If there is one thing I'm consistent on, it's that words matter. Sprawl is not a value-neutral term. It has meaning. It is *by definition* bad for health, safety, enviro sustainability, resilience against hazards & disasters, economic vitality, social connection, and more. So no, we don't need more.
Reposted from
Yonah Freemark
Not a single time in this article glorifying the need for sprawl to address the US's affordable housing crisis is there a mention of the vast transportation costs of sprawling living patterns. Nor is there mention of the fact that sprawl is directly linked to disinvestment in urban cores.
Comments