Sacré changement de paysage! Bienvenue?

4) Comparing LA and Atlanta to Paris and Barcelona is just ridiculous. Come on!

That being said, super interesting topic!

3) The NYT Magazine article highlights the role of housing cost and migration in fueling sprawl... not this article. There is enough research now to show that high housing costs in places like California are not just due to regulation. The argument falls apart without addressing those root causes.

2) Sprawl is not monolithic. At issue, I would argue, is not sprawl but how sprawl is regulated. Implicit in the authors' argument is that denser sprawl would be 'ok.' What about sprawl that integrates high-efficiency dwellings, renewable energies, transit connections, and diversified land use?

1) You cannot discuss urban land use without discussing other land use. What land is being converted matters. If the land is devoted to raising cows (the largest land use in the US), the trade-off is different from losing land that supports critical carbon sinks.