You are on page 1of 16


Compact City Fallacy ARTICLE

The Compact City Fallacy

Michael Neuman

T he world has been urbanizing for centuries (United Nations 2001; United Nations
Centre for Human Settlements [1996] 2000). While some scholars note a decline
in the significance of space and distance as the result of telecommunications advance-

The problems of urban sprawl have long

been recognized. The classic response to
ments and globalization (Cairncross 2001), other thinkers point to the continuing, if sprawl has been compact settlements of
not increasing, importance of proximity and multiple benefits of urban agglomeration one form or another. Yet the professions
economies (Sassen 2001; Scott 2001; Castells 1996, 2001; Mitchell 1999; Hall 1998). In modern origins stem from responses to
overcrowding. Relieving crowding by let-
between these two poles, what occurs is massive migration to metropolitan areas and
ting in more light and air led to less com-
decentralization within metropolises. Concentrating people and activities in urban pact urban form. This paradox remains
areas confers advantages, yet given the choice and resources to exercise it, many locate unresolved despite recent compact city,
in the sprawling metropolitan periphery instead of the denser urban core. This para- smart growth, healthy community, and
new urbanist efforts. This article reviews
dox between urban desirability and suburban livability is one theme of this essay.
empirical data of whether compact cities
Despite many great efforts over the generations, this paradox has yet to be ade- are sustainable. Then, after reviewing cur-
quately resolved. Recent attempts to halt sprawl and improve urban livability have been rent debates on sprawl and the compact
made by compact city, smart growth, healthy community, and new urbanist advocates. city, it outlines the intellectual origins of
sustainability and analyzes whether its the-
To the extent that these advocates have been successful, it is because they have tapped
ory supports the compact city hypothesis:
into widespread dissatisfaction in American community building in the last several compact is more sustainable than sprawl.
decades and have provided alternatives. However, how effective are these options in It concludes that conceiving the city in
attaining a deep-seated shift in community building toward truly sustainable terms of form is neither necessary nor suf-
ficient to achieve the goals ascribed to the
compact city. Instead, conceiving the city
Another promising approach, sustainable urban development, runs counter to the in terms of process holds more promise in
principles of the compact city in one fundamental respect: the primacy of process over attaining the elusive goal of a sustainable
form. This article assesses available empirical evidence as to whether compact cities rep- city.
resent a form of sustainable development. It also analyzes the theoretical underpin-
Keywords: sustainability theory; urban
nings of sustainability. By examining factual evidence and intellectual foundations planning; urban form; compact city; urban
regarding sustainability, we place ourselves in a better position to accurately judge sprawl
whether compact cities are more sustainable than noncompact cities.
This article is organized into six sections. The first section, titled The Compact City, Michael Neuman, AICP, is an associate pro-
fessor of urban planning at Texas A&M
reviews empirical evidence surrounding the question of whether contemporary com-
University, where he teaches courses and
pact cities are sustainable. While there is ample literature on compact cities, it is defi- conducts research on city structure and
cient in two ways. First, there is no accepted definition for the compact city, despite its function, infrastructure, planning theory
common usage. Second, the little evidence that does exist regarding the sustainability and history, and institutions of gover-
nance, along with interdisciplinary studios
of compact cities is equivocal. This first section remedies the first deficiency with a pre-
in sustainable urban design. He is founder
liminary characterization of the compact city and goes on to weigh the factual evidence and chair of the Sustainable Urbanism
on its sustainability. Certificate Program and established the
interdisciplinary Barcelona Program at
Journal of Planning Education and Research 25:11-26 Texas A&M.
DOI: 10.1177/0739456X04270466
2005 Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning

12 Neuman

The second section, titled Urban Sprawl, reviews the litera- Burton found that social equity, as measured by forty-four
ture on sprawl and its associated costs. It also presents social equity indicators, was more often than not negatively
Burchells widely quoted list of the characteristics of sprawl. affected by urban compactness (measured by fourteen indica-
The third section, titled The Compact City Paradox, compares tors). When looked at in its entiretythat is, as a combination
the compact city with urban sprawl with a view toward resolving of all the different indicatorssocial equity has a limited rela-
the urban desirability versus suburban livability paradox. The tion with compactness (Burton 2000, 1987).
overall aim of the first three sections is to raise the following Empirical studies by Breheny (1992) and Williams, Burton,
question: Is the compact city sustainable? The planning profes- and Jenks (2000) are not conclusive about the link between
sion and academy take as axiomatic that the compact city is higher densities and reduced automobile trips. The type of
more sustainable than sprawl. As we will discover, the evidence auto trip influences the impact of land use intensification.
is equivocal and does not necessarily support that claim. While short trips to local activities may decrease, travel dis-
With a shift from empirical to theoretical terrain, the tances for those seeking specialized employment, unique
fourth section, titled Intellectual Traditions of Sustainability, shopping, or singular leisure pursuit can be independent of
presents the five intellectual traditions that undergird current urban density. Growth in car ownership, weekend air travel,
notions of what it means to be sustainable. In the fifth section, and business travel, as well as increasingly dispersed life pat-
titled Common Themes of Sustainability, I abstract common terns, have led to the inability of physical design alone to
principles among these five intellectual traditions. In the sixth reduce travel demands of energy-rich transport modes
section, the common principles are compared with the com- (Williams, Burton, and Jenks 2000).
pact city to evaluate current practices in planning and building Bouwman, using national data for the Netherlands, found
cities and to test whether practice follows the common princi- that average personal energy use for transportation in differ-
ples. The conclusion posits that the main principle of ent spatial settings ranged only 5 percent. It is clear that sup-
sustainability, process, is more critical than formcompact or posed positive energy related effects of the compact city with
otherwisein attaining a more sustainable city. The overall regard to its mobility pattern cannot be observed within the
purpose of the final three sections is to raise the question Dutch situation (Bouwman 2000, 235). This is in a country
whether urban form, compact or otherwise, is the best plan- with compact cities and high levels of nonautomobile travel
ning strategy to attain a more sustainable city. Or is process a (for more on personal energy use, see Table 1).
better way? In a careful and revealing review of empirical studies on the
effect of urban form on transportation, Peter Hall (2001)
found that the research results are not consistent; indeed they
The Compact City are confusing (p. 102). He referred to widely cited studies
whose findings, when compared to each other, are equivocal.
The term compact city conveys the opposite of urban sprawl. Many of these studies have examined one parameter of travel
The compact city, we are told, is more energy efficient and less (distance, time, frequency) instead of more complete assess-
polluting because compact city dwellers can live closer to shops ments. For example, a study based on British National Travel
and work and can walk, bike, or take transit. Proponents claim Surveys concluded that highest trip frequency is in areas where
it promotes more community-oriented social patterns (Katz population density is low, and lowest trip frequency is where
1994). After all, the work of Leon Krier, Andres Duany, and density is high (DOE/DOT 1993). On the other hand, another
Elizabeth Plater-Zyberkprogenitors of the current American study found no significant statistical link between trip fre-
compact city movementoriginated in social critiques of zon- quency and population density (Ewing 1996, in Hall 2001).
ing and suburbia (Krier 1998; Duany, Plater-Zyberk, and Speck Breheny, Gordon, and Archer found a weak link between den-
2001). In the United States, compact cities are also called tran- sities and transportation energy use (Breheny et al. 1998).
sit-oriented developments and neotraditional towns and are According to Hall (2001), internationally, Travel is much
promoted through the smart growth movement. The word city more strongly linked to fuel prices and income than popula-
in this article is not restricted to the central municipality of a tion density (p. 103). Breheny and his colleagues sum it up:
metropolis but applies to the entire metropolitan area. This [research] project casts doubt on the orthodoxy that
Preliminary evidence testing the compact city vis--vis increasing building densities will necessarily reduce travel in
sustainability suggests that the relation between compactness towns and cities (Breheny et al. 1998, 4).
and sustainability can be negatively correlated, weakly related, While energy used by the transport sector is significant,
or correlated in limited ways. In this section, I review the other sectors are more important. In the United States in the
empirical evidence. In her study of twenty-five English cities, year 2000, the transport sector used 27 percent of all energy, a 3
The Compact City Fallacy 13

Table 1. centrality, nuclearity, proximity, continuity, and mixed uses.

