Urban Sprawl, Land Values and the Density of Development

The character of the residential development occurring at the periphery of a metropolitan area has extensive and diverse economic and social implications. The kinds and prices of housing produced, the population groups served, and the cost and problems of providing public services are all determined by the workings of the development process. An understanding of this process requires an examination of the relationships between land prices and the location and intensity of development. Urban sprawl-the scattering of new development on isolated tracts, separated from other areas by vacant land-is frequently cited as one negative consequence of the development process. The separation of residential areas by vacant land leads to increased costs in providing utilities and other public services. Residents are forced to travel farther to engage in most activities, using more energy resources and producing more air pollution. The scattered subdivisions bring the negative impacts of urbanization to far larger areas of formerly agricultural or wilderness land. And finally, although this effect is impossible to quantify, many have strenuously objected to sprawl on aesthetic grounds, arguing against the formless character of typical urban development. Urban sprawl is not without its defenders. Lessinger [1962] argued that the scatter of new development might prevent the development of large, homogeneous residential areas that would be socially segregated and ultimately become large, homogeneous slums. Boyce [1963] suggested that sprawl retains an element of flexibility for future urban development appropriate under conditions of uncertainty and imperfect knowledge. The reservation of land for later development in more intensive uses, either residential or commercial, could produce an urban pattern that may be more efficient in the long run, based on recent theoretical work by Ohls and Pines [1975]. A basic discussion of the nature of sprawl has been provided by Harvey and Clark [1965]. Clawson [1962] and Sargent [1976] have suggested the importance of landowner speculation in the process. Bahl [1968] considered the role of the property tax, while Archer [1973] attributed sprawl to the failure of the residents of the new areas to be confronted by the full costs of development. Land values play a critical role in the allocation of land, thereby shaping the