Suburban Sprawl (Environmental Issue) - Essay Example

These hazards being talked about refer not to only to body health issues but a rapid jump in mental health issues, prompting the former vice president of the U.S Al Gore to comment that the urban spread is like “cookie-cutter monster.”(Brooking Inst, 1998). While supporters of urban lifestyles contend “consumers prefer lower density neighborhoods and that sprawl does not necessarily increase traffic.” (Moore, Henderson, 1998). Nevertheless there is evidence that urban sprawl is one of the primary contributing factors to the specter of inner city degeneration.

By pulling economic resources out of communities that are already existing and diffusing it into new and unconnected developments away from the current core, older communities get neglected and are led to ruin. These new developments are subsidized heavily to create newer roads, water and sewer infrastructure, new schools and enhanced spending on police and fire protection. While urban spread directly influences new lawns using ever more water and the use of chemical fertilizers as well as pesticides, it displaces native plants, which have not needed constant watering.

It could be concluded that Sprawl wastes tax payers’ money With the population of the world exceeding 6 billion already and progressing toward doubling by the 22nd century, it is estimated that 95% of the new inhabitants of the planet earth will be living in urban areas. When compared to the fact that only 15% of the world lived in urban areas as recently as 1990, the task to manage urban sprawl is both vital and urgent. If not the exponential growth in urban dwellers combined with Socio-economical, geopolitical factors, with the certainty of limited land availability and in -efficient planning is certain to create cities that devour land used for other purposes historically directly influencing equally important aspects such as food security.

Combating urban sprawl has two major forms of endeavor both, which include detailed planning. “The first, the French/British/European tradition, considers urban planning a matter of public health and focuses on strong land- use regulation, public-sector investment, and civic design. The second tradition, born in North America, focuses on zoning and subdivision regulations within a context of strong private property rights” (Calthorpe, 2001)). Peter Calthorpe a New Urbanism thinker and architect illustrates the differences in these two styles by flavoring the European model a more ecological model and the North American planning model a more mechanically motivated model.

The European model appears to be the antecedent to the concept called smart growth, and the other of developing efficiencies through zoning. The search for solutions to urban sprawl has given birth to various special-interest groups that promote a concept termed SMART growth at all levels federal, state, and local government. This might look nostalgic with a promotion of return to the city lifestyles of the last two centuries. Living in smaller apartments or smaller land plots with the emphasis on limiting transportation to bicycles or simply walking.

Smart growth can be defined as the prevention of urban sprawl through meticulous planning with associated restriction to