Average personal energy use for transportation Their work yielded interesting yet counterintuitive and seem-
in different spatial settings. ingly contradictory results. For example, Boston and Atlanta
Average Personal Transport yielded substantially similar results on a number of dimen-
Urban Density Energy Use (MJ/day) sions, despite significant differences in their urban forms.
Song and Knaap (2004), in an expert analysis that could
Very strongly urbanized 50.9
Strongly urbanized 54.5 prove to be useful for future researchers and policy makers
Urbanized 54.5 alike, offered a sophisticated method to measure urban form,
Weakly urbanized 48.4 combining numerous statistical parameters with the spatial
Rural 51.0
analysis and visualization afforded by geographic information
Source: Bouwman (2000, 235).
systems. Their case study of Portland, Oregon, revealed mixed
results: compact form within a context of metropolitan growth
percent increase from 1950. Buildings consumed 38 percent, management improved some measures of livability, while
up from 29 percent in 1950 (Energy Information Agency other measures, such as external transportation connectivity,
2002). Notably, the year 1950 precedes interstate highways, declined, and still others experienced marginal or limited
when urban transit use was common, and rail freight exceeded improvements, such as mixing land uses. They did not directly
long-distance trucking by a wide margin. It is also prior to wide- link their analysis to improvements in urban sustainability,
spread air travel, the most energy inefficient form of travel. If although some might assert that.
we want sustainable cities, then personal, household, and busi- Sustainability in urban settings also involves health and
ness consumption patterns must fall, as they have a greater well-being. Empirical tests based on social theory belie
effect on overall energy consumption and air quality than car received wisdom about the influence of population density on
travel. Even in environmentally conscious Holland, Van der social attitudes and behaviors, which bear on sustainability.
Wal found that total household energy use rose thirteenfold Simmel ([1903] 1950) and Wirth (1938) suggested that high
between 1950 and 1992 (Van der Wal 1995), while population density causes emotional stress and other negative psychologi-
rose only 50 percent in this same period (Netherlands cal conditions. Yet Verbrugge and Taylor (1980) found in a
Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute 2002). carefully controlled study of 237 Baltimore households that
Garcia and Rieras (2003) results found that less compact population density was a relatively weak predictor. Wirth
growth is welfare increasing in aggregate terms. Their study (1938) believed that population size, density, and heterogene-
method differs from most researchersaccording to them, ity have strong influences on urban dwellers. The Baltimore
most test statistically the relationship between certain indica- study confirms this. . . . But density has much weaker effects
tors of urban form and selected environmental variables. than size and population composition; population size espe-
Instead [Garcia and Rieras emphasis] is on how urban resi- cially overshadows density as a predictor. This suggests that
dents perceive the environmental effects of urban growth. researchers who focus solely on density are wide of the mark
[Their] study focuses on the changes in welfare [measured (Verbrugge and Taylor 1980, 155).
using an Alonso-Fujita bid-rent model as a basis for their con- Investigators have opened a new line of research into the
tingent valuation method] caused by variations in available effects of the built environment on physical activity. These
open space, and rural land around cities, and by different studies test how different urban forms are correlated with per-
urban densities - always from the perspective of the residents sonal health. The hypothesis driving them is that compact
(p. 1926). They tested their model empirically on the metro form and mixed uses enable people to walk and bike more,
region of Barcelona and found that lower densities and more thus being more fit. An excellent review describes this link
open space in the urban fringe increased an individuals between form and behavior (Handy et al. 2002). As intuitive as
perceived welfare. the connection between urban form and exercise seems, there
Cranes (2000) review of research on the connection are confounding factorsdiet, genetics, non-form-related
between urban form and travel behavior found mixed and pos- behaviors, quality of and access to health care, and so onto
sibly contradictory findings, which he attributed to method- control for to isolate a causal relationship determining an indi-
ological divergence among researchers. Galster et al. (2001) viduals health. Empirical studies will need to be carefully
created an eight-dimensional sprawl index in their analysis of designed to obtain conclusive findings on whether compact
American cities. Using a detailed model, they calculated an cities cause greater health.
aggregate measure of sprawl for their study cities, creating and This brief report on empirical evidence suggests that the
analyzing measures of density, concentration, clustering, data are still inconclusive. That the titles of the articles and
14 Neuman

books of much of the sprawl research reviewed here ended in a Table 2.

question mark is revealing of this inconclusiveness. Yet, when Compact city characteristics.
most people try to define a compact city, the first characteristic 1. High residential and employment densities
that comes to mind is population density. Others include 2. Mixture of land uses
mixed land uses and public transportation. Despite extensive 3. Fine grain of land uses (proximity of varied uses and small
relative size of land parcels)
literature on compact cities, surprisingly, a definition of one
4. Increased social and economic interactions
does not exist. Researchers tend to use density alone as the 5. Contiguous development (some parcels or structures may be
independent variable (Burton 2000; Hall 2001). Planners and vacant or abandoned or surface parking)
designers tend to use physical characteristics such as density, 6. Contained urban development, demarcated by legible limits
7. Urban infrastructure, especially sewerage and water mains
street widths, setbacks, lot size, sidewalks, porches, and so on
8. Multimodal transportation
(Duany, Plater-Zyberk, and Speck 2001). Surprisingly, 9. High degrees of accessibility: local/regional
researchers and practitioners have only recently begun to rig- 10. High degrees of street connectivity (internal/external),
orously define the compact city apart from density (Galster et including sidewalks and bicycle lanes
11. High degree of impervious surface coverage
al. 2001; Song and Knaap 2004).
12. Low open-space ratio
Table 2 presents a first-cut list of characteristics of the com- 13. Unitary control of planning of land development, or closely
pact city that can be used to guide future research. This prelim- coordinated control
inary and not exhaustive list suggests variables that can be 14. Sufficient government fiscal capacity to finance urban facili-
ties and infrastructure
tested in future research. The characteristics in Table 2 are
based on reviews of practice, research, literature (especially
Burton 2000; Galster et al. 2001; Song and Knaap 2004), and
observation. Note that the listing in this table is intentionally the turn of the century, when conditions were markedly differ-
comparable to Table 3. ent. She questions the core premise of new urbanism, that
Many of the characteristics in Table 2 could describe nearly design can create a sense of community. Like the Modernists
any city. They can also be used to guide the physical design and before them, New Urbanists believe they can change human
planning criteria for a new town. These criteria, if applied to a behavior through design (p. 68). Mike Pyatok (2002)
new compact city, will endow it a degree of functionality. Yet expresses reservations about the social homogeneity of new
they do not in and of themselves make the compact city sustain- urbanist towns.
able across a full range of parameters, as evidenced by the Others have begun to note problems. The New Urbanist
research represented above. Furthermore, discussions of com- Village is by necessity a fully planned and regulated environ-
pactness elide scale. Many of the features that compact city pro- ment, fiercely resistant to change and any deviation from the
ponents find desirable, such as increased choice and opportu- rigid rules that govern its form and function. But it is precisely
nity, are more dependent on size and scale rather than on this inflexibility, which is so important in its struggle for com-
density or compactness. Why then is the compact city pro- pletion as a development enterprise, that is sowing the seeds of
moted as a sustainable city? Is not the compact city a default the villages ultimate demise (Durack 2001, 64). Durack
model? Have not planners relied on the compact city, a model argues, following David Leatherbarrow, for open, indetermi-
inspired mainly by old European and North American cities nate planning, which confers four advantages. First, it supports
and towns, because there is no clear alternative? One reason cultural diversity. Second, it tolerates and values topographic,
why there is no alternative is that many do not know what to do social, and economic discontinuities. Third, this type of plan-
to be sustainable. Yet we assume it is different, perhaps radi- ning invites ongoing citizen participation. Finally, it responds
cally different, from the way we live now. In Kuhnian terms, we to the state of continuous adaptation, common to all living
are in the throes of a paradigm shift. organisms and systems, including human settlements (Durack
If this is true, then why do urban planners favor the centu- 2001, 67-68).
ries-old model of the compact city? Why do they use old strate- I have found that new urbanists and other compact city pro-
gies to accomplish a fundamentally new task? The world has ponents maintain their beliefs for at least three reasons. First, it
changed since the middle ages, not to mention since World is the opposite of sprawl. Living in sprawl is generally seen to be
War II. Metropolises and megacities and exurbs and edge cities a less than sustainable way of life, so the compact city is an anti-
differ from the villages and towns of Joan of Arc. So why do new dote. Second, it is a seductive alternative embodied in beauti-
urbanists revert to old urbs? ful images that harkens back to an ideal that continues to hold
Critical observers question the compact city movement. our imagination. Yet these two reasons do not penetrate to a
Heidi Landecker (1996) asks why we copy old suburbs from deeper, more fundamental problematic, which is the basis for
The Compact City Fallacy 15

the third reason. It is problematic because it presents itself as a Table 3.

