Customer Reviews

Sprawl: A Compact History

5 star:		(11)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(8)
1 star:		(8)

 

 

I suppose I am one of those "elites" that Robert Bruegmann writes about in "Sprawl: A Compact History." I was born and raised in New York City. I grew up riding public transit and shopping at local mom n' pop stores. I watched many of my relatives leave the big city for greener pastures, and I noticed what a pain it was to go visit them on holidays because of the traffic. My parents refused to buy into the suburban lifestyle and stayed in the city. Even though my life and career path took me away from my beloved city, I have always tried to reside in the more urban parts of whatever area I happened to live. The suburbs never appealed to me, so naturally I was drawn to all of the anti-sprawl rhetoric and it all seemed perfectly reasonable to me. Bruegmann's book has changed that.

"Sprawl: A Compact History" might appear to be "pro-sprawl," but to dismiss the book out of hand because of this is to miss much of the point. Bruegmann does a great job explaining some things that probably should be obvious: sprawl is not new, there are lots of appealing aspects of sprawl (even for city dwellers) and it's not going away. He discusses the history of what most people would consider sprawl in places as far flung as Chicago, Paris and Tokyo and demonstrates that it was going on for a long time before anybody called it "sprawl" and decided it was bad. He notes that the existence of sprawl does not necessarily mean the death of great cities. He tackles many of the prevailing anti-sprawl arguments including the idea that sprawl causes congestion and ruins the environment. The point is not to say that sprawl is good and should be encouraged but rather to say that sprawl is not all bad and we should focus on what can be done to mitigate the negative side effects instead of trying to reverse long-established settlement patterns. In that respect he does an excellent job.

Does this mean that Bruegmann has turned me into a wannabe minivan-driving soccer dad with 2.1 kids and a yard with a white picket fence? Of course not. I have always been, and will continue to be, a city boy at heart. Bruegmann has given me reason to rethink how I feel about modern-day suburbia. Before this book I would drive through the suburbs thinking "Ugh! How could anyone want to live in this drab, boring, soulless environment?" After reading this book I now think "Boy, I'm really glad all these people live out here so I can afford my nice little townhouse in the middle of the city on my modest salary."

The most seemingly innovative part of Bruegmann's book is his attempt to create a history of sprawl. His basic argument runs as follows: something vaguely resembling sprawl happened in ancient Rome and 18th-century Europe, therefore sprawl will forever be with us, therefore sprawl is unstoppable.

Bruegmann's argument fails because is that it totally ignores differences of degree. There is an enormous difference between

(1) a region where sprawl is just one lifestyle option among many and you can live an auto-free life in a city or a streetcar suburb (e.g. most of the United States in the 1920s, the NYC region today, and much of the rest of the world today)

and

(2) a place where buses stop running at rush hour and you need a car to be a functional member of society (e.g. some Sun Belt cities and most small towns).

It seems to me that situation (1) is indeed normal in an affluent society; situation (2) requires decades of bad public policies.

Moreover, Bruegmann makes concessions that eviscerate his argument. On the one hand, he implies that sprawl is inevitable in an affluent society. On the other, he admits that many metro areas have grown more compact in recent decades, and that cities are beginning to gentrify. (I suspect that he was not quite sure whether he wanted to be balanced or to write a pro-sprawl polemic; sometimes he leans in one direction, other times not).

His attempt to deny government's involvement in sprawl is sometimes a bit silly. In response to the argument that government-funded highways spread sprawl by making it easier to live in suburbs, he responds: "federal spending today goes more heavily per capita to central cities than to suburbs, primarily because of the enormous price tag of social security payments, which go primarily to an older population that remains disproportionately in the central cities."

First of all, this "analysis" is factually questionable: many cities actually have a slightly smaller over-65 population than their suburbs. (For example, in Chicago, where Bruegmann lives, 10.3% of city residents are over 65, as opposed to 11.3% of all metro residents). Second, highways affect where people live by making suburbs more convenient, while social security benefits benefit a suburban retiree as much as an urban retiree. (I suspect that they are most useful for whoever lives in a low cost of living area where your money goes farther- which means cities in some parts of the United States, suburbs in others).

Worst of all are the constant attacks against anyone who dares criticize the sprawl machine. He constantly attacks sprawl critics as "elites." This sort of "argument" exemplifies the ad hominem fallacy- attacking the person instead of the argument.

His attacks are as hypocritical as they are illogical; he brags about avante-garde architects who see "the spatial and ecological richness" of sprawl, and ignores the fact that a "road lobby" of construction companies and real estate interests generously funds politicians who favor suburban development and sprawl-generating expressways. It seems to me that these media star architects or large corporations are just as much of an "elite" as the environmentalists Bruegmann villifies.

