Avoid the urban sprawl disaster that is coming

 Urban sprawl—two words that define the way many modern cities have grown, often at the expense of community, environment, and efficiency. Let’s dive into the origins of sprawl, its impact on our cities, and how some places are fighting back.

The Origins of Urban Sprawl

The story of urban sprawl starts in the mid-20th century, particularly in the United States. After World War II, a combination of economic prosperity, affordable cars, and the dream of owning a suburban home led to rapid expansion beyond city limits. This phenomenon is characterized by low-density, car-dependent development, with single-family homes and strip malls sprawling over vast distances.

But how did we get here? The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 was a game-changer. It created 41,000 miles of interstate highways, making it easier than ever to commute long distances. In addition, the GI Bill provided low-interest home loans to millions of veterans, further fueling suburban growth.

However, this shift wasn’t just about convenience. There were also social factors at play, like “white flight,” where middle-class families moved to the suburbs, leaving behind urban centers that became increasingly segregated and underfunded.

 

Los Angeles: The King of Sprawl

When you think of urban sprawl, Los Angeles probably comes to mind. Spanning over 500 square miles, L.A. is the poster child for car culture. By the 1950s, the city had torn out its extensive streetcar network in favor of highways and freeways. As a result, today, Los Angeles has one of the highest car ownership rates in the world, with around 2.3 cars per household.

The impact? A study by the Urban Land Institute found that residents of sprawling cities like L.A. spend up to 30% more on transportation than those in more compact cities. The average Angeleno spends around 100 hours per year stuck in traffic, contributing to high stress levels and air pollution.

Furthermore, L.A.’s expansion has led to significant environmental consequences. The city consumes enormous amounts of water from sources like the Colorado River, depleting natural resources and impacting surrounding ecosystems. The sprawling development also contributes to the urban heat island effect, making the city 3-5°F warmer than its rural surroundings.

 

The Hidden Costs of Sprawl

Urban sprawl comes with hidden costs. For starters, infrastructure like roads, sewage, and electricity grids becomes more expensive to maintain over large, spread-out areas. According to the Congress for the New Urbanism, sprawl costs U.S. taxpayers $1 trillion annually due to inefficiencies in services.

Socially, sprawling cities can exacerbate inequality. With limited public transportation options, car ownership becomes a necessity, putting a strain on low-income families. In fact, 40% of low-income households in sprawling areas like Atlanta spend over 30% of their income on transportation alone.

 

Curitiba, Brazil: A Case Study in Smart Growth

But not all cities have fallen victim to sprawl. Curitiba, Brazil, offers a counter-narrative. Starting in the 1970s, visionary mayor Jaime Lerner implemented urban planning strategies that prioritized public transit and green spaces over car-centric development.

Curitiba’s Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system became a model for sustainable urban planning. Today, over 70% of the city’s population uses the BRT, reducing traffic congestion and air pollution. By focusing on compact, mixed-use development, Curitiba has avoided the pitfalls of urban sprawl. As a result, the city boasts 16 parks and 14 forests, making it one of the greenest cities in Latin America.

Curitiba’s approach to urban planning has paid off. The city has a 25% lower car ownership rate compared to other Brazilian cities of similar size. Additionally, Curitiba’s residents enjoy a high quality of life, with 99% saying they are satisfied with their city’s public services.

 

The Future: Can We Reverse Sprawl?

With the challenges of climate change and resource depletion, many cities are reconsidering their development models. Portland, Oregon, for example, has implemented urban growth boundaries to limit sprawl, preserving over 25,000 acres of farmland and forest.

Similarly, Copenhagen aims to be carbon-neutral by 2025 by encouraging cycling and pedestrian-friendly spaces. Already, over 62% of Copenhagen’s residents commute by bike daily, drastically reducing the city’s carbon footprint.

Moreover, New York City’s recent initiatives to reclaim streets for pedestrians—like turning parts of Times Square into pedestrian-only zones—are a testament to the growing trend of prioritizing people over cars. These efforts are part of a larger movement towards “smart growth,” which focuses on sustainable, compact, and people-oriented development.

 

Conclusion

Urban sprawl has shaped our cities in profound ways, often with negative consequences for both people and the planet. However, cities like Curitiba and Copenhagen offer hope that a more sustainable, compact future is possible.

 More about urban sprawl:

Correlations of Urban Sprawl with Transport Patterns and Socioeconomics of University Students in Cracow, Poland

Monitoring Urban Sprawl and Sustainable Urban Development Using the Moran Index: A Case Study of Stellenbosch, South Africa

Drivers of urban sprawl in two large Middle-eastern countries: literature on Iran and Egypt

URBAN SPRAWL IN MID-SIZED CITIES OF MENA, EVIDENCE FROM YAZD AND KASHAN IN CENTRAL IRAN

Sustainable Urban Growth Management Using What-If?

The Battle That Shaped New York: Jacobs vs. Moses

New York City in the 1960s was a battleground, but not in the way you might think. This was a war over the future of the city itself—a battle between two visionaries: Jane Jacobs and Robert Moses. Let’s dive into the clash that redefined urban planning and shaped New York as we know it today.

