Tag Archives: scattered development

Scattered, leapfrog development vs. low-density development

Two residential development patterns are most often associated with urban sprawl. Scattered or leapfrog development refers to the building of new residences, either separately or in a subdivision, at some distance from existing built-up areas. Low-density development refers to the construction of individual houses on larger lots. It is possible, of course, for scattered development to also be done on larger lots, though this is not the distinguishing feature of such leapfrog patterns.

In looking at densities in areas larger than the actual residential lots, scattered development will also be low-density because of the vacant land that has been skipped over. But I think most people would agree that scattered, leapfrog development and low-density development are two distinctive types of residential development and sprawl.

But how different are the two? Here is a thought experiment: Imagine an undeveloped area of land one mile square at the edge of an urban area. Now consider two ways in which this land might be developed. The first will be very low-density development. The area is divided into 64 10-acre lots and a house is built on each, completely developing the area. (For simplicity, we will be ignoring the need for land for roads to provide access.) Let’s assume that the owners only landscape small areas surrounding their residences, leaving the remainder of their lots undisturbed.

Now consider the second alternative of extreme scattered development. Sixty-four houses are constructed on 1-acre lots that are fairly evenly distributed across the mile-square area. In this case, only 10 percent of the land has been developed, but the developed area is 10 times as dense as in the previous case. Now suppose that these 64 houses are exactly the same as the very-low density houses and are located in exactly the same places. There would literally be no way to distinguish the scattered development from the very low-density development based on any physical characteristics of the developments. The only way to tell whether the development is very low-density or scattered is by looking at the land records.

Of course that difference in ownership matters–to a degree. The owners of the homes on the scattered 1-acre lots have no control over the undeveloped 90 percent of the land, which could be developed at any time. In the case of the very low-density development, each owner exercises control over 10 acres surrounding the residence by virtue of ownership. One might assume that these very large lots were acquired because the owners wanted the space and the control. (Though it is possible that land use regulations and/or choices made by the prior owner or developer of the area limited options available to the purchasers of these lots.) It is very likely that you are not going to see the purchasers of these large lots soon subdividing their land for higher-density development.

But the operative word here is “soon.” Over time, as demand increases and conditions change, further subdivision and development in the very low-density area becomes an increasing possibility. I currently live in an area that was developed from that late 1960s through the early 1980s with lots around a half acre. There are several lots in the neighborhood where the owners have built a second, substantial house on the rear portion of the lot (more than just an accessory unit or “granny flat.”)

So the very low-density developed area perhaps is not that completely different from the area with the scattered development.

What sprawl is — a start

Having discussed in the previous post what I believe urban sprawl is not, I should begin to address what I think sprawl is. I offer this only as a beginning of a discussion of the meaning of sprawl.

Those reviewing the literature on urban sprawl identify multiple characteristics that have been used to describe and define sprawl. They may offer their own definitions, again listing a number of different features of sprawl. But there are two things that are on nearly every list, very often first and second: Sprawl is low-density development and sprawl is scattered or leapfrog development.

Numerous studies have measured the extent of sprawl in urban areas. Some studies have used multiple measures while others have used only a single indicator. For those studies using only a single factor as the measure of sprawl, I have only seen either the density of development or the degree of scatter of development being used.

Density and scatter of development are related. Density can be the net residential density of development, the number of housing units or the population per area of residential land, or it can be gross density over a larger area that includes nonresidential land, including vacant, undeveloped land. Scattered development can, of course, have lower or higher net residential densities. But the gross density in areas with scattered development will always be lower–often much lower–because of the vacant land separating the areas of residential development. So in that sense, scattered development can be seen as another form of low-density development, when viewed over a larger area.

To me, this means that low-density development is a fundamental characteristic of urban sprawl. This is far from providing a complete definition of sprawl and instructions for the measurement of sprawl in an urban area. Density can be calculated in different ways. One could use an overall summary of density for an area, consider the amount of development or land having low densities (to be defined), or examine changes in density. Other factors could be considered along with density. But I believe that something capturing the idea of low-density development must be a central element in any effort to define urban sprawl.