This article reviews the literature on characteristics, causes, and costs of alternative development patterns. In doing so it debunks arguments by Gordon and Richardson in favor of Los Angeles-style sprawl. Sprawl is not suburbanization generally, but rather forms of suburban development that lack accessibility and open space. Sprawl is not a natural response to market forces, but a product of subsidies and other market imperfections. The costs of sprawl are borne by all of us, not just those creating it, and include inflated public spending, loss of resource lands, and a waning sense of community. The only realistic cure for sprawl is active planning of the sort practiced almost everywhere except the United States (and beginning to appear here out of necessity).
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 1,330 citations exist upstream.