Stopping Sprawl Without Stopping Growth

It is no secret that the world's population is increasing with every passing day and shows no sign of slowing. At the same time, the core cities that have for so long contained the main populace are deteriorating almost as fast. Over time, these two problems combined to create one even greater problem: where all the people would go if the cities could no longer handle them. To combat this, urban sprawl has taken over. For those unaware of this term, urban sprawl is the phrase used to describe the rapid expansion of failing cities into formerly rural areas. Where there once was forest and farmland there are now superhighways, smog, skyscrapers, and traffic. Over time, what once seemed like a solution to several problems has become an even bigger problem in itself. The increase in urban sprawl has subsequently resulted in adverse affects on both the environment and on mental and physical health.

Urban sprawl was first created as a solution to the overcrowding of major U.S cities. Since then, the expansions of the cities that were created have themselves become significantly overcrowded. Public schools in areas surrounding core cities are reaching unnecessarily high enrollment numbers each year, but the number of teachers has remained relatively steady. Over time, this creates larger class sizes and less interaction between the student and teacher, reducing the effectiveness of public education. If urban sprawl was stopped and instead smaller towns were spaced farther apart, the population in these areas would level out at an acceptable level and the overcrowding of schools would no longer be a problem.

Perhaps the biggest and most serious problem to arise as a result of urban sprawl is the affect it has had on the health of Americans. In a small town environment, walking to the store is not uncommon. Because of urban sprawl and the spreading out of our cities, in order to go to the grocery store to pick up some bread, one has to get in their car and brave bumper-to-bumper traffic. A recent study by Dr. Reid Ewing has backed up this theory, proving that "people in areas associated with sprawl...tend to be heavier because they lead a more automobile-dependent lifestyle" (Johnson). In 2001, drivers in Washington D.C. spent an average of 67 hours in congestion, an increase of 19 hours over the previous ten years that, despite the high number, was still only third in the nation (Ginsberg). Anyone who has ever had the misfortune of commuting daily through cities such as Los Angeles, Washington D.C., or Atlanta - three cities consistently ranking in the top worst for traffic - knows how bad driving to the mall or work can be in sprawling cities. The dependence on highway systems to deliver us across towns that could easily be condensed has created a lifestyle that revolves around sitting in the car. Statistics have shown that time spent sitting in traffic just to get across town is very similar to someone sitting on a couch all day watching television. Also, traffic congestion increases stress levels drastically and at the same time decreases productivity. It is estimated that Americans waste 3.6 billion hours of work time a year sitting in traffic congestion, proof that the consequences of this problem are severe (Wikipedia).

While there is no doubt that urban sprawl needs to be stopped, or at the very least contained, the problem is that deep down it is still necessary. America's large cities, mostly the capital cities of each state, are far too crowded already to accommodate any more people. Unfortunately, thus far the preferred method of fixing this has been to expand the aforementioned cities outward, starting at the center and working with the immediately adjacent space. Instead, there needs to be some buffer room around the big cities. The environment is in terrible shape already, and "urban sprawl poses a threat to the long-term health of the forest" (U.S Newswire). If some forestry were preserved around the major cities, the pollution and smog could be somewhat contained and the effect lessened. To do this, however, the American people need to be encouraged to stop urban development, and the best way to go about this is through the government.

Local governments are constantly engaged in what can only be described as a battle for control of land and how to use that land. This means that "the diversity of the state [governments] makes creating a statewide land use policy difficult" (Wilkinson). If the local governments could come together and work as one large region instead of several separate ones, a universal land-use and development plan could be created to protect what little forestry and farmland is left. So far, large cities have planned very little ahead of time as far as development plans. An excellent example of this is Georgia capital Atlanta. In this case, an already large city has expanded to ridiculous sizes and once small, semi-isolated towns have become sucked into the sprawling areas, creating one massive metro area that suffers universally from the same problems as the original downtown does. With proper planning, these small towns could have remained isolated and instead grown proportionally, as opposed to expanding toward the city to meet the outward expansions. This way, the city could have stayed relatively the same size while the towns surrounding it could have had the freedom to expand at the rates that were necessary, all the while keeping traffic congestion, pollution, and so forth at a minimum.

Finally, the government needs to stop giving incentives to developers who are spurring urban sprawl. Currently, public money is often used to fund or encourage urban sprawl. Also, local and state governments frequently "[grant] tax breaks and such to developers building bigger and better farther and farther away from deteriorating core cities" (Zawacki). If the incentives toward developers are eliminated, they will be less inclined to build the large malls and superstructures that have become commonplace in outer suburbs surrounding major cities. Since these commercial developments are big draws for large crowds of people, it is safe to assume they are a very large contributor to the growing traffic and smog problem in America.

There is nothing that can be done about the growing population in America. Instead, the ways that this population is handled need to be changed fast. Urban sprawl is eliminating what little amounts of untouched forestry and farmland are remaining. With proper planning from local governments and the discouragement of large commercial developments, metropolitan areas will be able to stop expanding at such and astronomical rate and smaller towns can grow instead. This way, more medium-sized cities will be created without increasing the size of the already large cities at the same time. With the space kept as a buffer between cities, the highway systems can be relieved of the constant congestion they suffer and traffic flow will improve overall. This would lead to a direct decrease in pollution, which would work in conjunction with the preserved forestry to lessen the destructive effects these cities are currently having on the environment. All that is needed now is to start fixing these problems before it really is too late.