Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is a sincere, genuine question on the part of someone who has no academic credentials in urban planning. Is there a tacit understanding in urban planning circles that density is desirable? I do get that impression from the admittedly limited reading I have done in this forum.
I do understand that density leads to certain efficiencies in land use and transportation, so I am guessing that may be the basis for apparent belief in the virtues of density. A closely related concept seems to be that cars are bad and public transit is good. Indeed, I understand that public transit is more efficient in moving large numbers of people while taking up less space and creating fewer delays (under conditions of high demand for centralized destinations).
Why am I asking this question which may seem overly elementary to regulars in this forum? Because it is my experience that when underlying assumptions are tacit rather than explicit, people tend to talk past each other when they do not share the underlying assumptions, leading to much frustration.
I believe that such mis-understanding is particularly rife in the case of rabid and zealous anit-car posters, whose user names I am purposefully omitting. For them, it seems cars are the eipitomy of evil, a root cause of most human problems. Perhaps we are just condemned to talk past each other in such cases.
I realize I am painting with a broad brush here, but I am hoping to receive answers which shed light on basic assumptions which I seem to be unaware of, or perhaps more accurately, only dimly aware of.
This is a sincere, genuine question on the part of someone who has no academic credentials in urban planning. Is there a tacit understanding in urban planning circles that density is desirable? I do get that impression from the admittedly limited reading I have done in this forum.
This isn't a professional forum, few people here have academic credentials. Many post, because I assume they like cities and just have an interest in seeing cities built a certain way. Many of those prefer dense urban neighborhoods, that feel pedestrian friendly and have people out on the streets. Higher densities make that more possible.
While density is a personal preference, I'd argues a low density city center is a bit subpar and wouldn't function well.
I think a lot of these discussions are based not just as what's most efficient, but what is more personally more appealing. Sure, dense neighborhoods have certain efficiency advantages, but that isn't really the main why I'm interested in them, or I suspect for most of the posters here.
This isn't a professional forum, few people here have academic credentials. Many post, because I assume they like cities and just have an interest in seeing cities built a certain way. Many of those prefer dense urban neighborhoods, that feel pedestrian friendly and have people out on the streets. Higher densities make that more possible.
While density is a personal preference, I'd argues a low density city center is a bit subpar and wouldn't function well.
I think a lot of these discussions are based not just as what's most efficient, but what is more personally more appealing. Sure, dense neighborhoods have certain efficiency advantages, but that isn't really the main why I'm interested in them, or I suspect for most of the posters here.
Just to note, it's not exactly about density but about the right density and not so much about having people out and about as the right people in the right situation. What I mean by that is if you go to any number of lifestyle shopping centers, there's generally people out and around (unless it's 6 a.m. or something). But these are the wrong kinds of people who got there in the wrong way of driving there. Similarly with density, if you look at "tower in the park" density, that's not the right kind of density. It's not as simple as more dense = more gooder. Tower in the park often has much higher density and would prevent sprawl, but that's not the right density. People would prefer more sprawl of the type they like to density of the wrong type.. Of course, they won't call it sprawl because it's the type of moderate density they like. But effectively it is sprawl. If you look at say San Francisco's suburban neighborhoods, they're really just sprawl. Monolithic SFH homes, single use, uniform design. They're no different than the suburbs a few miles of Daly City which inspired Little Boxes.
Excellent topic. I do not believe that the acceptance of the ideology "density is good" is required here, because I don't think that in the real world its accepted that "density is good". I think in the real world, "variety is good" is a better way to look at it, which is why as someone who is highly preferring and accepting of lower density environments to live and work in, I not only accept but am glad that within the US we're seeing a resurgence in urban life for those of whom would just rather live that way.
I think a lot of the hardcore folks who are anti-car and push density mainly for the fact of efficiency are completely devoid of reality and the idea of personal choice for people to actually enjoy where they live. That's not to ignore the trend that most development in the past 60 years has been generally lower density, nor does it ignore the fact that I'm sure many people who live in low density developments would probably rather live in a denser, more walkable environment. The great thing is that we're now building more variety than we have been in years, just my own observations around NYC, from other cities on this and other forums and in-person observations elsewhere. There is a demand for that type of living, possibly more so than in years past, and things are happening to supply that demand.
