An Analysis of American and European City-Building: Sprawl vs. Density (And Why Dense is Best)

    The European mind cannot conceptualize many things about the US, and the lack of robust public transportation systems and walkable infrastructure is one of the biggest mysteries to Europeans visiting the US and Americans returning from a trip abroad. It's puzzling that many of those Americans who are fortunate to have skipped across the pond, after their trip lauding about how they loved being able to walk everywhere, seemingly never have the thought cross their minds that we could have the same thing over here. We have centuries of city-building to draw upon from many different types of civilizations. Why do we as Americans seemingly not use any of it in our modern urban planning? Are cars the be-all end-all and that's how it will always be? America is laced with hideous mega highways plagued by a never-ending desire to "just add one more lane" to address the ongoing and persistent traffic congestions. Was there a time when American cities rivaled European cities in terms of livability and architectural aesthetic? Yes, looking at "before and after" images of many cities across the US, it's clear we had the chops. So, what happened and can we reverse it?

    Before delving in, when in urbanist spaces there's a level of lingo thrown about that a casual should know. Starting with urbanism itself, what is it? Basically, it is how cities develop themselves and describes how they're organized; definitionally, it is neutral: there can be "good" and "bad" urbanism. When referring to "good" urbanism, I mean the kind that promotes sustainable pedestrian mobility, livable spaces, and robust public transportation networks. When people use "urbanism" colloquially, they mean advocating for this, and overall less car-dependent infrastructure since nobody wants "bad" urbanism. NIMBY, attributed to Emilie Travel Livezey for things like landfills, stands for Not In My Backyard, referring to those, primarily in affluent suburbs or neighborhoods, who theoretically would support projects, such as affordable housing or transit targeting accessibility to lower-income communities but don't want it in their neighborhoods. Coined by Charles Marohn of Strong Towns, "stroads" are a Frankenstein abomination between a street and a road, essentially a concrete path that is neither. They promote unexpected car movements, high speeds, and are anti-foot traffic. Big box stores are those which one can find, oftentimes off of a "stroad" in suburbia, though occasionally in more urban environments as well; basically, think of a Walmart.

    After WWII, President Eisenhower enacted the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act. This interconnected the country like never before, cutting cross-country trips from months to a few days. While this did a lot of good, especially for the time, it set the precedent for the car-dominant infrastructure of the modern era. The privatized rail industry couldn't compete with the heavily subsidized auto and air travel industries.

    One of the most shocking displays of contrast as to what an American city is like now and what it used to be is Kansas City.

 In contrast, here's Warsaw. Try to guess which one was bombed.

     You may be reading this from your car thinking that while this looks nice there's no feasibility of driving through it, especially with all those pesky pedestrians in the way. Keep in mind that this is a RECONSTRUCTION. Why would anyone in their right mind commit to reconstructing something so unpractical? As a thought exercise, compare Warsaw's Stare Miasto (above) with the following images and ask yourself which looks more conducive to human life.

    

    There is an important lesson in how the reconstruction of Warsaw's Old Town came about: buildings are deeply tied to a nation's pride and culture. When I look at an endless parking lot facing a "big box" Walmart against a row of fast food drive-throughs dotted along a "stroad", I don't feel a sense of pride in my country, rather a bubbling rage that we let it deteriorate in this way.

    Huawei committed a huge sum of money to building a beautiful traditional European-styled town for it's Dongguan campus library. This correctly highlights the timeless beauty within European architectural design, demonstrating the importance of pretty buildings.

    Am I suggesting we start building white brick buildings and castle towns across the US to emulate European historical sites? No, because I think that would be tacky, albeit a few more towns like Leavenworth, WA would be more than welcomed. America has its own architectural styles to draw upon, most notably post-Colonial that one can see when on the East Coast. Rather than cookie-cutter McHellscapes that turned every American city into the same bland, soulless, parking lot, suburban corporate office building park, I would prefer regions reverting to their original building styles. For example, while I like the post-Colonial style, as someone from Texas I would prefer an emphasis on Western and mission revivalist architecture, seen in the Fort Worth Stockyards or Dallas' West End to give each region back a sense of individualistic identity.

    Let's talk public transportation. First, I want to make it known that I love Amtrak. The farthest trip I completed was from Atlanta to Washington, DC, which took me around 16 hours. However, it doesn't hold a candle to the European rail system. The same distance by train, in contrast, which would be from Warsaw to Dusseldorf, is about 6 hours shorter, even accounting for a layover. Not only was it significantly longer, but the ride was incredibly bumpy. Credit where credit is due, we just got a decently "high-speed" route from Washington, DC to Boston: the new Acela NextGen, and oppositely from Washington, DC to Orlando, Florida the "Auto Train" that allows you to take your car on the train with you.

