Sprawl: A Compact History

by Robert Bruegmann

As anyone who has flown into Los Angeles at dusk or Houston at midday knows, urban areas today defy traditional notions of what a city is. Our old definitions of urban, suburban, and rural fail to capture the complexity of these vast regions with their superhighways, subdivisions, industrial areas, office parks, and resort areas pushing far out into the countryside. Detractors call it sprawl and assert that it is economically inefficient, socially inequitable, environmentally irresponsible, and aesthetically ugly. Robert Bruegmann calls it a logical consequence of economic growth and the democratization of society, with benefits that urban planners have failed to recognize.

In his incisive history of the expanded city, Bruegmann overturns every assumption we have about sprawl. Taking a long view of urban development, he demonstrates that sprawl is neither recent nor particularly American but as old as cities themselves, just as characteristic of ancient Rome and eighteenth-century Paris as it is of Atlanta or Los Angeles. Nor is sprawl the disaster claimed by many contemporary observers. Although sprawl, like any settlement pattern, has undoubtedly produced problems that must be addressed, it has also provided millions of people with the kinds of mobility, privacy, and choice that were once the exclusive prerogatives of the rich and powerful.

The first major book to strip urban sprawl of its pejorative connotations, Sprawl offers a completely new vision of the city and its growth. Bruegmann leads readers to the powerful conclusion that "in its immense complexity and constant change, the city-whether dense and concentrated at its core, looser and more sprawling in suburbia, or in the vast tracts of exurban penumbra that extend dozens, even hundreds, of miles-is the grandest and most marvelous work of mankind."


“Largely missing from this debate [over sprawl] has been a sound and reasoned history of this pattern of living. With Robert Bruegmann’s A Compact History , we now have one. What a pleasure it well-written, accessible and eager to challenge the current cant about sprawl.”—Joel Kotkin, The Wall Street Journal
 
“There are scores of books offering ‘solutions’ to sprawl. Their authors would do well to read this book.”—Witold Rybczynski, Slate

Genres: Nonfiction, Urban Planning, History, Urban Studies, Urban, Urbanism, Cities

307 pages, Paperback

First published November 1, 2005

Reviews

[M. Nolan · Rating 4 out of 5]

A much needed contrarian perspective in a field that too often resembles an echo chamber. The numerous one-star reviews that dismiss this book purely out of disagreement with the author's perspective should signal that it's worth the read. Bruegmann shines in his discussions of pre-twentieth century, non-North American "sprawl" and in his intellectual history of anti-sprawl activism. More time should have been spent fleshing out counter movements and the broader policy issues at play with urban form. Read the end notes.

[Sarah · Rating 2 out of 5]

There are a lot of problems with the book, but the one I keep coming back to is his insistence that overall, development in the past 20 years has been "dense," so what are we complaining about? He argues that sprawl is good, but wait- nowdays people are building giant houses on small lots, so sprawl is dense, too, so hooray! What he neglects to consider is the DESIGN of new shopping centers and residential neighborhoods. They are built to be virtually unaccessible unless you're driving a car. This is simply not acceptable for the young, the elderly, the disabled and people who would just like to walk once in a while. This is such a basic point, but he completely ignores it.

I guess I give this two stars because it's the only book written from the point of view that sprawl is good, but the argument is full of holes. So I count that as a victory in favor of smart planning.

[Frank Stein · Rating 2 out of 5]

I should have known what I was getting into with this book, because it basically advertized itself as a hatchet job. Bruegmann said it was an attempt to "counteract" the typical anti-sprawl literature, and he does nothing but in 200 something pages.

First, to title this a "history" is a joke. The only history is a series of short descriptions of different anti-sprawl positions in different decades of the twentieth century, which the author then spends dozens of pages demolishing. Take that irrelevant 1920s British anti-suburbia argument!

There can't really be a thesis, because he begins the book by saying that sprawl is indefinable and then goes on to celebrate "sprawl" on every page. Basically, his point is that anything that any anti-suburban activist has ever said is wrong. The usual parade of horribles of suburbia, mortgage interest subsidies, the FHA, highways, zoning, etc., are hardly given consideration, but are declared the misguided obsessions of misguided ideologues (even though many on both the right and left have attacked these policies).

One saving grace is his suprisingly evenhanded review on the history of Portland since the 1973 Growth Management Act, and the solid bibliography. The rest is a series of factoids readily available elsewhere (LA gets lots of props for being the densest metro region). Overall, it looks like his publishers pushed him into putting out something not quite ready for public consumption.

