Urban sprawl isn’t just bad to look at—it may also trap low-income families in poverty and widen racial inequalities. Research from the University of Utah shows that people raised in sprawling suburbs have fewer opportunities to climb the economic ladder compared to those from denser neighborhoods.
Sprawl, the studies explain, separates homes, jobs, and schools into far-flung zones, forcing residents to rely on cars and reducing access to work and services. This pattern has real consequences. Children growing up in low-sprawl areas—a measure of walkability and access to services—earn about $2,864 more per year as adults compared to those raised in high-sprawl neighborhoods.
Why Sprawl Matters
Using detailed U.S. Census data, the researchers found that sprawling cities are less likely to offer paths out of poverty. Dense neighborhoods with better access to jobs and public spaces often help low-income families move up. Yet, not all dense areas are equal. If neighborhoods are dominated by low-income or single-parent families, the benefits of density weaken.
“Walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods are good for mobility,” the researchers said, “but the social makeup of the area also matters.”
A Cycle of Disadvantage
Sprawl at the city level has broader effects: it increases racial and income segregation, weakens social bonds, and harms public health. On a smaller scale, sprawling neighborhoods reduce social interaction and support networks, key factors for economic success.
The team used data from the Opportunity Atlas, a resource that links the tax records of adults born between 1978 and 1983 to their parents’ incomes. This allowed them to see how neighborhood design affects outcomes over generations.
The findings suggest that sprawl is particularly harmful for low-income families, but less so for wealthier ones. Children from affluent families often do just as well—or even better—in sprawling neighborhoods, likely because their families can compensate for the lack of local resources.
What Can Be Done?
While the study doesn’t prove sprawl causes poor outcomes, it highlights how it ties public services to local wealth. Smaller, sprawling municipalities often rely on residents’ taxes to fund parks, schools, and other amenities. Wealthier areas get better services, while poorer ones fall behind.
To break this cycle, the researchers suggest reducing sprawl and improving transit and connectivity between neighborhoods. Planners could focus on creating mixed-use areas where work, school, and home are closer together.
“We can’t turn sprawling cities into dense ones overnight,” they said, “but we can shape neighborhoods that work for everyone, not just the wealthy.”
By tackling sprawl, cities could help lift more families out of poverty and create fairer opportunities for the next generation.
