The Walmart in my community occupies an impressive 20-acre lot. The lot includes a massive parking lot spanning roughly 8.5 acres, a 6-acre building, and the rest allocated to roads and delivery truck space. In perspective, the parking area alone is more extensive than six football fields. But why do we need six acres of parking? For comparison, this Walmart is located in Shakopee, MN, where similar big-box stores dominate the suburban landscape.

Contrast this with a local downtown restaurant on just 0.10 acres of land with three street parking spots directly in front. If we used an equal amount of land as Walmart's for downtown-style businesses, we could fit more than 150 restaurants or small shops. That means 150 times the potential for tax revenue, jobs, and vibrant community life, all in the same amount of space.

The issue concerns more than just land efficiency; it also concerns the cost of city services. Every business needs services such as roads, water, sewage, policing, and fire coverage. The more spread out businesses are, the more expensive it is for the city to build and maintain these services. Sprawling developments like big-box stores drive up costs for everything from asphalt roads to water pipes, while mixed-use, walkable neighborhoods are far more efficient.

Cities with compact, walkable neighborhoods consistently outperform those relying on sprawl in economic metrics. Urban planners and researchers like those at Urban3 have shown that downtown-style developments provide much higher returns on investment for city services. The concentrated tax revenue from mixed-use areas allows cities to fund schools, public safety, and infrastructure more effectively. However, sprawling big-box stores often need more revenue to cover their associated costs.

By rethinking land use and prioritizing compact, efficient development, communities can reduce long-term expenses and foster economic resilience. How can we shift from the sprawl model to a more sustainable, urban future?

Published by: Annabelle Hanke