A Minnesota court and law has dealt a major blow this month to the latest trend in urban planning theory — densification and the elimination of single-family zoning. The implications of this decision should force cities and metropolitan areas to rethink the environmental tradeoffs between continued sprawl and urban density.
New Urbanism declared urban sprawl bad for many reasons. Among them, sprawl produced inefficient use of land and resources. It forced the use of cars on paved roads resulting in pollution and the use of carbon fuels. It resulted in mega homes too costly to heat or cool and green lawns that used up too much water. Sprawl was an environmental problem.
The solution was densification. If cities were to eliminate single-family zoning and encourage greater density of housing and business, it would be good for the environment, especially if coupled with the encouragement of mass transit. It would yield a better use of land, provide for less use of carbon fuels and private cars to move people around. Additionally, elimination of single-family zoning would encourage the building of more affordable housing and address the legacy of residential racial segregation.
— David Schultz, MinnPost