An Alternative to Sprawl Cities - Assignment Example

Sprawl Debate Essay Edwin maintains sprawls are undesirable and condemns Los Angeles-style sprawl developments (Edwing 107). He argues that he differs with Robinson and Gordon in proposing alternative to sprawl cities. According to Edwin, previous works of the two authors, equate compact development to monocentric or high-density developments. Edwin expounds on the definition of compact development to be more inclusive of clustering of housing, concentration of employment and existence of mixed land use. The author makes references to new urbanists who argue that suburban development is best when it takes the form of compact development and not that of a sprawl. The author outlines forms of developments that are characteristic of sprawls as leapfrog or scattered development, large expanses characterized by single-use and low-density development and commercial strip development. Edwin also argues that his characterization of sprawl development has gained recognition by Florida’s anti-sprawl laws hence assumes his definition better than G&R. Robinson and Gordo are opposed to compact development of suburban settlements (Gordon and Richardson 95). They argue that compact development leads to the preservation of prime agricultural lands. However, problem arises when it comes to pricing of the lands since urban lands are of more value than the preserved agricultural lands. The two authors also argue that though compact developments are of higher density and profitable, their only advantage is the beautiful appeal to the customers. However, compact developments lead to more emissions and pollutions. Nonetheless, the two authors argue that compact developments are prone to zoning and regulations thus thwart possible efforts aimed at developing the areas into desired states. Is compact development more environmentally friendly than sprawl? Gordon and Robinson are against the opinion that compact developments serve to tackle the problem of energy usage. They argue that sprawls or suburban development leads to reduced consumption of energy resources since residents substitute the energy expenses to houses by living far from the city center (Gordon and Richardson 98). Sprawl development tends to focus more on commuting and utilization of the public transport system. The implication is that, with sprawl settlements, residents commute to workplaces thus the number of vehicles reduces. Therefore, sprawl development is characterized by low motor vehicle combustion thus more environmental friendly than compact developments that encourage heavy use of personal vehicles. Edwing firmly believes that there is efficient energy consumption in compact development than sprawls hence low settlements are environmentally friendly (Edwing 112). The author claims that central cities have less fuel consumption, measurable in per capita because residents drive less to their residents and town centers. The less driving time in compact settlements relatively reduce emissions as opposed to sprawls that are travel intensive and consumes more fossil fuels. The implication is that compact developments reduces vehicles to some extent and are not comparable to sprawls that adopt conventional consumptions of fuels due to increased distance between the settlements. Compact developments result in fixed emissions thus maintains air quality and provides checks to environmental impacts of energy consumption. --Is compact development more economically efficient than sprawl? Economic efficiency of sprawls stems from the ease of transportation and value of the assets. Gordon and Robison argue that compact developments are negative implication for the value of land in the downtown settlements (Gordon and Richardson 99). Lands that exist within the sprawls tend to be less valued than those in the urban settlements. However, the two authors argue that economic efficiency of sprawls is due to the ease of transportation. The implication is that industrialization follows human settlement. If residents move to suburban settlements or sprawls, transport costs tend to decrease, employees reach their jobs in time; a factor that contributes to economic development of the regions. In terms of transportation, Edwing argues that sprawls are less accessible owing to the long distances separating residents from one another (Edwing 113). He also argues that the strip developments lead to solid commercial land uses. The low-density developments or sprawls results in land subdivision until every developable acre are utilized. There is no open space for development as land is in private hands. The author is of the view that sprawls take up more land than compact developments. He confirms that sprawls eat up environmentally sensitive lands that could otherwise, five-times greater than compact developments. There is also attention to increased vehicle traveling times with sprawls that make them uneconomical than compact developments. --Is compact development more socially equitable than sprawl? Richardson and Gordon are of the opinion that compact development does not lead to social equity (Gordon and Richardson 98). Their argument is that market processes in compact developments sometimes produce unacceptable results. They also mention that political forces are behind the market processes. The upper-income individuals, who constitute a larger percentage of compact settlements, encourage socio-economic segregation. Suburbanization development or sprawls clearly indicate social inequality in compact development. The sprawls are inhabited by people who are escaping social stress in the urban or compact settlements. Sprawls, unlike compact developments, do not result in social segregation in line of ethnicity, race, and income hence advocate social equality. Edwing is of the opinion that central cities as still home to cultures, law as well as other higher social functions (Edwing 117). Unlike sprawls, compact developments do not result in social inequity where residents are cut out from the rest due to their inability afford traveling to other areas. The implication is that those who are unable to dive least access communal facilities, employment, and even essential services. While arguing against the impacts of sprawls, Edwin draws much attention to the negative effects of the development patterns have the poor, elderly poor and the young. However, such problems least exists in compact developments where accessibility is not an issue and the social equitability is best achieved. --Is compact development needed, given today’s telecommunications technology? Gordon and Robinson are of the opinion that telecommunication technology is a remedy for congestion in the main cities or compact developments (Gordon and Richardson 101). They argue that the benefits of advancement in telecommunication technology are mostly present in spatial settlements or sprawls. The presence of major highways connects different suburban settlements and through communication, residents can gain access to information from any sprawl settles within the particular radius. Advancement in telecommunication technology has overcome the problem of geographical local since both households and firms can access information regardless of their residents. Therefore, the authors maintain that with the advancement in telecommunication technology, compact developments are not necessary. Edwing is of the view that agglomeration economies are unique to metropolitan centers, and that advancement in technology and telecommunication should still encourage compact development (Edwing 118). The compact developments house more office spaces than suburban developments since technology have seen the development of high-rise buildings. The author is also against entire substitution of face-to-face communication and argues that some exchanges cannot take place through electronic means. On the other hand, the Edwing confirms that even telecommunication technology is never evenly distributed and still concentrates in the main cities. The implication is that telecommunication has only improved communication and exchange of information, but not a rationale for abandoning compact development. Works Cited Edwing, Reid. ‘‘Is Los Angeles-style sprawl desirable?’’. Journal of the American Planning Association, 63.1 (1197), 107-126. Print. Gordon, Peter and Richardson, Harry W. ‘‘Are compact cities a desirable planning goal?’’. Journal of American Planning Association, 63.1(1997), 95-106. Print. Read More