A principal imperative of “smart growth” is to stop the geographical expansion ("sprawl") of urban areas and make them more compact (more dense). Some of the most important strategies for making more urban areas more dense are land rationing, often through urban growth boundaries and other measures that severely limit the amount of land that can be used for development, such as development rationing through impact fees.

A number of rationales have been used to support densification and land rationing. However, not all agree that smart growth has conclusively demonstrated any imperative that justifies its proposed strategies.  A group of academics and researchers believe that the “smart growth” movement has not identified any problem of sufficient imperative to justify a number of its strategies, including land rationing. They (including this author) have drafted a statement of market oriented land use principles, called the Lone Mountain Compact, which asserts:

The most fundamental principle is that, absent a material threat to other individuals or the community, people should be allowed to live and work where and how they like.

 Arguments and counter-arguments follow.

Argument for Smart Growth: Farmland is being lost due to urbanization

Counter-Argument: New urbanization in the United States has equaled less than one-fifth of the land taken out of agricultural production. Most farmland loss is due to productivity, not urbanization. There is no threat to food supply from urbanization, according to the US Department of Agriculture.

Argument for Smart Growth: Open space is being threatened by urban expansion.

Counter-Argument: More land has been preserved in rural parks than has been consumed in urbanization since 1950.[1] Open space has been considerably increased, especially due to the reduction in farmland that has occurred because of improved productivity.

Argument for Smart Growth: More dense urban areas are required to reduce traffic congestion.

International and US data show that traffic congestion is less where there urban areas are less dense.

Argument for Smart Growth: More dense urban areas are required so that the “transit choice” can be provided and dependence on the automobile reduced.

Counter-Argument: To provide transit choice for more than a small minority of trips would require densification far in excess of that imaginable in modern urban areas, whether in the US or Europe.

Argument for Smart Growth: More dense urban areas are required to reduce travel times.

Counter-Argument: International and US data show that work trip travel times are shorter where urban areas are less dense.

Argument for Smart Growth: The cost of living is lower in more dense urban areas.

Counter-Argument: While transportation costs are greater in more sprawling urban areas, lower housing costs more than make up the difference, making the overall cost of living lower where sprawl is greater.

Argument for Smart Growth: More dense urban areas are more equitable for low-income households

Counter-Argument: Overall home ownership rates and black home ownership rates tend to be higher where there is more sprawl.

Argument for Smart Growth: More dense urban areas are required to reduce air pollution.

Counter-Argument: International and US data show that is air pollution is less intense where urban areas are less dense.

Argument for Smart Growth: More dense urban areas have lower infrastructure costs.

Counter-Argument: Infrastructure costs are generally lower in lower density urban areas. Higher density cities tend to have higher tax burdens per capita[2]

Argument for Smart Growth:  Urban sprawl has been at the expense of central cities.

The overwhelming percentage of US suburban growth (85 percent) has been natural growth and from rural areas, rather than from central cities. Suburbanization is universal in high-income nations and urban densities have been falling at an even greater rate in Europe and Canada.