tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4520343519564700704.post4944085354089565387..comments2024-01-11T05:07:59.607-05:00Comments on Housing Perspectives (from the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies): Cities are Growing but Sprawl ContinuesHarvard Joint Center for Housing Studieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07404938012740019524noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4520343519564700704.post-9435627599830618262012-11-26T16:00:11.883-05:002012-11-26T16:00:11.883-05:00The information is interesting, but I don't th...The information is interesting, but I don't think what is presented is sufficient to conclude that "sprawl continues" (quoting the headline). To draw that conclusion, one would need to 1) concluded have concluded that any growth in the number of households outside of the core urban cities is, by definition, contributing to "sprawl." Even accepting that growth in number of households is the appropriate metric (as opposed to development of housing units, which is probably more appropriate), I believe that this approach is a narrow view of the topic.<br /><br />In my view, sprawl has more to do with the characteristics of development than it does with the location of that development (though both are important).<br /><br />In particular, it is crucial to know the density and smaller-scale locational characteristics of the new development. If the new development is low-density, mostly single-use, and mostly dependent on automobile travel, then the "sprawl continues" conclusion may be warranted.<br /><br />If, however, the new development is higher density, includes a mix of uses, and has access to some reasonable version of transit usable for daily trips, then it may not be "sprawl" continuing, but instead the core urban area extending (whether within or outside of the core urban city jurisdiction). Core urban areas extending, in terms of development density, cannot be considered as sprawl -- otherwise, development that has led to expansion of city limits would need to be considered sprawl until annexation occurred.<br /><br />So -- bottom line -- if Figure 1 had a couple of lines that showed density of development, and that those lines were able to show that, in the suburban and ex-urban areas, low-density development was continuing (defined as lower, at minimum, than the lowest-density development that currently exists in core urban cities), then I'd sign on to the notion that "sprawl continues." Otherwise, it's a case of "More data/information is needed to determine whether the lower overall quantity of household growth in core urban cities, as compared to suburban and ex-urban areas, constitutes an expansion of sprawl, or an expansion of cities....or a bit of both."DBLevyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16303647638401156697noreply@blogger.com