Forget about being slightly above average. The Twin Cities placed in the bottom third of 51 U.S. metro areas in its efforts to combat ubran sprawl.
But critics agree that the real question is whether its No. 37 ranking in a study released Wednesday stems from development patterns that are now years into the past, and whether the winds are changing in this decade.
Once denounced as a cold Atlanta in terms of sprawl, the Twin Cities had more than twice as good a score as that Southern city. And Smart Growth America, the advocacy group behind the new report, said there are signs here of better things to come.
"Minneapolis-St. Paul is making significant investments in transit," said Ilana Preuss, chief of staff for Washington, D.C.-based Smart Growth, which commissioned the study. It's the kind of thing that can "catapult you guys forward."
A local activist who has been working with the national group, however, said the report is "very critical of us," considering the region's rank among its national peers.
Zachary Zweifler, head of development at ARISE (Alliance to Re-Industrialize for a Sustainable Economy), said the area's weak performance signals a need to move aggressively "on all the opportunities coming up for different types of development, such as the Ford site," the 135-acre location once used for auto manufacturing that could be a place for an urban village with lots of living units and jobs.
Smart Growth America is an anti-sprawl advocacy group, but its research efforts have gained wide acceptance, acknowledging as they do the value of much current suburban development.
In this study of U.S. metro areas with a population of 1 million or more, it gave scores based on measures of compact development, so the higher the score, the better a metro area stood in combating sprawl. The scores range from around 200 for New York and San Francisco — extraordinarily compact metro areas by American standards — to 41 for Atlanta, with its vast plume of suburbs.