Housing: Density & Desire

dense housing for saleiStock_000003652756XSmall.jpg

Density — the number of units per acre on a proposed site plan — is at the heart of the developer’s mantra: More density, more profit. Meanwhile, environmentalists and many planners preach high density as the promise for a better future. The compression of families is an attempt to curb sprawl and reduce transportation energy consumption. For these reasons, many Green programs demand a minimum density to qualify for certification. Those who sit on suburban city councils and planning commissions fear over-densification, and typical suburban ordinances are written to oppose density.

Who’s right? Nobody. There is no ideal density number in planning or development. Forget the search for a numerical value. Instead, concentrate on livability.

Ordinances throughout the world state minimal dimension requirements. Some suburban ordinances, but not most, specify density maximums. But density alone cannot determine the most important issue in any development: Is it a great place to live? If both environmental impact and affordability were added to the mix, then you could equate livability with sustainability.

Suburban Settings: The term ‘sprawl’ is recklessly used to describe all new suburban development, as if every new suburb was composed of massive lots with McMansions. Want proof that it’s not so? Take a tour of a suburb near a major city that was developed this past decade. In most, you will find smaller lots with homes compressed close together, often with less open space than older, large lot developments. Many of the new suburban developments that are close to major cities approach New Urbanism in density. There are some large lot developments for large residential estates, which are frowned upon as if achievement has become evil.

The opponents of suburbia often don’t factor in the changes that have come about in environmental regulations. When urban areas of the past were built, wetlands (previously known as “swamps”) were simply filled in for development. Wooded areas were clear cut for the new city to be built. Today, we cannot fill in wetlands that in some places constitute vast areas within suburban communities. Many suburban cities have tree preservation and slope restrictions that also result in large open spaces. Because land that developers in the past simply built over is now set aside for preservation, today’s suburbs are going to naturally appear much less “dense” than existing suburban areas. Should a new “urban” city sprout today, as a result of these same protections it too may appear far less dense.

Higher density can drive up raw land value. Developers who can place four homes on each acre are willing to pay much more than they would have a decade ago for the same land, when each acre could yield only two homes or less. The consumer ultimately pays the same (or more) for a much smaller lot, so density does not deliver affordability.

Ordinances typically do not deliver livability. When we provide amenities that are not required in ordinances such as an architectural theme, or parks, walks, trails, destination places, and then add sustainability elements such as low impact storm drainage, green building, engineering, and landscaping...what keeps all of this affordable? Increased density helps when the original plan is for large lots. But we can only push density increases to a limit that preserves the sense of space that suburban home buyers expect. Cities that have already reduced minimum lots from, say, 10,000 square feet to 5,000 gave up all of their spare space long ago. Reducing lot size on an already small space can destroy livability. When lots were larger, there was negotiating power: Want smaller lots and more density? Then we’ll build a sustainable neighborhood, not a subdivision. With a small lot that negotiating power vanishes.

Livability results from a balance of the hundreds of elements that must be taken into consideration when planning, engineering and constructing a neighborhood. A density goal can easily tip that balance in the wrong direction.

I was trained on how to abuse the regulatory system. In the early 1970s, I was on top of the planning game as a master at manipulating regulations. I was able to find holes in the regulations to legally justify cramming units together. I felt victorious when I gained density. After driving through many of the neighborhoods that were eventually built, pride turned into shame. They were nothing special. I created developments that would do nothing to enhance the living standards of the residents; instead, they made the developer (who was now long gone) more profit. I vowed to never again use increased density as a goal, but rather to use balanced design practices as the driving force of all my neighborhood plans.

Urban Settings: It is expected that density will be higher in urban areas. We recently did a proposal on a four acre infill site in Minneapolis. We pushed the density on one proposal to 111 units. Our goal was to produce an affordable (i.e. low income), environmentally sound development that would provide a sense of space and accomplishment (pride) for the residents. In low income neighborhoods it is important to hide parked cars as they can be an eyesore that can have a negative visual impact. All parked cars were to be hidden in underground parking areas or in the rear of a home.
Utilizing new architectural design practice, we provided panoramic views of landscaped spaces using the kitchen as the focal spot for every unit. In this new era, which we call Prefurbia, one goal is to make the interior floor plan an integral component of the overall neighborhood design; we break up the architecture to create that all important curb appeal and eliminate the monotony so common in urban settings, especially lower-income ones. Density was also limited because we wanted to keep each unit at a minimum of 900 square feet. Every home was tied to a meandering walk system leading to a central aquatic garden in a 0.7 acre park. A truly wonderful place to live, at any income level.

