Density vs. Sprawl: The Land Use Fight Nobody Is Winning – Governing

Report on Urban Land Use Strategies and Sustainable Development Goals

An analysis of contemporary urban development strategies reveals a significant conflict between urban sprawl and high-density, transit-oriented development. This conflict directly impacts the achievement of several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities). This report examines two opposing approaches as exemplified by development trends in Texas and recent legislation in California.

Competing Models for Urban Housing Development

Model 1: Urban Sprawl as a Solution to Housing Scarcity

One perspective posits that expanding urban peripheries, or sprawl, is a necessary and effective method to address national housing shortages, estimated at over four million units. This approach is presented as a practical response to the high cost and complexity of infill development.

• Economic Rationale: Proponents argue that sprawl enables the rapid construction of affordable housing, contributing to SDG 11.1 (access to adequate, safe and affordable housing). The economic and population growth in Texas metropolitan areas like Dallas is cited as evidence of this model’s success.
• Challenges to Sustainability: This model presents significant challenges to broader sustainable development objectives.
  1. SDG 11.2 (Sustainable Transport): Sprawl increases dependency on private vehicles, leading to traffic congestion and undermining efforts to create accessible and sustainable transport systems.
  2. SDG 11.6 (Environmental Impact): Outward expansion often results in higher per capita utility costs, environmental degradation, and increased carbon emissions, conflicting with goals to reduce the adverse environmental impact of cities.
  3. SDG 13 (Climate Action): Increased vehicle miles traveled directly contributes to greenhouse gas emissions, hindering climate action efforts.

Model 2: Transit-Oriented Density Legislation in California

In direct contrast to the sprawl model, California has enacted the “Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act” (SB 79). This legislation aims to increase housing supply by promoting high-density residential construction along public transportation corridors, directly aligning with the principles of sustainable urbanization.

• Legislative Framework: The law overrides certain local zoning regulations in eight of the state’s largest counties to facilitate housing development.
• Alignment with SDG 11: The act is fundamentally designed to advance SDG 11.
  1. It promotes SDG 11.1 by aiming to increase the overall housing stock, which can eventually moderate housing costs. The law includes provisions for affordable unit set-asides.
  2. It directly supports SDG 11.2 by concentrating development around transit stations, encouraging the use of public transport, reducing commute times, and lowering transportation costs for residents.
  3. It represents a state-level intervention to achieve SDG 11.3 (inclusive and sustainable urbanization) by mandating denser, more efficient land use patterns.

Implementation Analysis of California’s SB 79

Key Provisions and Scope

The implementation of SB 79 is targeted and contains specific parameters that influence its impact on sustainable development.

• Development Allowances: Authorizes up to nine-story residential buildings adjacent to transit stations and smaller multifamily structures within a half-mile radius.
• Geographic Limitations: The law applies to counties with at least 16 transit stations, concentrating its effects in major metropolitan areas like Los Angeles and San Francisco.
• Exemptions and Conditions: The legislation includes exemptions for historic districts, high fire-risk zones, and some low-income neighborhoods to mitigate negative impacts. It also contains provisions requiring union labor for larger projects, which relates to SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth).

Challenges to Governance and Partnerships (SDG 17)

The law’s top-down approach has generated significant debate regarding local autonomy and effective governance, highlighting challenges related to SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).

• Conflict with Local Control: The legislation overrides the long-standing Lakewood Plan, which grants municipalities autonomy over planning and zoning. This has led to opposition from local governments, including an 8-5 vote by the Los Angeles City Council to denounce the bill.
• Equity Concerns: Critics argue the state-level mandate is a “one-size-fits-all” solution that may not adequately address local conditions or community needs, potentially undermining SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) if not implemented carefully. The exemption of certain wealthy municipalities has also raised concerns about equitable application.

Conclusion: An Evaluation in the Context of the SDGs

The divergence between urban sprawl and transit-oriented density represents a critical juncture in the pursuit of sustainable urban futures. While sprawl may provide a short-term increase in housing units, its long-term consequences are inconsistent with multiple SDGs, particularly those related to environmental sustainability, climate action, and efficient transport. California’s SB 79, despite its governance challenges, offers a more integrated model that aligns with the core objectives of SDG 11 by linking housing, transportation, and land use. Its success will depend on navigating the complexities of state-local partnerships and ensuring that new development contributes to equitable and inclusive communities.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

• The article’s central theme is the debate between urban density and sprawl, which is a core issue of sustainable urban development. It discusses housing shortages, affordability, urban planning policies (California’s SB 79), and access to public transportation, all of which are fundamental components of SDG 11.

SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

• The article connects the new housing legislation to labor issues. It mentions that to pass the bill, “union-friendly hiring provisions” were added, requiring contractors to “use union labor and pay union wages.” This directly links the urban development project to the goal of ensuring decent work and economic security for construction workers.

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

• The housing crisis described in the article disproportionately affects lower-income individuals. The text highlights that “a quarter of the nation’s tenants are ‘rent-burdened'” and that workers “can’t find places to live near where they work.” The new law’s provisions for “set-asides for affordable units” and exemptions for some “low-income neighborhoods” are direct policy attempts to address the inequality in access to adequate housing.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

1. Target 11.1: By 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services and upgrade slums.
   • The article directly addresses this target by discussing the “national housing shortage, estimated to be at least four million units” and the problem of “rent-burdened” tenants. California’s “Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act” is presented as a solution aimed at increasing the supply of housing to make it more affordable and accessible.
2. Target 11.2: By 2030, provide access to safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable transport systems for all.
   • The California law is explicitly designed to increase housing density “around transit corridors” and “adjacent to transit stations.” The rationale, as stated by Governor Newsom, is that “Housing near transit… means shorter commutes, lower costs, and more time with family,” which aligns with creating sustainable transport and living patterns.
3. Target 11.3: By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management in all countries.
   • The article explores the conflict between state-level planning and local control. The passage of SB 79, which “overrides local regulations,” is a form of integrated human settlement planning at a regional level. The debate over the Lakewood Plan and the complaints from the L.A. City Council about a “one-size-fits-all” approach highlight the challenges of implementing sustainable urbanization plans.

SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

1. Target 8.5: By 2030, achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all women and men, including for young people and persons with disabilities, and equal pay for work of equal value.
   • This target is relevant due to the provision in the California law requiring contractors on new tall buildings to “use union labor and pay union wages.” The article quotes Senator Wiener defending this deal, stating, “We all want construction workers to be part of the middle class,” which directly connects the housing policy to the goal of providing decent work and fair wages.

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

1. Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status.
   • The article implies this target by discussing the economic exclusion caused by the housing crisis. The law’s inclusion of “set-asides for affordable units” and exemptions for “low-income neighborhoods” are policy mechanisms designed to promote economic inclusion and mitigate the negative impacts of new development on vulnerable populations.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Indicators for SDG 11

• Indicator 11.1.1 (Proportion of urban population living in slums, informal settlements or inadequate housing): The article provides a direct metric related to this indicator by stating, “a quarter of the nation’s tenants are ‘rent-burdened,’ spending more than 30 percent of their income on monthly rental payments.” The percentage of rent-burdened tenants is a key measure of inadequate and unaffordable housing.
• Indicator related to housing supply: While not an official UN indicator, the article uses the number of new housing units as a measure of progress. It notes that in 2024, California “authorized only about 40,400 new multifamily residential units,” comparing it unfavorably to New York City’s expected “more than 50,000 new units.” This number serves as a direct progress metric for housing construction goals.
• Indicator 11.2.1 (Proportion of population that has convenient access to public transport): The article implies this indicator by describing the law’s provision to allow multifamily buildings “within half a mile” of a transit station. This specific distance (“half a mile”) is a measurable criterion for defining “convenient access” to public transport.
• Indicator 11.3.1 (Ratio of land consumption rate to population growth rate): The entire “density vs. sprawl” debate is about this ratio. The article contrasts the Texas model of building “new subdivisions farther and farther out from the urban core” (high land consumption) with California’s new law promoting “dense infill development” (low land consumption). While no specific ratio is given, these two approaches represent the extremes measured by this indicator.

Indicators for SDG 8

• Indicator 8.5.1 (Average hourly earnings of female and male employees, by occupation, age and persons with disabilities): The requirement to “pay union wages” for construction workers is a policy designed to directly influence this indicator. Progress could be measured by tracking the wages of construction workers on these projects and comparing them to non-union wages in the sector.

4. SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Analysis

Source: governing.com