[James · Rating 2 out of 5]

Interesting approach to the topic with lots of data. I learned a lot, especially in the first half of the book about the expansion of cities and the class based conflicts over land use.

However, I downgrade this book because Bruegmann does not get the environmental arguements against sprawl at all and spends much of the book arguing against ideas that are outdated and basically a straw man.

Sustainability, in its truest form, is about minimizing (reducing) human use of natural resources. In execution, it is very different from ideas that Bruegmann attempts to debunk, and looks very different from a policy perspective.

second, he does not give the problems of the disadvantaged and how their issues relate to the the problems and inequalities caused by the multiplicity of jurisdictions inherent in sprawl.

So, while I buy his argument that sprawl is a long-running phenomena I think he is too quick to disregard the negative outcomes and accept it as a natural, mostly positive process.

[Greg · Rating 1 out of 5]

The author is either a poor researcher or is extremely biased. This book is much less a history of sprawl than an editorial promoting the status quo of sprawl development by downplaying its negative aspects. I might accept this editorial if the author were not guilty of making several "mistakes."
1. Inaccurate interpretations of census data
2. One-sided descriptions of sprawl development
3. Assertions about sprawl that are not supported by good evidence
4. Unfounded dismissals of well-known urban writers/researchers

If you read this book, please be aware of the holes that are left uncovered.

[Jason Holt · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am no fan of sprawl. It's ugly, wasteful and consumptive. It's homogenized form sickens me. That being said, Bruegmann presents a fantastic work in sprawl's defense. As he mentions in his preface though, this work is not intended to be apologetic for sprawl, it's supposed to be in its defense. Try to keep an open mind when reading this and you'll learn (well, 'learn' might be a strong word; he will challenge your thoughts on the subject) a lot, even if you don't walk away from this book fully convinced.

[Connor · Rating 3 out of 5]

Like the expansion it describes, the book gets bogged down in itself.

[Austin · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is one of the reasons I added the 'don't think I'll like' category to my reading challenge. I've known for ages I need to read it and just haven't had the willpower to finally get through it. I had read some excerpts a while ago when researching travel demand and behavior for work, so I knew what I was getting into. Like many people in my field and more broadly, I don't like 'sprawl'. But Bruegmann makes the case that sprawl is an incredibly loaded term, it's not a new phenomenon, and that it has a more complicated history than the sort of good / bad dichotomy it is usually saddled with.

This is the moment I know I was going to find this a challenge to my existing world view: "A close examination of the anti sprawl literature strongly suggest that although the case against it had been frames as an objective assessment of the problems it causes - for example, the increased cost of sewers for houses at low density or the amount of pollution generated by longer commuting distances - in fact, the driving force behind the complaints at any period seems to have been a set of class-based aesthetic and metaphysical assumptions, almost always present but rarely discussed." Well said, and an important critique.

In cracking this open, Bruegmann exposes a lot of assumptions and challenges the perspective that sprawl itself is the enemy. Bruegmann points out that in many cases, the previous century's sprawl is our current charming little town. I'm not so sure anyone will ever find the McMansion charming (I swear never to) but it is still a valid point. He also points out that there are lots of embedded elitist reasons for disliking sprawl that have gone back as far as we have had cities.

Bruegmann also falls short in some really critical ways. Most strikingly he is just wrong about pollution. We do know that sprawling development increases driving dramatically, but he writes it off almost completely. He also dismisses the robust literature on induced demand and the evidence that it is more expensive to provide infrastructure and services to sprawling suburbs.
He also laments lack of precision but offers none. The book therefor ends up as a well reasoned complaint without a proposed remedy (perhaps because he spends a bit of it dismissing many of the claims of the ills exacerbated by sprawl. Lastly, he turns in many cases to anecdotes of his own as research with the excuse of a lack of data. Driving around suburbs and finding them relatively charming is not a research plan.

This book has definitely helped influence my thinking. We can't just hate sprawl without dismissing the people that are behind it. It's a natural consequence of lots of people acting in their own perceived best interests. My grandfather grew up in then-rural upstate New York, near Rochester. As the city's residents spread out, large tract housing projects would go up in what had previously been farm or grazing lands. He would (even decades later, when I was a kid) see them and call them "revolting developments." But what we have to remember is that they get built because there is demand for them, and there is demand for them because many people want to live in a big house with a large lot (even if it means living in a cultural desert).