I don't look at this as "suburbs are dead" or "low density is over" or "people are finally being more efficient"...it's simply a part of life, its our reality...people want something, opportunists come along and that's the way it goes. If in some area people want subdivisions and Walmarts, people will build and governments will support subdivisions and Walmarts. If people want 5 story apartment walkable districts with supermarkets and other retail on the ground floor, people will build and governments will support 5 story apartment walkable districts with supermarkets and other retail on the ground floor. Not every place will want nor support either type of development, some will support both...it's a matter of where you live. But honestly, the thing that bothers me most is that some folks simply look at this as purely an issue of efficiency, while completely ignoring the fact that there's more to life than just "efficiency". Thankfully though, they can argue this all that they want but in the real world, the rest of us will continue to choose where we live by voting with our dollars and doing what we can to find the lifestyle and communities that are right for us.
You touched on some arguments as to why density is generally held up as an ideal here, but I will expound on them, since that seems to be what you're asking for.
The first reason is economic. Density allows for a greater market size within a smaller area, which is advantageous for businesses. A store where 20,000 people live within five miles is not going to be as successful as one where 200,000 or 2,000,000 people live sighing five miles. Of course, that's a bit of an extreme comparison, but its easy to seed the logic behind it. Because of that decrease in distance, businesses are also able to provide services more efficiently, which lowers costs on products used most frequently. It also allows governments to allocate services to those who need them more efficiently, which can reduce the tax burden on many households. Income inequality and geographic disparities hurt this somewhat, which can be seen in examples like New York, where its more expensive to be poor than the rest of the country, but less expensive to be wealthy. However, this is the result of a scarcity of housing, which arguably doubles as an argument for greater density.
The second reason is social. With a greater density of people comes a greater network of friends and acquaintances, a larger number of shops and restaurants, and more cultural and artistic venues. People are more likely to engage in their community when their access to each other is increased the way it is an a dense environment. Now, this kind of more sociable living isn't everyone's cup of tea, and that's why there have been country homes as long as there have been cities. Retreat from civilization can be nice, but the permanent retreat from civilization that low density suburban and exurban areas enforce leads to a destruction of the social fabric of society.
The final argument is environmental. A dense city consumes less land from farmland and from nature than a suburban city does, and thus allows for a greater preservation of wild areas, that are both arguably beneficial to the people that live near them and are worthy of conservation simply by existing. A dense city is more easily navigable both on foot and by public transportation, and thus doesn't waste energy resources on every commuter driving a car. A dense city may use more more water and electricity per square mile than a less dense city, but it uses less water and electricity per capita.
There are counter arguments to all of these points, but the concensus is generally that the benefits of density outweigh the drawbacks. Hopefully this is helpful in explaining density's value to anyone that might have been confused.
Excellent topic. I do not believe that the acceptance of the ideology "density is good" is required here, because I don't think that in the real world its accepted that "density is good". I think in the real world, "variety is good" is a better way to look at it, which is why as someone who is highly preferring and accepting of lower density environments to live and work in, I not only accept but am glad that within the US we're seeing a resurgence in urban life for those of whom would just rather live that way.
I think a lot of the hardcore folks who are anti-car and push density mainly for the fact of efficiency are completely devoid of reality and the idea of personal choice for people to actually enjoy where they live. That's not to ignore the trend that most development in the past 60 years has been generally lower density, nor does it ignore the fact that I'm sure many people who live in low density developments would probably rather live in a denser, more walkable environment. The great thing is that we're now building more variety than we have been in years, just my own observations around NYC, from other cities on this and other forums and in-person observations elsewhere. There is a demand for that type of living, possibly more so than in years past, and things are happening to supply that demand.
I don't look at this as "suburbs are dead" or "low density is over" or "people are finally being more efficient"...it's simply a part of life, its our reality...people want something, opportunists come along and that's the way it goes. If in some area people want subdivisions and Walmarts, people will build and governments will support subdivisions and Walmarts. If people want 5 story apartment walkable districts with supermarkets and other retail on the ground floor, people will build and governments will support 5 story apartment walkable districts with supermarkets and other retail on the ground floor. Not every place will want nor support either type of development, some will support both...it's a matter of where you live. But honestly, the thing that bothers me most is that some folks simply look at this as purely an issue of efficiency, while completely ignoring the fact that there's more to life than just "efficiency". Thankfully though, they can argue this all that they want but in the real world, the rest of us will continue to choose where we live by voting with our dollars and doing what we can to find the lifestyle and communities that are right for us.
