To some observers, sprawl applies to anyextension of the suburban margin; to oth-ers it is synonymous with the spread ofdevelopment onto sensitive greenlandsand agricultural soils, increases in highwaycongestion, or the proliferation of newsubdivisions of homogeneous and low-density, single-family housing. The tradi-tional definition of sprawl, however, ismuch more specific: it refers to suburbandevelopment that is “haphazard, disor-ganized, poorly serviced, and largelyunplanned.” By this rather strict standard,urban Canada has relatively little sprawl.Instead, the larger urban regions, notablyToronto, Calgary and Vancouver, exhibitextremely rapid growth, most of whichinevitably occurs on the outer suburbanmargin, typically at lower densities. Doessuch growth constitute sprawl? Does sub-urbia’s negative image reflect poor plan-ning or media hype?

In the following attempt to clarify theunderlying elements of this debate, I payparticular attention to the current expres-sion of that debate in the Greater TorontoArea (GTA), to the merits of tighter regu-lation of residential uses and densities,and to the implicit agendas that haveshaped the debate.

On density, suburbanization andintensificationWhat is myth and what reality withrespect to urban densities and suburban-ization? It may surprise some readers tolearn that the densities of new residentialdevelopments in Toronto’s outer suburbsare, on average, the highest on the conti-nent. These densities have also beenincreasing over the last two decadesbecause of market demand and the rising

price of land, and despite higher standardsfor public space and servicing. With a fewexceptions, most new suburban single-family housing features thirty- to forty-foot lot frontages, contrasting sharplywith the fifty- to 100-foot frontages typi-cal of the 1950s and 1960s.

The media also frequently gives theimpression that all new housing is built inthe new suburbs. In fact, many cities, par-ticularly Toronto and Vancouver, havebeen remarkably successful at encourag-ing high proportions of new constructionas residential in-fill within the existingurban envelope. That proportion is nowestimated at between 20 and 25 per centof all housing starts in the GTA, comparedto less than 10 per cent in most U.S. met-ropolitan areas.

Would further intensification significantlyreduce the extent and impact of suburbanexpansion? Of course, we could do moreto increase residential densities by facili-tating in-fill and reusing older brownfieldsites. Providing physical infrastructure forhousing on streets with thirty-foot lots isless expensive per dwelling unit than it isfor streets with sixty-foot lots.1 Yet thesecosts are a relatively small proportion ofthe costs of new housing and services,particularly in rapidly growing regions.Other local costs, such as those forschools, open space and community facili-ties, are essentially fixed. The largest andmost variable costs are on the regionalscale: in the arrangement of uses, therapid growth of non-residential uses, andspecifically in the disjuncture between res-idential and commercial-industrial activi-ties.

An additional source of confusion, overand above the question of spatial scale,involves the measurement of density.Typically, densities are calculated usingsimple population numbers as the numer-ator in the density ratio. This ignores,among other factors, the impact of demo-graphic change, as well as revisions in liv-ing arrangements on suburban forms ingeneral and density ratios in particular.Average household size has declined byover 35 per cent since 1961, which trans-lates into a requirement for 35 per centmore dwelling units to house the same

26October-November-December 2001, Vol. 41, N° 4

EVERYONE IS AGAINST urban sprawl. Judgingby recent attention in professional journals and thepopular media, the issue is high on politicalagendas. Unfortunately, few agree on what the termmeans, and thus discussions of its causes,consequences and potential solutions are at bestconfused, and at worst counterproductive.

total population. Smaller households usu-ally result in a thinning of the populationof all neighbourhoods, old and new, atleast those with a fixed housing stock.Nevertheless, smaller lot sizes and a widermix of dwelling types have combined toreverse past declines in population den-sity. In parallel, densities of the residentialbuilt environment (e.g., dwelling units andcapital investment) have increased evenfaster in most new suburban areas.

Even so, anti-sprawl advocates argue thatwe could shift many of these new units tobrownfield sites. Is this realistic? There iscertainly considerable potential for furtherresidential intensification, but there arealso real limits to the capacity of the in-fillprocess, and existing built-up areas, toabsorb new growth in the volumerequired. The in-fill process is administra-tively complicated, politically sensitive,subject to liability risks, regulatory barriersand widespread “NIMBYism,” and is con-strained in the longer term by limitedeffective demand and high costs.

Even in an ideal world, where all of thevarious stakeholders, including conserva-tive ratepayer groups, agreed with theobjective of intensification, it would be amajor achievement to maintain the exist-

The Urban Sprawl Debate:

Myths, Realities and Hidden Agendasby Larry S. Bourne, MCIP RPP

ing proportion of brownfield construction,let alone increase that proportion to 40 or50 per cent over the next decade, as iswidely proposed. This suggests that mostunits will have to be built in the new sub-urbs on formerly rural lands. This is notsprawl, by conventional definition, butrather demand-driven suburbanization. Itcan be improved, but it cannot be wishedaway.

