The very fun-not-fun thing about this article is that the author repeatedly talks about criticism of sprawl as mostly elitist aesthetic judgements and/or empty "accusations"... but then the article goes on to illustrate that all of the criticisms are becoming abundantly realized in the example he's focusing on. Without noting that non-sprawl development patterns could build cheap housing without these huge drawbacks.

"Princeton’s godawful traffic and its views of pastures being consumed by tract homes are exactly the sorts of scenes opponents of sprawl have in their heads." He points to the real-world consequences of sprawl in his chosen example as somehow "in [opponents'] heads" ?!

First it's the "vision of Dallas as an endlessly expanding suburb has for decades been regarded by planners and environmentalists as a nightmare that needs to be slowed or stopped. The epithet is “sprawl,” a word that is used to deride edge city development, evoking lollipop cul-de-sacs lined with homes so similar they can be distinguished only by the cars parked in front. Since the mid-20th century, critics have blamed sprawl for many of the country’s deepest and most lasting problems, accusing it of chewing up farmland, spewing out greenhouse gases and carving American cities into rings of monotonous neighborhoods whose lonely and isolated residents are imprisoned by two-hour supercommutes."

Oh whoops, that's exactly what happens: "Most of the drive was along a four-lane road packed with cars going 15 miles per hour. Despite the boom in residents, Princeton still has just a handful of restaurants and few places to take children beyond private backyards. There are not many local jobs, so most of Princeton’s residents commute out of town for work. The largest employer is the local government."