Levitt 1

The development of suburban sprawl over the last sixty years make it difficult to meet the
urgent challenges our society now faces from climate change, such as dependency on
nonrenewable resources and land-use management. The suburban form of development is
typically auto-dependent, low density, and sprawling. There are environmental limits to
unchecked growth and the current rate of suburban sprawl is unsustainable. This paper will argue
that the suburban development up until now has been ineffective in terms of use of land and
resources. Furthermore, this paper will argue that there is a need to retrofit existing suburban
development because suburban infrastructure is not conducive to mass transit. The benefits of
retrofitting existing suburban development are revitalizing derelict suburban space to create a
sense of place and community as well as consciously containing sprawl with environmental
limitations in mind. First, I will explain what I mean by suburban development and sprawl.
Secondly, I will discuss in-depth how suburban development and sprawl are harmful to the
environment. Then, I will address the history of the policies that have been implemented in
relation to the problem of suburban development on a local, state, and national level. After that, I
will argue the environmental and economic benefits of retrofitting.
Suburban vs. Urban Development
It is important to understand the key terms in order to know how suburban sprawl is
harmful to the environment. Suburban development is characterized by buildings that dominate a
landscape rather than in urban development where buildings line up to the sidewalk and shape
the public space of the street. Most suburban buildings are privatized space rather than public
space. Public space is rarely the prominent spatial feature in suburban areas, although public
spaces such as parks do exist. Suburban buildings tend to be single use whereas urban buildings
often have mixed uses and over the life span of the building are able to transition to other uses.

Levitt 2
Zoning regulations heavily control suburban development which isolates residential and
economic institutions. While urban streets are organized in a grid pattern that is interconnected,
suburban streets are often disconnected with cul-de-sacs and long, winding roads that have dead
ends. This makes suburban development almost entirely auto dependent, with a lot of surface
parking lots around buildings. The suburban form of development has a tendency to be low
density and spread out over land, using a lot of the land for front lawns and backyards (DunhamJones and Williamson 2009).
What is sprawl?
Sprawl is the expansion of suburban development on the peripheral land surrounding
urban areas. Unchecked sprawl has led to the decentralization of cities, therefore leaving cities
with a more hollowed out core and no real defined center, such as Los Angeles. In the late
nineteenth and early twentieth century, urban planners sought to separate family life from the
unhealthy industrial cities in the idyllic garden city which was as far removed from the urban
core as transportation allowed (Vig and Kraft 2013). Today, out of habit, settlement patterns
continue to be that way, although for many, the idyllic landscape is not present. The low cost of
land at the periphery of urban areas as well as the decreased quality of life in inner city
neighborhoods accelerates sprawl (Vig and Kraft 2013). Also, developers often pick the
periphery because taxes are lower and subsidies are higher in rural areas whereas urban locations
often have higher property taxes and land and labor costs (Vig and Kraft 2013).
Environmental Impacts of Sprawl
As sprawl consumes land, we lose a finite resource of open space to inefficient suburban
real estate development. In the United States, An estimated 2.2 million acres of prime farmland,

Levitt 3
forests, wetlands, and other open space are converted into developed land each year (Burchell et
al. 2005). Over the period of 2000 to 2025, it is predicted that the United States will lose about 7
million acres of farmland, 7 million acres of environmentally fragile land, and 5 million acres of
other lands will all be lost to sprawl if we continue sprawling at the rate we have been (Burchell
et al. 2005). Why should we lose this land to suburban sprawl when there is such potential to
transform the land we have already developed to revitalize the inner city and become more
efficient?
Suburban sprawl is harmful to the environment in more ways than can be discussed in
this paper alone, however I will focus on the key aspects one needs to know in order to
understand the detrimental impact suburban sprawl has. Firstly, suburban sprawl demands
energy-inefficient transportation which leads to heavy resource extraction from wilderness
habitats and contributes to air pollution. Secondly, suburban sprawl requires land intensive
transportation infrastructure because it expands roads and highways in order to connect the
periphery to the core. Suburban sprawl also displaces where agriculture takes place to land that
has less quality, which requires more land to be used in order to produce enough output (Vig and
Kraft 2013). The farther away the agriculture is from cities, the more transport needs to happen
to bring food to stores, therefore increasing use of greenhouse gasses.
Changing Needs of Future Generations
In order to reduce greenhouse gasses, and meet the challenges that we face with climate
change, we need to be able to implement alternatives to our dependency on the private car to
meet all of our needs. However, current suburban design is not conducive to implementing costefficient public transit because public transit is only economically and environmentally beneficial

