Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Density Can be a Good Thing

By Frank L. Elmer FAIA, FAICPAs planners,

. . . Our predicament is this: we admire one kind of place – Marblehead,Massachusetts, for example – but we build something very different, the more familiar sprawl of modern suburbia. Our planning tools – notably our zoning ordinances –facilitate segmented, decentralized growth while actually making it impossible toincorporate qualities that we associate with towns such as Marblehead.Few ordinances tolerate (much less encourage) the concentration of uses, themultiplicity of scales, the redundancy of streets, and the hierarchical fabric of public places which characterize the towns of our memory and our travels.

Of the many important qualities and characteristics of the towns in our memories,arguably the most fundamental is density. Density is harmless; it is simply the measureof the quantity of something per unit volume, unit area, or unit length. However, toplanners, the word “density” means something specific: the number of housing units per acre of land. This definition of density has lead to a general rule for the communitiesthat planners work with: low density plans are acceptable, while high density plansgenerate controversy.The roots of this rule lie in the poor start of city planning in the 1920's and 1930's,from which planners have only begun to recover. In 1924, the Swiss architect LeCorbusier devised the “Radiant City,” a town of 60-story towers arranged in a grid withpark-like landscaping to replace the streets. “Corb” promoted his tower ideas in Paris asa replacement for dense, slum-like neighborhoods. In 1930, Frank Lloyd Wrightpublished his plan for Broad Acre City, a place of four square miles, developed with theUsonian Home, a residence embracing agriculture and office space, at a density of oneunit per acre.Early planners took two things from these ideas. First, the concept of dull, featurelesstowers was adopted in this country as the preferred scheme for public housing.Second, the single family lot subdivision became the model for post-World War IIhousing. Density, it was decided, was for poor people.

– Alex Krieger, “Since (and Before) Seaside,” an essay in Towns and Town Making Principles.Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk. A publication of Harvard University Graduate School of Design.

The Mess We Now Confront

Today, planners face the mess created by blind adherence to the dictums of low-density planning. When carefully examined, low density suburban pattern developmentreveals both quality of life concerns and possibilities for improvement in the future.Foremost among these is increased street length. Longer streets mean that it takeslonger to get from home to other necessary places, and that drivers will travel faster toget there. This requires intersections to be built with increased curve radii, which in turnincreases the distance a pedestrian must travel to cross the street at an intersection. Inmany places, however, this matters little – for as streets lengthen in suburbia, sidewalksdisappear.Low density development and increased speed provide incentive for homes to be setback farther from the road. Front porches are eliminated in favor of the patio or rear yard terrace. Now, we hide the primary outdoor social element for each residencebehind each house, in effect removing sociability from the street and making socialactivity a private, by-invitation-only affair.Subdivisions developed today, in contrast to post-World War II subdivisions, lack“walkability.” Walkability implies land-use mix at a finer grain than is found within thecurrent suburban pattern; that is, there must be destinations for people to walk to, suchas the corner store. Consider the convenience (or the present lack thereof) if peoplecan live within walking distance of the neighborhood bank, or a wine and cheese deli.Consider the sense of identity, the sense of belonging, and the sense of stabilityassociated with varying levels of density. Low density suburban pattern developmentgenerally possesses no visible organizational structure – much like Muzak, it can begenerally pleasant but never memorable. The quality of civility has also been lost in lowdensity development. No sense of place exists; there is no meeting and social space,no reliable gathering-places to meet a friend, today, tomorrow, or the day after that.Consider also the quality of dimensionality, the ability of a community to provide avariety of housing types. Does the current low density development pattern provide for the diverse needs of our current population? One of my co-panelists for the “Getting to

Density” audio conference,

Michael Stepner, FAICP, FAIA, points out that the fastest-growing sectors of the American population are the four “S” groups: Singles, Seniors,Single-parent households, and Start-up households. These four groups make up 50%of the population of the United States, and the total will increase to 60% in ten tofifteen years. However, the real estate industry and developers are pretending that theydo not exist – housing to meet the needs of these groups is not being provided.Finally, low density development leads to higher than justifiable ratios of commercialland to residential land. This occurs because the piecemeal nature of subdivisionsmeans that residual parcels of land, isolated from residential developments (i.e. nostreet network connection), become useful only for non-residential use, with accessfrom the main road. In addition, residents of suburban residential communities tire of driving great distances in heavy traffic to shop; and the insidious lure of localcommercial development becomes attractive. Never mind that in ten years this samecommercial development will be tired, will lack allure, and become empty and derelict,causing nearby residents to cry out for redevelopment, often through public subsidy.

What Planners Can Do

Nevertheless, most of those living in suburban pattern neighborhoods still believe thatthe “d-word” is bad, even though low density is responsible for many undesirablequalities in a neighborhood. This requires new strategies for communication. First,planners and urban advocates need to use new indicators of quality. Replace dwellingunits per acre as an evaluative measure in project review with indicators such as floor area ratio, open space ratio, and building height limits. Discuss the choices peoplemight have to increase access to different types of housing, or to obtain public placeswith facilities that support social, recreational, or public activities and events.Second, survey places with outstanding qualities. After achieving consensusconcerning which developments are in fact excellent, assess and define thedevelopment profile for each. People often like projects with higher densities when theyshowcase design. For each project, define what higher density has accomplished.Third, develop a new vocabulary. New words prevent the assignment of old

“Getting to Density’” November 6, 2002, 2003 Audio Conference Program, American PlanningAssociation and the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

of 00

Elmer - Density Can be a Good Thing

Of the many important qualities and characteristics of the towns in our memories, arguably the most fundamental is density. Density is harmless; it is simply the measure of the ... (More)

Category:	Research > Arts & Architecture
Rating:
Upload Date:	02/25/2009
Copyright:	Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved
Tags:	planning Density planning Density (fewer)

Documents

People