Sprawl City

Answer: No. A study of the 100 largest U.S. Urbanized Areas has found that land-use and other decisions that affect the amount of land per resident are linked to only about one-half of all Urban Sprawl.

Graphic Illustration: View a bar graph that shows the relationship nationwide between per capita land use growth and total land growth (sprawl).

Explanation: The table to the right is of great assistance in determining whether land use and other consumption decisions are largely or entirely responsible for the sprawl of any given Urbanized Area.

A crucial gauge of this is the per capita land consumption figure provided by U.S. Bureau of the Census data.

For an explanation of per capita land consumption and how it reflects the combined effects of all consumption and land-use decisions in an Urbanized Area,
Click Here

If growth in per capita land consumption caused all or most of the sprawl in an Urbanized Area, the percentage of the per capita growth (in the first column of the table) would be nearly as large or larger than the percentage increase in land covered by the city and its suburbs (in the second column). In other words, the percentages in the two columns should be close to each other.

An example would be Bridgeport-Milford, CT, where the increase in per capita land consumption was 7.9% compared to sprawl of 8.0%.

But as you peruse the table, you will see that a far more common occurrence is a sprawl percentage that is far higher than the per capita consumption growth percentage. For example, Chattanooga's per capita consumption rose by 65.7%, but it sprawled by almost twice as much -- 120.1%. And the difference in growth rates was far wider in many cities such as Denver where per capita consumption rose by 8.1% while its overall land consumption rose by 56.7% -- seven times as much.

In the 100 largest Urbanized Areas together, per capita land consumption increased significantly by 22.6%. And overall land consumption increased by more than twice as much -- by 51.5%.

To view a bar graph of the above figures, click here

Clearly, per capita land consumption growth is a major factor -- but not the overwhelming factor -- in America's urban sprawl.

The Census statistics in the table show that if every bit of per capita land consumption growth had been prevented during the two decades, there still would have been a lot of sprawl -- perhaps around half of it.

Such a revelation does not call into question the wisdom of anti-sprawl efforts in trying to fight land-use and consumption decisions that increase per capita land consumption. But it does suggest that such efforts are too narrow to win any lasting, sustainable protection of the agricultural land and natural habitats surrounding cities.

Do consumption and land-use choices cause most of sprawl? Clearly not, according to the data on this page from the Census Bureau.

To view list of factors that drive increases in per capita land consumption,
Click Here

To view five government subsidies that increase per capita land consumption,
Click Here

