Urban sprawl, ecological footprint and the sustainable city. Is there an alternative to densification?
Urban sprawl is a classic concept in geography and urban planning. The term may even seem to be somewhat dated to people in Quebec and Canada. This is not to suggest that the physical reality that it describes no longer exists; it is simply because of the major difficulties encountered by urban planners trying to make it a local political priority and limit its impacts. In contrast, concern over urban sprawl is growing in France and the issue was identified by the UN in 2010 as a world -wide problem. Furthermore, the growing importance attached to sustainable development has generated renewed interest in the phenomenon and led to the development of new concepts and movements such as smart growth, new urbanism, compact cities, sustainable communities, sustainable urban development, etc. In this context, urban sprawl is a concept that needs to be fully reconsidered. This is the goal of the present article. In the first place, urban sprawl is an essential element in the fundamental debate on what constitutes good urban form. Secondly, urban sprawl still tends to be approached descriptively although the implementation of strict controls on urban development raises a significant number of ethical and political questions: what is the best kind of residential density to aim for? Can there be legitimate political intervention in response to housing preferences expressed by the majority of urban citizens? How can the concept of the ecological footprint we leave contribute to the debate? Are there alternatives to densification if we are to achieve the goal of sustainable cities? We base our discussion of these issues on a review of the literature. Put in the most simple terms, we would suggest a nuanced use of the concepts of urban sprawl and ecological footprints, while explicitly recognizing the paucity of generic urban models for the creation of sustainable cities.