The Slow Violence of Sprawl — Part III

By: Marshall B. Distel

[In Part I of this series, Virginia Tech Master of Natural Resources student Marshall Distel introduced us to the concept of slow violence, explained why the term applies to urban sprawl.  Part II  focused on the impacts of mass motorization on air quality, climate, and quality of life.]

Socio-Economic Implications

There are numerous socio-economic consequences of sprawl. The most noticeable socio-economic impact comes as a result of sprawl’s ability to immobilize the population. It is estimated that there are about 80 million Americans who are either too old, too young, or too poor to drive; these are the clear victims of suburban sprawl (Duany, Plater-Zybek, & Speck. 2000). In car-dependent landscapes, these populations are reliant on others for mobility.

Those who are not able to drive may be stuck at home or feel isolated if others are not able to transport them in vehicles. Children, the elderly, the disabled and anyone without a driver’s license could be immobilized by sprawl. Since the ability to drive safely decreases with age, the elderly become particularly dependent upon others for their transportation needs. Some suburban critics say that seniors who retire to sprawling communities that are spatially distant from goods, services, and social institutions, can essentially become nonviable members of a community because their participation in public life is made difficult or nearly impossible by the geographical constraints of suburbia (Duany, Plater-Zybek, & Speck. 2000).

From a social justice perspective, sprawl disproportionally impacts the poor. A recent study conducted by the Transportation Research Board concluded that sprawl may deprive the poor of economic opportunity (Squires, 2002). As jobs, good schools, stores, and other employment opportunities have relocated from urban metropolitan areas to the suburbs, poor families are left behind, concentrated in high-density portions of the urban core. Furthermore, poor families are often unable to migrate out of concentrated areas of poverty because suburban jurisdictions have enacted exclusionary zoning practices that inhibit the movement of minorities and low-income families from entering certain communities (Benfield et al, 1999).

Exclusionary practices could include mortgage lenders that prevent people of color or poor families from getting a loan, the prohibition of multi-family housing and minimum lot sizes, which often drives up the price of a home. These socio-economic implications have traditionally been overlooked, while concentrated areas of urban poverty have continued to deteriorate.

Public Health

Sprawl has slowly been degrading the public health of suburbanites. The lifestyle preferences that are associated with sprawling developments have contributed to a variety of adverse health implications. Numerous studies have shown that people living in sprawling car-dependent environments are less likely to participate in daily physical active and are more likely to be overweight (Lucy & Phillips, 2006).

Furthermore, there is a well-established correlation between sprawl-related patterns of development like the lack of a diverse built environment, high levels of dependence on driving and a sedentary lifestyle, with an increase in obesity, diabetes, respiratory problems and numerous other health risks (Zhang, 2013). The unintended health impacts of sprawl have contributed to the nation’s rise in obesity. Since these impacts have been gradual in nature, there wasn’t an immediate response to address them. Promotional initiatives to advocate for daily physical activity were only recently established after obesity levels became more visible and prominent across the nation.

Slow Violence in Chittenden County, Vermont

Chittenden County is prime example of a region in northwestern Vermont that has been impacted by the slow violence of sprawl. Chittenden County is the fastest growing region in Vermont, with a 2015 population of 161,382 and a population density of around 292 persons per square mile. The City of Burlington, Vermont, is the urbanized center of Chittenden County.

Burlington is vibrant and diverse city that is recognized by its thriving arts scene, innovative business community, award-winning pedestrian mall and its proximity to numerous opportunities for outdoor recreation. Burlington’s downtown streetscape is characterized by a dense and walkable landscape (see below) that boast a mixture of successful businesses, housing, and cultural institutions (Murphy, 2005). However, while Burlington remains dense and walkable, its outer suburbs have become increasingly car dependent as large tracts of low-density subdivisions have replaced former agricultural land.

Suburban Violence in Chittenden County

Over the past half century, the suburban communities adjacent to the City of Burlington have experienced significant population growth (The Champlain Initiative, 1999). Development has become progressively more spread out over the Champlain Valley since the post–World War II years. In 1940, about 71 percent of Chittenden County’s population lived within densely settled growth centers. However, by the late 1990s, more than half of the county’s population had moved away from the growth centers and onto previously undeveloped land (Murphy, 2005).