paradox, which is deeply seated in our professional planning Urban sprawl characteristics.
ethos. This paradox, which Wiersinga (1997) calls the com- 1. Low residential density
pact city paradox, poses serious challenges because it has 2. Unlimited outward extension of new development
remained unresolved for a long time. The paradox has been 3. Spatial segregation of different types of land uses through
scarcely raised, much less debated openly and franklythat is,
4. Leapfrog development
until now. 5. No centralized ownership of land or planning of land
6. All transportation dominated by privately owned motor
Urban Sprawl
7. Fragmentation of governance authority of land uses among
many local governments
The problems associated with urban sprawl have long been 8. Great variances in the fiscal capacity of local governments
recognized (Mumford 1938, 1961; McHarg 1969; Real Estate 9. Widespread commercial strip development along major
Research Corporation 1974; Jackson 1985; Downs 1994; Bank
10. Major reliance on a filtering process to provide housing for
of America 1995; Fulton et al. 2002). Urban sprawl results from low-income households
the confluence of several factors: the lure of cheap open land
outside the city, advances in transportation, easily available Source: Burchell et al. 1998.
capital to buy property, the rise of the real estate developer,
mass production of housing, and the always-present image of most of these studies concluded that sprawl has both positive
the single family home as the American dream. The profes- and negative effects. The most complete and rigorous North
sions have played enabling and supporting roles, contributing American studies concluded that overall, sprawl is more costly
tools, processes, institutions, and knowledge. than compact development for both operating and capital
The spread of cities across the countryside was propelled by costs (Burchell and Adelaja 1992; Burchell et al. 2002). The
the impetus of depopulating large, congested, polluted, and greatest savings gained from growth controls were in land con-
crime-ridden industrial cities since the nineteenth century. sumed and infrastructure built, especially water, sewer, and
Metropolitan growth was further increased by the worldwide road facilities. Burchell defined sprawl in the United States as a
rural to urban migration. In 1900, 14 percent of the worlds form of urban development that contains most of the follow-
population lived in cities. In 1900, there were 12 cities with one ing ten elements listed in Table 3 (Burchell et al. 1998).
million inhabitants or more. Today, half the worlds popula- An international specification of urban sprawl, while
tion lives in cities. There were 411 cities with one million potentially valuable, would need to consider the variability of
inhabitants or more in 2000 (World Resources Institute et al. settlement patterns on the outskirts of cities around the world.
2000; United Nations 2001). As an outcome of the population For example, the first element, low residential density, does
growth and geographic expansion of cities, urban sprawl has not necessarily reflect international realities. Some fringe resi-
given rise to two new sets of terms, one for new types of outlying dential growth in other continents has occurred in high densi-
places (e.g., satellite town, edge city, and exurb) and another for ties because of high-rise housing blocks that are close to each
an entirely new scale of the city (megalopolis, megacity, urban other. A comprehensive global survey of urban sprawl ought to
agglomeration, and standard consolidated statistical area). examine the variability of definitional elements.
Various spatial modifiers for the term sprawl exist: urban, There is a continuing flow of sprawl research (Squires 2002;
suburban, exurban. For lexical simplicity, I call all of these phe- Wiewel and Persky 2002). In addition to the attributes con-
nomena urban sprawl. This is because suburbs and exurbs are tained in this extensive set of analytical works, other dimen-
rapidly urbanizing into edge cities or taking on urban features. sions of urban sprawl could be added. One is the lack of street
Also, cities are annexing their outskirts and bringing subur- connectivity in many postWorld War II North American sub-
ban, exurban, and rural lands under their jurisdiction. Finally, urbs occasioned by extensive use of cul-de-sacs and other dead-
the adjective urban acknowledges dense economic and social end streets. Another is the lack of alleys and sidewalks.
networks in metropolitan areas. It is increasingly limiting to
conceive of the city and just consider the central municipality.
Most metropolises are several times the size of their core city. The Compact City Paradox
The most comprehensive review of urban sprawl literature
analyzed 475 studies (Burchell et al. 1998). Despite the wide The paradox of the compact city refers to the inverse rela-
range in data quality, research design, methods, and rigor, tion of the sustainability of cities and their livability (Wiersinga
16 Neuman

1997). For a city to be sustainable, the argument goes, func- original idea and crowning achievement of cities, that of bring-
tions and population must be concentrated at higher densities. ing persons and activities into proximity. Moreover, single-use
Yet for a city to be livable, functions and population must be zoning has contributed to urban sprawl.
dispersed at lower densities. In the past, large-scale pollution from point sources such as
To be sure, many people want the greenery, sense of safety, factories had a significant environmental impact. Today,
good schools, quiet streets, and so forth, provided by low-den- steady, incremental, and accumulated pollution and resource
sity residential suburbs. Yet these same qualities exist in abun- depletion from nonpoint sources that emanate from the daily
dance in the densest cities, notably Barcelona, Prague, Amster- and routine actions of all have significant repercussions. These
dam, San Francisco, and others. In fact, these qualities exist in activities include commuting and fertilizing, flushing and
many cities and are not exclusive to low-density suburbs. So we cleaning, cooking and washing, paving and clearing. When
must be cautious in accepting claims that livability is greater in there are six billion consumers, waste producers, and pollut-
one form of human settlement over another. Livability is not ers, gradual and incremental accumulations add up quickly. As
only a matter of urban form, it is also a matter of personal a result, production, consumption, and other processes have
preference. begun to be rethought and retooled to cope with this change
However, in the United States since the great depression, of scale and location of the polluter. New fields and disciplines
real estate and urban development marketplaces have been such as risk assessment, environmental conflict resolution,
structured and manipulated to support a particular prefer- hazards management, toxicology, environmental medicine,
ence, low-density development (Jackson 1985). Housing con- and the new public health have emerged to address this.
sumers, limited by a supply-driven housing market that has As a compound outcome of these factors, two contradictory
placed a premium on single-family homes in suburbs, have tendenciescompact urban form and sprawling urban
only recently had real choices regarding what was a monoto- formresult in contradictory policies and investments. Yet
nous monopoly (Neuman 1991). Two choices growing in pop- both sprawl and compact development continue. Dispersal
ularity are moderate density, mixed-use neighborhoods and and segregation of population and activities continue as inhab-
the positive revaluation of downtowns (Birch 2002). itants and business owners seek a higher quality of life and
Nonetheless, most observers claim that a compact city is higher profits outside the city. However, relocation to and rein-
more sustainable (Echenique and Saint 2001; Jenks and Bur- vestment in the central city, especially its core, continues as
gess 2000; Newman and Kenworthy 1999). Most professional well, as residents, visitors, and businesses seek city benefits.
and political institutions agree with this diagnosis (Urban One might relegate this to a simple matter of personal pref-
Land Institute 1998; American Planning Association 1999; erencesome prefer suburbs, others prefer citiesexcept
Presidents Council on Sustainable Development 1996; Euro- that the rush to make all places compact raises the questions of
pean Environment Agency 1998; United Nations 1992; how compact and whether they can be livable. For example,
National Research Council 1999). For example, Beatley claims many cities such as Philadelphia, Baltimore, Cleveland, and
that sustainable communities are places that exhibit a com- Detroit have square miles of compact residential neighbor-
pact urban form (Beatley 1995, 384). hoods, once livable and vital, that have been vacant for years, if
Yet the policy desire for compact urban form belies two cat- not decades. This has occurred even as their metro areas have
egories of facts. One is that people who have the means to do so grown in population and surface area.
have long been voting with their feet and moving from the cen- This fundamental and deeply seated paradox has not been
tral city to the outskirts. The residential marketplace has solved by urban planners and policy makers, by the markets, or
deemed lower-density places outside of cities more desirable. A by multisectoral partnerships. It is the argument of this essay
wide array of government subsidies at all levels has helped to that this paradox cannot be solved by existing modes of think-
underwrite this exodus (Jackson 1985). ing about, acting on, and living in the city.
The second category of fact has been the accumulated evi- One way to examine this paradox is to see if the compact
dence that the intensity and proximity of certain uses have city is sustainable. Absent a large-scale, quantitative, and com-
made cities, or parts of them, toxic flashpoints detrimental to parative analysis (which ought to be undertaken), here, I com-
human and ecosystem health. The principle of applying the pare principles and premises of the compact city against those
police power through land use zoning, which separates incom- of sustainability. Sustainability has emerged as a common
patible uses from one another, arose from the recognition that ground for global and local discourses and politics. It is a cate-
the old urban pattern of intermingled activities and structures gory of thinking that is replacing or redefining old categories,
was no longer viable in dense, overcrowded industrial settle- such as growth, development, progress, and limits (Sachs 1993;
ments. However, single-use zoning is antithetical to the Daly 1996). As a new category, it is especially important to
The Compact City Fallacy 17

