This paper offers a broad examination of urban and suburban planning, tracing the consequences of uncontrolled sprawl since the 1950s across environmental, economic, public health, and political dimensions. It analyzes how automobile-dependent development patterns have degraded air quality, displaced farmland, and widened health disparities between economic classes. The paper evaluates smart growth as a planning framework—pioneered in Portland, Oregon—and presents both its documented benefits and the political opposition it faces. Case studies, including a Los Angeles-area tree-sitting protest, illustrate how conflicting stakeholder interests generate civic conflict. The paper concludes by advocating deliberative democracy and shared civic responsibility as more equitable approaches to resolving planning disputes.
In both urban and suburban planning, politics loom large because they greatly affect and tend to influence the way decisions are made. In many places around the globe, and especially in America, the politics surrounding urban and suburban planning are of great importance because cities and communities within them are becoming more racially, morally, economically, and politically diverse every day. Needless to say, with the influx of so much diversity there will be disagreements and conflicts of interest regarding the way that urban and suburban planning is carried out and how these plans are implemented.
Since the 1950s in America, suburban developments have become an uncontrollable entity. They grow at a rapid rate due to both social and economic reasons. Builders in the 1950s recognized the enormous economic potential of mass-producing and selling homes — after all, owning a home is the realization of the American dream, an idea embedded deeply in American popular culture. Following this much-glamorized dream has, however, had many significant consequences. For more than fifty years, developers have destroyed valuable wilderness areas and farmlands in order to construct identical, cookie-cutter homes on large lots of land. They do not use land efficiently and they have little regard for the environmental impact of their decisions. These types of developments into unincorporated parts of cities encourage automobile-centered transportation and restrictive zoning, making it very difficult for residents of those communities to satisfy their daily needs without traveling long distances.
At the same time, suburban sprawl has had a great cultural, economic, and political impact. The shifting and redefining of boundaries between what is considered urban and rural has greatly affected the economy and has also sparked political debates between developers and activists who seek to stop this seemingly uncontrollable growth. As people flee to new suburban areas, investors abandon older parts of urban areas, leaving them riddled with crime and poverty. Meanwhile, when developers construct new communities in rural areas, they destroy important farmlands and wooded areas that are critical to maintaining economic stability. Farming is an important aspect of the economy that is continually threatened by suburban sprawl. As builders continue to invade fertile agricultural lands, food supplies become threatened, partly because planners and builders design communities for profit rather than efficiency, often appealing to buyers with plans that squander valuable farmland.
As cities grow denser and more crowded, urban sprawl becomes unavoidable, bringing with it a variety of controversial elements, political dynamics, and persistent disagreements about how building plans should ultimately be carried out. In large metropolitan cities like Los Angeles or Atlanta, Georgia, where populations continue on a steady incline, there are persistent problems associated with urban and suburban sprawl that directly affect residents' quality of life.
The problems created by this kind of growth are numerous and complicated. They are difficult to address because, as people rush toward the opportunities that urban sprawl presents, they simultaneously encounter its negative and complex effects. When faced with these negative effects, policymakers and civic leaders find it difficult to satisfy their constituents, because it is simply too hard to meet the needs of such a wide-ranging and diverse set of demographics — people who are culturally, morally, and politically different. As Alexander Garvin points out when discussing previous achievements of urban and suburban planning, "triumphs are easy to overlook; local excitement about a successful project rarely spills out into national publications, other than those with a narrow group of readers" (Garvin 1). Garvin also notes that political disillusionment with planning has become deeply embedded in the minds of Americans and other residents of industrialized nations, often because planners fail to account for the political, economic, and social obstacles that stand between their well-intentioned promises and actual delivery.
Political controversy regarding urban and suburban planning can often stem from erroneous public perception. Although the right planning approach can drastically improve the quality of life of residents while simultaneously improving the appearance and functionality of a community, it cannot solve all of society's problems. In order to avoid civic and political conflicts, it is important for everyone to understand the capabilities and limitations of planning, as well as its true definition of success. Many people might look at a city with full stores, roads filled with expensive cars, occupied apartments, and busy commercial buildings and mistakenly conclude that the city is a shining example of successful planning, when it is not. It may be economically successful, but economic success is not always compatible with true planning success. Garvin states, "Only when a project has a beneficial impact on the surrounding community can it be considered successful planning; thus planning should be defined as public action that generates a sustained and widespread private market reaction, which improves the quality of life of the surrounding community, making it more attractive, convenient, and environmentally friendly" (4).
Urbanization creates numerous problems at various levels. It impacts the environment by paving over farmland, which in turn can negatively affect rural economies that bear great responsibility for feeding large segments of the global population. Deforestation is also a problem that has generated considerable political turmoil, as environmentalists seek to protect rapidly declining forests around the globe. The strain on the infrastructure of industrialized nations is another consequence associated with urban and suburban sprawl, because it is very challenging for planners and officials to accommodate and balance the needs of all the different segments of the population involved.
Large metropolitan areas are attractive to many due to the economic, educational, and cultural opportunities they offer. During much of the twentieth century, and especially during economic downturns and recessions, large numbers of people abandoned rural areas in search of opportunities available in large cities, rarely taking into account the discomforts and negative effects of urban sprawl. They were, in a sense, blinded by the promise of a better life. As certain members of the population achieve economic stability, they begin to notice both the pros and cons of big-city living. If they have successful careers and financial security, they begin to imagine a different lifestyle — one minus the inconveniences of urban sprawl. Living in urban areas has become unappealing for many, who now gravitate toward suburban areas that emphasize quality of life while meshing with their personal values. They are willing to pay large sums of money to avoid traffic, pollution, crime, and stress.
As people flee to the suburbs, investors abandon and cease investing in older parts of urban areas, leaving them resembling ghost towns riddled with crime and poverty. At the same time, when developers build new communities in rural areas, they destroy important farmlands and wooded areas that are critical to economic stability. This pattern reflects a broader failure: builders and designers frequently appeal to buyers with plans that prioritize profit over efficiency, wasting fertile farmland in the process.
Residents who have lived in urban areas and experienced urban sprawl — especially those who are educated and financially stable — pay close attention to the health benefits associated with living outside the city. They understand that health problems such as asthma, obesity, cardiovascular disease, and poor overall physical health have all been linked to urban sprawl. Residents of lower socioeconomic status, however, are often unable to escape their adverse living conditions and therefore suffer disproportionately from the negative health effects of urban sprawl. Unlike their wealthier counterparts, they cannot escape the smog, lack access to spaces for exercise, and cannot afford healthier foods. This creates a significant health disparity between economic classes that disproportionately affects racial minorities, who tend to be overrepresented among economically disadvantaged residents.
This disparity can generate political debates and struggles, as organizations advocating for minorities and economically disadvantaged communities demand that smart planning be implemented to avoid deepening the inequalities between social and economic classes. The detriments associated with urban living do not go unnoticed precisely because they clearly and directly affect people's quality of life. People are willing to pay considerable sums to improve their lives, especially when health risks are involved.
Transportation and traffic are also areas of significant political debate in discussions of urban and suburban planning. It is very difficult to accommodate large populations residing in relatively small areas of land. Creating an efficient and reliable transportation system becomes increasingly difficult when people are unwilling to accept and use alternative methods of transportation. This resistance causes traffic congestion, traffic collisions, and air pollution — all of which affect the quality of life of residents and must be addressed in plans for urban and suburban development.
"Portland model, benefits, and critics of smart growth"
"Los Angeles oak tree protest and stakeholder conflict"
"Shared responsibility and deliberative democratic solutions"
You’re 52% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.