Levitt 4
if the density is above 40 persons per hectare, which is generally not the case in suburban areas
(Banister 2005). Furthermore, suburban design is not built with walkability in mind. More
walkable cities would benefit public health and help create a sense of place and community.
Between the single use zoning and the disconnected road pattern, it would take hours to get
places by walking, and there wouldnt necessarily be continuous sidewalks to get everywhere.
Policies: Clean Air Act
Local, state, and federal policies have been implemented to address air pollution. There
are many causes of air pollution; however, because of suburban sprawl, auto-dependency has
been a significant contributor. Air pollution was considered to be a local and state problem and
there were early initiatives that date back to the 1880s (Vig and Kraft 2013). The Clean Air Act
of 1963 was initiated on a federal level as well as local and state initiatives after World War II
because there was more growth and more obvious pollution at that time. During the Nixon
Administration, Clean Air Acts Amendments were established in 1970. This required the country
to abide by certain emission limits under national and secondary air quality standards. The Act
required states to develop plans to meet certain emissions by certain dates. It also required
reductions in automobile emissions (Vig and Kraft 2013). During the Carter Administration,
there were Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977. These extended deadlines for the dates of certain
emission standards to be met by (Vig and Kraft 2013).
More amendments to the Clean Air Act were established in 1990 under the George H. W.
Bush Administration. These set new requirements and deadlines for federal clean air standards
making urban centers more livable. It created lower emission standards for cars as well as
cleaner fuels. This act also imposed a reduction in sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides in order to

Levitt 5
reduce acid deposition. This act also initiated a system within the market of emissions
allowances. It enforced a higher amount of regulations specifically on 189 listed toxic and
hazardous air pollutants. It also made chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) prohibited by the year 2000 as
well as setting a phase-out for other chemicals that deplete the ozone (Vig and Kraft 2013). Air
pollution by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 initiated a successful, consistent decline of
sulfur oxide emissions by as much as 54% by 2008 (Vig and Kraft 2013). This was a part of the
Acid Rain program under the Clean Air Act which required new technology to be used on the
smoke stacks to reduce the sulfur oxide. Although the quality of life and air in the urban center
improved due to these policies, the pattern of living away from the urban center for a better
quality of life continued.
Policies: Sustainable Transport
In tangent with the Clean Air Act of 1990, under the George H. W. Bush Administration,
the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act was established. This was implemented by
the Transportation Department and is one of the beginning national policies that attempted to
remedy the unsustainable dependency on the private car we face today. It allowed for $31 billion
towards mass transit and $151 billion overall for transportation. The bill called for long-term
transportation planning. It allowed for states and communities to use their transportation funds
for public transit specifically that limits energy use and air pollution. This act required that
community planners focus on land use and energy implications of whatever transportation
projects they plan on implementing (Vig and Kraft 2013). Here we see the emerging attempts to
focus on sustainable transport and land use.

Levitt 6
Another policy that was a step towards more sustainable transport and reducing air
pollution was under the Clinton Administration, the Transportation Department passed the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st century in 1998. This bill pumped hundreds of billions of
dollars into transportation programs. $218 billion dollars went towards improving the nations
highways and mass-transit. It obligated research and development of new highway techniques as
well as transportation-related environmental issues as well as supporting the implementation of
bicycle paths (Vig and Kraft 2013).
As more awareness emerged of global warming, we see policy moving forward in the
direction of sustainability. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 under the
Obama Administration included urban-based climate change actions such as energy efficiency
retrofits to public housing, a neighborhood stabilization program, promoting fuel-efficient cars,
cleaner coal, mass-transit, and capturing and storing carbon dioxide from coal-fired plants. It
provided nearly $18 billion dollars for mass transit, Amtrak, and high-speed rail (Vig and Kraft
2013).
Smart Growth Policies on a Local and State Level
Although there have been national policies that support the protection of the environment
from suburban sprawl, much more radical leadership has been seen on a local and state level
when it comes to sustainable, smart growth policies. For example, the organization Sustainable
Seattle began in 1990 and involved large numbers of citizens in the planning process and have an
Office of Sustainability working on a Climate Action Now program (Vig and Kraft 2013). In
2002, California passed its Renewable Portfolio Standard which initiated the construction of
sustainable residential communities such as Treasure Island, off of San Francisco (Vig and Kraft

