Everyone knows sprawl is bad because it's massively energy-inefficient, destroys farmland and rural lifestyles, contributes to the concentration of the food system, requires massive amounts of new infrastructure to exist, increases roadway runoff into streams and soil, leads to more car crashes, promotes sedentary lifestyles that lead to obesity and shorter life spans, and weakens ties to friends, family, and community, for starters.

But if all that isn't enough for you, Grist proposes another reason to oppose the rise of sprawl: Turns out it may be bad for local economies. Because sprawling areas are frequently so unpleasant and inconvenient to live in---in part because jobs are so far from homes, forcing everyone to drive---companies say they're having trouble finding qualified, educated workers.

From a letter from Andrew Basile, Jr., the CEO of a legal firm with offices in Troy, Mich., entitled "Why our growing firm may have to leave Michigan":

It's nearly a certainty that we will have to relocate (or at a minimum expand) our business out of Michigan if we want to grow ...

We are becoming a place where people without resources are grudgingly forced to live. A place without youth, prospects, respect, money or influence.

There's a simple reason why many people don't want to live here: it's an unpleasant place because most of it is visually unattractive and because it is lacking in quality living options other than tract suburbia. Some might call this poor "quality of life." A better term might be poor "quality of place." ...

Things are spread too far apart. You have to drive everywhere. There's no mass transit. There are no viable cities. Lots of it is really ugly, especially the mile after mile of sterile and often dingy suburban strip shopping and utility wires that line our dilapidated roads (note above). There's no nearby open space for most people (living in Birmingham, it's 45 minutes in traffic to places like Proud Lake or Kensington). It's impossible to get around by bike without taking your life in your hands. Most people lead sedentary lifestyles. There's a grating "car culture" that is really off-putting to many people from outside of Michigan....

The fundamental problem it seems to me is that our region as gone berserk on suburbia to the expense of having any type of nearby open space or viable urban communities, which are the two primary spatial assets that attract and retain the best human capital.

Sure, you may say, but we're not Detroit. True. But if the things that companies value most include walkable communities, transit, urban density, open space, and bike lanes, shouldn't we investing in those---instead of, say, miles and miles of new or expanded highways?