Urbanism Vs Urban Sprawl

In the United States discussions between whether or not urban sprawl or new urbanism is better for the economy and the environment still stands. Is it practical to have communities closer together for lack of distance decay? Should regions contain small populations spread throughout open space? Today in the United States new urbanism seems to be the chosen economical and environmental design for mapping towns and cities. Although urban sprawl and new urbanism are almost complete opposites in their forms of area, both need to contain key requirements for the people living in these urban environments. Some of these important points include: regional transportation, parking, street plans, shops, civic buildings & workplaces, and residential distribution. One major factor in populous environments is transportation. One thing that new urbanism differs in from urban sprawl is the use for highways. Highways can be seen through a negative perspective because of the amount of traffic that builds up

When businesses have parking adjacent or behind their storefronts they don’t push their buildings farther from the street and from neighboring companies; this looses that aspect of pedestrians visiting their buildings. When housing is added to an environment, the decision of placing and designing backyards, driveways, and garages differ between new urbanism and urban sprawl. Housing that usually has garages located to the side of the property have larger backyards and more enclosure to roads and adjacent properties. New urbanism follows this strategy while urban sprawling environments loose the interaction between residents and their neighbors, as well as enforcing street parking. Urban sprawl also encourages parallel parking, which breeds traffic, congestion, and a negative response from