Yet when we presented the development plan we were told that the density goal was 120 units. When we asked where that number came from, we were told it was the minimum that was needed for LEED-ND standards. Jamming another 10% of density would bring the proposal out of balance – something would need to be sacrificed. We could eliminate the central park focus, or perhaps throw the parked cars in the open, or make the small units even smaller. We could eliminate the tie between the floor plans and the neighborhood. Going up another floor would just make the parking situation worse, as we would then have no room to hide the cars underneath the apartments. Demanding a minimum density does nothing to assure good development. If anything, it provides another target that detracts from creating a well balanced neighborhood that is a pleasure to live within.

Density Instead of Profitability: When I began to plan developments for a nationally recognized firm, we achieved the density goals, but had no clue as to the actual costs of constructing a neighborhood. We would cross a creek to reach isolated corners of a site and gain a few lots, never realizing that a bridge costs much more than the profits gained in those few units. Using geometry instead of smart design practices, we stretched the length of streets, never realizing that streets cost about $300 (today’s dollars) for each extra foot. In the end we did get to the desired density ratio, but at what cost? Smarter design would have been to balance the infrastructure needs against the density goals. That was 40 years ago. Unfortunately those regulating and planning many of today’s new developments and redevelopments still look only to density, not to other costs.

Density And The Environment: Planners assume that if we increase density in one place then we will not need to build somewhere else, and the end result will be that we will be left with vast, natural open spaces. This fantasy can only become a reality if the additional density achieved on a site corresponds with the dedication of a permanent preserve of open space elsewhere in the same city.

Want to make this a better world to live in? Forget trying to justify a particular number of units per acre. I was guilty of this approach at one time. There is actually a term for the attitude: it’s defined as “difficult to understand or follow because of being closely packed with ideas or complexities of style”...and that word is “Dense”!

Rick Harrison is President of Rick Harrison Site Design Studio and author of Prefurbia: Reinventing The Suburbs From Disdainable To Sustainable. His website is rhsdplanning.com.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

This is truly a great read

This is truly a great read for me. I have bookmarked it and I am looking forward to reading new articles. Keep up the good work!.
see it in action on rebel mouse

I am happy to find your

I am happy to find your distinguished way of writing the post. Now you make it easy for me to understand and implement the concept. Thank you for the post.
security systems

Thanks for posting this

Thanks for posting this info. I just want to let you know that I just check out your site and I find it very interesting and informative. I can't wait to read lots of your posts.
Look for Albany Race Here

Great Article it its really

Great Article it its really informative and innovative keep us posted with new updates. its was really valuable. thanks a lot.
FHB TV Advice

density for the sake of density?

It seems this article generalizes way too much. There's density, and then there is Density. Not too far from where I live, they're bulldozing over farms, and putting in thousands of ugly little boxes, five feet apart. All the boxes are identical, except for the color of their vinyl siding. Each "neighborhood" has one entrance, and one exit. They also have a fenced in "mandatory stormwater pond". Near each cluster, is a "Lifestyle center", with identical shopping centers, an LA fitness, the mandatory subway sandwich shop. These are all serviced by the most feeble transit system possible. I've seen these places. Strangely, they are all but devoid of people. Garage doors open cars drive out in the morning, and the reverse happens in the evening. No one is walking outside, or in their yard. It seems this is the density that you are referring to. Mind-numbing, depressing pseudo-homes, as far as the eye can see. That, is not new urbanism, that's suburban development gone horribly wrong. This is also criminal zoning. fortunately, much of these developments sit empty. They will continue to lose value over time. The poor construction is evident, even only a few short years after they open. Nails back out of the sheetrock, siding peels in the wind. Tiny yards go unkept. It is home ownership, for ownership's sake only.

they will make great slums once fuel his $5.00 per.

Density and Desire

Back in the mid-sixties I joined an urban development team in Auckland City Council and lead a team that reported on "Residential Density and Development Costs." This research led to a series of reports investigating density and residential development policy.
Our major conclusion was that none of the conventional planning arguments in favour of higher density had any merit.
The only reason for providing for (or enabling) a range of dwelling types with different density profiles was to increase consumer choice. At that time regulations really inhibited medium density and high rise dwellings.
We deregulated and shifted away from regulating density to regulating amenity provisions for different types of housing. It worked remarkably well and we moved towards a city with a variety of housing types catering for different populations and family sizes.
Then came the Dense Thinking Smart Growth tribe who made density a goal.
You make the point splendidly. Once density becomes a goal rather than a measurement relating to other matters then the rot sets in.
Density is just a measurement but it suits the needs of those who want to rule.

By the way we shared a panel discussion in Houston. (or was it Seattle?)

Owen McShane, Kaiwaka, New Zealand.
Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies.