Levitt 7
2013). We can also see that some cities in the United States have been able to model
environmentally sustainable cities. For example, the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system is a
prime case of successful public transit. The BART system is widely used and it has improved
accessibility for commuters throughout the bay area. As jobs in downtown were created, the
BART is said to have prevented significant traffic congestion in a compactly developed area
(Richmond 2005).
Even Santa Monica, amongst the sprawl of Los Angeles, commissioned a Sustainable
City Program in 1994 (Santa Monica Government Office of Sustainability and the Environment
2013). Included in that plan were reducing total city wide greenhouse gas emissions 15 percent
below the level in 1990 by year 2015. In order to support this, the plan includes a 35 percent
increase in total miles of city with bike lanes by 2010, a 10 percent reduction in the average
number of vehicles per person by 2010, and an upward trend in the use of sustainable modes of
transportation including bus, bike, pedestrian and rail (Santa Monica Government Office of
Sustainability and the Environment 2013).
Oregon: Smart Growth Leader
Portland, Oregon has also been a leader in sustainable urbanism initiatives. First, it is
important to note that before 1970, Portland was anything but vibrant. In the 1950s, it was
basically just a logging town (Layzer 2012). Its politics underwent a transformation in the early
seventies as the age of the Portland City Council dropped by fifteen years. The civic leaders
began to be people in their 30s rather than their 70s (Layzer 2012). They also had a big increase
in advocacy organizations from 31 to 184. This made a huge difference because the civic
engagement allowed many more voices to be heard in the making of their public policy, whereas

Levitt 8
before the discussion was mainly between well-known elites and the few white men in charge
(Layzer 2012). The first revolution was in 1969 when there was a protest to tear down the
highway next to the waterfront and replace it with a park, which ended up successfully
happening.
In 1972, there was a collaborative Portland Downtown Plan created by business owners,
urban planners, and citizens. This plan actually modeled what is now considered the tenets of
smart growth, which was not even a popular idea until the 1990s (Layzer 2012). The downtown
plan implemented new parks, public spaces, compact development and mixed-use areas, mass
transit, and pedestrian friendly street design (Layzer 2012). They saw the negative effects of
sprawl begin to encroach upon the coast as high-rises and condominiums began to be built in the
1960s along the coast. In response to this, in 1971, Republican legislator, Hector MacPherson
became the hero of smart growth statewide planning. He actually made national news with his
speech about combatting the negative environmental impacts of suburban sprawl. He said in his
speech:
There is a shameless threat to our environmentand to the whole quality of life[that threat] is the unfettered despoiling of the landscape. Sagebrush
subdivisions, coastal condomania, and the ravenous rampage of suburbia in
the Willamette Valley all threaten to mock Oregons status as the environmental
model for the nation. We are in dire need of a state land use policy, new
subdivision laws, and new standards for planning and zoning by cities and
counties. The interests of Oregon for today and in the future must be protected
from the grasping wastrels of the land (Layzer 2012).

Levitt 9
This is a speech made in 1972, which is widely reflective of the overwhelming amount of
public support for this legislation. In 1973, the Senate Bill 100 passed which was a land-use
planning law that required each of Oregons cities to meet the statewide goals in regards to plans
(Layzer 2012). The plans needed to be very comprehensive and show how they were to be
implemented with enforcement and regulations. This law also created the Land Conservation and
Development Commission, also known as LCDC, and is a seven-member council. The law
created the Department of Land Conservation and Development as well, which served the LCDC
as an administrative agency (Layzer 2012). One of the first things the LCDC did was engage a
massive amount of people in learning about land-use planning. They mailed out 100,000
invitations to residents to participate in workshops, of which, about 10,000 people attended these
workshops across 35 locations (Layzer 2012).
The LCDC initially implemented fourteen planning goals in 1974, some of which are
more relevant to city planning than others. The goals related to city planning need to be included
in the city plans required by the Senate Bill 100. Later, I will discuss the troubles the cities had
with complying with these goals, but for now I will just explain what the goals were. Goal 5
focused on protecting and setting aside open space. Goal 10 promoted the need for affordable
housing, which is an important aspect of sustainable development because the definition of
sustainable is not just environmental. A lot of times, once cities become redeveloped, the former
residents of the area are no longer able to afford rent and then are marginalized and displaced.
Goal 11 emphasized the development of public facilities and services. Goal 12 promoted the
development of regional mass transit systems. However, the next two goals are the most integral
in the success of Oregons growth management: Goal 3 required counties to zone agricultural