After all this, I still don't like sprawl. But I will do more to remember that it's the consequences we care about, not judging people for making their own choices. We should have policy that makes it appealing and affordable to live in ways that also enhance culture, reduce emissions, and provide a better quality of life. I think that means less sprawl will go along with it, but it's clear that policies that only try to target sprawl as the enemy miss the bigger picture.

-----------------------------------
52 books in 52 weeks update:
book number: 42 / 52

scorecard (see below):
W: 23/26
NW: 15/26
NA: 16/20
D: 4/5
F: 21
NF: 17

-------
Notes: I'm trying to read 52 books this year. To make sure I'm getting a broad range, I'm tracking some metrics. Open to more if folks have suggestions. My goal is to read books that are:
at least half by women
at least half not by white people
at least 20 by non-americans
at least 5 that I don't think I'll like or agree with going in

I'll also go for about half fiction and half non-fiction

[Pete · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sprawl : A Compact History (2005) by Robert Bruegmann is a very interesting history and defense of suburbia. Bruegmann is a historian of architecture, landscape and the built environment and is a professor at the University of Chicago. The book provides a valuable counterpoint to the more typical condemnation of sprawl.

The book starts by providing a history of sprawl. Bruegmann points out that cities have been sprawling as far as transport would allow for centuries. Even in ancient Rome rich Romans would have villas outside Rome if they could afford it. As soon as rail transport arrived people moved out of dense urban cores along rail lines. This was then sped up dramatically as cars arrived. Around world after WWII this trend continued. Bruegmann notes that most growth in Paris since WWII has been outside the core city. These developments are suburban. The core of Paris has reduced in population density as wealthier people want more space there. This has driven prices up which has driven even more people into the suburbs. The book makes the point that suburbia was not designed in a top down manner. Instead it arose as people chose it. Suburbs are not the result of single family zoning. Instead single family zoning is a result of a codification of what was already happening globally. This is not to say that single family zoning is a good idea. One point that Bruegmann misses is that in the least zoned place in the US, Houston, sprawl has resulted. The book also points out how workplaces moved out of urban cores and became spread out. It’s also pointed out that car transport in many suburban environments is considerably quicker than using public transport.

The second part of the book traces the history of opposition to sprawl. Bruegmann writes about how earlier criticism of how poor people live in urban environments changed to opposing sprawl. He makes the point well that the elite have often opposed how poorer people choose to live. Opposition to sprawl grew dramatically as middle class people moved into suburbs. Bruegmann quotes various English writers from around 1920. They are clearly upset that it is no longer only the wealthy who can enjoy more green space. Elite criticism of suburbia also increased in the US in the post WWII period. Bruegmann also writes about how environmentalism was co-opted to oppose suburbia.

The third part of the book is about prescriptions on how to reduce sprawl. This is similar to the second part. Bruegmann describes anti-blight writing which was against how poorer people lived in cities evolved into anti-sprawl writing. He describes how garden cities, green belts and other remedies were taken up against sprawl. He then looks at how these proposals have largely driven up housing prices. The book also describes new urbanism which is apparently called ‘new-suburbanism’ by some critics.

The book lacks suggested paths forward to better suburbia which is a pity. I live in a suburb where I can walk to a cafe, ride to work and have great amenities. Building suburbs like this is very possible. There is also medium density housing on my street. But it is all decidedly suburban.

Sprawl is very much worth reading for anyone interested in cities. The history sections of the book are particularly good, which is unsurprising given Bruegmann is a historian. Sprawl is a welcome bromide against much class based criticism of suburbia. It also gives a good grounding in why sprawl has arisen in the first place.

[Jack · Rating 2 out of 5]

The best part of this book was the Notes at the end.

What Dr. Bruegmann makes quite clear is that he is not an urban planner by training. However, given several of his confident off the cuff conjectures, you would be forgiven for thinking he had some training in the field. His conjectures, however, showcase his ignorance of the field. Ignoring the climate change denial, there is still lots to criticize. I will offer a few examples, but know that there is much more to be critical of in a reading of the main text.

When looking at 1970s sprawl, he concluded that environmental issues were not caused by sprawl, but by the internal combustion engine. This ignores the causality of automobile required development to use of the aforementioned internal combustion engine.

When looking at lot sizes, he makes a simple calculation about how many lot sizes fit into an acre. This is pretty shortly after looking at statistics of various cities. What is not made clear is that his simple calculation ignores other land uses that would technically reduce households per acre in a city measurement, but are nonetheless critical parts of city life (roads, parks, schools, etc).

