Page 359 - Environment: The Science Behind the Stories

(a) Las Vegas, Nevada, 1984 (b) Las Vegas, Nevada, 2009

FIGURE 13.4 Satellite images show the rapid urban and suburban expansion that many people have
dubbed sprawl. Las Vegas, Nevada, is one of the fastest-growing cities in North America. Between 1984
(a) and 2009 (b), its population and its developed area each tripled.

Several development approaches can lead to sprawl a whopping 1021 km (394 mi ) because of an overwhelming
2
2
(FIGURE 13.5). These approaches allot each person more space influx of new people. In contrast, the Detroit metro area lost
than in cities. For example, the average resident of Chicago’s 7% of its population between 1970 and 1990, yet it expanded
suburbs takes up 11 times more space than a resident of the in area by 28%. In this case, sprawl clearly was caused solely
city. As a result, the outward spatial growth of suburbs across by increased per capita land consumption.
the landscape generally outpaces growth in numbers of peo- Each person is taking up more space these days in part
ple. In fact, many researchers define sprawl as the physical because of factors mentioned earlier: Better highways, inex-
spread of development at a rate that exceeds the rate of popu- pensive gasoline, telecommunications, and the Internet have
lation growth. For instance, the population of Phoenix grew fostered movement away from city centers by freeing busi-
12 times larger between 1950 and 2000, yet its land area grew nesses from dependence on the centralized infrastructure a
27 times larger. Between 1950 and 1990, the population of 58 major city provides and by giving workers greater flexibility
major U.S. metropolitan areas rose by 80%, but the land area to live where they desire. Given a choice, most people desire
they covered rose by 305%. Even in 11 metro areas where space and privacy and prefer living in less congested, more
population declined between 1970 and 1990 (for instance, spacious, more affluent communities.
Rust Belt cities such as Detroit, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh), Economists and politicians have encouraged the unbri-
the amount of land covered increased. dled spatial expansion of cities and suburbs. The conventional
assumption has been that growth is always good and that attract-
ing business, industry, and residents will enhance a community’s
Sprawl has several causes economic well-being, political power, and cultural influence.
There are two main components of sprawl. One is human pop- Today, this assumption is being challenged as growing numbers
ulation growth—there are simply more of us alive each year of people feel the negative effects of sprawl on their lifestyles.
(Chapter 8). The other is per capita land consumption—each
person is taking up more land than in the past. The amount of What is wrong with sprawl?
sprawl is a function of the number of people added to a region
times the amount of land each person occupies. To some people, the word sprawl evokes strip malls, homog-
A study of U.S. metropolitan areas between 1970 and enous commercial development, and tracts of cookie-cutter
1990 found that these two factors contribute about equally to houses encroaching on farmland, ranchland, or forests. It may
sprawl but that cities vary in which is more influential. The suggest traffic jams, destruction of wildlife habitat, and loss
Los Angeles metro area increased in population density by of open space. For other people, sprawl is simply the collec-
9% between 1970 and 1990, becoming the nation’s most tive result of choices made by millions of well-meaning indi-
densely populated metro area. Increasing density should be viduals trying to make a better life for their families. In this
358 a good recipe for preventing sprawl. Yet L.A. grew in size by view, those who criticize sprawl are being elitist and fail to

M13_WITH7428_05_SE_C13.indd 358 12/12/14 4:59 PM