Setting the Stage: Post-War New York City

The story begins in the mid-20th century when New York City was booming. Robert Moses, the city’s most powerful urban planner, was on a mission to modernize New York. Known as the “Master Builder,” Moses was responsible for many of New York’s major infrastructure projects, from bridges and highways to parks and public housing. Over his career, Moses built 416 miles of parkways, 13 bridges, and numerous highways, reshaping the city to accommodate cars.

Moses was a firm believer in the idea that progress meant wide roads, expressways, and suburban-style developments. He envisioned a New York that prioritized cars over people, and he was willing to demolish entire neighborhoods to make it happen. But there was one neighborhood he didn't anticipate encountering fierce resistance from: Greenwich Village.

 

Enter Jane Jacobs: The People’s Advocate

Jane Jacobs was a journalist, author, and activist who believed in the power of communities. Unlike Moses, Jacobs saw cities as ecosystems that thrive when people are encouraged to walk, interact, and live close to one another. Her groundbreaking book, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, published in 1961, challenged conventional urban planning theories. She argued that a city’s strength came from its vibrant, diverse neighborhoods, not towering highways and isolated high-rises.

Jacobs moved to Greenwich Village in the 1930s, a neighborhood known for its bohemian charm and tight-knit community. It was here that she would take on Robert Moses in one of the most significant urban planning battles in American history.

 

The Lower Manhattan Expressway: Moses’ Ambitious Plan

The conflict reached its peak over a proposed project known as the Lower Manhattan Expressway (LOMEX). This expressway was part of Moses’ grand vision to transform Manhattan into a car-centric metropolis. The 10-lane highway would have cut through the heart of Lower Manhattan, connecting the Williamsburg and Manhattan Bridges with the Holland Tunnel. Moses claimed this would ease traffic congestion and boost the city’s economic growth.

However, the plan came at a high cost: it would have required the demolition of large swaths of Greenwich Village, SoHo, and Little Italy, displacing thousands of residents and destroying historic buildings. The project threatened to uproot 2000 families and demolish 800 businesses, erasing the cultural fabric of these neighborhoods.

 

Jane Jacobs’ Grassroots Resistance

Jane Jacobs wasn’t about to let that happen. In 1958, she began organizing protests, writing op-eds, and mobilizing the local community to fight back against Moses’ expressway plan. Jacobs formed the Committee to Save the West Village, rallying neighbors to speak out against the destruction of their community.

Her grassroots activism was relentless. In 1962, during a public hearing for the LOMEX project, Jacobs famously led a protest that disrupted the meeting, shouting, “The people have to fight Robert Moses!” This bold move resulted in her arrest, but it also galvanized public opinion against the expressway.

Jacobs argued that cities should be designed for people, not cars. She highlighted how vibrant street life, walkable neighborhoods, and mixed-use buildings were essential to a city’s health and vitality. Jacobs’ efforts helped shift public perception, proving that urban planning wasn’t just for experts but also for the people who actually lived in the city.

 

The Turning Point: Victory for the People

The tide began to turn in favor of Jacobs and her supporters. By the mid-1960s, the political climate was changing, and so was the public’s attitude towards Moses’ top-down approach to urban planning. In 1968, after a decade of relentless activism, New York City Mayor John Lindsay officially canceled the Lower Manhattan Expressway project. This marked a monumental victory for Jacobs and the residents of Lower Manhattan.

Moses, who had once been untouchable, saw his influence wane. The defeat of LOMEX symbolized the end of an era where urban planners could bulldoze neighborhoods in the name of progress without public input. Jacobs’ victory wasn’t just about saving a neighborhood—it was a turning point in urban planning, ushering in a new era that valued community, walkability, and people-oriented design.

 

The Legacy of Jacobs vs. Moses

So, what did we learn from the battle between Jane Jacobs and Robert Moses? Their clash reshaped urban planning philosophy in New York and beyond. Moses’ vision of highways and high-rises gave way to Jacobs’ ideas about preserving neighborhoods, fostering community engagement, and promoting mixed-use spaces.

In the decades that followed, cities around the world began adopting Jacobs’ principles. Today, urban planners emphasize the importance of walkability, green spaces, and human-scaled development. From the High Line in Manhattan to the revitalization of neighborhoods like Dumbo in Brooklyn, the impact of Jacobs’ vision is evident.

Even in cities like San Francisco and Boston, where highways once sliced through communities, efforts have been made to reclaim urban space for parks, bike lanes, and pedestrian-friendly zones.

 

Conclusion

The battle between Jane Jacobs and Robert Moses wasn’t just a fight over a single highway—it was a fight over the soul of New York City. Their clash highlighted the importance of community activism, public input, and the need to design cities for people, not just cars. Today, as cities worldwide grapple with issues like congestion, climate change, and housing shortages, the lessons from Jacobs vs. Moses are more relevant than ever.