The term “urban sprawl” was originally coined in 1955 in an article in The Times, where it was used to be applied specifically to London. It then referred to the negative state of the city’s outskirts, and although the term has evolved, been used loosely and come to lack much precision in its definition, it generally refers to the unrestricted growth in urban areas where planning and foresight fail to be regarded with caution. The effects and ultimate aftermath of this irresponsible level of urbanisation, in social, environmental and health-related consequences also fall under the general definition of the phrase. A now-highly politicised term that almost always has negative connotations and implications, it has come to be applied to cities such as New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, New Delhi, Shanghai, Brisbane and Quebec, but London remains a prime example of urbanisation without sufficient forethought or regulation.
In London, this uncontrolled horizontal growth of urban cities is encroaching on adjacent natural and agricultural land that is necessary to local food systems. Alongside land loss, there is of course habitat loss and reduction in biodiversity. The introduction of invasive species and increased occurrences of flooding can also be resultant effects, on top of even increases in urban heat islands, where areas of land become significantly higher in temperatures as a result of increased human activities; this leads to severe health repercussions, such as increased risk of mortality for elders. Reading is an example of an area outside of London that is being affected by urban sprawling in England.
Sprawls have been seen to lead to a variety of other damning health repercussions too, such as higher air pollution due to increasing driving, which is a direct result of urban development. Commuter routes become longer and more complex as people trying to get to work have to navigate through packed areas of land, and more often so in cars. Though there is no data concerning this in the UK, in America, a country plagued by worsening physical health in its citizens as development skyrockets, a correlation has been identified between sprawls, and obesity and high blood pressure. More driving then leads to commuters getting less physical exercise, and more frequent vehicle crashes, pedestrian injuries and collisions as a whole.
Urban sprawls are seen as development of areas of a low-density; that is, population density. Large single family homes that take up a lot of land, separated for example by gardens, lawns, landscaping or parking spaces are examples of this. Additionally, as more automobiles come into use, more land becomes developed for designated parking, such as very large car parks. Residents of low-density areas spend a higher proportion of their income on transportation, and on top of more parking spaces, motorways are also built within sprawls to meet growing needs for larger numbers of drivers and populations that depend more and more on their cars. Urbanised or developed land is ultimately increasing faster than the rate at which the population is growing, which is to say that it is increasing more than is necessary. In the UK, 8-12 houses per acre is considered to be low-density urban development.
Houses are predominantly what the development consists of in every city where this is occurring. The phrase “housing subdivisions” has been coined to refer to areas of land which are entirely newly built homes, but are often referred to by developers as villages, towns or neighbourhoods, which is misleading as these imply that structures other than residential buildings are being built, typically over green-fields and on the outskirts of London. Curved roads and cul-de-sacs frequently appear in these subdivisions, allowing the developers to make use of every little bit of land they have, although this then leads to more traffic at collector roads, which are often found in suburban road systems. Even providing water, electricity and sewage systems to these homes becomes more complicated, as they are more expensive per household in areas of lower densities, as urban sprawls increase the lengths of power lines and pipes necessary, requiring higher maintenance costs.
Across the globe, those who call for managing urban growth point at urban sprawls as prime examples of why development can often cause more problems than it solves. It has even been suggested of increasing segregation, leading to the term being highly politicised and having strong social implications. Class and racial ramifications are sited to be just another long-term effect of sprawls that may be unexpected and overlooked. Ethnic residential segregation has been proven to exist in London in particular and the city’s urban sprawl is blamed to be reinforcing this divide.
Since the early 20th century, attempts to combat this phenomenon have been made, especially in England. The Campaign to Protect Rural England is a prominent pressure group that has been campaigning for diminishing the rate of sprawling since 1926 when it was first founded. Natural recreational areas that make up zones designated as green-belts, where borders of the environment can be retained, were at the centre of proposals from the London City Council in 1934. Nowadays, public opinion on this urbanisation without limitation or self-restraint continues to change more and more widely against it, leading to higher numbers of people choosing to walk and cycle instead of driving through massive areas of developed land.
Leo Gregory
