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

Seems like both city and suburb can be supremely unnatural. We all decry the percieved angst and anonymity of the city as well as the percieved ennui of the suburb.

As a child, all I wanted was to live in what I knew of the “city,” which in retrospect looks a lot like a suburb. I just wanted to be able to sell girl scout cookies in my neighborhood and that’s hard to do when you live at 1/2 mile spacing. I don’t know that I would have wanted to live in a truly urban density because I still couldn’t have (safely) sold girl scout cookies.

A place for everything and everything in it’s place seems a good guideline. Manhattan’s high rises could not be built throughout NYC because the ground itself won’t support the buildings, only the rocky hill of Manhattan. Florida’s natural state involves a lot of swamp and therefore it seems appropriate (to me) that the densities should be less—the land can’t support more either structurally or environmentally. Not all cultures or cultural subsets can readily embrace density and the increased complexity of the human interactions that density creates.

As planners we must move beyond single type solutions. A man with a hammer believes everything to be a nail, but we need to choose more subtly what solutions are appropriate for the people and places we serve. It is true that there are good principles that should be used in any context—like connectivity, and appropriately mixing uses. Some solutions might seem universally better than others, but if that land or that people can’t support it, it’s still not right and won’t be sustained.

Cookies, anyone? Please?

Comment by Patricia Tice — April 26, 2010, @ 1:24 pm

Gielen certainly has a unique viewpoint up there. It is kind of sad to see how inefficient this structure seems to be, and I agree with Cristoph, it does kind of look like a prison.

Comment by Max Miller — September 21, 2010, @ 2:49 pm

It’s hard to find knowledgeable people on this topic, but you sound like you know what you’re talking about! Thanks

Comment by cabin rental — August 8, 2011, @ 6:02 pm

Your place is valueble for me. Thanks!…

Comment by austin it services — August 8, 2011, @ 6:02 pm

This is very intriguing, You are a really skilled blogger. I’ve joined your feed and appear forward to looking for far more of one’s wonderful post. Also, I’ve shared your web internet site in my social networks!

Comment by white — September 12, 2011, @ 9:05 pm

I think this is among the most important info for me. And i’m glad reading your article. But want to remark on some general things, The site style is ideal, the articles is really nice : D. Good job, cheers

Comment by adsijqwod — September 23, 2011, @ 5:18 am

Random Google results can sometimes lead to great blogs such as this. You are doing a good job, and we share a great deal of thoughts.

Comment by Burt & Associates — November 4, 2011, @ 4:15 am

Simply want to say your article is as astounding. The clearness in your post is just nice and i could assume you’re an expert on this subject. Fine with your permission let me to grab your RSS feed to keep updated with forthcoming post. Thanks a million and please continue the enjoyable work.

Comment by Carmen Taing — November 7, 2011, @ 11:16 am

It’s laborious to seek out knowledgeable individuals on this subject, however you sound like you already know what you’re speaking about! Thanks

Comment by Francesco Lostetter — December 15, 2011, @ 7:39 am