How Smart is Smart Growth? the Case of Austin, Texas

Abstract

Since the publication of the Costs of Sprawl by the Real Estate Research Corporation in 1974, scholars and policy makers have been debating the pros and cons of suburban urban sprawl (Kunstler 1993, 1996; Ewing 1997; Gordon and Richardson 1997; Burchell et al. 1998; Katz and Bradley 1999; Duany et al. 2000). Although a wide spectrum of opinions regarding the economic, social, and environmental impacts of sprawl have been reported in the literature, a general consensus seems to be emerging around three kernel points on the urban-sprawl debate: (1) the environmental, social, and fiscal costs outweigh the benefits of the urban sprawl; (2) ultimately, urban sprawl is not a sustainable form of development; and (3) the nation can’t cease to grow and new growth will require more urban development. To combat the problems of urban sprawl and, at the same time, allow new urban development to accommodate the demands of a growing urban population, a variety of plannedgrowth initiatives have been tried across the nation during the past two decades. They include, but are not limited to, growth management, new urbanism, regionalism, urban-growth boundaries, and the promotion of more compact city forms (Gillham 2002).