• Urban sprawl is criticized for producing auto dependence.major traffic jam 2 image by Aaron Kohr from Fotolia.com
  
  The late Jane Jacobs' seminal 1961 book, "The Death and Life of Great American Cities," brought the long-raging debate over urban sprawl to the forefront. Since then, critics of sprawl have promoted an urban vision of higher densities and reduced auto dependence, seen traditionally in places such as New York and San Francisco. The few advocates of sprawl---and some who choose to live in sprawling places---tout several benefits of this low-density, spread out, car-centric development.
  
  

Employment Factors

• As UCLA economics professor Matthew Kahn points out, companies have been able to locate away from central business districts (CBDs), better known as "downtowns," due to the proliferation of urban sprawl. This, according to Kahn, has benefited employers by allowing them to escape the relatively high real estate prices in the CBD. Like with most sprawl debates, detractors cite the same fact as negative, lamenting the decline of many American downtowns. A particular benefit detailed by Kahn is the ability for firms to build huge campuses in suburban locations that allow different company divisions to interact in the same space.
  
  

Lower Consumer Prices

• Kahn points out that discount retailers have a difficult time locating in dense areas of cities due to restrictive zoning regulations. He notes that stores such as Walmart can more easily locate in sprawling areas. Kahn reports that Walmart has a limited presence in dense American places, such as the New York metro area and the Pacific Northwest. Stores, such as Walmart, though, can offer prices that are up to 25 percent lower than regular supermarkets, according to Kahn. Kahn also explains that central city residents often drive to more sprawling locations to shop at stores like Walmart. Like any other business, the Walmarts of the world, contends Kahn, benefit from the lower land costs on the urban periphery.
  
  

Transportation

• Whereas critics of urban sprawl demonize it for producing traffic congestion, proponents disagree. USC professors Peter Gordon and Harry W. Richardson claim that when comparing private automobile use to collective transportation, such as public transit systems, the former wins out. In fact, contrary to popular belief, Gordon and Richardson note that the higher densities needed to support large-scale public transportation actually produce higher levels of traffic congestion than less dense, sprawling areas. Kahn adds support to the notion that sprawl provides transportation benefits. He claims that while suburban commuters have longer commutes in miles than their urban counterparts, they move at a faster rate. Kahn reports that commuters in sprawling cities move 9.5 mph faster on the way to work than people who live in compact cities.