All these photos show comparatively dense single-family development, except the “Sterling” development in Florida. That one has lower density to accommodate waterways and runoff (thereby responding to environmental concerns). The worst sprawl — half-acre to two-acre lots, common in New England, the Midwest, and the I-85 Corridor (Birmingham-Richmond) — is less photogenic from a helicopter’s elevation. Conventional wisdom: When we can see a lot of development, it’s more harmful. Planners’ belief: The more development we can see at once, the better. The difference: What’s outside the frame.

Comment by Rolf Pendall — January 18, 2010, @ 7:48 am

Excellent point, Rolf.

Comment by Kaid @ NRDC — January 18, 2010, @ 9:57 am

BTW, note the startling lack of street connectivity even in the relatively dense developments of Deer Creek and Forest Glen (named after what *used* to be there, probably): cul-de-sacs backing right up against each other.

Comment by Kaid @ NRDC — January 18, 2010, @ 10:02 am

I’m a bit confused here… From what I can tell, most of these developments seem to have at least decent interconnection with the grid around them, some have public services on the interior of the developments, and most make an honest effort to incorporate paths and a walking/biking system into the developments…

I’m not saying these developments are ideal, and certainly more integration/density would be beneficial, but I can show you much worse development within a 5 mile radius of my house using google earth. These projects probably shouldn’t win awards, but I don’t think they should be seen as an object of scorn either.

Maybe I’m missing something?

Comment by Joel McKellar — January 18, 2010, @ 10:57 am

Agree with above comments. If humans are to live in single family homes, this is a relatively efficient way to do it. What’s not sustainable is the explosive growth in population in the U.S. and the world, which the author may want to address instead. Sprawl is a problem, but these neighborhoods are somewhat anti-sprawl (not counting wherever they may be located in relation to employment, etc, which we do not know).

Comment by JimiPlazBerkeley — January 18, 2010, @ 4:34 pm

Another ‘conventional wisdom’: If you came home one day and all the house numbers and street names in your neighborhood were removed and you would not know if you are in the right street or at the right house, then there is something fundamentally wrong.

Comment by Heike Schmidt — January 18, 2010, @ 9:49 pm

Let’s not go too far. Density alone isn’t sufficient by a long stretch. The deliberate lack of street connectivity in most of these, which will lengthen driving trips and make walking and transit much less feasible, is appalling. There is very little mixed use, generally only what we can see outside the developments. And Sky Isle II looks like it’s in a place that shouldn’t have housing development at all. While large-lot sprawl would be even worse in most cases, most of these are pretty bad.

Comment by Kaid @ NRDC — January 19, 2010, @ 1:05 pm

Planners’ belief: The more development we can see at once, the better. The difference: What’s outside the frame.

This is only partially true, as is teased out by Kaid. These are single-use developments and just because it is dense doesn’t make it nice or efficient or sustainable.

Comment by Dan Staley — January 20, 2010, @ 1:42 pm

Acknowledging a link between suburban growth patterns, successive U.S. federal road acts, and a prevailing car culture - wouldn’t new housing be a more viable option if it were increasingly urban in concentration? Wouldn’t a gradual shift toward an integration of places - work, leisure, and home all in relative proximity to each other – also make ecological and economic sense? Looking toward Asia and Europe, should we not also invest in high speed rail links between urban centers, more efficient subways and tram systems to provide commuter relief? Those are some of my concerns on the subject, having traveled extensively world wide.

Comment by Christoph Gielen — January 20, 2010, @ 5:27 pm

Looking at all the photos, I am amazed that no one made a comment about the view looking like a prison. they are not but a few exits out of all these complectes leaving me to wonder if this is going to be the way to control the people that live in these area’s by putting up gate to montor their coming and going? They are putting up high walls also in some of the areas. Also like 12 to 14 feet high walls at that. More and more people will become sick living in closed places like this too.

Comment by bonnie martin — January 25, 2010, @ 1:10 am

These photos are horrifying. The suggestion that these represent some sort of admirable density would be laughable if the whole situation weren’t so depressing.

As has been pointed out by others, the roads are deliberately disconnected from one another, built around not only the assumption of the car, but amenities to support its use at the expense of all others. This is furthered by the homogeneity of use that makes it impossible to walk or bicycle to places of business or recreation — if you want a gallon of milk, a pint of beer, or a place to earn a paycheck, you’re climbing in a car to get there, period.

Comment by Benjamin — January 25, 2010, @ 1:57 pm

some of us just need to escape the high rise horrors….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RpN87NJMN4

Comment by celetial elf — February 1, 2010, @ 5:53 pm