But then you have situations where what the existing residents wants is to limit density and newcomers. Say San Francisco where in most of the city you really can't develop anything because there's height restrictions. You have a few mid-rise apartments that predate the restrictions but it's overwhelmingly low rise. So say you wanted to tear down a single use building and build a mid-rise mixed-use five story building in Inner Sunset. Even if it's in a 50-foot height limit, it still wouldn't conform to neighborhood standards. Basically, the NIMBYs don't want anything that isn't a 1-2 story building, 3 at the most. Even if you clear that hurdle, which is unlikely, redevelopment is effectively limited to heavy rail lines (BART) since the bus lines and light rail are already overburdened. While you might want to vote with your dollars, you'll never get the chance. San Francisco doesn't do infrastructure, community zoning boards are basically all-powerful everywhere and prefer abandoned buildings to mixed-use. I mean, there's legitimate points but mostly it's just NIMBYISM. It's not like in the last 80 years there has not been demand to open up areas for redevelopment or ample opportunity to build the infrastructure, but the people in a neighborhood generally moved there because they like it as is. They want the single-family homes and single-use buildings, not a bunch of five story apartments with retail on the ground floor.
You see that all over the place. Take Capitol Hill in Seattle. They've actually got a moratorium on redevelopment because the existing neighborhood community group is comprised of NIMBY-ists who didn't like the current zoning laws. While a developer might like to redevelop a couple single family homes into an apartment building, as per existing zoning laws they are allowed to do, and while people might want to rent an apartment instead of buy an expensive house... it's no go. It's not so much dollars as it is special interests that determine these things. Dollars can buy special interests, but that's usually not a very democratic process. On the opposite end, you have forced density from say ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments). While Pleasanton might not want increased density anymore than San Francisco does, ABAG is pushing it.
Really I think it's a case of everyone wants more density, they just don't want it in their neighborhood. The places that are easiest to develop, then, are more areas that are mostly abandoned or don't have much entrenched interest. Capitol Hill in Seattle is more desirable than Lake Union or Denny Triangle, but all the development is occurring in Lake Union and Denny Triangle because those neighborhoods were/are mostly parking lots, miniwarehouses, etc, versus Capitol Hill which is mostly affluent old people who like the neighborhood being mostly affluent old people. In San Francisco, development is in Mission Bay, South Beach, Dog Patch. Again, they're not really desirable areas but they are actually places were it's politically feasible to develop because no one is around to complain about it.
OK. Hopefully, it will be OK to bring up some old threads as examples.
There have been many threads on this forum discussing density. A cabal of posters will brag about the density in their neighborhood, their city, their state, etc. When I ask, "why are we celebrating density like this", I am frequently told, "we don't celebrate density on this forum; we're just talking about it". But, as the OP shows, some version of "we" does celebrate density. They cook up all kinds of nonsense like "weighted density", etc so their neighborhood, or their dream neighborhood, or their favorite city has a higher density than it really does. I've been tempted at times, to ask, tongue in cheek of course, why we don't look at density per bedroom, or even per bed? Got three people in the bed? Good for you! Six in the bedroom (in two beds)? Even better. Yes, this forum celebrates density.
I also agree that few on this forum have any academic credentials, or any other kind of credentials, for urban planning. How many on here have even gone to a city council meeting, let alone been a member of a city council, a planning board, whatever? For the record, I have attended many city council meetings, though none recently.
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 05-26-2013 at 02:09 PM..
Reason: starting over with a new post
Retreat from civilization can be nice, but the permanent retreat from civilization that low density suburban and exurban areas enforce leads to a destruction of the social fabric of society.
I'm sorry but with all due respect, this is complete and utter nonsense. People continue to use this line and I really think that it's simply impossible for those who do to understand the broad range of neighborhood and community dynamics that actually happen, every day, in neighborhoods/communities: urban, suburban, rural or exurban. "Permanent retreat" is not the same as moving to a lower density community..."Permanent retreat" sounds more like someone who chooses to be a social recluse and live out in a cabin in the woods or a compound out in the desert, and if thats how they want to live, they should be able to.