Levitt 10
land in order to preserve farmlands; Goal 14 required local governments to establish urban
growth boundaries (UGB) that protect rural land and define what land can be urbanized.
Resistance to Policy Implementation in Oregon
Everything I have mentioned up until now has been the planning aspect of Oregons
policy. The implementation of the policy is when resistance happened. It is important to observe
the path of resistance that Oregon had because they are 40 years ahead of most of the rest of the
United States in sustainable urban planning to combat sprawl. The resistance largely came from
rural landowners at the beginning. Initially the rural legislators were in support of Senate Bill
100, however, many of the land-use rules applied to rural land owners and it was seen as a
restriction on their property rights (Layzer 2012). The primary response of resistance came in the
form of ballot initiatives to repeal the law in 1976 and 1978. However, another form of resistance
showed up as local officials refused to enforce it and the officials illegally approved residential
development in farm zones (Layzer 2012).
While this resistance was happening all over Oregon, in the 1980s the economy slowed
and so people were less motivated to focus on development which gave the LCDC more room
for enforcement. In Portland, the planning goals were being implemented during this time: the
waterfront freeway was ripped up and replaced with a park, bus service was scaled up, parking
garages were being torn down, light rail was being built, and the urban growth boundary (UGB)
was being respected (Layzer 2012). As the economy resurrected itself and housing demand
increased, however, the UGB was being expanded. The subversive efforts to loosen support for
the Senate Bill 100 was beginning, but it took full form later as ballot initiatives Measure 7 and
Measure 37 (Layzer 2012).

Levitt 11
Measure 7 was a ballot initiative written by this group called Oregonians in Action and
it required the government to compensate landowners for the decrease in property values due to
the regulation from Senate Bill 100. However, if the government could not find money to
compensate, the law would have required the government to waive the regulations. The Oregon
Supreme Court actually did not pass Measure 7 because of the constitutional changes that would
have been required. However, Measure 37 did pass through the Oregon Supreme Court. Measure
37 was implemented in 2004 and it created a state law that allowed property owners to petition to
actually be excused from state and local land-use rules if the owner purchased the land before the
rules were put in place or be compensated for any decrease in the lands market value as a result
of the rule or the rule would be waived automatically. Development exploded after Measure 37
happened and therefore the UGB became much less strict after that. The property rights activists
that were pushing Measure 37 had a short lived success though because in October of 2005,
several agricultural groups brought it to the courts and the court ruled Measure 37
unconstitutional because it granted special privileges and immunities (Layzer 2012). The
environmentalists then have won again in 2007 as many Democratic legislators wrote Measure
49, which prohibited commercial and industrial development but did still allow room for people
to build under highly regulated restrictions outside of the UGB. Basically it would allow a little
home to be built here and there but would prevent rapid sprawl. The UGB is more flexible today
but growth is still heavily regulated and managed (Layzer 2012).
Current Sustainability Policies in Portland
Portlands Lloyd Crossing project, inspired by Sustainable Seattle architecture, has set
high goals for a key section of Portlands center which is predominantly a commercial area. The
project aims to retrofit the Lloyd District to be a mixed-use neighborhood with increased density

Levitt 12
and a neutral carbon balance (Farr 2008). Included in this project is a 50-year plan laying out a
strategy to reduce environmental impact to predevelopment levels. The highlights of the project
include carbon balance reduced from 29,000 ton/year to 2000 ton/year by 2050 (Farr 2008). One
of the ways they are accomplishing this is by significantly downplaying automobile traffic by
making the center more walkable with an increase in tree cover from 14.5 percent to 30 percent,
incorporating generously sized sidewalks, bike lanes on main streets, significant roadside
vegetation, and more exciting, varied architecture to enhance the pedestrian experience (Farr
2008).
Key Aspects of Sustainable Cities
In order to combat cities tendency to sprawl, to reduce vehicle miles traveled and
improve air quality with increased ability to implement public transit, there is a call for a
sustainable retrofit of existing suburban infrastructure. A sustainable retrofit is characterized by
compact development and urbanization of suburban properties to be denser, more walkable, and
have mixed use buildings (Dunham-Jones and Williamson 2009). Sustainable development of
cities has several key aspects to implement in a successful, retrofitted design (Farr 2008). The
first quality is a defined center and edge, which means it is bound by some kind of transit
corridor which creates a boundary to grow within, while also having a defined center that is a
connection point where people get their daily needs met. Second is compact development, which
supports the attribute of walkability and implementing mass transit, therefore, helping reduce
local air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions while also helping create a sense of place and
community. It can keep people closer to wilderness while living in a city. Compact development
means there is less land being wasted on pavement which is better for water quality, reducing the
heat island effect, and allowing room for more green public space (Farr 2008).