He compares Portland's planning system to Houston's & Atlanta's. He waxes on about how high regulation Portland's zoning is, compared to Houston & Atlanta. What he never mentions in the text is that Houston & Atlanta, with their huge swathes of exclusionary low density zoning, represent a much greater regulatory restriction on the buildings that can be built than the relatively inclusionary Portland. He does speak more evenly in the Notes.

[Amanda J · Rating 3 out of 5]

I understand where Bruegmann was trying to get to with this book, but the path he tried to take was... yikes.

He lacked the ability to acknowledge certain things certainly did contribute to sprawl in cases, while perhaps not being true in others. The fact that he implied he was going to do this in the introduction made it even more glaring of a failure. His take on race not contributing to sprawl is possibly the most alarming, considering it is a well-document contributor in multiple urban areas in the U.S.

Bruegmann would flit across the globe to cherry pick examples that fit his arguments, like many books, but I certainly didn't appreciate the obviousness of it. The total conclusion that "sprawl may not be as bad as people make it out to be" isn't necessarily wrong, but I certainly don't believe the argument was laid out properly.

It's an interesting read for people who want depth in the subject of urban public policy, urban planning, or a related field, but I wouldn't recommend this as a generic read.

[JennyB · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bruegmann is quite the contrarian about what we routinely vilify as sprawl, and that's an interesting approach, right up until it isn't. Part of the problem is his reluctance to take a very strong stand on anything - maybe sprawl isn't that bad, but maybe anti-sprawl activists are sorta right. In the effort to present a balanced perspective, he eventually ends up muddling the view of everything, including redlining. His take on this is something like "I mean, it wasn't *good,* but it wasn't THAT much of a big deal" ... Except it was. Over the length of a whole book, this halfhearted argument/backpedaling is just exasperating. So, while Sprawl is not altogether without merit, it's really sorta mostly only worth it kinda about half the time.

[Allison · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sprawl is a favorite topic in the literature of urban planning. There's been plenty of opinion, but an absence of scholarship. Bruegmann's careful overview improves our understanding of the history and consequences (both negative and positive) of sprawl. From a policy standpoint, the comparison of European approaches with various municipalities in the United States is enlightening.

[Yosef Kessler · Rating 1 out of 5]

Full of bad arguments

[Michael Lewyn · Rating 2 out of 5]

Here's a link to a (mostly critical) review I wrote in 2007: https://works.bepress.com/lewyn/42/

[Jason · Rating 2 out of 5]

Bruegmann presents an excellent synopsis of the history of sprawl from Londinium to today, some of its causes, and comes to the conclusion that it's not bad, and it's inevitable in human society. While I think he presents a fair handed view on the issue, especially since so much of the existing literature is written by the "anti-sprawl" elites, I think he's completely missed the mark on several important issues that diminish the importance of his book, and his work. I'm not certain if these misses are due to ignorance of the terminology, slight differences in his thoughts of what constitutes sprawl, or an incomplete look at all the issues...

1. He seesm to equate country estates and rural farms with sprawl. There's a vast difference between a country estate in the middle of 500 acres with a house in the center and a set of suburban tract houses covering those same 500 acres. Most people would not equate the first with sprawl, and most certainly would the second.

2. He posits that sprawl is fine, because most people would rather drive as it is both faster and more private. Ok, fair enough, in most cases it is faster to go point to point and it is certainly more private than taking the train. What about those people who cannot afford a car? Those who cannot afford gasoline? We've seen the consequences of gasoline reaching $4 a barrel already - people just can't do it. He reiterates that Europe has sprawl and has expensive gas, so we could too. Certainly - but most Europeans didn't "drive until they qualified," and the urban poor that can't afford cars have alternative means of safe, relatively cheap transportation.

3. Finally, he completely ignores any negative externalities of allowing sprawl as such - namely the destruction of habitat, the diminishing of the inner city, and blocks left to waste. Just because people prefer A over B (in this case sprawl over urban living) does not make it necessarily better. When everyone lives for themselves, the world devolves into chaos.

While I think there is certainly a place for suburban living and a similar lifestyle, but encouraging it through cheap housing, cheap gas, and policy, we essentially make that the default decision - taking away the choice to live in a vibrant, urban environment from everyone else. As a city dweller, it saddens me to have to drive to the suburbs to visit a clothing store, electronics retailer, or similar - but that's what I have to do now.

