Why I Hate Density
Monday, February 4, 2013 at 10:59PM This is an enhanced cross-post from my montly column, Community Design Matters, in The Current. There may be some editorial differences.
How many houses per acre are in your subdivision? How many are allowed? How does that make you feel? Should you feel anything at all? I say no and here’s why.
The numbers tell you the density of a given place. The numbers associated with density tell you absolutely nothing about that place other than how many people or separate dwellings are located there. It is a hollow word that says nothing about the charm and lovability of a place.
It can tell you nothing about the value of the homes, quality of the schools, demographics of the residents, congestion of the roads or vibrancy of the neighborhood. The number requires context. The entry for Density in Dhiru Thadani’s encyclopedic Language of Cities and Towns begins with the following paragraph:
Density is the number of individuals or dwelling units per unit of area. The making of vibrant, diverse, and exciting urbanism is directly related to the concentration of population and activity. Density ensures the greatest range of people, buildings, public spaces, facilities, services, and choices. It promotes the easy exchange of ideas and goods and services..
If density ensures the greatest range of people, buildings, public spaces, facilities, services, and choices, why do people generally flip out when anything more than 2 units per acre is proposed in their neighborhood? The word has a stigma and it does so by failing to capture context. The NIMBY response to density has its roots in many misconceptions about density’s relationship to social ills that have been associated with it such as crime, traffic, poor schools, low property values. etc. The thing is, correlation and causation can often be miles apart. Other misguided reasons people give such as they don’t want to be packed in like sardines and they aren’t going to give up the American Dream. Once again, density does a poor job describing an environment. Take Vickery Village or Seaside as examples. These are places where single family homes dominate the landscape but the design increases the density and comfort of the place incredibly well.
The real reason for the NIMBY reaction, in my opinion, is that builders have done it so wrong for so long that virtually every building associated with density in a suburban setting is absolutely god awful, reprehensible, cookie cutter design that should be punished by revocation of architectural licenses. You don’t see the ills in places where density has been done right.
Virtually all of the world’s top tourist destinations are highly dense areas where people live, work, learn and play in very close proximity. With the exception of landscapes, people don’t take pictures and send postcards of places that don’t have some minimum amount of density. You don’t get excited when you receive a postcard of Martin’s Landing, even the well photoshopped ones. People like to see and visit highly beautiful, dense urban areas. Think of Paris, Rome, Santorini, Prague, Seaside, Savannah or Charleston.
So, people like density but they don’t like to admit it to themselves. This is partially because in many cases, developers have put the cart before the horse. Density does not create a successful place (unless you have hundreds of millions of dollars). Chuck Marohn of StrongTowns recently stated,
..density is an expected byproduct of a successful place, not the implement by which we create one.
Maybe this is why Historic Roswell has the most examples of density done right in the northern suburbs. The Bricks, Founders Mill and Canton St Walk/Providence are all excellent and complement the success of the neighborhood. Unfortunately, there aren’t more. Take away these three, and you have literally hundreds of poorly planned, improperly located and shoddily constructed condos, townhouse and apartments sprinkled all over the city. We must do better and cities MUST stop allowing condos, townhouse and apartments to be built where they don’t belong. They belong in the centers of our villages and towns and not anywhere someone can make a buck.
More importantly however, people need to understand that density isn’t the issue. Design and location the things that should concern you.
Community Design Matters Especially if you want "Density Done Right."
This video is a fun exercise to see if you can guess the density. You will quickly learn that the number isn't the issue.
Reader Comments (6)
This is an issue I think about every time I drive back from visiting my mother in Cobb County. I pass by several townhome developments with excellent building design, but they're located on busy arterial roads, far from anything a person could walk to easily and safely. The sidewalks in front of them are jogging trails only.
If things like this were located in proximity to shops and offices, with safe and inviting pedestrian infrastructure connecting them, you'd have something great. It's a missed opportunity.
And on the other hand, we lived in Virginia Highland for a few years where there are scores of beautiful bungalows, but only the ones nearest the shops and restaurants created pedestrian traffic. The ones further out, near Briarcliff Road, were as car bound as anything in East Cobb sprawl land. So even intown bungalow density can be not enough for walkability when the bungalows are the primary housing type and they spread out to where the ones on the edge are out of easy-walking range to anything.
That's where this issue of good design comes in. You can badly design an intown bungalow district and a suburban townhome development to where each has limitations with walkability, even when density is technically high within the footprint of the townhomes.
Thanks for sharing! Hope all is well.
Mickey O'Brien
Mickey, haven't seen you around in a while. Glad that you enjoyed the post.
Ruth, I LOVE Liberty and agree with all of your points. I actually lived there for a while about 10 years ago and we considered buying in the lofts when we moved back to Roswell. I didn't mention it in my post because no one can actually see Liberty due to the gate. I know some people love gates but I am not one of them and feel they don't belong in our Historic District. That is my only beef with Liberty. The rest of Roswell can't enjoy it and learn from the great example that it is. I understand that back in 2002, the area was a little sketchier than it is today though and the gate was not necessarily a bad thing from a home sales perspective. I think I may post some thoughts on it another day.
a. Creating safe, livable, walkable communities, and as those communities expand geographically to the point where they are no longer entirely walkable, proper transit options should be available that do not create severe impediments (like traffic) to the quality of life of the residents.
b. Creating engaging spaces for a diverse mixture of people across the socioeconomic spectrum.
c. Having as minimal of an impact as possible on the environment (which doesn't necessarily mean a bunch of green space)
d. Creating a diverse mixture of uses of development, to ensure constant human activity.
The list goes on.
Roswell is not "density" done right, because there isn't really any density to speak of. There aren't areas of diverse mixed uses, where people are coming and going at all hours of the day. There isn't a dense enough environment of residences where citizens create a self-policing element of safety. There isn't a diverse mixture of residences along the socioeconomic spectrum. In short, Roswell isn't a city. Frankly, Atlanta isn't really much of one either.
However, for cities that do get it right, they understand that density is a necessary component and has to be incorporated into the design of their respective cities. Balancing the supply & demand for density is important, but ensuring that development goes vertical rather than horizontal (not so in Roswell) is a key component in creating successful urban environments - the types that draw in young, energetic, creative, talent and place diverse mixtures of people in such close proximity that their creative and social engagement with each other is inevitable. Roswell is a far cry from that.