Collective Versus Individual Gain of “Natural Sprawl”

A plethora of urban planning literature explores the effects of urban sprawl trends initiated in the mid-20th century. These studies have exhaustively explored how urban sprawl developments have defined the socio-economic fabric of American cities. Other studies also explore the relationship between social environment and/or natural environment and health both at the individual and societal level (Frumkin, 2002). In my opinion Okulicz-Kozaryn’s (2014) argument of the health benefits of “natural sprawl” presents us with an empirical analysis of an individual’s health/“happiness” benefits of living in lower-density and in closer proximity with the natural environment. In the article “natural sprawl,” Okulicz-Kozaryn presents us with the challenges of urbanization and the remedies (suburbanization) that came forth in the mid- to late 20th century. Okulicz-Kozaryn argues that both urbanization (giving the examples of the Manchester city during the industrialization era and Philadelphia today) and suburbanization have brought destruction to the natural environment. However, Okulicz-Kozaryn also argues that despite the destructions caused by suburbanization

. . . suburbs have many problems, yet people are happier there than in cities. Humans want to be close to nature, and by definition, you cannot have much nature in cities, but there could be more nature in suburbs. (p. 6)

In this statement, Okulicz-Kozaryn implies that suburbs still provide the unique opportunity for urban residents to be closer to nature, hence producing “happier” citizens. As a result, Okulicz-Kozaryn argues that urban planning trends should take the direction of “smart sprawl” that leaves “as much of nature as untouched as possible” (p. 5). My response to the “natural sprawl” article highlights what I presume to be an issue that stands out as a limitation in Okulicz-Kozaryn’s article. That is, the “natural sprawl” argument fails to address some of the potential socio-economic drawbacks that have already been exhaustively studied as implications of the urban sprawl trends of the 1950s.

In my opinion Okulicz-Kozaryn’s “natural sprawl” article presents us with ideas that would produce a little more than an extension of the urban sprawl or suburbanization trends of urban planning practices. Since industrialization of cities in the late 19th and the 20th century, growth trends of urban areas have been a matter of concern to urban planners. When it comes to urban growth patterns, two polarizing schools of thoughts have been developed through the years. The first is that urban sprawl is a suburban growth pattern of urban development. Second is the concept of infill development also known as smart growth/new urbanism. The former, urban sprawl, became a prominent practice in American cities as a reaction to the deteriorating conditions caused by industrialization, population influx, and rapid urbanization of American cities. This particular urban planning pattern emphasized the separation of different land uses, including housing, businesses, and recreational services, thus making society heavily reliant on automobiles (Jackson, 1985). This same practice has also led to the increased out-migration of the middle and high income groups of society, hence distorting the economic and social cohesion of urban areas. Scholars have referred to this trend as “white flight” where Whites fled urban areas in search of safe and quiet life in the suburbs (Frey, 1979). Frey also argues that the segregation along racial lines has led to a compromised quality of life for those minority groups and the poor “left stranded” in our cities. Communities in American suburbs are also highly individualistic and socially and economically homogeneous (Frumkin, 2002). The homogeneity of communities is also significantly apparent in inner city schools, where student populations are largely African American, whereas suburban schools, in contrast, are predominantly White.

The “New Urbanism/compact city movement” establishes the argument that man-made physical development in cities must be compact and controlled and the natural environment must be preserved and made accessible to the urban dweller at a close proximity (Duany, Plater-Zyberk, & Speck, 2000). In fact the new urbanism/compact city movement sprang up as a reaction to the vast spread of urban sprawl development on the part of American cities in the mid-20th century. Besides developing environmentally responsible urban planning practice, the New Urbanism movement gives emphasis to establishing responsible, responsive, socially sensitive, and integrated communities (Duany et al., 2000). Through high-density developments, New Urbanism emphasizes the maintaining of community interaction, open spaces, parks, and communal paces (Katz, 1994). Hence, communities and social cohesion are at the center of this particular trend of urban planning practices. Some examples of this trend of urban planning practices are Seaside Florida, and the Stapleton Neighborhood of Denver, Colorado. In contrast, the urban sprawl development so prominent in the early 20th century emphasized expansion of metropolitan areas into rural areas and urban development patterns took on a “leapfrog low density pattern” (Frumkin, 2002, p. 201).Well-known planners such as Jacobs and Mumford were among the few to challenge the “anti-urban” development trends spread by urban planners in favor of urban sprawl trends. From my perspective, the two polarizing approaches present us with competing concepts in urban administration. One advances the concept of urban development as it serves diverse communities, in addition to its positive environmental implications, whereas the other produces individualistic, homogeneous, and secluded communities with increased social and economic stratification. In both cases, however, it is a public policy choice that determines the pattern of urban development in our cities. Having briefly presented the effects of urban sprawl and urban planning trends, and in contrast, the New Urbanism trends, this response is offered in an effort to provide a “missing piece” from Okulicz-Kozaryn’s article, which is the implication of natural sprawl public policy practice as it relates to enhancing social and economic cohesion and integration. To do this, I will base my argument on the role public policies should play in advancing social equity in society.

Traditional public policy service delivery capitalized on the efficient and effective delivery of services as the most economic approach to utilizing public resources. In contrast, the social equity perspective suggests that social equity has not been promoted through public policy decisions made in this mode. The social equity perspective argues that in the absence of sensitivity to social equity in public policy, established bureaucracies that emphasize efficiency and economic approaches to service delivery tend to favor the wealthier few over the minorities and lower class individuals, who have much less political and economic power (Frederickson, 1990). Advocates for social equity argue that such practices in public service delivery promote social and economic stratification, increasing inequality between the haves and the have-nots. The premises of social equity therefore argue that when public policy decisions compromise on social equity for the well-being of “the few,” it loses ethical ground.

This response to Okulicz-Kozaryn’s “natural sprawl” article has argued that “natural sprawl” compromises social equity, from a public policy point of view. In my opinion, Okulicz-Kozaryn’s argument only attempts to address the wasteful, inefficient, and environmentally harmful practices of urban sprawl. Hence, he offers an urban planning solution that engenders happiness while also preserving the natural environment. However, I argue that to provide a fair argument in favor of the “happiness” benefits of living in close proximity to the natural environment, one must also present the counter consequences of “natural sprawl” urban planning practices on the socio-economic integration aspect of urban dwellers. I believe this line of argument is critical because the assumed positive relationship between suburban dwelling and an individuals’ state of happiness could have significant implications for the directions we take in urban planning, public administration, and public policy decisions. This response has therefore sought to present a critical analysis of the “natural sprawl” argument as it relates to societal well-being and its implications for increasing social stratification (socio-economic polarization).