transportation Engineers. 327-3 1. Whyte, William H. Jr. 1957. Urban Sprawl. In The Exploding
Spirn, Anne W. 1984. The Granite Garden: Urban Nature and Metropolis. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Company.
Human Design. New York: Basic Books. 115-39.
Stanback, Thomas M. 1991. The New Suburbanization-Chal- Whyte, William H. 1964. Linkage and The Handling of
lenge to the Central City. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Space. In Cluster Development. New York: American Con-
Stanback, Thomas M. 1995. Putting City-Suburban Compe- servation Association. 78-90.
tition in Perspective. In Cities of the 21st Century-New Tech- Whyte, William H. 1988. The Design of Spaces. City-Redis-
ologies and Spatial Systems, edited by Brotchie et al. covering the Center. New York: Doubleday. 103-31.
Melbourne, Australia: Longman Cheshire. 208-25. Wilbur Smith and Associates. 1968. Patterns of Car Ownership,
Stover, Vergil G., Samuel C. Tignor, and Merton J. Rosen- Trip Generation and Trip Sharing in Urbanized Areas. Wash-
baum. 1982. Access Control and Driveways. Synthesis of ington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation. 107-10.
Safe9 Research Related to Trafic Control and Roadway Williams, Peter A. 1989. The Influence of Residential Accessi-
Elements-Volume 1. Washington, DC: Federal Highway bility on Household Trip-Making. Socio-Economic Planning
Administration. 4- 1 through 4-20. Sciences 23,G: 373-85.
Stull, William J. 1975. Community Environment, Zoning, Witherspoon, Robert, Jon P. Abbett, and Robert M. Glad-
and the Market Value of Single-Family Homes. Journal of stone. 1976. Mixed-Use Developments: New Ways ofLand Use.
Law and Economics 18,2: 535-57. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute.
Sullivan, Arthur M. 1985. The Pricing of Urban Services and Yaro, Robert D., et al. 1993. Dealing with Change in the Connecti-
the Spatial Distribution of Residence. Land Economics cut River Valley: A Design Manual f i r Conservation and Devel-
61,l: 17-25. opment. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

i
126 APA JOURNAL'WINTER 1997