Here is Issi Romen's Romem's "Can U.S. Cities Compensate for Urban Sprawl by Growing Denser?"
It's a thoughtful piece. Here are my top five thoughts and responses. Readers of this blog may have encountered these five "pillars" (apologies to David Henderson) before.
1. "Sprawl" is vague, pejorative and misleading. We have auto-oriented development -- because autos are dominant.
2. "Density" is likewise misleading. Can we describe a large urban area via just one number? There are many densities in most places -- to accommodate a variety of tastes and interests.
3. Planning policies are a mixed picture. The ones in place and the ones advertised may not be the same. A lot happens in the approvals process. This includes too much cronyism.
4. Market forces are the prime movers of development. Development that fails the market test has a bleak future. In the event, even government subsidies can only go so far.
5. There is no way for planners (or anyone) to know the right (or wrong) density. There is a diversity of tastes and opportunities out there. These are best evaluated and responded to by people with (i) local knowledge; and (ii) the capacity to take risks.