unpack the traditions of thought that stand behind it. The very and put it to work, despite one accepted general meaning of a
existence of the contemporary meaning of the term stands as balance among equity, economic, and environmental con-
stark recognition that our societies are not sustainable. We cerns. Sustainability is not yet branded. There is no patent,
have begun to rethink our ways and have started to mend trademark, or copyright.
them. Are we on the right track? Sustainability as we think of it today draws from at least five
intellectual traditions. They are capacity, fitness, resilience,
diversity, and balance. The goal in examining them is not to
Intellectual Traditions of Sustainability conduct an exhaustive analysis. Instead, it is to tease out broad
yet critical underlying premises to see if common ones exist.
Sustainability and compactness have fostered spirited This article does this and then applies the results to the com-
debates. One strand of the debate is between compactness and pact city to assess how the compact model compares.
sprawl, and another is between free markets and government
intervention (Ewing 1997; Gordon and Richardson 1989,
1997; Newman and Kenworthy 1989). For protagonists, the Capacity
compact city represents a quintessential physical response to
many urban problems, such as land consumption in fringe Capacity refers to carrying capacity of a place to support
areas, energy and resource waste, air pollution, accessibility, populations of living beings. It is perhaps the oldest notion of
and social segregation. It is practically their synonym for the sustainability with a pedigree going at least as far back as the
sustainable city. Essay on Population by Malthus, whose clear exposition led to its
When we try to visualize sustainable development in our acceptance as a definitive work. His argument summarized is
minds eye, we may think of high-tech fixes such as solar or that food, and by inference, other biological imperatives such
wind energy or fuel cells. Or we may see images of age-old tradi- as water and territory determine population levels and sur-
tions. Prior ways of life and the scale and pace of historic societ- vival. Ecologist Charles Elton specified carrying capacity as a
ies usually fit their surroundings. While old traditions may limit at which populations can be maintained by their habitat
inspire, their practices usually are not directly transferable to without being restricted by food, water, land, disease, or preda-
Western cities, although some of their principles may be tion and without compromising their habitats capacity to sup-
(Norberg-Hodge 1991). In the face of the checkered history of port that population (Elton 1927). Borrowing from their pre-
technology, in terms of one solution often begetting unin- mises are such landmark treatises as Donella Meadows et al.s
tended and unforeseen negative consequences and in the face (1972) The Limits to Growth (Club of Rome Report), and Ian
of limited transferability, examining traditions of thought McHargs (1969) Design with Nature. They were benchmark
rather than far-fetched technologies or far-flung practices may methods of carrying capacity analysis and planning with
be more useful. respect to nature. The methods and principles behind carry-
Lets begin by asking two questions. They are questions of ing capacity are similar to those of land uses analyses known as
meaning. What is sustainability? How have we come to think suitability or capability analyses (Griffin 1977; Anderson
about it in this way? Sustainability is a debate about how to live. 1987). The World Conservation Union, for example, defines
It suggests we rethink our relationship to the cultural construct sustainable development as improving the quality of human
we call nature, to the earth, and to each other (Schama life while living within the carrying capacity of supportive eco-
1995). Sustainability refers to the way things ought to be and systems (World Conservation Union 1991). Carrying capacity
how we ought to live. As such, it is the start of a complex dia- has been carried into a range of economic and scientific argu-
logue. As a dialogue about how we ought to live, it is a moral ments (Ledec and Goodland 1985; Arrow et al. 1995). Carrying
dialogue (Cronon 1995). As with all moral arguments, there is capacity persists as a mainstream definition of environmental
a danger, for it is but a small step from dialogue to dogma. This planning for sustainability (Rees 1996; Beatley 1995).
essay examines one dogma of the controversy surrounding Carrying capacity became popular because it used factors
sustainability, the compact city. that are easily measured and assessed. It is both place and time
Sustainability is a broad, vague term that has many mean- specific. If we view sustainability as a process of a people adapt-
ings. Sustainability is a Platonic idea, a category of the good. As ing to, while simultaneously changing, a place over time
a new idea, there is not yet a clear, single image of what as William Cronon did in his brilliant account of colonial
sustainability is. Its fuzziness and many facets contribute to its New Englandthen we can fathom sustainability as a
appeal. It is appropriated without fear of challenge because coevolutionary process. Cronons ecological and social history
there is no single accepted image of how to specify it exactly traced the ways American Indians and Pilgrim settlers changed
18 Neuman

their relations to place and to each other as they learned about, The Nature of Order treats sustainability in an original way. His
and often subjugated, the land and each other (Cronon 1983). theory encourages planners, architects, and builders to pro-
Measuring capacity at a single point in time thus goes against duce life in their creations by fitting their structures into the
the notion of sustainability as process. Moreover, determining whole (city, environment) in a slow, unfolding natural process.
the carrying capacity of a specific place does not square with His theory of structural order values fitness of pieces that
any earthly place being an open, living system. belong together in a whole. Theoretical biologist Stuart
Kauffman makes a contribution to the theory of evolution by
placing self-organization alongside natural selection in equal
Fitness stature. He suggests fitness is the result of coevolution between
self-organization and adaptation in complex and dynamic sys-
Fitness, the second perspective, has a long tradition in biol- tems (Kauffman 1994). His theory of fitness brings structure
ogy and conservation. No discussion could begin without cit- into the equation and has consequences for planning and
ing the monumental influence of Charles Darwins master- designing cities, which had been envisaged by Kevin Lynch
piece On the Origins of the Species (1859). Among other things, (Lynch 1981). Lynchs career-crowning Good City Form care-
fitness implies an evolutionary process marked by the mutual fully elucidates the connection between urban form and local
interaction between species and environment. It involves culture using evidentiary analysis, while the philosopher Henri
adaptation over timea fit between organism and habitat. Fit- Lefebvres books on urban topics in the 1960s and 1970s
ness is a local trait stemming from adaptations that respond to addressed numerous aspects of cities. The Production of Space
immediate context. The biological concept of fitness today ([1974] 1991) can be read, in part, as an exegesis of fitness as
trades in other realms under such names as appropriateness applied to the production of urban place and space.
and adaptability. E. F. Schumacher (1973) popularized this
thinking in the economic sphere in Small is Beautiful.
Schumacher, an economist, criticized economic development Resilience
models exported by industrial nations and international orga-
nizations like the World Bank to less-developed countries. Resilience responds to some shortcomings and complexities
He contended that they did not fit the recipient cultures well of fitness theories. Alexanders and Kauffmans theories pose
because they relied on knowledge, capital, technology, and serious difficulties in measuring the degree of fitness. Resil-
materials foreign to them. ience addresses these measurement problems by reframing
His colleague George McRobie (1981) extended his moral the question. Instead of asking how well does an organism or
plea into the practical plane in Small is Possible. McRobie, also activity fit into a given ecosystem or social community, resil-
an economist, presented empirical cases and best practices in ience asks how well does a place absorb the presence of an
settings throughout the developing world. His goal was to fit organism or activity. How does a place respond to the effects?
the proper technology to the stage of development of a specific Is there a range in which an ecosystem or social community can
place. Together they launched the appropriate technology absorb shocks and still retain its health and functional integrity?
movement, which had effects in many fields including urban Resilience borrows from notions of healthnamely, immu-
and environmental planning. nity and recovery. Resilience, whether for individuals or com-
The notion of fitness continues to be developed in numer- munities, is based on accommodation between the organism/
ous fields. Planners and designers maintain community char- community and some agent foreign to it. Resilience thus
acter by fitting development harmoniously with the existing shares some characteristics with fitness and capacity. All three
urban fabric. Fitness is at the root of most not-in-my-back- concern accommodation over time. Carrying capacity, resil-
yard (NIMBY) controversies, where a land use such as a land- ience, and fitness are based on the interaction among ele-
fill or energy plant is considered undesirable or not fitting ments in an interdependent system. As with fitness, Resilience
local circumstances by potential neighbors. Any condition that is a process of adjustment through interaction (Ashby 1978;
is considered undesirable by a local population can generate a Dubos 1978; Waldon 1994).
NIMBY controversy. Landscape architects and environmental The modern city planning movement partly derives from
planners endeavor to fit built structures and developments the idea of resilience. In the latter nineteenth part of the nine-
into natural and rural landscapes without disrupting teenth century, the urban expansion, tenement improvement,
ecological systems irreparably (McHarg 1969; Ashby 1978). and civic hygiene movements in Spain, Germany, Britain, and
Fitness has generated sophisticated treatments by a range the United States all diagnosed large cities as ill and not fit to
of thinkers. Architect Christopher Alexanders (2002) treatise live in. Professionals proposed solutions to let in more light
The Compact City Fallacy 19

