Why I Hate Density

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.  

Friday Factiod: Density and Productivity

Economists studying cities routinely find that after controlling for other variables, workers in denser places earn higher wages and are more productive. Some studies suggest that doubling density raises productivity by around 6 percent while others peg the impact at up to 28 percent. Some economists have concluded that more than half the variation in output per worker across the United States can be explained by density alone; density explains more of the productivity gap across states than education levels or industry concentrations or tax policies.

Excerpted from: One Path to Better Jobs: More Density in Cities

h/t: Strong Towns Blog

Density and Mixed Use in Roswell

Anyone who has read this blog knows that I'm a supporter of mixed-use development as well as livable, context appropriate density.  We keep up with issues that are going on in and around Roswell and today, I came across an article in the Roswell Neighbor that I found interesting.  Essentially, the East Roswell Forum, one of the groups responsible for crashing the mixed-use/density party at Holcomb Bridge/400 the first time around, has decided to sound the alarm bells to the leaders of its member subdivisions about the potential resurrection of mixed-use and density at the HBR/400 intersection in the Roswell 2030 master plan.  For the record, I do feel that the proposal this group rallied against was inappropriate and I am glad it was not built.

That being said, this group obviously yields some power but I'm not sure just how representative they are of the community as a whole.  Unfortunately, the article did not link directly to the email that was circulated.  So, there is no way to determine whether it is representative and/or factually accurate.

Anyway, I have attended four of the Imagine 2030 meetings and have seen scores of residents come out to give input.  There is no effort to hide this master planning effort from the populace.  I even drove all the way out to East Roswell Park for the event held on the east side of town.  I found that it was well attended although not crowded.  Now, I'm not sure what section of town all of attendees live in but I can assure you that the meetings weren't attended exclusively by developers, politicians and realtors.  From my anecdotal discussions, most people were simply residents of Roswell who cared enough to take time out of their busy lives to attend.  Many of them were supporters of gradual increases in density and mixed-use but for the most part they wanted more walkability, bikability and less congestion.

Having said this, virtually every time something came up about the HBR/400 corridor, people wanted it cleaned up.  They dislike what is on the ground there.  I do too. I've actually posted on it before here.  I want something different and I'm going to guess that what I want will match the vision of a good number of our neighbors.  Here's a quick overview: 

• Density - I'm not too concerned with the number here. I'm more concerned with the character and context.  You can have beautiful single family homes that can be in the high teens in units per acre while you can have ugly apartment complexes that are only 10-12 units per acre.  I think we're more concerned with what they look like.  If you've been to Paris since the mid-1800's, you'll notice that they pack an incredible amount of density into the city while still looking and feeling appropriate, beautiful, safe and relatively uncongested.  Below, you're looking at 384 units per acre mixed-use with transit and you wouldn't find significant traffic, crime or overall congestion. You could argue that the French are more civil than we are here in Roswell but I'm not buying it.  The design is the key... not the # of homes on an acre. 

• Transit - Bus Rapid Transit first, then MARTA rail later (density of 10-15 units/acre can support heavy rail ridership needs). Anything built should be done so with the intent of connecting to rail in the future. 
• Building Height - 5-6 stories.  No high-rises.  It's amazing what kind of density you can get even without looking like Hong Kong.  In some areas, Paris actually is more dense than Vancouver, one of the densest cities in the world. 
• Programming - Residential (Townhomes, Condo/Loft, Apartment), Office, Retail, Hotel, Public Space. There might even be some room for single family on this parcel but I don't think it would fly with a potential developer and I'm not sold that Roswell needs more single family housing.  We could definitely use some more class A office space and retail given the number of aging strip malls and office complexes we have.  Not many employers are looking to Roswell these days.  This is a major opportunity to attract high quality jobs to our city.
• Mixed-Use - Significant vertical (intra-building) and horizontal (intra-block) mixed-use.  We don't have to expound too much on this one.  Suffice to say that, on average, new residents of Atlantic Station reduced their overall vehicle miles traveled by more than 70% after moving into Atlantic Station.  They also have reported a high level of satisfaction with amenities like grocery and retail being nearby.  Say what you will about the look of the place but it's hard to argue with the results in the area of driving reduction and convenience.  Many people rail on MU because of the high profile failure of Prospect Park and the Streets of Buckhead but there have been significantly more failures in the single use area since 2007 than there have been in the mixed-use area.  The concept is not the problem, the timing, financing and hubris are.
• Street Grid - Highly networked with two flyways over 400 to the north and south of the current bridge.  If designed properly, a road network coupled with an increase in density in the area could actually increase the mobility.  The key is getting people out of their cars at the peak commuter times and increasing the choices available to them.  If this land is to be developed, I believe we are only going to accomplish a reduction in congestion by building a network and coupling with with a transit component.   

The way I see development in this area should be akin to Glenwood Park off of I-20 in Atlanta... not Atlantic Station.  The city and developers may see differently but I think many of the residents would be happy with something that looks like this.

Now, we should not forget that what is on the table at this point is nothing but an idea of what could potentially go there that resulted from brainstorming sessions with actual Roswell residents.  Nothing is set in stone.  But, at the end of the day, we need to recognize that this parcel of land is extremely valuable and something will happen there.  Do we want it to be useful for the city and attract visitors from the region?  Or do we want a single use office park or 'lifestyle' center that is built to be obsolete in 10 years and does nothing to improve our community?

Images: YouTube! Guess the Housing Density | Dover Kohl & Associates

Build Brownstone & Live Work Units @ Magnolia & Canton

This is the 13th post in a series of posts this December that will chronicle the 25 things we would most like to see in Roswell. None of these are actually happening... at least in the way we'd like them to. Please enjoy and have a happy holidays!

I would love to see a nice classy row of Brownstones and Live Work uints at the intersection of Magnolia and Canton.  They would complete the block by extending the buildings down to the corner south from Pastis and over to Mimosa.  The way I see it, the Wachovia building would go and the auto shop next to Pastis would be repurposed and get a facelift.  Additionally, the gas station across magnolia would get reversed.  Essentially the building would be brought to the street and the gas pumps would be behind the building,  hidden from the street.  Here's an example of the 'gas backward' concept that was coined by architect Seth Harry.  It's not the best image but you should get the gist.

This would continue to revitalize the Canton Street/Atlanta Street corridor within the historic district and start to  move some development further south from Canton.  My vision would be similar to the homes in Canton Street Walk just off of Canton Street behind the antique store.  I can see some issues with the traffic volume at that intersection which is why you would need to buffer the homes with wide sidewalks and trees along Magnolia.  The live work units along the road would further buffer the actual residences from the street by putting business on the first floor.

Here's an example of some live works that work pretty well on a well traveled street in Smyrna.  The frontage and setback would need to be a little different in Roswell but the idea is very similar.

images: Jay Woodsworth @ Flickr, Hamden.com, Google