Center on Urban & Metropolitan Policy Who Sprawls Most? How Growth Patterns Differ Across the U.S. William Fulton, Rolf Pendall, Mai Nguyen, and Alicia Harrison1 Findings “Many of the An analysis of the density trends in every metropolitan area in the United States between 1982 and 1997 reveals: results contained ■ Most metropolitan areas in the ■ Metropolitan areas tend to consume United States are adding urbanized less land for urbanization—relative land at a much faster rate than they to population growth—when they in this report are adding population. Between 1982 are growing rapidly in population, and 1997, the amount of urbanized rely heavily on public water and land in the United States increased by sewer systems, and have high levels challenge the 47 percent, from approximately 51 mil- of immigrant residents. Our analysis lion acres in 1982 to approximately 76 revealed that fast-growing regions million acres in 1997. During this same urbanize far less land per new resident conventional period, the nation’s population grew by than slow-growing or declining ones. only 17 percent. Of the 281 metropoli- Regions are less likely to consume tan areas included in this report, only large amounts of land (relative to pop- wisdom about 17 (6.0 percent) became more dense. ulation growth) if they have more immigrants—this finding was one of ■ The West is home to some of the the strongest and most consistent rela- metropolitan densest metropolitan areas in the tionships we found, both at one point nation. In 1997, ten of the 15 densest in time (1997) and as a change over metropolitan areas in the nation were time (1982-97). densities and located in California, Nevada, and Arizona. The South is accommodating ■ Metropolitan areas tend to consume a great deal of population growth but more land for urbanization—again, sprawl in the is urbanizing a large amount of previ- relative to population growth—if ously non-urban land to do so, while they are already high-density metro in the Northeast and Midwest, slow- areas and if they have fragmented United States.” growing metropolitan areas have local governments. Regions that were consumed extremely large amounts very dense in 1982 tended to urbanize of land for urbanization in order to more land in relation to population accommodate very small quantities growth. That is, a region that was of population growth. dense already had a harder time retain- ing its density during this period. We also found that regions with frag- mented local government structures urbanized more land to accommodate population growth. Cen July 2001 • The Brookings Institution • Survey Series 1 I. Introduction high by national standards—are sprawling far worse than their coun- his paper measures recent terparts elsewhere in the nation. trends in how rapidly Ameri- These results challenge the conven- can metropolitan areas are tional wisdom, which believes that “The most impor- consuming land for urbaniza- Western cities are sprawling because Ttion in order to accommodate a they are auto-oriented, and older changing population. It is the first Northeastern and Midwestern cities tant conclusion national study to measure the con- are dense because they are dense in sumption of land for urbanization in the aging core. In some sense, the comparison to population growth for conventional wisdom is correct. West- this report draws every metropolitan area in the United ern cities are auto oriented—that is, States. Our report includes both an they do not have extremely dense old exploration of density and density cores and they are built at densities is that metropoli- change in the U.S. and an explanation that make it difficult to provide public of the differences among metropolitan transit alternatives. And in the North- areas. east and Midwest, older core areas tan areas in We calculate the density of every continue to function at very high den- metropolitan area in the United States sities by national standards. They between 1982 and 1997 and analyze contain densely developed neighbor- different parts the resulting trends. Density is defined hoods and business districts, and they as the population (estimated from the often include a very high level of pub- decennial census) divided by the lic transportation riders compared to of the country urbanized land (derived from the national averages. National Resources Inventory’s But at the scale of the metropolitan national survey of land use, conducted area, the conventional wisdom is are growing in every five years.) Thus, this is the first wrong—at least so far as consumption nationwide study that analyzes metro- of land for urbanization is concerned. politan density based on an actual Metropolitan areas in the Northeast different ways.” measurement of urbanized land, and Midwest are consuming land at a rather than the Census Bureau’s defi- much greater rate than they are nition of “urbanized area,” which does adding population, and so their “mar- not measure actual land use. ginal” density is extremely low. In general, we find that, in percent- (Although they are adding population, age terms, most metropolitan areas are Southern metro areas also have low consuming land for urbanization much marginal densities.) At the same time, more rapidly than they are adding pop- the auto-oriented metropolitan areas ulation. In that sense, most U.S. of the West have overall metropolitan metro areas are “sprawling” more rap- densities that are comparable to those idly today than they have in the past. in the Northeast and the Midwest. That fact is generally known. However, Furthermore, they are currently grow- many of the results contained in this ing at much higher densities than report challenge the conventional wis- their counterparts anywhere else in dom about metropolitan densities and the nation. In that sense, the Western sprawl in the United States. metro areas—whatever else their char- For example, this report finds that acteristics may be—are using less land many of the densest metropolitan to accommodate population growth areas in the United States are located than metro areas in any other part of in the West—most specifically, in the nation. California, Arizona, and Nevada. In reviewing these results it is Meanwhile, the older metropolitan important to understand that this areas of the Northeast and Midwest— report seeks to measure sprawl in while their underlying densities are terms of consumption of land 2 July 2001 • The Brookings Institution • Survey Series CENTER ON URBAN & METROPOLITAN POLICY urbanization and how they affect the Map 1 consumption and use of land. Percent Change in Urbanized Land, MSAs and CMSAs, 1982–1997 B. “Density” as a measurement of land consumption and population growth In this report, we measure the rela- tionship between population and urbanized land in terms of what we call a metropolitan area’s “density.” We define “density” as the population of a metropolitan area divided by the amount of urbanized land in that met- ropolitan area. In addition to reporting on density trends in 281 of the 282 U.S. metro areas (all but Anchorage, Alaska) between 1982 and 1997, we also report on overall trends in land urbanization and sometimes describe the trends by comparing the percent- age increase in population and the percentage increase in urbanized land (simply a different way of expressing the same data contained in our calcu- lation of “density”). It is important to note that our measurement here is not simply a resources only. The most important politan fringe. To many—especially measurement of residential density (as conclusion this report draws is that in the popular press—it is simply a so often occurs in the sprawl debate) metropolitan areas in different parts of catch-all term that refers to any kind but, rather, a measurement of overall the country are growing in different of suburban-style growth, whether density based on all the land—residen- ways. There is no single problem of driven by population increase or not. tial, commercial, industrial, roads and “sprawl” in the United States today, Our method of defining sprawl is to highways, urban parks, and so forth— and there is no single solution. Rather, characterize it simply in terms of land urbanized in order to accommodate the problems associated with metro- resources consumed to accommodate population growth. politan growth throughout the nation new urbanization. If land is being con- are characterized by regional differ- sumed at a faster rate than population C. Using an actual measurement ences, and policy responses should be growth, then a metropolitan area can of land consumption to measure different as well. be characterized as “sprawling.” If sprawl and density population is growing more rapidly Furthermore, this report differs from II. Definitions and Methods than land is being consumed for other analyses of metropolitan densi- urbanization, then a metropolitan area ties by calculating densities based on A. “Sprawl” as a measurement of can be characterized as “densifying.” an actual measurement of urbanized land consumed for urbanization This definition is not perfect by any land, rather than a measurement of “Sprawl” is an elusive term. To para- means, simply because sprawl has so population density. phrase the United States Supreme many different meanings. But it does Most similar analyses have used the Court’s long-ago ruling on pornogra- provide a useful baseline of sprawl as U.S. Census Bureau’s definition of phy, most people can’t define it relates to the land resources of our “urbanized area” as the denominator sprawl—but they know it when they nation and its metropolitan areas. By in calculating urban or metropolitan see it. To some, it means a pattern of using this simple and comprehensive densities. But the Census “urbanized auto-oriented suburban development.