and air and to better treat wastesthat is, to make cities more models that mathematicians were deriving for economic the-
resilient to the effects of crowding (Cerd 1867; Unwin 1912; ory. These models placed a premium on elegance, which
Hall 1988). Today, cities with vacant lots, abandoned struc- externalities marred. Moreover, externalities ignored free
tures, and deteriorating neighborhoods have a more costly riding and the tragedy of the commons.
and slower recovery in response to stresses. Likewise, altered or To correct this limitation and better represent the real
damaged ecosystems have greater difficulty bouncing back world, critics of mainstream economics put forth a new para-
after natural events such as hurricanes and floods. digm to balance the economy with the environment. Before it
was environment versus development. Now it is environment
and development in balance. The debate entails trade-offs
Diversity between environment and development and the integration of
the economy and the environment. Under the balance rubric,
Diversity is a powerful idea that has redefined the debate on environmental justice, economic equity, and other manifesta-
sustainability. The idea was widely disseminated by Edward Wil- tions of redistributive justice draw their basis (Sen 1973; Rawls
son (1988) in his classic Biodiversity. Diversity has entered dis- 1971).
course in a multitude of ways. It has entered such arenas as poli- As balance entails bargaining and compromise, it is no won-
tics and education in debates surrounding cultural diversity der that this viewpoint is subscribed to by politicians and policy
(Bowen and Bok 2000). Diversity also refers to preserving bio- makers. There are contradictions inherent in the orthodox
logical diversity via environmental protection. In urban plan- view of balancing economy with ecology, however, despite the
ning, it may take the form of multiple and mixed land uses fact that the two words stem from the same root (Redclift
instead of a single use. Likewise, inclusionary zoning that 1987). To see how far this view has penetrated mainstream
accommodates a range of incomes is construed as promoting institutions, consider the subtitle of the United Nations report
social diversity. It also appears in process design by including a Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environ-
wide range of participants, or stakeholders. ment and Development (United Nations World Commission on
Diversity is an indicator of health, whether for an ecosys- Environment and Development 1987). This report urged a
tem, urban community, or organization (Wilson 1988; Schulze balance between development and environment and between
and Mooney 1993). Diversity refers both to the variety of mem- present and future generations. The Brundtland Report had
bers in a community and the positive disposition of members much to do with popularizing the word sustainability and the
in relation to one another. It implies interaction and adapta- balance view of it.
tion insofar as for a diverse group of beings to occupy the same Balance implies equilibrium. However, in open and
space simultaneously, those beings must learn to coexist. This dynamic systems like the city, subject to human will and caprice
entails mutual adjustment. Adjustment requires reciprocal as well as the furies and salves of nature, can a city ever be in
learning and consent in cultural systems. In biological systems, equilibrium? Instead, history records the flows of unending
it entails natural selection, a form of reciprocal learning change. The human struggle to cope with these changes is the
through competition and cooperation. Diversity has become a urban process.
pervasive and persistent feature of sustainability debates The inherent limits to a synopsis of five powerful, influen-
(National Research Council 1999; Taylor 1986). tial, and complex intellectual traditions are apparent. Several
pages are not enough to convey the nuances of rich, sometimes
centuries-old lines of thought. Each of these traditions has its
Balance critiques. Nonetheless, they continue to resound and form the
basis of much scholarly and professional activity. Another criti-
Finally, balance refers to balancing the natural environ- cism that can be anticipated is that they are Euro- and America-
ment with human development. This strand of thinking centric to the extent that they have been passed down through
stems from criticisms of neoclassical economics (Schumacher Western books and institutions. Many of these traditions have
1973; Daly 1980). Neoclassical economics held the environ- counterparts in non-Western philosophies and cultures. To
ment separate from humans and their economic activities. The analyze them is beyond the scope of this present article. It may
environment was reduced to natural resources exploited for prove fruitful, nevertheless, to learn how widespread these
human consumption. Natural resources were inputs and ideas are and how they vary. Finally, these five traditions are
throughputs to economic processes, on par with labor and cap- more linked than the categorization suggests. The next section
ital. This separation led to the concept of externalities, activi- explores some of these links.
ties that fell outside of and could not be explained by formal
20 Neuman

Common Themes of Sustainability nonsustainable (Schmidheiny 1992; Vitousek et al. 1997;

Chapin et al. 1997; Matson et al. 1997; Botsford, Castilla, and
As with many classifications, these five categories overlap Peterson 1997; Dobson, Bradshaw, and Baker 1997; Daily and
and are not mutually exclusive. The Brundtland Report is an Ellison 2002).
example that contains pieces of all five perspectives, even in its Relationships attendant to place, including fitness, adapta-
focus on two (United Nations World Commission on Environ- tion, and evolution, become more problematic as we consider
ment and Development 1987). An earlier essay that reflects multiple and overlapping scales of space and time. This is espe-
multiple viewpoints is Garrett Hardins (1968) The Tragedy of cially true in human affairs. Consider nonplace fitness in multi-
the Commons. I highlight commonalities to see how they may ple cultures and subcultures, which, among other things, has
impinge on the praxes of compact cities and sustainable put terrorism on the sustainability agenda. Further, as space
development. and time are diminished by advances in communication and
The first common thread among the five traditions stems transportation, the space of places is supplemented by the
from the notion of sustainability itself and is derived from the space of flows (Castells 1989). Under these circumstances
words root, sustain. Its most common meaning is to keep nonplace fitness takes on added dimensions and significance.
something going over the long run. This resonates with the The mutual interdependencies of multiple scale fitness and
second part of the thesis of the Brundtland Report, which the very notion of nonplace fitness are only beginning to be
states Sustainable development seeks to meet the needs and appreciated and understood. They should appear on future
aspirations of the present without compromising the ability to research agendas.
meet those of the future (United Nations World Commission Lastly, interrelationships among system components, bor-
on Environment and Development 1987, 40). In human and rowing from systems theory and ecology, are a defining feature
biological terms, sustainability refers to an ongoing process of of sustainability and are common to all the intellectual tradi-
how to live and perpetuate the species. Process, then, is the first tions under scrutiny here. It is this attribute of interrelation-
common feature of sustainability. Process is most apparent in ships that closely connects sustainability with the classic and
the fitness and resilience points of view, as well as diversity and ideal view of city planning, especially comprehensive planning
balance. (Nolen 1916; Unwin 1911). In fact, all four common themes
A second commonality is health, appearing in all five cate- long-term process, health, place specificity, and interrelation-
gories. To sustain an ecosystem or city over the long run shipsare closely connected to comprehensive city planning.
assumes that it will be healthy. Biologists, in studying the health For this reason, sustainability inherently encompasses the
of biological communities, devised an approach incorporating planning of cities and provides a solid foundation for profes-
quantitative and ecosystem-wide health measures. Functional sions concerned with cities (Berke 2000; Campbell 1996).
integrity of an ecosystem is a surrogate for overall health. Func-
tional integrity has been applied to ecological analyses of the
city (Boyden et al. 1981). Sustainability and the Compact City
A third common characteristic refers to place-specific con-
ditions. They measure the relationship of a species or a process How do these composite conceptions of sustainability stack
to a specific locale. For example, carrying capacity is the ability up against theories and practices of sustainable urban develop-
of a particular area of land or water to support a certain level of ment, particularly as put forth in the compact city? Rather than
life. Fitness deals with the appropriateness of species and activi- analyzing the compact city movement systematically, which
ties to a specific habitat. Resilience suggests the adaptability of merits a carefully designed multidisciplinary research agenda,
a certain place to absorb impacts. Biodiversity refers to the let us ask a question. Does the compact city respond to the four
number of different species in a particular habitat. Balance common themes we have found for sustainability? This is a
means the interaction of production and place in a specific question of action.
locale. I distinguish the place-specific facet of sustainability Is the compact city a place-specific solution? It should be, as
because so often references are made to global processes, all good design is context specific. Yet, as practiced by its lead-
whether natural (global warming, ozone layer depletion), ing contemporary proponents, one concludes it is not.
human (globalization of the economy), or institutional (inter- Generic cookie cutter designs are widely reproduced
national treaties and political bodies such as the World Trade (Southworth 1997) and are often insensitive to context,
Organization and United Nations) and because global or uni- whether social, environmental, economic, or political (Lehrer
versal approaches adopted by multinational corporations and and Milgrom 1996). Some new town designs, according to the
nati o nal go v e r nments ar e b e i ng r ev eal ed to b e designers themselves, are taken from those of itinerant
The Compact City Fallacy 21