What, then, is the problem?Given that low-density unplanned resi-dential sprawl is not widespread, if subur-ban growth is as inevitable as expectedpopulation growth suggests, what is theprimary problem? Three issues seem to bemore important. One is the challenge,indeed the obligation, to provide sufficientspace to accommodate anticipatedgrowth while minimizing its negative sideeffects. Rapid growth does tend to over-whelm the ability of municipalities to planand deliver appropriate social services(schools, for example) and to finance newinfrastructure (such as sewers, roads, andtransit). It also adds to feelings of uneaseamong residents that their current lifestyles and living conditions are at risk.

One common response to this sense ofrisk, and to the negative images of sprawl,is to recommend slower populationgrowth. But how? Growth in the Torontoregion is driven overwhelmingly by immi-gration (75 per cent), and secondarily bynatural increase (25 per cent), not bydomestic in-migrants. Thus, reducing theoverall growth rate is largely a question ofchanging immigration policies, which isbeyond local control. In the absence oflower immigration levels, governmentsmust plan for anticipated levels of growthin ways that are efficient, equitable, andsensitive to social and environmentalissues. The paranoia regarding sprawltends to divert attention from addressingthese genuine concerns.

Second, the main contributors to low-density suburban development are notresidential uses but non-residential activi-ties (commercial, industrial, distributionaluses, hobby farms, golf courses, and soforth). While suburban residential (net)densities have been increasing in mostareas, measured both in population and

dwelling units, the densities of other usersof urban space, including public-sectoruses, have been decreasing. Surprisingly,no one seems to notice. Why, we mightask, is so little attention paid to theincreasing rates of land consumptionamong non-residential uses? Is it becausethese uses provide play space for the well-to-do, or generate substantial tax rev-enues for cash-starved local govern-ments?

The third problem is lack of regional coor-dination. The overwhelming source of oursuburban problems is not residentialsprawl but the weakness of regional inte-gration of transportation, infrastructureprovision and land use, and specifically ofhousing and extensive non-residentialuses. There are, for instance, few exam-ples in Toronto’s outer suburbs of employ-ment and living spaces being carefullycoordinated, or of new developmentsbeing closely linked either to the GO sys-tem or to local transit.

Frequent calls to increase residential den-sities still further, as reflected (incorrectly itseems) in the design of “new urbanism”communities, serve no useful purpose ifthe contribution of commercial-industrialuses and the issue of coordination are notaddressed. Indeed, such policies mayaggravate certain problems (affordabilityand access to jobs, for example), espe-cially if these policies are implemented instark isolation from other actions.

Why the anti-sprawl rhetoric?Hidden agendas?Why is the confusion over density and thenature of sprawl so entrenched in themedia and in the public mind? One expla-nation is that the current anti-sprawl rhet-oric serves as a protective “all-reason”umbrella under which special-interestgroups and politicians can cluster in orderto advance their own political agendas,and in so doing shield themselves frompotential criticism over those agendas.Such agendas, however rational for indi-viduals, are often unrelated to broaderissues of the form and quality of suburbandevelopment. Since no one openly advo-cates sprawl as such, taking a positionagainst sprawl is safe. Residential uses arealso the largest consumer of suburbanland and thus represent an easy target.For politicians, an anti-sprawl postureoften offers the benefit of appearing con-cerned for the quality of urban life whilenot having to make hard choices on otherproblems.

For special interest groups on the urbanfringe, the anti-sprawl umbrella serves avariety of other purposes. For some, it is ameans of preserving semi-rural habitats.For individuals, such a stance may beunderstandable; in a collective sense,however, it is inequitable and sociallyexclusionary. Those residents generally donot pay the full costs of their choice of

location, and their actions implicitly limitthe rights of others, including the nextgeneration, to live there. For others,sprawl represents an environmental cru-sade with undeniably valid objectives, butone which is often one-dimensional andwhose remedial costs are seldom speci-fied. Typically, those costs are alsounevenly distributed across communitiesand social classes. Their anti-sprawl rheto-ric may also reflect their concerns over theincreasing social and ethno-cultural diver-sity of the suburbs.

What might be done? An initial step in clarifying the issueswould be to separate myth from reality.First, as a precondition for action, wemust accept the simple fact that suburbangrowth is likely to continue as long aspopulations continue to grow and a sig-nificant proportion of households expressa desire for single-family housing. This isnot an excuse for suburbanization, butrather a statement that lamenting sprawlis not a recipe for effective action.

Our challenge is to design objectives thatmore accurately reflect the developmenttrajectory of large and growing urbanregions. These should not be pie-in-the-sky objectives or pious statements againstsprawl, which are comforting to some butlargely useless as guidelines for policydecisions. Nor should they be objectivesthat benefit one special-interest use oruser in isolation from, or at the expenseof, the needs of others. Instead, theyshould provide concrete goals and targetsthat recognize the difficult trade-offsinvolved in satisfying the often conflictingdemands for economic spaces and envi-ronmental conservation. They should alsorecognize the uneven costs and benefitsthat flow from those decisions, and iden-tify the needs of the next generation foraffordable housing and living space. Thefourth challenge is to address the exces-sive use of space by non-residential uses,and to insist that such activities pay thetrue spillover costs of their developments.

