Challenging The Costs Of Sprawl
22 July 2004 - 10:00am
Is low-density development, a.k.a. sprawl, really more costly than more compact development? Wendell Cox and Joshua Utt of The Heritage Foundation question the assumptions behind the popularity of "smart growth."
Sponsored Advertisement
Advertise on PlanetizenCox and Utt refute arguments that smart growth is cost-effective and challenge what they call "Current Urban Planning Assumptions," i.e., government spending is lower in older municipalities with higher population densities and slower rates of population growth. The authors evaluate census data and conclude that the lowest public expenditures per capita tend to be in newer, faster-growing communities of medium and lower densities.
Source:
The Heritage Foundation, June 25, 2004
»
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
- Obama Knows Jane Jacobs - Jan 07, 2009
- The End of the Age of McMansions - Jan 06, 2009
- Obama Plan: Stimulating The Economy Or Sprawl? - Dec 31, 2008
- Parks May Allow Bikes on Trails - Dec 26, 2008
- Suburbs Benefit From an Urban President, Too - Dec 22, 2008