 

    

    Granted, countries in Europe (and the continent itself) are so much smaller than the United States. The US actually has more rail mileage than the EU, though most of which is for long-distance freight. At its peak in 1916, the US had 254,000 miles and now it's down to 138,000. The brown lines are dismantled tracks.

    Secondly, why would anyone take a train when there's nowhere to walk to or get from the train station to where you want to go within the cities? That's why intra-city systems and local issues are vital to address first. Texas cities, despite a few being some of the largest in the country, both currently and without projected to slow growth, face severe lack of public transportation infrastructure. 1 million plus metropolises, such as Houston (over 2 million), San Antonio, Dallas, and soon Austin and Fort Worth, are all sprawled out to oblivion. Arlington, TX, located in the middle of Dallas and Fort Worth, is currently the largest city in the nation without a fixed-route transit system despite its population being at almost half a million. Not to be totally Texas-centric, even if the situation is dire, let's move our gaze to other cities located in other states. Los Angeles, our second city, also faces horrific sprawl, similar to the situation TX cities find themselves in. While it does have an extensive, on paper, transit system fitted with a subway, trams, and bus lines, many don't think it's sufficient for its size--and they're correct. Let's compare the transit maps of two cities with nearly the same population: Madrid, Spain and LA.

    When everything is so spread out and inaccessible on foot, car travel becomes a necessity, rather than a choice. Who's to blame? We certainly can point fingers and blame the auto, oil, and airline industries, though constant blaming without action isn't going to do anything since we can't change the past. What we need is more mainstream weight behind the already popular trend of people wanting to be less car-dependent and live in so-called "15-minute cities" without indulging the irrelevant leftist political noise from places like r/fuckcars that just detract any bipartisan momentum that we can hope to gain: urbanism is and has to remain bipartisan. Take Carmel, Indiana, a suburb of Indianapolis that saw massive sustainable development despite being in a deeply red state with a Republican mayor.

    There's also the issue of safety. Growing up in Dallas, many viewed public transportation as unsafe. It is a pariah that many can't seem to shake, and NIMBY types perpetuate this narrative. Of course, if more people rode it, and other areas around the country had ridership rates rivaling cities, such as Boston or Washington, DC, the stigma would dissipate. Unfortunately, incidents like the Irina Zarutska case do happen and only exacerbate this sentiment further, despite the many more tragic car accidents that happen every year, not to mention related sickness and premature deaths stemming from air pollution created by car and truck emissions.

    Unfortunately, "urbanism" is still niche, and taking a proactive approach in local politics isn't the norm. That being said, thankfully, many have echoed this sentiment and have been extremely vocal across the country, seeing tangible results in telling people that they can reclaim their streets and change the car-dominant urban planning status quo.

    There are many online who do a great job at getting people interested in positive urbanism and its benefits. Names that come to mind are Not Just Bikes and Alexander Rotmensz, as well as the Strong Towns YouTube channel that consistently puts out quality content; here's a Reddit post with more recommendations. Speaking of Reddit, here's some subreddits: r/urbanism, r/tacticalurbanism, and r/walkablecities. Once initiated in the realm of urbanism, though, local involvement is the more important next step to bring about positive community cohesion and camaraderie. I started a list of all positive urbanist organizations in the United States. Using this list, I created an interactive map on which a user can select their state and see all of their local organizations to get involved with grassroots activism. If you would like to add to it, please do so by following this link. Some notable national organizations that everyone reading this should look into are Better Block (have to rep my TX people right off the bat), Strong Towns, and the Congress for the New Urbanism.

    So, less car-dependent infrastructure looks more aesthetically-pleasing, but what are the numbers and benefits to really sell it to the masses? According to a report from the Union of Concerned Scientists entitled "Freedom to Move", shifting land use patterns and investing in efforts for development of walking, biking, and transit infrastructure would save Americans $6.2 trillion more than solely focusing on electrifying the auto industry. Even if most people didn't stop driving altogether, as a nation we'd still save $5.9 trillion in car-related expenses.

    Are there any monetary initiatives we can take besides paying for transit tickets, donating to local organizations, etc.? What about a blended finance fund that would catalyze concessional capital for investment? So many people want to invest towards sustainable causes, and a project like this would yield tangible results that people would be able to see in their own communities. It would allow individuals to invest directly in the creation of walkable, transit-oriented places. Rather than owning infrastructure or speculating on ridership, the fund would provide concessional, early-stage capital for mixed-use development, pedestrian-first public realm improvements, and light and heavy rail systems, precisely the phases that often delay or derail projects despite broad public support. By absorbing early risk and sitting below traditional public debt, the fund could lower borrowing costs for cities while remaining compatible with public ownership and democratic control. Investor returns would be generated through predictable public payments and long-term contracts rather than fares, enabling dividends and capital recycling over time. While federal credit programs, municipal bonds, and transit-oriented development funds already play important roles in financing urban infrastructure, none are designed to mobilize retail capital at the catalytic layer. A blended urbanism fund would fill this gap by packaging early-stage, concessionary investments in housing, walkable streets, and rail transit into a single, repeatable vehicle.

