Where can you find the most sprawl? According to a new study by The Brookings Institution's Center on Urban & Metropolitan Policy, Who sprawls most? How growth patterns differ across the U.S. , the answer is not in California or the booming sunshine states.

Brookings defines "density" as the population divided by the amount of urbanized land. Most metro areas are adding urbanized land at a much faster rate than they are adding population.

During the 15-year time period examined by Brookings, the volume or urbanized land grew 47 percent, while the country's population grew 17 percent. What's more, of the 281 metro areas studied, only 17 -- or 6 percent -- became more dense.

For years, anti-sprawl activists have pointed to land-consuming cities of the West as consummate examples of poor growth policies. The names Phoenix, Los Angeles and Las Vegas have often been cites as supposed monuments to suburban sprawl.

Yet the Brookings study concludes that Western states have some of the densest metro areas in the nation -- and thus the least sprawl. In 1997, 10 of the country's 15 densest areas were in California, Nevada and Arizona.

Meanwhile, the Northeast and Midwest have seen enormous land consumption coupled with little population growth.

"Unlike the West and the South," says Brookings, "the Northeast and Midwest are not increasing their populations very much. However, they are urbanizing large amounts of land anyway. In that sense, these two 'Rust Belt' regions can be viewed as being the nation's biggest sprawl problems."

The study also concluded that rapid growth actually encourages population density, while slow population growth leads to sprawling development. That explains the more efficient use of land in the West and, to some degree, in the South, where populations have been exploding over the past two decades.

The Brookings study found that in states with growth management policies in place metro areas tended to sprawl more. The study pointed out that California, Nevada and Arizona -- which gained density over the 15-year time period examined -- do not have growth management laws and yet have the least sprawl.

Brookings concludes that regional differences such as growth patterns and demographics require customized strategies to combat sprawl. The Institute also points out that overall land consumption is not necessarily equal to sprawl.

Brookings promotes the idea that increased density -- meaning more people living closer together -- is a good thing.

But since when is a high quality-of-life based on how many people can be squeezed into a subdivision or piled into apartment buildings? Why do zero-lot lines equal improved lifestyles?

The fact is that many Americans prefer spacious homes on large lots with roomy backyards. Has that not been the American dream? And have not homebuyers voted with their dollars by moving from crowded urban cores to suburban centers?

Yet if those who favor less sprawl have their way, longing for a home with a big yard in the suburbs may well evolve into a social error and a virtual sin.

For more articles by Lesley Hensell, please press here.

Published: July 25, 2001

Use of this article without permission is a violation of federal copyright laws.

Lesley Hensell covers commercial real estate and financial issues for Realty Times. Based outside of Dallas, Lesley works with high-tech and real estate clients as an independent marketing and public relations consultant. She also writes for several publications, including the Dallas Morning News. E-mail Lesley at: lhensell@earthlink.net