Between 1982 and 1997, the population density of Chittenden County fell by over 20 percent, while the overall percentage of developed land rose from 7 to 12 percent (CCMPO, 2003). Moreover, within the 26-year period from 1940 to 1996, about 66 percent of all new housing units were built within the suburbs, while within the same time period, the share of county-wide housing fell from 64 to 33 percent in the densely populated growth centers (The Champlain Initiative, 1999).

As housing was moved to the suburbs, retail and employment opportunities soon followed. From 1980 to 1996, 82 percent of all new jobs were created within the Chittenden County suburbs (CCMPO, 2003). Big-box retail growth and sprawling interchange development consumed much of the landscape by the latter half of the 1990s. Rising home prices in Burlington have driven many potential homebuyers to the outer suburbs in search of a lower cost of living. Also, the establishment of major state highways and the Interstate has made it more viable to live outside of the urbanized communities, which has further increased the expansion of car-dependent landscapes, along with their accompanying socio-environmental problems.

When Slow Violence is Recognized

In 1950, about 73 percent of the land in Chittenden County was dedicated to agriculture; however, by 1992, farmland only made up 24 percent of the land use (Murphy, 2005). Vermont’s problem with sprawl gained national attention after the National Trust for Historic Preservation (Washington, DC) put Vermont at the top of its list of the “Most Endangered Historic Places in America,” citing the impacts of sprawl.

As community leaders, planners and politicians finally recognized how the gradual impacts of sprawl had adversely impacted Chittenden County communities, new regulations targeted at sprawl were implemented in an effort to protect arable land, enhance water quality, reduce air pollution, lessen car dependency, promote public health, and support vibrant communities. Local municipalities and the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission have been working to prevent future sprawl by supporting mixed-use zoning initiatives and progressive density standards.

Solutions for the Future

In 2013, the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission published its ECOS Plan (Environment, Community, Opportunity, Sustainability) after receiving a $1 million grant from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Sustainable Communities Project. The ECOS Plan was a visionary project that effectively united members of the public, business organizations and municipalities to collaborate and plan for a sustainable future. The ECOS Plan emphasized the importance of reducing sprawl, developing healthy and active communities, investing in sustainable modes of transportation and expanding Smart Growth.

Smart Growth is known as a pattern of development that makes efficient use of land, promotes healthy and livable communities, protects natural resources and alleviates the adverse impacts of population growth. Chittenden County, Vermont is a chief example of how a region was able to identify the slow violence of sprawl and make a commitment towards reducing its future impacts.

Since the ECOS Plan established a goal of locating 80 percent of all new residential development in areas for planned growth, Chittenden County has met or exceeded this development goal for 6 years in a row. This ambitious goal was established to maintain historic settlement patterns, reduce air and water pollution, promote the health and vitality of local communities and preserve Vermont’s pristine natural resources (CCRPC, 2013). To effectively combat sprawl, more regions needs to promote Smart Growth and other initiatives that highlight the incrementally damaging effects of low-density development and car-dependent landscapes.

[Marshall Distel is a graduate student in Virginia Tech’s Master of Natural Resources program. He expects to receive his degree in May 2019. ].

Literature Cited

• Benfield et al. (1999). “Once there were Greenfields: How Urban Sprawl is Undermining America’s Environment, Economy and Social Fabric.” New York, New York: Natural Resources Defense Council
• CCMPO, 2003
• CCRPC, (2013). “Chittenden County ECOS Plan.” Retrieved from the Partnership of Sustainable Communities website: http://www.ecosproject.com/sites/default/files/ECOS_Plan_FPHdraft_chpt1-3_20130215.pdf
• Duany, A., Plater-Zybek, E., & Speck, J. (2000). “Suburban nation: The rise of sprawl and the decline of the American dream.” New York: West Point Press
• Lucy, W., Phillips, D. (2006). “Tomorrow’s Cities, Tomorrow’s Suburbs.” Chicago, IL: Planners Press
• Murphy, J. (2005). “Assessing the Land Use, Environmental Quality and Transportation Connection in Chittenden County, Vermont.” Vermont Law School. 1-129
• Squires, Gregory. (2002). “Urban Sprawl: Causes, Consequences & Policy Responses.” Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press
• The Champlain Initiative. (1999) “History of Sprawl in Chittenden County”. Sustainability and Growth Center Initiative. Burlington, VT.
• Zhang, Ming. (2013). “On the Cul-de-Sac vs. Checker-Board Street Network: Search for Sustainable Urban Form.” IRSPSD International 1, 1-16.

[Creative Commons License photos from Flickr courtesy of: Tomek Nacho, Richard Masoner, and Meng He.]