In 2014, we released an updated version of our report Measuring Sprawl and Its Impact, which provided a nationwide comparison of sprawling communities with those built in more compact, connected ways. Today, as policymakers at every level look for ways to build affordable housing, lower living costs, and make it easier to get people where they need to go, the debate over sprawl versus density has reemerged.

The current housing access and affordability crisis is just the latest example of how the flawed approach to community design in the U.S. continues to shape the daily lives of millions across the country. Recognizing the consequences of sprawling development patterns, the founders of SGA launched the organization 25 years ago to push back on the status quo and help implement better practices. When examining differences between sprawling and connected communities in 2014, researchers considered residential and employment density, mixed-use development, street network connectivity, and activity center strength to produce Sprawl Index scores and rank areas by development approach. Comparing these scores with quality-of-life factors revealed startling effects on people and their communities.

Since this report was published, America’s dominant urban development strategy has gained growing recognition as a key driver of inequality, environmental degradation, and increased exposure to extreme weather, including contributing to the crisis itself. Our findings remain relevant today because we still see sprawl happening, still see it presented as a solution, and still see its lasting negative effects. An article published in The New York Times Magazine last spring stirred up debate over whether sprawl is a solution to the current housing crisis, largely driven by a supply shortage. The debate intensified amid discourse over the “abundance” movement, which advocates building more housing, more energy, and more infrastructure by simply removing red tape.

But merely building "more" without considering what, where, and for whom won’t address the root cause of this crisis. Creating more sprawling communities to build the 4.7 million homes we need will only artificially raise prices in more connected, walkable communities, making these areas and their immense benefits accessible only to a select few—and drive up other costs for everyone else who must travel farther for jobs and basic services. As policymakers pursue solutions, we should revisit the consequences outlined in Measuring Sprawl 2014 and push for better choices rather than doubling down on the failed development patterns that got us here.

How sprawl hurts individual outcomes

Measuring Sprawl showed that people who live in communities with higher Sprawl Index scores—or more compact, connected development—have better life outcomes than those living in sprawling areas. Researchers found that these communities experience better economic mobility because residents have easier access to jobs, services, and opportunities. A child born in the bottom 20 percent of the income scale has a better chance of rising to the top 20 percent by age 30 when they live in more connected communities. Additionally, residents in these areas face lower overall living costs. Although housing costs often rise (due to demand) in denser areas, transportation savings often offset these higher housing expenses, leading to lower total costs.

More connected development patterns are also correlated with better health outcomes. Our researchers found that communities with higher Sprawl Scores experienced fewer fatal car crashes, lower obesity rates, and longer life expectancies due to slower traffic patterns, more walkable environments, and other design features.

Along with these factors, researchers identified several negative outcomes associated with sprawl, including poorer air quality, higher residential energy use, less social interaction, and slower emergency response times. The report credited these differences to development patterns such as mixed-use development that connects homes, jobs, and services; stronger downtowns and activity centers that bring people and services together; and more connected street grids that encourage walkability, making transit and emergency responses more efficient. The connection between sprawl and social interaction is even more relevant today, with escalating reports of a loneliness crisis, partly driven by fewer public places that bring people together and help build community.

How sprawl shapes community outcomes

Researchers also found that more connected development benefits entire communities. Placing more people and businesses in the same area lowers upfront and per-person costs for roads, transit, and utilities while increasing tax income and economic activity overall and more evenly across an area. Through our technical assistance programs, SGA has seen how this approach strengthens existing communities instead of creating new challenges for local leaders.

Although Measuring Sprawl 2014 did not specify the exact costs of sprawl for communities, a 2007 study published in Urban Studies found that a 25 percent increase in development density could reduce public service costs by $5.6 billion annually, and that a 25 percent decrease in sprawl could save over $10 billion each year. Additionally, our 2013 Building Better Budgets report found that smart growth development—seen in communities that had higher Sprawl Index scores—costs about one-third less for initial infrastructure, saves around 10 percent on ongoing service delivery, and can generate ten times more tax revenue per acre compared to suburban development. This is especially important for local leaders who must balance budgets while facing broader economic pressure, who cannot always rely on passing bonds, higher property taxes, or federal support.

Communities making smarter development decisions

Measuring Sprawl 2014 concluded by highlighting four communities—Santa Barbara, CA; Madison, WI; Los Angeles, CA; and Trenton, NJ—that put policies in place to improve connectivity. Along with other communities that SGA has spotlighted and supported over the years, these examples demonstrate the collective effort underway in communities across the country to implement policies that promote better practices. So will we follow their example and make smarter choices to build stronger communities for everyone and for the future, or will we stick with the status quo of sprawling communities that helped create our current crises?