Bruegmann's substantive discussion of the vices of sprawl is, by contrast, occasionally useful. Where the data is uncertain, he (occasionally) says so; for example, he correctly suggests that there is no way to know whether more compact development would reduce fuel consumption enough to affect global warming, or how much of an effect sprawl has on taxes and spending.

But even in this part of the book, Bruegmann sometimes cannot resist the temptation to overreach: for example, he writes that "cause of [auto-induced air] pollution was neither sprawl nor the automobile itself, but, rather, the inefficient fuel source it used." Of course, the "inefficient fuel source" only pollutes if it is actually placed in an automobile, and if the automobile is actually driven- both of which happen more often under sprawl.

This is a superb book on a subject that raises a lot of passions. I enjoyed many parts of it, not least the sections where Bruegmann discusses the (suspect) motives of those who go apoplectic over the very idea of sprawl.

(Spoiler alert: their hostility is an affluence-based elitism that can gain a hearing only during economic good times.)

Bruegmann's style is highly readable, but what makes this book excellent are three well-done things.

First, he grounds his argument in historical perspectives, which completely demolish the oft-heard rants that American suburbia is a social, economic, and esthetic horror unique in human history.

Second, Bruegmann brings a lot of accurately handled numbers to bear on the core question of populations and settlement densities, both current and historical. And he footnotes where you can chase them down yourself.

As a corollary to the above, he shows how few anti-sprawl polemics show any understanding of population dynamics, or even how cities actually work in the real world, as opposed to cherished myths, mostly leftist.

Third, he nails perfectly the fact that anti-sprawl sentiment - like anti-WalMart sentiment - always boils down to thinly disguised class prejudice.

(Funny, isn't it, that you never hear complaints about WalMart or suburbia from blue-collar families, or those for whom a move to the 'burbs means a step up in living standards.)

Negatives? I would have liked more illustrations - maps, diagrams, photos, etc. - especially in the historical sections. But those provided do the job perfectly well.

This is a great book that will attract a lot of criticism, rants, and negative comments. But no one with an opinion on sprawl can afford not to read it.

Bruegmann's bottom line on sprawl? It began with the first human settlements, and won't end until cities themselves cease to exist - or humans stop being human.

It was probably inevitable that a book about such a hot topic would provoke similarly hot reviews. But I found one of the great virtues of this book is that Bruegmann himself prefers to step away from the name calling and fingerpointing which have characterized so much of the sprawl debate until now. Instead, the reader is given a rare opportunity to check his or her preconceived notions at the door and read a book which does the same.

"Sprawl" rewards the careful reader in proportion to the reader's ability to defuse such loaded terms as "elite" and "traditional city"; indeed, even the word "sprawl" itself. Bruegmann doesn't ask the reader to jettison his preconceptions--only to temper them, based on a careful and thorough study of the subject.

When you've finished this book, you may or may not like sprawl any more than you do now--but you WILL understand that the subject is a lot more complex than you might have thought, and that the current attempts to halt it (or promote it, for that matter) have more far-reaching consequences than you might have supposed.

Ever since my city began to undergo a massive construction boom fifteen years ago, I've developed an amateur interest in planning and growth issues. In addition to Bruegmann's book, I've read several others on the subject, which were for the most part anti-sprawl. I thought Brugemann's book would be an interesting counterpoint, which it is, but since I didn't start out as an extreme hater of suburbs, I'm not sure how much this book changed my opinion of them.

One consistent problem (IMO) with Brugemann's book is its lack of scale for the historical suburbs he describes. For instance, it's true that Ancient Rome had its suburbs, but it also had the Campagna Romana, a beautiful region of farmland, forests, and small villages. This famous area lasted for thousands of years until-- well, until the rise of modern suburbia. In the course of the last fifty years, the countryside around Rome has been virtually paved over.

This lack of scale haunts the rest of the book too. I personally don't dislike everything about suburbs, but they do seem to be growing more and more inefficient with their use of land. They also seem to be built with little regard to the big picture of the city. Here in Charleston, we have developers building massive housing projects before there are roads and schools to serve them. There also seems to be no attempt to integrate individual projects into a greater tapestry of work and recreation areas. These two issues are what trouble me about suburbia. Bruegmann's book didn't really address them in a way that satisfied me, personally.

I also was a little put-off by his constant labeling of the anti-sprawl movement as elitist. Yes, it's true that most progressive movements still suffer a hangover from their association with 1960's era activism, which has come to be seen as smug and overly rigid. Smart growth advocates in my area, however, seem to be eager to build coalitions and make compromises. Some of the most outspoken opponents of sprawl here are hunters and conservative rural residents. The idea of going back to a traditional way of building cities, which is at the core of the anti-sprawl movement, attracts many conservatives once they get past the elitist label of New Urbanism, put there by champions of the current status quo. Books like Bruegmann try to make that label stick, but they don't quite succeed in doing so. Nonetheless, I do feel it's good to get book sides of the issue, and if you, for some reason, find yourself hating every aspect of suburbia, this book might bring you around to seeing that they're not all bad.

