I've pretty much come to the conclusion that sprawl development will continue and more dense development will be sneered upon in the US until there is simply no more new land (greenfields) to build on. But if that is true, that begs the question: Is there a population limit which, using current development patterns, we cannot exceed in the US?
Assuming, for example, that sprawl development continues to advance as it has for the last 50-60 years, American household preferences remain pretty consistent, we maintain just enough agricultural land to feed all US citizens, and we preserve only the most precious of our natural areas, can we put a number on the maximum population of the nation?
I'm taking a wild guess here, but I'm thinking it's somewhere between 600 million and 800 million (we're just under 290 million right now). Some states (California? Florida?) are probably closer to reaching that limit because mountains, deserts, wetlands, etc. prevent further development. And those states become the hotbeds of anti-sprawl discussion. Other states (Illinois? Ohio? Texas? Georgia? North Carolina?) have plenty of land available to accomodate even more sprawl. And talk there of more dense development becomes evidence of a liberal conspiracy.
If the 600-800 million figure is in the ballpark, then we likely have at least 50 more years before we approach it.
So are we planners way ahead of the curve in promoting smart growth policies that politicians and the general public can't see the benefits of? And is there a population limit at which people say, "we've got to build better communities than this?"
Assuming, for example, that sprawl development continues to advance as it has for the last 50-60 years, American household preferences remain pretty consistent, we maintain just enough agricultural land to feed all US citizens, and we preserve only the most precious of our natural areas, can we put a number on the maximum population of the nation?
I'm taking a wild guess here, but I'm thinking it's somewhere between 600 million and 800 million (we're just under 290 million right now). Some states (California? Florida?) are probably closer to reaching that limit because mountains, deserts, wetlands, etc. prevent further development. And those states become the hotbeds of anti-sprawl discussion. Other states (Illinois? Ohio? Texas? Georgia? North Carolina?) have plenty of land available to accomodate even more sprawl. And talk there of more dense development becomes evidence of a liberal conspiracy.
If the 600-800 million figure is in the ballpark, then we likely have at least 50 more years before we approach it.
So are we planners way ahead of the curve in promoting smart growth policies that politicians and the general public can't see the benefits of? And is there a population limit at which people say, "we've got to build better communities than this?"