planners around the turn of the past century (Duany, Plater- technology in the sense of the Greek terms technologasystem-
Zyberk, and Speck 2001). Here, we refer to plans by Nolen, atic treatmentand tchneart, craft. This earlier meaning of
Burnham, Bartholomew, Olmsted Senior and Junior, and oth- technology as the art of fabrication encompassed proportion,
ers in the United States. Leading British counterparts include order, beauty, and quality in a way that contemporary mean-
Unwin, Parker, Abercrombie, and Adams. Most European ings, which value efficiency, uniformity, and reproducibility,
nations and their colonies had their equivalents (Hall 1988). do not. The places that earlier city builders built grew in a sus-
This listing belies the diversity of approaches and contrast- tainable way that had nothing to do with the rapid growth (five-
ing visions of these practitioners. This difference was partly to ten-year build-out, or less) of the compact developments
due to differences in professional education. To pick the built today by one developer, using petroleum-based produc-
Americans, Nolan and Olmsted were landscape architects, tion methods, with imported technology, materials, capital,
Bartholomew a traffic engineer, and Burnham an architect. energy, and labor. Notably, the latter also can be said about
Each applied the tools and ethos of his trade (Thomas 1999; most postWorld War II subdivisions and planned
Boyer 1983; Mumford 1938). developments, the compact citys putative opposite.
The standards and criteria that these pioneering planners Another problematic aspect of the compact city analyses is
imposed were based on a technology that professional elites that they have placed a premium on a single operational mea-
applied via institutional apparati (Boyer 1983; Rabinow 1989). sure: population density (Dantzig and Saaty 1973; Breheny
The term professional elites refers to architects, landscape archi- 1992; Beatley 1995; Jenks, Williams, and Burton 1996; Burton
tects, engineers, planners, and lawyers who developed the city 2000). While these analysts discussions of the city are complex
planning profession. By technology, I mean the tools (means) and not limited to density, I stress their operational measures
professionals used to attain ends in classic Weberian instru- of the compact city. This tendency to reduce a complex entity
mental rationality: survey, analysis, plan, zoning, and so on. the cityto one criteriondensityconstrains research and
These professionals were able to apply these tools effectively biases action. As a representation of urban form, average den-
precisely because the planners and their tools were embedded sity does not address variations in density within aggregated
in existing institutions: governments, commercial clubs, cham- areas. It does not address differences in land use patterns, phys-
bers of commerce, universities, professional associations, and ical design, social characteristics, and ecological conditions
so forth. Institutional embedding endowed at least three among places with the same overall density. It does not reflect
advantages: power/resources, legitimacy/legal standing, and variations in linkages among land uses in urban settings
reproducibility resulting from the standardization of practice. (Handy and Niemeier 1997). A rich and more complex set of
Tools were replicated using the standard means of factors, as indicated in Table 2, provides more complete and
professionalization. Collectively, these tools, organizational accurate indicators. New researchers are adding other urban
networks, and modes of knowledge constitute the institutional form factors and getting more robust findings that are more
apparatus. usable for untangling the compact city debate (Zhang 2001;
Similar physical planning technologies are applied today Krizek 2003; Shin 2002).
by both those who produce urban sprawl and those who pro- Compact forms do impart advantages. These include lower
duce compact cities. These technologies assume physical land consumption, cheaper infrastructure and utility costs,
design will generate social relationships even though the plan- and resource protection (Burchell et al. 2002; Beatley 2000;
ning and design principles have more to do with standardized Daniels 1999). Yet many compact developments are still mostly
technologies than with local culture. This is why we find new residential, still distant from a city or town. This necessitates
urbanist simulacra of classic New England villages and towns daily travel for shopping, work, and entertainment. Thus, they
scattered around Canadian prairies, Florida swamps, Low contribute to sprawl. In this, they resemble in their (dis)func-
Country marshes, and Gulf Coast beaches. tionality their planned unit development and residential sub-
Pre-twentieth-century models for the compact city include division predecessors, except that now they are more compact.
settlements in Europe and elsewhere. Those cities and towns Is the compact city the result of a long-term, evolutionary
may have been sustainable, but if they were, it was for reasons process? The new urbanist development is based on a master
beside compactness or density. Their builders used local mate- designer approach, by which a single design team drafts plans.
rials, local labor, and local and appropriately scaled technol- In addition, designers along with legal experts draft municipal
ogy. They were more artisanal and built settlements gradually codeslegally binding standards to be followed to ensure that
over time. Because they applied local knowledge and resources the building process proceeds according to the designers
as craftsmen, these settlements fit their surroundings plan. To this standard, compact city design process one can
(Lefebvre [1974] 1991). Town builders of prior eras used add focus groups, public meetings, and other citizen
22 Neuman

participation methods, which provide information and ideas. middle and higher classes and are predominately populated by
Yet the final designs and codes are produced only by profes- whites.
sionals in a brief time span. Beyond the dogma on either side, critical analysts find that
Like those a century ago, todays new urbanist and compact the data and methods of analysis are equivocal. Breheny
city architects prepare a design for a place to be built according (1992) and Jenks, Williams, and Burton (1996) concluded that
to plan. It is not evolutionary. The town does not grow bit by bit the data regarding the sustainability of compact cities are not
over time, accumulating uses, meaning, size, and so on. It is all conclusive. Their analyses, however, were limited to the ques-
built nearly all at once, according to the linear principles of a tion of compactness and, more specifically, to urban form.
hierarchy or tree, laid out in Christopher Alexanders cri- Because cities are not just physical forms and because even
tique of traditional master planning methods (Alexander their material aspects are manifest in dimensions other than
1965). The new urbanists town is a static product of a devel- density and compactness, we have to look beyond the compact
opers marketing campaign rather than an evolving process of city for answers to the sustainability question. Moreover, the
human development. debate itself needs to be reframed, which I undertake in the
Is the compact city a healthy city? The health of a city is following conclusion.
determined by many factors. Only some factors are affected by
density or compactness. Most often, dense cities are unhealthy.
The origins of modern urban planning is derived from devas- Sustainability as a Process:
tating criticisms of city crowding in the nineteenth century Raising the Level of the Game
(Hall 1988; Riis 1890; Mearns 1883). Industrial cities became
less healthy as they became denser. Today, the tables have been In Levels of the Game, John McPhee (1969) wrote about ten-
turned. Sprawling metropolises are unhealthy. It would seem nis in the era of Arthur Ashe and Billie Jean King. He observed
logical to conclude that sprawls opposite, compact, should be that champion athletes were able to improve their perfor-
more healthy. Indeed, some studies claim they are (Newman manceraise the level of their gameto whatever level neces-
and Kenworthy 1989; see Gomez-Ibaez 1991 for a critique). sary to win. The term level of the game has entered the language
Newman and Kenworthys findings suggest that gasoline con- to denote an occasion in which a practitioner rises above and
sumption is lower in European cities compared to American beyond the current level of practice to an entirely new level.
and Australian counterparts. Yet gasoline is significantly As this essay explored representations and meanings of
cheaper in the United States. Furthermore, dense urban cen- sustainability and compact cities, the way the compact city is
ters have diseconomies of scale (pollution and illness) and represented takes on added import, precisely because it has
inefficiencies (increased energy and material costs per square been taken for granted. Compact city is a pleonasm, two words
foot in skyscrapers) that ought to be factored into more holis- commonly used together that are redundantfree gift, ice
tic assessments. Compact settlements with an emphasis on den- cold, compact city. The fact that we say compact city seems to
sity, pedestrians, and public transportation only address a few be occasioned by the existence of sprawl. Yet by countering
of the ills attending modern metropolises. sprawl with compact cities, proponents remain on the same
Does the compact city deal with interrelationships? Partly. playing field with their counterparts. They have not raised the
Neotraditional planning did emerge from critiques of segre- level of the game. Instead, they have reverted back to an old
gated land uses. New urbanism seeks to bring uses into proxim- game.
ity and mix uses in town centers, thus enhancing choice and liv- By asking if compact urban form is sustainable as Jenks, Wil-
ability. Yet close inspection of most neotraditional plans reveals liams, and Burton (1996) did in their influential book The Com-
that segregation of uses still occurs. Commercial and civic uses pact City: A Sustainable Urban Form?, they are asking the wrong
dominate the center, and housing remains on the periphery. A question. Hildebrand Frey (1999) also pursues the sustainable
stiff pattern of single-family homes on the edges and multifam- city debate via urban structure in Designing the City: Towards a
ily dwellings near the center mimics traditional suburban More Sustainable Urban Form (see also Hall 1994). One cannot
development, just more compact. People who live in them still overlook the fact that form is both the structure that shapes
must commute, often long distances, as only a few are con- process and the structure that emerges from a process. Yet the
nected to job centers by transit. Moreover, the principle of question that should be asked is whether the processes of
police power, the legal basis of segregating land uses by zoning, building cities and the processes of living, consuming, and pro-
still underlies neotraditional codes. Economic and class segre- ducing in cities are sustainable. Asking this question raises the
gation still occurs. Most new urbanist towns are enclaves of the level of the game. It may even change the game.
The Compact City Fallacy 23