An interesting counterpoint to currently fashionable rhetoric condemning "sprawl" as a social and environmental evil. Bruegmann makes a number of good points, well-illustrated by graphs and charts, with appropriate footnotes and citations. Some of his arguments seem to stem more from an Libertarian philosophy and an excessive faith in the free market than a dispassionate review of the data. Even though I believe this is a somewhat flawed book, it is a good starting point for further discussion and research on this issue.

I was initially interested in the very different take on sprawl presented in this book. I don't like sprawl, but I am often turned off by the passionately subjective arguments typically utilized by anti-sprawl activists, so a more dispassionate look at it was welcome, and certainly the book offers a new perspective that at times seems more realistic than those he criticizes. As I continued to read the book I began to see that Bruegmann offered no thoughts of his own on sprawl- merely criticisms of anti-sprawl arguments (often belittling those with what most people would call legitimate concerns about sprawl). The only positive thing he could say about sprawl was that it offers a way out of the Dickensian urban environments of the past, completely ignoring the fact that urban environments could and did change in the last 100 years, and could and do offer nice places to live. He also ignores the fact that suburbs could and are be planned in different ways than sprawling, endless seas of cookie-cutter houses (and the fact that lots of people, not just "elites" don't like their house to look like thousands of others in a subdivision). Of course, this makes sense as he apparently despises planners. How many people would seriously argue that the mass building that occurred over the last 100 years should have been done without government planning? Bruegmann does.

Ultimately the book was depressing to me, as it was basically a litany with the point that we should simply be resigned to sprawl, in any form, as it is merely natural human behavior and nothing can or should be done about it. Luckily for my sanity, the signs of a shift towards more thoughtful living arrangements are to be seen all around us, and I simply don't believe Bruegmann, for all his dry and dispassionate counterpoints.

Anyone who embraces a progressive stance towards urban development is likely to strongly disagree with the fundamental premise of this book. Bruegmann claims that sprawl is inevitable and changing policy will do little to truly curb suburban development over time. As societies become more affluent, people demand more space and move away from a city's core. Whether a city's population density is high or low, it will ultimately reach an equilibrium point that humans tend to prefer. While Bruegmann's arguments are strong and well supported, fundamentally the problem with his interpretation of sprawl is it's too broad. He considers any development outside of a city to be sprawl -- loosely based on population density. Development outside of Houston is considered the same as that outside of Paris or Portland.

Bruegmann discusses at length several cities natural inclinations towards sprawl. London serves as the historical archetype that failed to stop sprawl despite various development restrictions through the centuries. Portland, Oregon is the modern day archetype, which Bruegmann also claims has failed in its efforts to curb sprawl. Portland's urban growth ring has driven sprawl to smaller surrounding communities and across state lines into Washington state.

This book is well written and the author is relatively straightforward in his dialog. The author claims he takes a neutral stance on debated issues in urban development, but to anyone who is familiar with Jane Jacobs or new urbanism, Bruegmann could easily be construed as being pro-sprawl. Bruegmann spends little time questioning the sustainability of sprawl -- and his book predates the recent spikes in oil prices, which alone would bring into question his reasoning. That said, I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in urban studies. It's great to see someone articulate points that counter conventionally accepted progressive thinking in the field.

One example will illustrate how this author knowingly misuses data to mislead his audience. He points to the statistical density of Los Angeles as evidence that density does not provide the benefits typically associated with it (less gas use, etc.). In doing so, he ignores tha fact that LA is built to its perimeter, and thus has a high AVERAGE density compared to many other cities, since those cities contain a much denser core surrounded by vast undeveloped areas. LA's high average density bears little relationship to its lack of localized high densities, which are what confer benefits like less gas use. Breugmann knows this, but he chooses to misuse the data to support his own contrarian enterprise, and in so doing, he gives the sprawl juggernaut one more foot up. I personally know sprawl developers who use this intellectually bankrupt book to fight grassroots citizen opposition. As Apu on the Simpsons would say, "Breugmann very bad man." He is the no-global-warming scientist for the sprawl set.

Although this book had some interesting things to say, it was, in general, too "compact" for its own good. Bruegmann's arguments against traditional anti-sprawl histories read more like a jedi mind trick than a careful argument. A more careful argument with more supporting facts would have added to the book. As it is, it seems to me that this book will do little to change anyone's view of the 21st century city.