Overall Rate of Sprawl was more than double the growth of Per Capita Land Consumption (1970-1990) in the 100 largest U.S. Urbanized Areas.
	Urbanized Area (alphabetical order)	% Per Capita Sprawl (growth in per capita land consumption)	% Overall Sprawl (% growth in total land area)
	1. Akron, OH	29.9	26.3
	2. Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY	32.5	38.7
	3. Albuquerque, NM	18.1	97.4
	4. Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA	27.8	44.3
	5. Atlanta, GA	42.0	161.3
	6. Austin, TX	49.9	218.4
	7. Bakersfield, CA	0.0	71.9
	8. Baltimore, MD	60.0	91.4
	9. Baton Rouge, LA	49.5	119.3
	10. Birmingham, AL	59.3	77.6
	11. Boston, MA	28.2	34.1
	12. Bridgeport-Milford, CT	7.9	8.0
	13. Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY	52.1	33.6
	14. Charleston, SC	46.6	152.9
	15. Charlotte, NC	40.3	128.7
	16. Chattanooga, TN-GA	65.7	120.1
	17. Chicago, IL - N.W. Indiana	22.6	24.1
	18. Cincinnati, OH-KY	39.8	52.7
	19. Cleveland, OH	15.0	-1.6
	20. Colorado Springs, CO	13.8	96.2
	21. Columbia, SC	41.8	92.5
	22. Columbus, OH	22.9	47.1
	23. Corpus Christi, TX	-5.9	19.3
	24. Dallas-Fort Worth, TX	-15.1	34.8
	25. Dayton, OH	36.4	21.9
	26. Denver, CO	8.1	56.7
	27. Des Moines, IA	27.5	46.4
	28. Detroit, MI	37.9	28.4
	29. El Paso, TX-NM	9.1	84.6
	30. Flint, MI	72.1	69.9
	31. Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood-Pompano, FL	-23.6	54.1
	32. Fresno, CA	-2.7	67.8
	33. Grand Rapids, MI	23.4	52.7
	34. Greenville, SC	32.2	108.9
	35. Harrisburg, PA	57.1	91.1
	36. Hartford-Middletown, CT	57.4	84.9
	37. Honolulu, HI	-15.7	20.6
	38. Houston, TX	26.4	118.8
	39. Indianapolis, IN	10.3	23.0
	40. Jackson, MS	97.4	200.4
	41. Jacksonville, FL	3.6	44.5
	42. Kansas City, MO-KS	33.4	54.5
	43. Knoxville, TN	59.0	154.1
	44. Lansing-East Lansing, MI	16.4	34.5
	45. Las Vegas, NV	-35.5	90.7
	46. Little Rock-North Little Rock, AR	52.4	109.0
	47. Los Angeles, CA	-8.4	25.1
	48. Louisville, KY-IN	31.5	34.3
	49. McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX	31.6	280.1
	50. Memphis, TN	40.4	74.4
	51. Miami-Hialeah, FL	-13.2	36.3
	52. Milwaukee, WI	14.6	12.2
	53. Minneapolis-Saint Paul, MN	20.8	47.4
	54. Mobile, AL	16.5	35.9
	55. Nashville, TN	10.1	40.8
	56. New Haven-Meriden, CT	35.0	74.9
	57. New Orleans, LA	35.7	46.8
	58. ew York City-N.E. New Jersey	23.6	22.3
	59. Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News, VA	6.2	50.1
	60. Ogden, UT	44.8	150.7
	61. Oklahoma City, OK	41.0	90.7
	62. Omaha, NE-IA	15.3	27.6
	63. Orlando, FL	3.2	199.6
	64. Oxnard-Ventura, CA	-28.3	40.9
	65. Pensacola, FL	53.7	133.9
	66. Philadelphia, PA	47.5	54.9
	67. Phoenix, AZ	-17.7	91.3
	68. Pittsburgh, PA	43.5	30.5
	69. Portland-Vancouver, OR-WA	2.4	45.4
	70. Providence-Pawtucket, RI-MA	15.0	22.4
	71. Raleigh, NC	24.2	149.5
	72. Richmond, VA	47.8	109.3
	73. Riverside-San Bernardino, CA	-25.9	48.6
	74. Sacramento, CA	-21.0	36.7
	75. Rochester, NY	46.5	51.0
	76. Saint Louis, MO-IL	52.9	58.1
	77. Salt Lake City, UT	-16.3	37.9
	78. San Antonio, TX	34.4	96.5
	79. San Diego, CA	-7.5	81.3
	80. San Francisco-Oakland, CA	5.7	28.4
	81. San Jose, CA	-12.8	22.1
	82. Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, PA	22.4	11.3
	83. Seattle, WA	1.0	42.3
	84. Shreveport, LA	42.1	55.4
	85. Spokane, WA	20.2	46.0
	86. Springfield, MA-CT	22.6	27.0
	87. Stockton, CA	-3.5	57.7
	88. Syracuse, NY	34.3	38.9
	89. Tacoma, WA	21.0	80.5
	90. Tampa-Saint Petersburg- Clearwater, FL	12.9	123.3
	91. Toledo, OH-MI	16.5	16.9
	92. Trenton, NJ-PA	34.5	46.5
	93. Tucson, AZ	19.6	135.4
	94. Tulsa, OK	32.3	69.0
	95. Washington, DC-MD-VA	40.9	91.0
	96. West Palm Beach-Boca Raton, FL	-18.7	124.8
	97. Wilmington, DE-NJ-MS-PA	41.2	71.0
	98. Wichita, KS	22.7	37.5
	99. Worcester, MA-CT	28.8	64.3
	100. Youngstown-Warren, OH	42.3	30.1

	Average Urbanized Area (mean of values in column)	23.5	69.6

	Aggregate Average	22.6	51.5

* Land Area Data derived from U.S. Census Bureau’s 1970 and 1990 reports on Urbanized Land Area.

The effects of all land use planning, government subsidies, urban policies and consumption decisions show up in the Per Capita Land Consumption figure. In the 100 largest U.S. Urbanized Areas (1970-90), per capita consumption increased rapidly -- by 22.6%. But the Sprawl rate was more than twice as high at 51.5%. Clearly something other than consumption and land-use decisions was influencing sprawl.