[Rolf · Rating 1 out of 5]

Since sprawl is a fuzzy concept, we need to be suspicious of any study (my own included) that uses the word in its title. Bruegmann's book is worth reading as an example of the "don't worry, be happy" definition that begins with contends that there's only one variant of sprawl, that it's a consequence almost entirely of market forces, and that isn't really a problem. It strikes me as odd that an architectural historian would see less variation across metropolitan America's landscapes in this long a treatise than I do. Even out the windows of an airplane, the suburbs and exurbs of New York (New Jersey, Westchester, and Connecticut) look a lot different than those of Los Angeles or Phoenix. On the ground, too, these places look and feel different to me. We can use any number of statistics -- households per developed acre, average mix between commercial and residential development, differences between the densest and least-dense developed areas -- to check those perceptions against more objective measures. And we can systematically study whether these various dimensions of land use patterns associate with desirable or unwanted outcomes, like neighborhood-level income segregation (which is mostly exacerbated by higher density in the U.S.) or excessive amounts of driving (which higher density reduces). Then we can talk about who would benefit and who'd pay if we did something about it, and then, maybe, we can organize with potential beneficiaries to do something about it.

[Michael · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is not exactly the suburban apologia that many have made it out to be (or at least it doesn't come off as pro-sprawl as the writings of Peter Gordon or Harry Richardson). Bruegman essentially looks at "sprawl" in an historical sense much like Kenneth T. Jackson and Dolores Hayden before him. Whereas he doesn't denounce sprawl as an evil that should be extinguished (really, does Jackson?), he positions it as a reality that is an important component to US settlement patterns - one that's probably not going away (though there is the dubious aspect of suspect statements regarding the density of LA versus New York selectively based on data from the 2000 Census). Whereas this reality-check doesn't appeal to some New York types, I would beg them to actually visit "fly-over country" to really see how much sprawl is embedded into our nation's fabric (or, indeed, visit virtually everything just outside of three or four of the dense Boroughs!).

[Andrew · Rating 5 out of 5]

An indispensable analysis for anyone interested in urban planning and associated disciplines. It's quite an engaging look at the other side of a seemingly one-sided debate, and puts to rest a lot of those questions that many of us have nagging at the back of our minds as we advocate smart growth. Bruegmann points out that, as it should be, planning will never have a one-size-fits-all solution, and sprawl is the chosen lifestyle for much of the world's urban (or, suburban) population. Rather than arguing that smart growth is the only way to create more environmentally-friendly cities, Bruegmann points out that it would be in our best interest to find innovative ways to allow for sprawl while encouraging greener development patterns.

[Michael · Rating 2 out of 5]

Begins by reviewing the history of sprawl throughout the previous three hundred years. Bases part of its argument against constraining growth and development on this historical existence. I found that it did not address how the exponential population explosion of the 20th century could result (is resulting) in a parallel exponential increase the impacts of sprawl have on our environment and our lives. That we've been doing something for a long time is not reason enough for us to keep doing it.

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

Provocative, counter-intuitive challenge to New Urbanist orthodoxy. Bruegmann basically sets out to show that people throughout history in a variety of cultures tend to choose Sprawl when and where they can. I think one can successfully challenge his argument on the merits, but B is no fool, and will get you to think about your neighborhood and your choices in a way you may not have before.

[Colin Anton · Rating 3 out of 5]

Is this book even written if the author preferred aisle seating on plane flights?

Still not sure what point he was making with the book. Other than "Let's pay attention to Portland, Oregon" and "Communism is key to successful anti-sprawl efforts". But it made me think. That gets you some stars. I guess.

[Gordon Howard · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very well-written book - has arguments that opponents of sprawl must answer to make their case. Most important point made is in last chapter - the need to allow choice in where we want to live. My biggest complaint - Bruegmann blithely dismisses the forces in favor of sprawl who prevented those who wanted to live otherwise in post-war America.

[Jeremy · Rating 3 out of 5]

A respectable argument against Sprawl critics.

[Michael · Rating 3 out of 5]

well written but by 2005 we dont need history lessons as much as future remedies. he does show that sprawl, at least suburbanization, is not an all american thing.

[Mark · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book basically repeats the same thing over and over again. Sprawl has been common throughout time. Periods of high density are unique and may not be desirable. I was hoping for more.

[Keith · Rating 3 out of 5]

Counterintuitive and actually a good defense of sprawl and an attack on Kenneth Jackson, Caro's depiction of Robert Moses and many other things considered received wisdom in urban policy.

[Rachel Barnhart · Rating 2 out of 5]

I have never seen someone use so many "it may be" and "it is possible that" type phrases to argue a point. You didn't convince me, Bruegmann.

[Mike · Rating 1 out of 5]

Why can I not give you less than one star.