Opponents of high- and mid-rise development often use the term "vertical sprawl." But in fact there is little similarity between high-rise infill and suburban sprawl: the major arguments against one do not apply to the other.
In the ongoing controversy over height limits of various types, one phrase commonly bandied about is “vertical sprawl.” Some argue that tall infill development is itself “sprawl” – presumably because just as regular sprawl extends horizontally into the countryside, taller buildings extend vertically into the airspace.
But in fact, there is no similarity between taller buildings (even high-rises) and horizontal sprawl, because the major concerns about sprawl are unrelated to height, and vice versa. To examine why this is so, let’s ask ourselves: why should we care about traditional sprawl?
The most commonly voiced concerns, as far as I can see, fall into two categories:
*Environmental. Environmentalists worry that sprawl leads to more driving, and thus to more air pollution and climate change. By contrast, infill development (whether the development is two stories high or thirty) in transit-friendly areas actually reduces driving by increasing the number of people with access to public transit.
*Social equity and quality of life. Sprawl means that jobs and other social amenities move to places without public transit, thus making it impossible for persons without cars to reach jobs. Residential infill development (whether the development is two stories high or thirty) means that more people can live in areas with public transit, and commercial infill increases the number of people whose jobs are reachable by transit.
Admittedly, it could be argued that infill development leads to gentrification, which in turn leads to displacement of the poor. Even if this argument had some validity (a subject best addressed in a separate post) it is irrelevant to height. Even if it was true that infill development increased real estate prices to the extent that poor people were driven into car-dependent suburbia, this would be the case whether the development consisted of two-story walkups or twenty-story towers.
It seems to me that the most common concerns about high- and mid-rise infill have nothing to do with sprawl. Some people have aesthetic concerns about taller buildings- but even if both types of structures are both unattractive, a high-rise tower is not physically similar to a strip mall any more than a morally unattractive gossiping neighbor is similar to a morally unattractive dictator 4000 miles away.
NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) attacks on infill development often center on traffic and parking. But these arguments are often a defense of existing sprawl rather than an honest attempt to compare horizontal sprawl and high-rises: if you really believe that compact development creates traffic congestion, you must therefore believe that sprawl eliminates congestion, and that sprawl is a good thing. And if you believe that land’s highest and best use is for cars rather than people, you should think that sprawl is perfectly fine. In any event these arguments are really attacks on infill and density generally, not attacks on high-rises specifically.

Trump Administration Could Effectively End Housing Voucher Program
Federal officials are eyeing major cuts to the Section 8 program that helps millions of low-income households pay rent.

Planetizen Federal Action Tracker
A weekly monitor of how Trump’s orders and actions are impacting planners and planning in America.

Ken Jennings Launches Transit Web Series
The Jeopardy champ wants you to ride public transit.

California Invests Additional $5M in Electric School Buses
The state wants to electrify all of its school bus fleets by 2035.

Austin Launches $2M Homelessness Prevention Fund
A new grant program from the city’s Homeless Strategy Office will fund rental assistance and supportive services.

Alabama School Forestry Initiative Brings Trees to Schoolyards
Trees can improve physical and mental health for students and commnity members.
Urban Design for Planners 1: Software Tools
This six-course series explores essential urban design concepts using open source software and equips planners with the tools they need to participate fully in the urban design process.
Planning for Universal Design
Learn the tools for implementing Universal Design in planning regulations.
Ada County Highway District
Clanton & Associates, Inc.
Jessamine County Fiscal Court
Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies (IHS)
City of Grandview
Harvard GSD Executive Education
Toledo-Lucas County Plan Commissions
Salt Lake City
NYU Wagner Graduate School of Public Service