Bottom line: The whole picturesque ideal of the walkable urban neighborhood is NOT necessary in order to have some kind of "social fabric" and people living in lower density environments does NOT lead to such hyperbolic nonsense as "the destruction of the social fabric of society"...just because some folks drive more instead of walk around, or because they live in a neighborhood of single family homes rather than dense apartments. All someone has to do is actually LIVE in the real world and experience a variety of living environments and they'll understand that both types of built environments (urban and suburban) have a variety and different social dynamics that work. For example, you can have a bustling urban streetscape where people like the constant social interaction and there is a lot of sidewalk activity nearly all day and then you can have an urban block of cold apartments where nobody talks to each other and many people feel alienated from the people they live below, on top of and side to side of. On the same token, you can have low density suburban neighborhoods such as mine and many others that both I've seen personally and heard stories of on this forum where everybody knows each other, goes out together, has get-togethers, has kids constantly playing in the street all summer long and has a very well functioning social fabric going on, even further out into the community as people run into each other at the store, gas station or out to eat. And you can also have streets where nobody is really out, folks don't talk to each other and it's generally an environment devoid of much social interaction. Guess what, all four environments exist and here's the kicker, people who live in these types of places actually might LIKE it!
As far as your other two arguments of economic and environmental, economic all depends on the type of environment as a low density commercial center can attract just as many customers in a low density area by vehicle and transit just as high density commercial center can attract customers on foot or by transit. Business is about market and opportunity and will adapt to how people live in any particular area. And as far as environmental concerns go, lower density development can be quite environmentally friendly in its own way and I believe going forward, will continue to be more so. The answer is simply NOT to encourage everybody to live in higher density, because that underlies the basic idea that people should be able to live in a way that makes them happy...not just for the sake of some efficiency or environmental factor. That being said, I think society as a whole is adapting to economic and environmental changes that will allow both lower and higher density development to continue, such as more fuel efficient cars, power production methods, solar energy, more efficient homes among other things.
But, as the OP shows, some version of "we" does celebrate density. They cook up all kinds of nonsense like "weighted density", etc so their neighborhood, or their dream neighborhood, or their favorite city has a higher density than it really does.
I've said I prefer higher density (usually), if that counts as "celebrating density". The only thing I said was not "celebrating density" was the weighted density statistic which you think has an agenda for some reason.
Perhaps it's a useful measuring statistic? The census uses it for a reason:
Instead of condemning it as nonsense (do you actually follow it work?s) and that attacking it as an "agenda", perhaps you should read up on its purpose — a different method of comparison to tell us more about population distribution. Compare Levittown, NY to Brookline, MA. The two has identical standard densities, the weighted densities by census tract is much higher for Brookline, MA. A quick glance on streetview is enough to explain the difference. It's nice to have both numbers.
There is currently no shortage of farmland in the US and no shortage of food. These statements about "waste" of energy resources get dangerously close to that "morals" crap we argued a while back until (I think) we finally agreed to disagree, tacitly at least. I don't know how you can say that a city uses less water and electricity per capita. People have to drink and bathe. In many cities in the eastern US, little lawn watering is done. Even here in arid Colorado, most water is used for agriculture, not watering lawns as many incorrectly assume. Few people heat with electricity. I can't think of any reason there would be more electric usage in the suburbs. Not every commuter drives a car, and not every commuter drives a great distance. In the vast wasteland of the metro Denver burbs, I drive 4 1/2 miles to work every day and my spouse drives 6 1/2 mi. I know people in the city who drive more than that.
Especially in the West. It's not the land that there's any shortage of. Most of it isn't irrigated as is and that which is often lies fallow because there's no water. Water usage isn't exactly that simple. San Francisco uses about 80 gallons per capita per day (GPCPD). Denver in 2000 used to use in excess of 200 GPCPD and is trying to reduce that to 160. Of course, domestic use really isn't that much. Overall US per capita usage is 2,000 GPCP. Denver might use double the water domestically, but it's only really evidence of a 5% reduction. Or to put it another way, a vegetarian in Denver most likely consumes much less water than an omnivore in San Francisco. It's the LA Toyota Pious Effect. Buy a Prius to save the environment, but you still have a 4,000 square foot home, 70 plasma TV, go on a cruise twice a year, buy tons of superfluous crap. Nothing wrong with that, just check the moral high horse at the door. The guy mowing your lawn driving a 20 year-old Toyota pickup living may not have organically grown cotton t-shirts, but his environmental impact is still much smaller.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
