What it is not
First, let's start with the things that sprawl is not. It is clear that sprawl is not entirely about density. If it were, then sprawl would not need to be a separate concept – we would only speak in terms of density. It's more complicated than that. When the author notes that high residential densities at the edge of an urban region constitutes sprawl, I believe he is mostly correct, but there important details that are missing from the analysis.Sprawl is also not entirely about walkability. I spent my junior high and high school years in the town of Odessa, Washington. Everything in town was within walking distance, what little there was. As an agricultural town, the variety of services available was limited, and no one would say that it was urban. If Odessa were magically transported to the edge of an urbanized area there is little doubt that it would be considered sprawl. However, in its current location it is entirely appropriate and necessary.
Sprawl is also not entirely about suitability. In the article referenced above, the author objects to agricultural activities in a place where he believes water was unavailable or available using inappropriate means. In effect, he is stating that the location is unsuitable for the activity. My observation on this particular example is that the context is missing: what effect does utilizing aquifer water at this location have on other activities, human or not? Perhaps it has a beneficial effect — we have no way of knowing. Nevertheless, suitability cannot be a sole determinant of whether an activity is sprawl, as few would argue that large agricultural tracts immediately adjacent to a high density core and surrounded by low density housing tracts would not be eligible for infill, even if it were of high soil quality. Suitability is an important factor in determining appropriate uses, but it's not determinative.
Interrelationships
Like many other things in planning, it's not merely a single concept which tells us about how the neighborhood works. Yes, the characteristics of sprawl are related to density, walkability, and suitability. However, the interrelationships between various elements of a neighborhood – how it works in a practical sense – determines the health and functionality of the place. If the concept of sprawl is to be useful, it must also contain these interrelationships.A high density residential subdivision on the edge of an urban area may be internally walkable, the land may be suitable for that purpose, but its lack of quality relationships with its surroundings gives us pause. (It is likely better, however, than the same number of units spread over a much larger area!) A centrally located large tract agricultural activity may be highly suitable for its particular soil conditions, but it severs the bonds between the core and those it serves. Sprawl, then, is not about the characteristics of the individual use, but about the uses’ context and relationship with surrounding uses.
In attempting to characterize sprawl, we should think in terms of a spectrum – some places are more or less sprawl-like – determined largely on each uses' ability to interact with other uses. A residence may be sprawl in one location and not in another based on its ability to facilitate interaction amongst other residents, commercial and retail areas, and third spaces. Likewise, the presence of a residence alters the degree of sprawl experienced by adjacent parcels.
Sprawl is avoided, then, by ensuring a mix of positively interactive uses. (It is important to note that negative interactions do exist and should be minimized. Zoning was intended to separate incompatible uses; it has been well argued that it has gone too far.) It is easy to see how density would contribute to the number of interactions available to a location, as would walkability. Suitability can be integrated into our understanding of sprawl by including the positive or negative interactions between the use and the natural services provided at the location, and the interactions caused by all externalities.
The Uses of 'Sprawl'
We here in Spokane have, for a very long time, recognized that the lack of middle income housing in downtown Spokane is a problem. In a way, it's the same problem that we have with large residential subdivisions that lack commercial activities. Both areas exhibit the same weakness; both areas show signs of sprawl.But why do we even care about that? If both areas function, then what is the issue? Economics is not a gentle mistress. Inefficiencies built into our land-use patterns weigh upon economic development initiatives, and the region’s earning potential suffers. Increasing hostility in our politics indicates that our culture is beginning to devalue the ability to interact civilly with other people, potentially due to a reduction in opportunities to practice interacting civilly with other people face-to-face. One might say we are suffering from a breakdown of positive interactions in several ways, and we should care about these things for both cash and culture.
Just one final thing: let us remember that the correction of sprawl is not an end in itself. Sprawl is merely a way of measuring the net positive interaction of site within its context. It is an abstract concept, created to measure the relative dysfunctionality of a location. It cannot diagnose the cause of the problem, but merely the presence of one. The solution must remain in the hands of those who are disadvantaged by it, and those it will harm in the future.