In the past, leading scholars have advocated organic mod- convergent views of sustainability suggest that the city is a
els of cities and city building. These authors, each in their own coevolutionary process, then the idea and ideal of a sustainable
manner, analyzed pathologies and wellness of the urban condi- city is a viable one that we can strive to reach.
tion. Each has sought prescriptions to remedy bad urban form
or principles and criteria for creating and assessing such reme- Authors Note: The author thanks R. Bednarz; P. Berke; S. Handy; M.
dies (Mumford 1938; Jacobs 1961; Ardalan 1973; Benevolo Hanson; M. Hibbard; D. Howe; E. Kaiser; G. de Roo; S. Shin; J. Smith; F.
Steiner; anonymous referees; and seminar participants at the Universities of
1980; Lynch 1981; Alexander 1987; Lefebvre 1991; Correa
North Carolina, Calgary, Texas, and Texas A&M; and panelists and
2000). Recognizing disparities among them, we nonetheless
audience members at the 1997 International Symposium on Urban Plan-
can detect the seeds of a new type of planning. Most preceded ning and the Environment (where the first draft of this article was pre-
the sustainability debate, yet each contributed valuable per- sented) and the 1999 Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning
spectives that can inform a new type of planning and city build- conference. This research has benefited from visits to new urbanist develop-
ing that is not obsessed with urban form. ments across North America and analyzing plans of many more.
The purpose of this article has been to identify the compact
city fallacy. The compact city fallacy holds that the compact city
is neither a necessary or sufficient condition for a city to be sus- References
tainable and that the attempt to make cities more sustainable
only by using urban form strategies is counterproductive. Alexander, C. 1965. A city is not a tree. Published in two consecutive
issues of Architectural Forum, 122 (1): 58-62; and 122 (2): 58-61.
Instead, conceiving urban form as a processual outcome of Alexander, C. 1987. A new theory of urban design. New York: Oxford
urbanization opens the door to a new and dynamic conception University Press.
of urban planning that is based on a reversal of the last cen- . 2002. The nature of order. New York: Oxford University Press.
turys (not exclusive) focus on urban form governed by the American Planning Association. 1999. Planning communities for the
21st century. Washington, DC: Author.
static tools of the plan and zoning. Anderson, L. 1987. Seven methods for calculating land capability/suit-
Form, as biologists and geologists understand it, is an out- ability. Chicago: American Planning Association Press.
come of evolution. Form is a snapshot of process. It is a fixed Ardalan, Nader. 1973. The sense of unity: The Sufi tradition in Persian
condition at any point in time. Form, in and of itself, is not architecture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Arrow, K., B. Bolin, R. Costanza, P. Dasgupta, C. Folke, C. S.
measurable in terms of sustainability. Asking whether a com- Holling, B. O. Jansson, S. Levin, K. G. Maler, C. Perrings, and
pact city, or any other form of the city, is sustainable is like ask- D. Pimentel. 1995. Economic growth, carrying capacity, and
ing whether the body is sustainable. The proper question is not the environment. Science 268:520-21.
if the body is sustainable, but rather, does the being that inhab- Ashby, E. 1978. Reconciling man with the environment. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
its the body live sustainably? If the city is to survive, process Bank of America. 1995. Beyond sprawl: New patterns of growth to fit the
must have the final word. In the end the urban truth is in the new California. San Francisco: Bank of America.
flow (Kostof 1992, 305). Beatley, T. 1995. Planning and sustainability: The elements of a
We must take care not to extend this analogy and criticism new (improved?) paradigm. Journal of Planning Literature 9 (4):
too far. There is no such thing as a sustainable city. Cities have . 2000. Green urbanism: Learning from European cities. Wash-
always been dependent on their hinterlands and distant coun- ington, DC: Island.
terparts for food and trade. Cities historically have relied on Benevolo, L. 1980. The history of the city. Translated by Geoffrey
pillaging and tithes and, in recent times, on subsidies from Culverwell. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Berke, P. 2000. Are we planning for sustainable development? Jour-
external sources. Has the city, standing alone, ever been sus- nal of the American Planning Association 66 (1): 21-34.
tainable? The sustainable city is a motivating metaphor for Birch, E. 2002. Having a longer view of downtown. Journal of the
something that does not and perhaps cannot exist. The American Planning Association 68 (1): 5-21.
attempt to attain sustainability via physical means alone is non- Botsford L. W., J. C. Castilla, and C. H. Peterson. 1997. The manage-
ment of fisheries and marine ecosystems. Science 277:509-15.
sensical. Instead, we ought to envision the city as the manifesta- Bouwman, M. E. 2000. Changing mobility patterns in a compact
tion of many coevolutionary processes: between the city and its city: Environmental impacts. In Compact cities and sustainable
inhabitants and between the city and its environs are two prom- urban development: A critical assessment of policies and plans from an
inent ones. Without taking the organismic analogy literally, the international perspective, edited by G. de Roo and D. Miller.
Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
city can be envisioned as a composite of metabolic processes Bowen, W. G., and D. Bok. 2000. The shape of the river. Princeton, NJ:
(Decker et al. 2000; Ravetz 2000). Following this, measures of Princeton University Press.
sustainabilityindicatorscan be applied to a host of factors Boyden, S., S. Millar, K. Newcombe, and B. ONeill. 1981. The ecol-
in addition to the built environment: ecological, social, eco- ogy of a city and its people: The case of Hong Kong. Canberra, Austra-
lia: Australian National University Press.
nomic, civic, fiscal, and infrastructural. If emergent and
24 Neuman

Boyer, M. Christine. 1983. Dreaming the rational city: The myth of Amer- Department of the Environment and Department of Transport
ican city planning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (DOE/DOT). 1993. Reducing transport emissions through plan-
Breheny, M., ed. 1992. Sustainable development and urban form. Lon- ning. London: Her Majestys Stationery Office.
don: Pion. Dobson, A. P., A. D. Bradshaw, and A. J. M. Baker. 1997. Hopes for
Breheny, M., I. Gordon, and S. Archer. 1998. Building densities the future: Restoration ecology and conservation biology. Sci-
and sustainable cities. Project Outline 5, Engineering and Phys- ence 277:515-22.
ical Sciences Research Council Sustainable Cities Programme, Downs, A. 1994. New visions for metropolitan America. Washington,
Swindon, UK. DC: The Brookings Institution.
Burchell, R. W., and A. O. Adelaja. 1992. Impact assessment of the New Duany, A., E. Plater-Zyberk, and J. Speck. 2001. Suburban nation.
Jersey Interim State Development and Redevelopment Plan. Trenton: New York: North Point Press.
New Jersey Office of State Planning. Dubos, R. 1978. The resilience of ecosystems. Boulder, CO: Associated
Burchell, R. W., G. Lowenstein, W. Dolphin, C. C. Galley, A. Downs, University Press.
S. Seskin, K. G. Still, and T. Moore. 2002. The costs of sprawl Durack, R. 2001. Village vices: The contradiction of new urbanism
2000. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. and sustainability. Places 14 (2): 64-69.
Burchell, R. W., N. A. Shad, D. Listokin, H. Phillips, A. Downs, S. Echenique, M., and A. Saint. 2001. Cities for the new millennium.
Seskin, J. S. Davis, T. Moore, D. Helton, and M. Gall. 1998. The Washington, DC: Island.
costs of sprawlrevisited. Washington, DC: National Academy Elton, C. 1927. Animal ecology. London: Sidgwick and Jackson.
Press. Energy Information Agency. 2002. Energy consumption by sector.
Burton, E. 2000. The compact city: Just or just compact? A prelimi- Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy.
nary analysis. Urban Studies 37 (11): 1969-2001. European Environment Agency. 1998. Environment in the European
Cairncross, F. 2001. The death of distance: How the communications rev- Union at the turn of the century. Brussels: Author.
olution is changing our lives. Boston: Harvard Business School Ewing, R. 1997. Is Los Angeles-style sprawl desirable? Journal of the
Press. American Planning Association 63 (1): 107-26.
Campbell, S. 1996. Green cities, growing cities, just cities? Urban Frey, H. 1999. Designing the city: Towards a more sustainable urban form.
planning and the contradictions of sustainable development. London: E. & F. N. Spon.
Journal of the American Planning Association 62 (3): 296-312. Fulton, W., R. Pendall, M. Nguyen, and A. Harrison. 2002. Who
Castells, M. 1989. The informational city: Information technology, eco- sprawls most? How growth patterns differ across the U.S. Washington,
nomic restructuring, and the urban-regional process. New York: DC: Brookings.
Blackwell. Galster, G., R. Hanson, M. Ratcliffe, H. Wolman, S. Coleman, and J.
. 1996. The rise of the network society. Cambridge, MA: Freihage. 2001. Wrestling sprawl to the ground: Defining and
Blackwell. measuring an elusive concept. Housing Policy Debate 12 (4): 681-
. 2001. The Internet galaxy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 717.
Cerd, I. 1867. Teora general de la urbanizacin, y aplicacin de sus Garcia, D., and P. Riera. 2003. Expansion versus density in Barce-
principios y doctrinas a la reforma y ensanche de Barcelona. Madrid, lona: A valuation exercise. Urban Studies 40 (10): 1925-36.
Spain: Imprenta Espaola. Gomez-Ibaez, J. 1991. A global view of automobile dependence.
Chapin F. S., III, B. H. Walker, R. J. Hobbs, D. U. Hooper, J. H. Journal of the American Planning Association 57 (3): 376-79.
Lawton, O. E. Sala, and D. Tilman. 1997. Biotic control over the Gordon, P., and H. Richardson. 1989. Gasoline consumption and
functioning of ecosystems. Science 277:500-4. cities: A reply. Journal of the American Planning Association, 55 (3):
Correa, C. 2000. Housing and urbanization. London: Thames & 342-46.
Hudson. . 1997. Are compact cities a desirable planning goal? Journal
Crane, R. 2000. The impacts of urban form on travel: An interpre- of the American Planning Association 63 (1): 95-106.
tive review. Journal of Planning Literature 15:3-23. Griffin, D. 1977. A technical guide for determining land use suitability.
Cronon, W. 1983. Changes in the land: Indians, colonists, and the ecol- Urbana: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
ogy of New England. New York: Hill and Wang. Hall, P. 1988. Cities of tomorrow: An intellectual history of urban plan-
. 1995. Uncommon ground: Toward reinventing nature. New ning and design in the twentieth century. Oxford: Blackwell.
York: Norton. . 1994. Can cities be sustainable? In The human face of the
Daily, G., and K. Ellison. 2002. The new economy of nature: The quest to urban environment: Proceedings of the second annual World Bank con-
make conservation profitable. Washington, DC: Island. ference on environmentally sustainable development, edited by J.
Daly, H. 1980. Economics, ecology and ethics. San Francisco: W. H. Serageldin, M. Cohen, and K. Sivaramakrishnan. Washington,
Freeman. DC: World Bank.
. 1996. Beyond growth: The economics of sustainable development. . 1998. Cities and civilizations. New York: Pantheon.
Boston: Beacon. . 2001. Sustainable cities or town cramming? In Planning for
Daniels, T. 1999. When city and country collide: Managing growth in the a sustainable future, edited by A. Layard, S. Davoudi, and S. Batty.
metropolitan fringe. Washington, DC: Island. London: Spon.
Dantzig, G., and T. Saaty. 1973. Compact city: A plan for a livable urban Handy, S., M. Boarnet, R. Ewing, and R. Killingsworth. 2002. How
environment. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman. the built environment affects physical activity: Views from
Darwin, Charles. 1859. On the origin of species by means of natural selec- urban planning. American Journal of Preventative Medicine 23
tion, or, The preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. Lon- (2S): 64-73.
don: J. Murray. Handy, S., and D. Niemeier. 1997. Measuring accessibility: An
Decker, E., S. Elliott, F. Smith, D. Blake, and F. Rowland. 2000. exploration of issues and alternatives. Environment and Planning
Annual review of energy and the environment 25:685-740. A 29:1175-94.
The Compact City Fallacy 25

Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162:1243-48. Presidents Council on Sustainable Development. 1996. Sustainable
Jackson, K. 1985. The crabgrass frontier: The suburbanization of the America: A new consensus for prosperity, opportunity, and a healthy
United States. Oxford: Oxford University Press. environment for the future. Washington, DC: Government
Jacobs, J. 1961. The death and life of great American cities. New York: Printing Office.
Vintage. Pyatok, M. 2002. The narrow base of the new urbanists. Planners
Jenks, M., and R. Burgess, eds. 2000. Compact cities: Sustainable Network 151:1-5.
urban forms for developing countries. London: E. & F.N. Spon. Rabinow, P. 1989. French modern: Norms and forms of the built environ-
Jenks, M., K. Williams, and B. Burton, eds. 1996. The compact city: A ment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
sustainable urban form? London: Chapman and Hall. Ravetz, J. 2000. Environmental impact assessment review 20 (1): 31-64.
Katz, P. 1994. The new urbanism: Toward an architecture of community. Rawls, J. 1971. A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer-
New York: McGraw-Hill. sity Press.
Kauffman, S. 1994. The Origins of Order. Oxford: Oxford University Real Estate Research Corporation. 1974. Costs of sprawl: Environ-
Press. mental and economic costs of alternative residential development pat-
Kostof, S. 1992. The city assembled: The elements of urban form through terns at the urban fringe. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
history. London: Thames and Hudson. Printing Office.
Krier, L. 1998. Choice or fate. Windsor, UK: Papadakis. Redclift, M. 1987. Sustainable development: Exploring the contradic-
Krizek, K. 2003. Operationalizing neighborhood accessibility for tions. London: Methuen.
land use travel behavior research and regional modeling. Jour- Rees, W. 1996. Revisiting carrying capacity: Area-based indicators
nal of Planning Education and Research 22 (3): 270-87. of sustainability. Population and Environment 17 (3): 191-215.
Landecker, H. 1996. Is new urbanism good for America? Architec- Riis, J. 1890. How the other half lives: Studies among the tenements of New
ture 85 (4): 68-77. York. New York: Scribners Sons.
Ledec, G., and R. Goodland. 1985. Carrying capacity, population Sachs, W. 1993. Global ecology: A new arena of political conflict. Lon-
growth, and sustainable development. In Rapid population don: Zed Books.
growth and human carrying capacity: Two perspectives, edited K. Sassen, S. 2001. The global city: New York, London, Tokyo. 2nd ed.
Mahar. Washington, DC: World Bank. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Lefebvre, H. [1974] 1991. The production of space. Cambridge, MA: Schama, S. 1995. Landscape and memory. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Blackwell. Schmidheiny, S. 1992. Changing course: A global business perspective on
Lehrer, U., and R. Milgrom. 1996. New (sub)urbanism: development and the environment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Countersprawl or repackaging the product? Capitalism Nature Schulze, E. D., and H. Mooney. 1993. Biodiversity and ecosystem func-
Socialism 7 (2): 49-64. tion. Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag.
Lynch, K. 1981. Good city form. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Schumacher, E. F. 1973. Small is beautiful. New York: Harper and
Matson P. A., W. J. Parton, A. G. Power, and M. J. Swift. 1997. Agri- Row.
cultural intensification and ecosystem properties. Science Scott, A., ed. 2001. Global city-regions: Trends, theory, policy. Oxford:
277:504-9. Oxford University Press.
McHarg, I. L. 1969. Design with nature. Garden City, NY: Natural Sen, A. 1973. On economic inequality. New York: Norton.
History Press. Shin, S.-Y. 2002. Spatial dimensions of workplaces and the effects
McPhee, J. 1969. Levels of the game. New York: Farrar, Straus & on commuting: The case of metropolitan Dallas-Fort Worth.
Giroux. Ph.D. dissertation, Texas A&M University.
McRobie, G. 1981. Small is possible. New York: Harper and Row. Simmel, G. [1903] 1950. The metropolis and mental life. In The sociol-
Meadows, D. H., D. L. Meadows, J. Randers, and W. Behrens. 1972. ogy of Georg Simmel, edited by K. Wolff. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Limits to growth. New York: Universe Books. Song, Y., and G.-J. Knaap. 2004. Measuring urban form: Is Portland
Mearns, A. 1883. The bitter cry of outcast London: An inquiry into the winning the war on sprawl? Journal of the American Planning Asso-
condition of the abject poor. London: James Clarke. ciation 70 (2): 210-25.
Mitchell, W. 1999. E-topia. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Southworth, M. 1997. Walkable suburbs: An evaluation of
Mumford, L. 1938. The culture of cities. New York: Harcourt Brace. neotraditional communities at the urban edge. Journal of the
. 1961. The city in history: Its origins, its transformations, and its American Planning Association 63 (1): 28-44.
prospects. New York: Harcourt Brace. Squires, G., ed. 2002. Urban sprawl: Causes, consequences & policy
National Research Council. 1999. Our common journey: A transition responses. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
toward sustainability. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Taylor P. 1986. Respect for nature: A theory of environmental ethics.
Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute. 2002. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Thomas, J. 1999. Holding the middle ground. In The American plan-
Neuman, M. 1991. Utopia, dystopia, diaspora. Journal of the Ameri- ning tradition: Culture and policy, edited by R. Fishman. Washing-
can Planning Association 57 (3): 344-47. ton, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press.
Newman, P., and J. Kenworthy. 1989. Gasoline consumption and United Nations. 1992. Agenda 21. New York: United Nations.
cities: A comparison of U.S. cities with a global survey. Journal of . 2001. World urbanization prospects, the 1999 revision. New
the American Planning Association 55 (1): 24-37. York: United Nations.
. 1999. Sustainability and cities: Overcoming automobile depend- United Nations Centre for Human Settlements. [1996] 2000. An
ence. Washington, DC: Island. urbanizing world: Global report on human settlements. In
Nolen, J. 1916. City planning. New York: Appleton. Urban future 21: A global agenda for twenty-first century cities, edited
Norberg-Hodge, H. 1991. Ancient futures: Learning from Ledakh. San by P. Hall and U. Pfeiffer. London: E. & F.N. Spon.
Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
26 Neuman

United Nations World Commission on Environment and Develop- Wiersinga, W. 1997. Compensation as a strategy for improving environ-
ment. 1987. Our common future. New York: Oxford University mental quality in compact cities. Amsterdam: Bureau SME.
Press. Wiewel, W., and J. Persky. 2002. Suburban sprawl: Private decisions
Unwin, R. 1911. Town planning in practice: An introduction to the art of and public policy. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
designing cities and suburbs. London: T. F. Unwin. Williams, K., E. Burton, and M. Jenks, eds. 2000. Achieving sustain-
. 1912. Nothing gained by overcrowding! London: P.S. King. able urban form. London: E. & F.N. Spon.
Urban Land Institute. 1998. ULI on the future: Smart growthecon- Wilson, E. O. 1988. Biodiversity. Washington, DC: National Acad-
omy, community, environment. Washington, DC: The Urban Land emy Press.
Institute. Wirth, L. 1938. Urbanism as a way of life. American Journal of Sociol-
Van der Wal, J. 1995. Analysis of Dutch household metabolic flows. ogy 44 (1).
IIASA-HOMES Workshop, Laxenburg, In van Diepen (2000). World Conservation Union. 1991. Caring for the earth: A strategy for
Van Diepen, A. 2000. Trip making and urban density: Comparing sustainable living. Gland, Switzerland: World Conservation
British and Dutch survey data. In Compact cities and sustainable Union.
urban development: A critical assessment of policies and plans from an World Resources Institute, United Nations Environment Program,
international perspective, edited by G. de Roo and D. Miller. United Nations Development Program, and World Bank. 2000.
Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. World resources 2000-2019: A guide to the global environment.
Verbrugge, L., and R. Taylor. 1980. Consequences of population Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
density and size. Urban Affairs Quarterly 16 (2): 135-60. Zhang, M. 2001. Conditions and effectiveness of land use planning
Vitousek, P. M., H. A. Mooney, J. Lubchenco, and J. M. Melillo. as a mobility tool. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
1997. Human domination of earths ecosystems. Science
Waldon, H. 1994. Resilience, equilibrium and sustainability in
three ecosystems. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California,
Santa Cruz.