I really don't think this is the case here. Cities like Lafayette are just plain inefficient, and the inefficiency scales with growth: the more growth you have

I really don't think this is the case here. Cities like Lafayette are just plain inefficient, and the inefficiency scales with growth: the more growth you have, the more sprawl you have, which means the more expensive things are, which leads to more inefficiency. This is probably one of the forces constraining the growth of cities like this. The problem with most of suburban America is that it's completely unsustainable. Almost all suburban cities in the US require a constant injection of Federal funds to maintain infrastructure. Most people don't realize this because it's really something politicians score brownie points for, hence the accounting subterfuge they engage in (as mentioned in the article), as do most small cities in the USA. We have no idea how long this Federal subsidy will be maintain, making it difficult to plan for. So many Americans want this idyllic, unsustainable suburban life-style that no politician will keep their job if they try to "take it away" (read: address the issue). But the longer we wait to build more sustainable cities, the worse things will be during the inevitable implosion. America needs to be building medium-density, car-adverse cities now. The country can't afford to continue subsidizing driving to the degree that it has post-WWII. If this doesn't happen, most of the country is going to enter a serious depression.