This really requires more than a simple answer on a web board. If the sprawl is already an established fact, then you want remediation of the problems. In the greater Portland, Oregon area you can find some suggestions: expansion of public transportation and light rail to reduce cars on the road and pollution and shorten commute time; land-use planning that puts hard boundaries on urban growth, forcing densification of earlier sprawl areas into higher-density solutions; etc.

But if the sprawl problem is foreseen and not yet manifest, you have much better options! I recommend starting from first principles: Why urban? Why sprawl?

The centralization of cities has occured from ancient times, and relates to resources, transportation and communication: people had to be near each other for efficiency in supply and in communication. Those conditions are largely transcended in modern life, yet we have not changed our ways. People need to live near where they work; in many cases, people now work where they live. New homes come with home offices. As a result of sprawl, large shopping centers ring major cities, and people no longer go "downtown" to shop or live, leading to central urban decay.

Urban "sprawl" occurs when population pressure expands settlement to previously rural areas. This is not particularly efficient from an energy and urban structure standpoint, requiring ever-spreading roads and service infrastructure. We are realizing that from a "feeding the population" aspect and global health aspect, we cannot keep paving valuable arable farmland, nor draining and "reclaiming" swamps and wetlands and reducing our ecological health and biodiversity.

One thing I must say in an era of global warming (whatever the causes) is that the many population centers near sea-level are facing serious problems, as sea level is almost certainly going to rise. If those are going to "sprawl", I'd highly recommend planners direct that sprawl and slow movement of the city itself to higher ground.

Modern engineering has brought us skyscrapers. Modern cities sprout them only centrally, like a slime-mold reaching to spore. This may not be their best use. I propose skyscrapers be dispersed widely through an area, with largely undeveloped land, parks, or farms surrounding them. Inside each should be its own town, with shopping, offices, light manufacturing, and abundant, noise-proofed housing.

In WWII, a major airplane factory in San Diego, CA had a pastoral suburban scene of trees, roads, and houses built on its roof, to disguise it. Modern sprawling buildings should do the same thing for real, replacing the valuable land the building displaced.

This system lets the people see and enjoy the open country that so refreshes the soul (and air), while still living in very high-density, but well-designed and livable, environments.

So, that is one vision. Look at an urban area, especially at night, from high altitude. The lights and roads and cars clearly bespeak an advanced, intelligent species. But the overall pattern of growth and development is strictly basic and instinctive: follow the water, colonize the easiest areas first, and in some cases you can see the burned-out centers of thoughtlessly depleted and abandoned cores. At this scale our species is not showing its intelligence. It is the same growth pattern an algae, moss, or mold would exhibit. We can, should, and need to do better.

Tackle these problems from First Principles, from the ground up, and build communities intelligently.

About me: I have spent many years studying the requirements and designs for large community development in space colonies, lunar and Mars bases, etc. And so we are acutely aware of these naturally-arising problems from human nature and necessity, and the need to provide new, innovative solutions.

Chris, although you said that "the rapid development of the city always has two sides to everything" in your question I just saw the bad one. This is a very current discussion in Christchurch (New Zealand) where I live. Although the population is reasonably small the city is very dispersed. The problem is that although in many cases urban sprawl is seen as a problem in itself, the local culture is really attached to the land and the city is internationally known as the Garden City. This means that we do need space for private gardens and "larger" and frequent green areas throughout the city. It is part of the local identity. From my point of view the biggest problem here is public transportation, as locals insist they like their cars and there is something like 2 cars per person in the country. Of course the poor public transportation is a consequence of urban sprawl as well. Many bus lines attend small numbers in specific areas, as a consequence they are less frequent and we have to walk longer distances to find a bus stop. I do think though that the image of the Garden City is important in many senses, especially because of the local identity and economy (as it is part of the touristic attractions). Christchurch is a great city, but is dispersed. Increasing density shouldn't be the only solution. Auckland has been implementing medium density, but as the larger city in the county their situation is different. We certainly don't want to face serious problems to be forced to take action, but surely we should find a middle ground that is sustainable and environment friendly while preserving the local culture.

Prior to climbing a wall, it is vital to decide if we are leaning the ladder against the right wall. So before you deal with the negative impact of urban sprawl, make sure there are real bads or that the bads are not far overwhelmed by the goods. I recommend taking a serious look at the book “Don’t Call it Sprawl” by William T. Bogart.

While I don’t necessarily agree with some of his ideas, it is worthwhile reading the claims of this contrarian scholar – seeing his points and even countering them causes us to think.

Some of the measures taken by planners to overcome sprawl (i.e. to prevent new green-field construction) have had serious non-desirable consequences. By limiting the available land for urban use (e.g. through a green-belt as in London or Seoul) housing prices have soared making these cities inaccessible to all but the very rich.

A smart way to overcome miles and miles of urban continuum, while achieving a nice balance between city and country, has been the combined land-use and transportation policy shared by greater Stockholm, Copenhagen and Amsterdam. These cities have created rail corridors radiating out of the central city, with satellite towns centered upon the rail stops.

This urban geometry resulted in green wedges of country penetrating deeply towards the core. This approach provides a far higher interface between built space and open space than a green-belt, and simultaneously generates far less automotive traffic. See the book Transit Metropolis by Robert Cervero.

If you look at the ex-ante map of Greater Chicago of the late 1950s, you will see that that city was actually the quintessential Transit Metropolis. CATS, the Chicago Area Transportation Plan recommended that the generous green wedges between the rail corridors be filled up with construction (helped by the planned expressway system) in the name of efficiency, and that is what happened there.

Adding insult to injury, the erstwhile all-powerful Detroit led automotive industry bought up the rail infra-structure (street-car lines) in many great American cities and demolished it to make way for the ubiquitous private car. Today, some cities are reversing this process and reintroducing street-cars, calling them “light-rail”.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230738894_Peri-Urban_to_Urban_Landscape_Patterns_Elucidation_through_Spatial_Metrics

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229826816_Empirical_patterns_of_the_influence_of_Spatial_Resolution_of_Remote_Sensing_Data_on_Landscape_Metrics