Misleading positionsResidential density, then, is not the crucialquestion (although it is obviously relevant)in planning new suburban areas. Rather,the issues are the mix of uses, decliningnon-residential densities, and the lack ofstrategic coordination between housingand other land uses in ways that facilitateservice provision, conservation and transituse. Despite the anti-sprawl rhetoric,tighter restrictions on residential usesalone are not the answer. These will onlyforce up the price of land and housing,and thus increase the affordability prob-lems facing current renters and the nextgeneration of homeowners, as Portland’sexperience has demonstrated. The argu-ment here is simple: much of the anti-sprawl rhetoric focused on residential usesand densities in isolation is misdirected,counter-productive and socially

27 Octobre-Novembre-Décembre 2001, Vol. 41, N° 4

inequitable. It is underpinned by politicaland social agendas that often have little ornothing to do with the density or qualityof suburban spaces. Politicians currently inpower owe it to the next generation toavoid increasing prices by restricting sub-urban housing based on some fuzzy con-cept of sprawl, while ignoring non-resi-dential uses and public infrastructurestandards.

What we can do is to address directly thesocial, inter-generational and environmen-tal costs of the current form and densityof development, particularly thoseimposed by commercial-industrial andother non-residential uses. Plannersshould insist that those uses are linked,wherever possible, to both regional andlocal transit systems. Further, govern-ments should remove tax inequities andreduce or eliminate subsidies that discour-age the efficient use of land—especiallyfor low-density commercial, industrial andtransportation uses. Specifically, these ini-tiatives require the creation of a regionalauthority that has, first, the resources andresponsibility to influence all forms of sub-urban uses, and second, the mandate toshape the linkages between such uses,especially those that cross municipalboundaries.

Some might argue that the battle for amore rational, functionally integrated,eco- and transit-friendly suburban formwas lost decades ago; that the mould iscast, and everyone must live with theresults and their social costs. I disagree.Given the massive growth anticipated inthe Toronto region over the next twentyyears, we still have the opportunity toremake the suburban landscape, and tointegrate the new with the old. It will,however, take effective leadership, clearvisions, and strategic investments.

SourcesBlais, Pamela. Inching Toward Sustainability: The Evolving

Structure of the GTA (Toronto: University of Toronto andMetropole Consultants, 2000).

Bourne, Larry S. “Reinventing the Suburbs: Old Myths and NewRealities.” Progress in Planning 46, no. 3 (1996): 163-184.

Downs, A. “Some Realities about Sprawl and Urban Decline.”Housing Policy Debate 10, no. 4 (2001): 955-974.

Lehman and Associates. Urban Density Study: General Report(Toronto: Office of the Greater Toronto Area, 1995).

Leo, C. et al. “Is Urban Sprawl back on the Political Agenda?”Urban Affairs Review 34, no. 2 (1998): 179- 190.

Mitchell, J. “Urban Sprawl.” National Geographic 200 (1 July,2001).

Lorinc, J. “The Story of Sprawl.” Toronto Life (May 2001).

SummaryThis paper argues that the intense anti-sprawl rhetoric focused on suburban resi-dential growth, especially in Toronto, ismisplaced, and is driven largely by implicitagendas other than the effective manage-ment of urban development. The papermakes three points. First, by conventionaldefinitions we have little sprawl, butrather extremely rapid population growth,which we have a collective obligation toaccommodate. Second, the principalsource of decreasing suburban densities isnot the residential sector but low-density,non-residential uses. Residential densities,in contrast, have been increasing, espe-cially dwelling-unit density. Third, theother major problems are the lack of coor-dination between residential and non-resi-dential activities, and the weak integrationof both with transit provision.

SommaireLe discours alarmiste concernant l’expan-sion des banlieues, particulièrement dansla région de Toronto, est le résultat depréoccupations ambiguës plutôt que d’unsouci d’efficacité en gestion urbaine. Toutd’abord, dans le sens strict, il s’agit d’unecroissance très rapide de la population, quela collectivité doit assumer, plutôt qued’une expansion tentaculaire urbaine.Ensuite, le secteur résidentiel n’est pas unfacteur d’une suburbanisation décroissanteautant qu’une utilisation non résidentielle,à faible densité, des espaces disponibles.La densité des secteurs résidentiels, plusparticulièrement des unités résidentielles, apour sa part augmenté. Enfin, la faibleintégration des activités résidentielles etnon résidentielles et les lacunes en ce quiconcerne le transport urbain représententdes obstacles majeurs.

Larry S. Bourne,

PhD FRSC MCIP RPP, is professor of

geography and planning, and director of the

graduate planning program, at the University

of Toronto. He can be reached at:

bourne@geog.utoronto.ca

Note1 See Pamela Blais, Inching Toward Sustainability: The

Evolving Structure of the GTA (Toronto: University ofToronto and Metropole Consultants, 2000).

28October-November-December 2001, Vol. 41, N° 4