Understand the energy efficiency and environmental impact of taller, more-compact cities compared with shorter, more-sprawling cities
Learn about the energy efficiency and environmental impact of taller, more-compact cities contrasted with shorter, more-sprawling ones.
© MinuteEarth (A Britannica Publishing Partner)
-
© SpaceX/Reuters; music © Ian Post/Artlist.ioSpaceX's Starship V3 megarocket launched on May 22, 2026.
-
Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.Dairy farming in Denmark.
-
© 2026 Thomson ReutersOne robot ran a sub-9 second 100-meter dash in a 2026 competition—and promptly crashed into a padded wall.
-
Contunico © ZDF Studios GmbH, MainzResearchers are looking for new ways to recycle building materials, including steel, wood, and concrete.
-
© MinuteEarth (A Britannica Publishing Partner)Animals face a variety of threats when they migrate across the infrastructure built by humans. The video highlights some ways special kinds of bridges can assist animals in their journeys across roads, clear-cuts, and other barriers.
-
Jesse Allen and Robert Simmon—NASA Earth Observatory/Landsat 5/USGS Global Visualization ViewerUrban sprawl in metropolitan Las Vegas, Nevada, U.S., from 1984 to 2009.
-
© MinuteEarth (A Britannica Publishing Partner)While many native species are lost when a natural landscape changes into an urban one, some species survive and thrive. Several plants, animals, and other organisms adapt to the challenges of urban living by changing their behaviour, as well as by slightly changing their genetic makeup.
Transcript
Every day for the next 35 years, an average of 170,000 people will move to or be born in cities in the developing world, mostly in fast-growing areas in Asia and Africa. And there's a lot to love about cities. They're chock full of jobs, art, jobs, community, a small fortune in coins tossed in public fountains, and jobs.
Cities can be good for the planet, too. Their compact nature means that water, power, building materials, transportation, and land can be used super efficiently.
Except cities aren't always the super compact islands of Utopian awesome we sometimes imagine. That's because they're usually made up of urban cores, surrounded by less dense residential, commercial, and industrial zones that sprawl on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on.
Many of us may think of the suburbs as leafy green lanes lined with picket fences and giant slobbery dogs. But suburbia comes in many forms and people in suburbs of all types gobble up more energy, water, and other resources and emit more pollutants than those people in taller, denser, urban neighborhoods.
They travel further to work and school, have more cars and drive them further, heat and cool bigger homes, and maintain bigger yards, negating the compact efficiency of the dense urban cores they surround.
So suburb-ringed cities with low overall densities are much less efficient than those that are tightly packed and unfortunately, cities around the world are expanding twice as fast in area as they are in population, using up more land, more energy, and more stuff per person.
We could reverse this trend by getting rid of resource-hungry suburban sprawl altogether but that just isn't how cities tend to develop organically.
In reality, wide highways and cheap gas tend to encourage more cars and commuters and height limits on buildings or zoning of homes and businesses separately push growth outward.
So policies allow us to influence the shapes of our cities for bad or good. Investing in mass transit and boosting gas prices, encourages people to ditch their cars and live closer to each other, while mixed zoning laws allow them to work and play closer to home. And when people live densely, they use resources less intensely.
So in cities, as in life, we have a choice, sprawl or grow tall.
Cities can be good for the planet, too. Their compact nature means that water, power, building materials, transportation, and land can be used super efficiently.
Except cities aren't always the super compact islands of Utopian awesome we sometimes imagine. That's because they're usually made up of urban cores, surrounded by less dense residential, commercial, and industrial zones that sprawl on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on.
Many of us may think of the suburbs as leafy green lanes lined with picket fences and giant slobbery dogs. But suburbia comes in many forms and people in suburbs of all types gobble up more energy, water, and other resources and emit more pollutants than those people in taller, denser, urban neighborhoods.
They travel further to work and school, have more cars and drive them further, heat and cool bigger homes, and maintain bigger yards, negating the compact efficiency of the dense urban cores they surround.
So suburb-ringed cities with low overall densities are much less efficient than those that are tightly packed and unfortunately, cities around the world are expanding twice as fast in area as they are in population, using up more land, more energy, and more stuff per person.
We could reverse this trend by getting rid of resource-hungry suburban sprawl altogether but that just isn't how cities tend to develop organically.
In reality, wide highways and cheap gas tend to encourage more cars and commuters and height limits on buildings or zoning of homes and businesses separately push growth outward.
So policies allow us to influence the shapes of our cities for bad or good. Investing in mass transit and boosting gas prices, encourages people to ditch their cars and live closer to each other, while mixed zoning laws allow them to work and play closer to home. And when people live densely, they use resources less intensely.
So in cities, as in life, we have a choice, sprawl or grow tall.