Density and "Planning Gain"


You were once an urban crammer, but now promote "sustainability".

In Britain, since the mid to late 1990s, government has advocated higher densities of development, claiming them to be more sustainable. Wendell Cox has done much to show that it is bogus to claim that higher density developments have less of a carbon footprint. But still British environmentalists are stuck on the idea that forcing more homes into fewer hectares is the measure of being green.

You are at least prepared to acknowledge that cramming used to be pursued because it was lucrative, while today the commercial motivation is made to appear virtuous by environmental morality.

Oddly in Britain we may have got to a position where it is more lucrative to build a fewer number of luxury eco-homes for the super-rich environmentalists who run the country. Housing production has halved in the last two years, and while cramming "affordable" (read subsidised) eco-homes into a hectare has become half the housing market, the building large at lower density for those who can afford it is going to be the other half.

The reason is "planning gain". As I have tried to map out in "Planning Gain is a loss", www.audacity.org/IA-01-01-10.htm, there is a huge value to be realised by drip feeding farmland into the British housing market. The trickle of "greenfield" land meets the inflated value of "brownfield" land. It used to be the case until 2007 that all land for new housing was to be built at higher densities to meet environmentally motivated planning guidance. It is my view of Britain that we have become so socially polarised that whoever wins the next election will argue that density prescriptions can be relaxed. You will have to be filthy rich and dining with the next Labour Prime Minister, or David Cameron's Blue/Greens, to buy into low density sustainable development.

Densification in Britain was policy for the last decade and a half. A policy that Peter Hall the planner helped establish, and then retreated from, calling it a "Land Fetish". As our housing market reinflates madly there will be less house building in volume, but the pursuit of "planning gain" will be the common factor between high and low density eco-home developments.

All our former urban crammers will continue to promote "sustainability", but may relax on the densification for their top clientele.

Ian Abley

"We must break with the past"

"You are at least prepared to acknowledge that cramming used to be pursued because it was lucrative, while today the commercial motivation is made to appear virtuous by environmental morality."

The benefits of great mixed-use places (either urban or suburban or exurban) will outweigh all the negative externalities associated with the car+sprawl model and, while the effects of such developments may not be felt in the immediate short term, in a couple of generations it will be - Just like it took the pro-road/autocentric lobby a couplathree generations of quite heavy governmental subsidization for their myth to be firmly inculcated. The arguments used by those who argue against our society densifying and broadening its transportation choices? Could be applied to argue against the intentions of the Federal Housing Act (1949, when Truman said: "We must break with the past") and roads at the Interstate inception in the mid-50s.

We didn't always live like this, and we here at The Placemaking Institute are adament that the so-called ‘basic God-given Patriotic American right to drive the biggest vehicle one can afford on an increasingly extensive roadway system’ myth that has been artificially inculcated into us virtually from birth (and benefits very few at the expense of many) should most definitely not supersede our basic human right to live our lives in healthy, productive manners. Wendell Cox (who argues that "Smart Growth" was the root cause of the 2008 panic) has been on the bankroll of the American Highway Users Alliance, a lobbying group founded in the 1930s by General Motors Corp. And, according to a June 1999 Texas Observer article, the Wendell Cox Consultancy has done a lot of work for private bus companies who bid on the very contracts which Cox promotes after rail projects are scuttled.

G. B. Arrington (renowned transit expert): “In every instance, Cox’s statements are either inaccurate, distortions or claims not supported by the facts. Cox’s technique seems to be to start with a snippet of the truth and stretch it like taffy until it turns into something else that supports his position.”

Haynes Goddard (University of Cincinnati Professor): “(Cox and his anti-transit crowd produce) superficial, poorly thought out and misleading arguments;” (the work represents) “either intellectual laziness, or more seriously, intellectual dishonesty” (which results because) “all ideologues are blind to reality and to the vacuousness of their arguments.”

In other words, mindsets like Cox are still fabricating and perpetuating (at the very least) myths (if not outright lies) that only prove them more than willing to sacrifice generation upon future generations by keeping us on a bleed-until-bankrupt livability plan Osama Bin Laden would be proud of.

Sidenote: At Texas Christian University’s Tracks to the Future in Fort Worth, former Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory (a conservative) had this to say: “Have a vision…Show them pictures of what it can look like once you start planning…Avoid the word density…Don’t talk like a planner and don’t use your lingo because politicians don’t understand it and the constituency gets real turned off by the word density. But if you show them a picture of a well-planned development…they’ll say you know what, that’s pretty nice.”

We need more Form-Based (Zoning) Codes.

David Parvo
Most Senior Fellow
THE Placemaking Institute