>>1966846yes, zoning is not the ONLY factor that leads to sprawl. it's one of the many driving forces behind it however.
>convenient land available for developmenttrue, but this is the case in a lot of places, and with proper planning should not neccessarily lead to sprawl.
>widespread car ownershipchicken and egg situation, car ownership encourages sprawl and sprawl encourages car ownership. many american cities for example started sprawling before the introduction of the car due to their extensive streetcar networks.
>wealth and growthsort of, but there's poor places with immense shantytown/favela sprawl as well
>low level of cultural/emotional attachment to specific placesi guess, not sure if you can quantify that
>desire for family formation and demand for peaceful suburban lifestylegranted, there was widespread demand for this after the war, but it's hardly sustainable in the long term seeing as growth is finite and costs of infrastructure and amenities can't keep up. especially not when cities demand exclusively single family zoning, which induces demand by giving people in need of housing no other options.
>but most of the world doesn't have abundant land paired with a moderately large and modestly wealthy local populationeven in the most densely populated country in europe (not counting microstates), the cities in the randstad area are surrounded by easy to develop farmland. if it wasn't for mandates against sprawl, places like den haag, rotterdam amsterdam and utrecht would have fused into a singular megacity. it's initiatives like the protected green wedges in amsterdam that prevented this.
>This is a meaningless criticism without specifying what, specifically, is inefficient.separating zones into residential and commercial etc. i'd argue walking to the baker around the corner gives one a higher quality of live than being stuck in traffic on the way to wallmart. the netherlands ranks in the top 10 of such metrics consistently.
