Can Urban Sprawl Improve Public Health?

We always hear the first and most important factor in public health is access to clean water, an issue that urbanists in the developing world rarely consider. As such, Matthew Kahn of Environmental and Urban Economics ponders the next factor once we’re less concerned about water - sprawl.

[Image: Suburban sprawl in Albuquerque. Courtesy of MBL.]

However, don’t try to argue the following to those in the developing world that live the following facts via Thirst Relief:

• Worldwide, 1.1 billion people do not have access to potable water
• Every year 2 million people die from waterborne disease
• 90% of those are children under 5

On the other hand Atlanta, listen up because you are facing a water crisis and sprawl at a pace exceeding every other major American, metropolitan city.


Granted issues of water are very disconcerting, but the notions of sprawl are the emphasis of the day. So, before I get to carried away on a public health kick, not to mention being overly serious, let’s ponder the premise of Mr. Kahn, even if it is tongue-in-cheek.

In entertaining fashion, Mr. Kahn asks the following:

How much less disease contagion, exposure to second hand smoke, exposure to dog poop and other urban ills are avoided by the “moat effect” of living at lower density? Another urban disamenity is noise. My son is noisy and he bugs the neighbors with his stomping and yelling and jumping. In a single detached house with its own private space, nobody could hear him. Sprawl is a type of voluntary quarantine.

This is obviously a highly personal motivation for continuing sprawl, something that I gather Kahn does not actually support. I think he is spot on to consider this with importance because it’s a question that goes through many peoples’ minds, and even makes decisions for many. Fortunately, living without roommates is enough of a buffer for people to maintain their urban lifestyles. The kicker, as Kahn points out, is those noisy neighbors when your apartment is lucky enough to have walls or floors with the acoustical precision of Bose speakers.

[Image: Promotional poster for the advertising agency. Courtesy of Noisy Neighbors.]

As a result, the suburbs became a haven for ‘my’ syndrome. My yard, my house, my room, my space, my peace and quiet; my private, fine-tuned, perfect environment. Perhaps this is fueled by the consumer world and their thirst for ‘i‘ in a world of mass customization - ipod, iphone, ibook…

It is a world without compromise. Isolation meets instant gratification.

This becomes the point that Kahn is ultimately making.

While urban economists talk about the fact that suburbia relative to the center city offers larger homes and larger lots and newer houses and a more homogenous set of neighbors, and a better public services/tax ratio, perhaps what suburbanites really want is physical separation from other people’s snot, smoke, noise and poop.

So, where does this leave us?

Is our next move to create urban suburbs? Or do we continue to divide and conquer, where the city lovers and sociophobes part ways, living in their respective environments?

If you read through the comments of Kahn’s post, you will not see an answer, but you will see principle of economic theory that we, as urbanists, can exploit. It requires thinking like an economist, but I think the point is generally clear by this astute observer…

To a much greater extent than other suburban amenities, this particular amenity is subject to a problem of diminishing returns. That is, if what you want to avoid is physical exposure to lots of strangers, you get a big payoff by moving from a tenement to a rowhouse or single-family house, because you aren’t living in the same building with strangers any more. But moving from a rowhouse to a small single-family house, or from a 1/8 acre house to a 1/2 acre house, doesn’t involve quite as much of a payoff, because as long as you are living in your own house, you are not going to be all that exposed to strangers and their smoke, etc. until you go to work.

-Michael Lewyn

Although, I wouldn’t contribute this to a ‘problem’ of diminishing return but rather to an opportunity. If we start to think of these different categories of housing as tiers, we can start to treat each of these in different ways with respect to politics and the legal system. In a previous post by Kahn, he points to an article by his colleague Ed Glaeser, that addresses the affect of taxes on urban and suburban living. In short, it suggests that the current tax structure is mitigating the growth of cities.

Taxes then, are potentially one way to address this notion of housing tiers. I am hesitant, however, to point out a new taxing structure, because rarely does this solve a problem without creating another.

Perhaps an even further stretch into the realm of possibility is a development/design side approach. However, people are wary of this ever since the end of modernism. Many of us know the story of Pruitt-Igoe in St. Louis…

[Image: Pruitt-Igoe demolition in St. Louis, 1972. Courtesy of Alicia Patterson.]

Once, an award-winning work of architecture and social responsibility, this housing complex was known more for its functionality, or lack there of. The building proved unsustainable for residents because of safety.

Despite these previous failures, however, I think there may be other architecture / development solutions out there. I am specifically thinking of the current work by Abalos & Herreros, resulting from their notion of infrastructural geography. They are attempting to combine public works of the public and private variety. One particular project is redesigning what I believe was a post office on it’s current site that adds affordable housing units above. The combination of public and private funds makes the project cheaper for the public entity, and allows the developer to improve the units and their amenities without affecting his margin. I will admit this requires the developer to take on some social responsibility to improve the quality of the units rather than taking a larger margin. Regardless, this becomes an opportunity.

My point here is to address strategy that increases the marginal gains between different variations of urban living, while decreasing those marginal gains between suburban options. I think it’s a very interesting philosophical question and I’m wondering what other ideas and opportunities are out there to address this method as a solution.

In response to…
Sprawl Improves Public Health, Matthew Kahn

If you enjoyed this post, please leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.

Powered by Wordpress | WP Premium theme by WP Remix
Copyright 2007. agents of urbanism. All rights reserved

• Home
• About
• Archives
• Glossary
• Poll Archive
• Sitemap