Levitt 13
The next quality sustainable retrofits have is completeness. Completeness means mixed
use buildings in a neighborhood that meet daily needs and ones needs over a lifetime. This also
means there are a diversity of dwelling types, available to accommodate different ages and
economic situations, allowing people to age in place (Farr 2008). The next aspect of a
sustainable community is connectedness, which integrates transportation and land use, meaning
people have opportunities to walk, ride public transit, and bike all around the community.
Another aspect to include is sustainable corridors, which means having transit corridors linking
neighborhoods with districts and regional destinations. This is where light rail or high-speed rail
plays a role; however it only works if there is properly-distributed density to make it
economically and environmentally efficient (Farr 2008).
Biophilia is the next important quality of sustainable communities. It speaks to humans
intrinsic connection with nature and how important it is to maintain natural vegetation and
animal habitats. Sustainable urbanism is about making resource flows an experiential part of
human settlements. Farr says, For example, a wastewater system that extracts nutrients to grow
food in ones neighborhood creates an incentive not to dump toxic chemicals down the drain.
The ability to see and experience where resources are produced and where they go after they are
used promotes a human lifestyle better integrated with natural systems (Farr 2008, 49). Since
sustainable retrofits mean higher density, it becomes extremely important to provide natural
settings within reasonable walking distance in order to maintain quality of life at the core of
cities.
Lastly, high-performance infrastructure and high performance buildings are important
elements of retrofitting suburban areas. High-performance infrastructure includes changing
zoning to allow more compact development as well as eliminating inefficient infrastructure such

Levitt 14
as dead end cul-de-sacs and front yard driveways. High-performance buildings means
implementing LEED green building standards in order to achieve more energy efficiency as well
as more sustainable construction of buildings, therefore depending less heavily on land resources
(Farr 2008).
Reduced land consumption helps keep inner cities close to open natural spaces and
reduces externalized environmental costs that the sprawl of edgeless cities would have.
Economically, this type of new development would create jobs as well as increasing productivity
of capital in underperforming suburban areas. The revitalization of the urban center creates new
markets for new profit.
Conclusion
There is potential to change the human settlement patterns that have been dominating the
land for the last sixty years. It is evident that suburban sprawl is a settlement pattern that is no
longer necessary, nor does it serve the changing needs of our current and future generations. We
have been spending intergenerational currency that is not ours to spend. We have been
externalizing the environmental costs of this suburban lifestyle that no longer suits the changing
needs of our community and our future communities. While some may argue that new urbanism
and sustainable, smart growth principals are not worth the cost or effort to change or that it
infringes upon ones property rights, I think it is evident that a more fulfilling lifestyle is possible
through inviting sustainable urbanism to lead the way. It is important, however, to observe the
resistance that people have had to these types of smart growth policies happening in places such
as Oregon in order to learn what has worked and what has not. I think that state and local level
policies work well to tailor to what can be done on a smaller level because certain policies only

Levitt 15
work for certain regions. In places where there is open, undetermined space, that is a good place
to protect. However, places that are already suburbs may only be able to incorporate more highperformance buildings and energy efficiency policies, which still is extremely beneficial in
facing future problems.

Levitt 16
References
Banister, David. 2005. Unsustainable Transport: City Transport in the New Century. London:
Taylor & Francis Group. Routledge.
Burchell, Robert W., Anthony Downs, Barbara McCann, and Sahan Mukherji. 2005. Sprawl
Costs: Economic Impacts of Unchecked Development. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Dunham-Jones, Ellen, and June Williamson. 2009. Retrofitting Suburbia: Urban Design
Solutions for Redesigning Suburbs. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Farr, Douglas. 2008. Sustainable Urbanism: Urban Design with Nature. Hoboken, New Jersey:
John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Kraft, Michael E., and Norman J. Vig. 2013. Environmental Policy: New Directions for the 21st
Century. 8th ed., edited by Michael E. Kraft and Norman J. Vig. Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ Press.
Layzer, Judith A.. 2012. The Environmental Case: Translating Values into Policy. Washington,
DC: CQ Press.
Richmond, Jonathan. 2005. Transport of Delight: The Mythical Conception of Rail Transit in
Los Angeles. Akron, Ohio: University of Akron Press.
Santa Monica Government Office of Sustainability and the Environment. 2013. Santa Monica
Sustainable City Plan. SMGOV website, last modified 2013, accessed November 3, 2013,
http://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/OSE/Categories/Sustainability/SustainableCity-Plan.pdf