    There are some difficulties to this approach that are important to address: a) public agencies are not structured to accept retail capital, b) retail investment platforms have focused on asset classes with clear private ownership and control, c) traditional infrastructure investors tend to avoid the catalytic layer altogether, and d) urbanism as an entity has not been treated as a general thing to invest in. Housing, pedestrian infrastructure, and transit are typically financed through entirely separate channels, despite being so fundamentally tied together, which is the European attitude toward urban planning. Mixed-use real estate may attract private capital, while sidewalks and rail lines rely on grants or tax-backed debt. The absence of an integrated financial framework has prevented capital from being recycled across the full urban system, even though doing so would reduce risk and improve outcomes. When US cities pursue transit investment, they may not necessarily have land use change guarantees, whereas in Europe often transit agencies have service and land use near stations or operate within frameworks that prioritize density with predictable, reliable long-term funding. Therefore, the fund that's proposed is essentially a bridge that acts as a mediator, streamlining all of this diverse capital to come together.

    While holistic urban planning is crucial to Europe's urban planning, how zoning differs is equally as important to understand. European countries do have zoning laws, but they function very differently from zoning in the United States. Rather than rigidly separating residential, commercial, and civic uses, European planning systems generally assume mixed use as the norm and focus on regulating building form, height, and design quality. Density near transit is typically planned in advance through regional and municipal development plans, not negotiated on a project-by-project basis, and local governments have limited ability to veto growth that aligns with adopted plans. Public participation occurs primarily when plans are written, making approvals more predictable once rules are set. As a result, European zoning supports walkability, continuous housing production, and financially viable transit by design, whereas American zoning often treats density and mixed use as exceptions that require political and financial workarounds.

    In the US, we don't need to fully copy Europe's zoning laws, but promote density and restore predictability to urban growth. This begins with legalizing more housing by right, especially near transit and jobs, by allowing duplexes, fourplexes, small apartment buildings, and mixed-use development in areas currently reserved for single-family homes, without discretionary approvals or political hearings. Reform also requires shifting from use-based zoning to form-based rules that regulate height, massing, setbacks, and street frontage rather than prohibiting residential or commercial activity outright, reflecting how both pre-WWII American cities and contemporary European cities were built. We must reduce local veto points by moving public participation to the plan-writing stage and ensuring that projects consistent with adopted plans receive fast, ministerial approval. These regulatory changes should be reinforced by tying zoning reform directly to public investment, conditioning federal and state funding for transit, housing, and infrastructure on allowing sufficient density and mixed use near stations and corridors. Ultimately, zoning must be reframed as a civic obligation rather than a private entitlement so that American cities can grow intentionally instead of defensively.

    While reforming zoning is a good starting point, it's not enough. Even when rules are changed, years of underbuilding, fragmented governance, and underfunded public infrastructure leave many cities without the capital needed to translate new legal capacity into real, walkable places. This is where innovative financing mechanisms, such as the proposed blended urbanism fund, can play a complementary role at the earliest and most uncertain stages. By lowering financial risk while zoning reforms take effect, these tools can help ensure that newly legal housing and transit are actually built, allowing regulatory change and investment to reinforce one another.

    Should people write to their local officials and representatives about reversing the trend of increased sprawl? Yes, by all means and I encourage it, however, emphasizing how these changes will impact your daily life is vital. The most effective communication includes choice, stability, and fiscal responsibility, not empty platitudes. Make it clear that our aim is to strengthen neighborhoods, not erase them.

    Walkable streets, dignified architecture, reliable transit, and vibrant mixed-use neighborhoods do not have to be exclusively European and people should have freedom in choice of mobility. Reversing sprawl does not require rejecting cars outright or copying another continent wholesale, but it does demand intentional choices: legalizing ordinary urban buildings, funding infrastructure that serves people rather than throughput, and creating mechanisms, political and financial, that turn public desire into built reality. Positive urbanism succeeds when residents see themselves not just as consumers of space, but as stewards of it. If we want cities that are worth caring about, we must first decide to build places that reflect care, continuity, and confidence in our shared future. Check the Walkability Index to see how your neighborhood stacks up against others in your city and across the country.

Note: I'm aware that this has been quite a Eurocentric article, much in part due to the regional emphasis of EurDC. There are many examples of amazing architectural styles and positive urbanism around the world that should be celebrated and placed on the same level of reverence.