Sprawl City

If a chief goal of Smart Growth is to increase the density of Urbanized Areas, then Los Angeles is a champion of Smart Growth. So with all that de facto Smart Growth, why is L.A. mainly seen as a champion of sprawl?

The denser the better. That is one of the chief ideas behind Smart Growth initiatives. Nearly all Smart Growth policies are based on the concept that a city's population can continue to grow indefinitely without creating a lot of sprawl. Smart Growth can be an effective anti-sprawl measure in only one way: by confining more and more people into existing Urbanized Areas. You know that Smart Growth efforts are reaching one of their major goals when you see density increasing. The city that packs the most people into each square mile gets the prize.

Under those criteria, the champion model of Smart Growth since 1970 has been none other than: Los Angeles?

The designation of Los Angeles as a Smart Growth model may seem incongruous to many because of its reputation as the "sultan of sprawl" and "suburbs in search of a city." For many Americans, Los Angeles is a sprawling model of what they don't want their city to become. But, indeed, the Los Angeles Urbanized Area earned Smart Growth honors in the density department between 1970 and 1990.

Smart Growth Honor No. 1: Unlike most American Urbanized Areas, Los Angeles stopped all individual sprawl. That is, the land consumption per resident did not increase. In fact, the urban land per resident shrank by 8%. That means the density increased. From 5,313 residents per square mile in 1970, Los Angeles increased its density to 5,801 per square mile in 1990. Moreover, Smart Growth was achieving its goal throughout the Urbanized Area; density increased in both the core city and in the suburbs.

Smart Growth Honor No. 2: By 1990, land consumption per L.A. resident had dropped to 0.11 acre. That made Los Angeles the most densely populated Urbanized Area in America. No other urban area provided so little land per resident. This is a model that Smart Growth planners could wish for all Americans.

By 1990, Los Angeles was the most densely populated Urbanized Area in America. No other urban area provided so little land per resident.

The fact that Los Angeles on paper deserves Smart Growth accolades raises two important questions: (1) Has the increased density improved the quality of life of those who live there? (2) Has the increased density stopped sprawl?

The first question is a complex one that is outside the scope of this website. Certainly, though, there are indicators that the increased density is related to several major causes of social frustration in Los Angeles, such as overcrowded schools, crime and traffic snarls. Without substantial and careful planning and spending, increased density results in a more congested quality of life. And congestion is not a result anybody is seeking.

The second question is easy to answer, based on Census Bureau calculations. Unfortunately, the results show that increasing the density in Los Angeles did not stop sprawl. Between 1970 and 1990, Los Angeles sprawled across an extra 394 square miles (252,160 acres). This was in addition to the 1,572 square miles it already occupied in 1970. Only five other cities in the entire country sprawled more than Los Angeles during this period. That's hardly a model of success in combating the sprawl problem.

Increasing the density in Los Angeles did not stop sprawl. Between 1970 and 1990, L.A. sprawled across an extra 394 square miles (252,160 acres).

What accounted for this sprawl, population growth or declining density? Population growth, pure and simple. Between 1970 and 1990, the L.A. Urbanized Area grew by 3.1 million residents - largely because of the federal program of increased immigration levels. All those people had to live, work, play, commute and be educated somewhere. Although they and the existing residents were willing and able to crowd more closely together than in the past, they did not choose to live together entirely within the existing urban area. If they had, they would have increased the density another 37% over what already are densest living conditions that American are currently willing to accept in any Urbanized Area.

Adding 3.1 million residents resulted in another 394 square miles of orchards, farmland, natural habitat and other open and rural spaces lost to urbanization.

On the other hand, it is important to point out the benefits of the increased density. If not for the Los Angeles success in meeting Smart Growth goals of higher density, the sprawl would have been far worse.

Even with the increased density, the result of the L.A. population growth was that another 394 square miles of orchards, farmland, natural habitat and other open and rural spaces were lost to urbanization. It is a sobering lesson in what the best example of dense-living in America had to offer.

Thus, just as Los Angeles is a model for meeting the Smart Growth goal of high-density living, it also is a model of how Smart Growth initiatives are likely to fail to stop sprawl under current federal population-growth policies.