Oh god, not again: the "density debate"

Does 'smart growth' also create more sprawl?

The problem with this piece and the whole pro- or anti-density discussion of which it is part: Urging density is putting the cart before the horse. The task is to create interesting places. Then people will compete to be there. You don't start by creating density. You create interesting urban places and then people will want to be there and developers will build. Density is a byproduct of creating interesting places. Density is a by-product of high-amenity environments. Consider any waterfront location. Or a neighborhood like Madison Park. Do you really think that you have to encourage density in either place? Hardly. People want to be there, they compete to be there, and you have to beat them off with a stick. The public policy debate should be about how to create interesting urban spaces. So long as the zoning allows density, the market will take care of it.

And I wish people would be a bit more selfish when it comes to this discussion. The right reason to like density is that it is associated with more interesting cities. The wrong reason is because it is better for society and is more sustainable etc etc.

Comments

[Douglas Tooley]

Density is also upscale, and NOT subsidized affordable. We've tried to do dense subsidy before and it is truly scary when it gets attempted again.

That said, there are exceptions, including senior housing.

When it comes to children, personally I'm not convinced it works for any income demographic, at least I don't see how we'd make it work given current available options.

[Linda]

I think you're right about cause and effect, but I don't see why one reason to support density is right and the other wrong. I myself believe that interesting cities are good for society and the efficient use of resources.

Re the first comment, I don't have children myself but I know plenty of happy, well-adjusted, apartment-dwelling kids.

Happy new year and thanks for all of the thoughtful posts in 2009!

[David Sucher]

Linda, I grew up in an apartment and it wasn't on Park Avenue. I am sure that there are plenty of well-adjusted kids who grew up in apartments but from my experience they are too limiting and don't provide the space that children need to knock around. I wouldn't raise kids in an apartment unless I was rich and it was a large apartment and there was a summer house to go to.

In fact, putting the issue of density versus interesting places seems to me to be of significance politically because it raises what is a secondary issue: density but a primary and hot-button issue for a great number of people. So urging density per se seems like a loser political tactic.

[Linda]

Totally agree it's a "loser political tactic!" I can't remember who but someone I interviewed referred to density as the "Darth Vader word." It does seem to make the sensible exchange of ideas impossible.

Re kids, it's hard for me to judge, having been raised in the suburbs and not being a parent. But it seems to me that at least these days, people in big cities make much better use of public spaces such as parks and playgrounds. Those spaces are also much safer and more inviting than they were a few decades ago. Might that make a difference?

[David Sucher]

I don't think it makes a difference, Linda, as that is public space and the great thing about a house is that it provides private space (basements, garages, backyards etc) to do things -- have a shop, band practice, repair cars, set up model railway, build a tree house, have a garden etc etc Kids -- no, everyone -- can benefit from such space. I can tell you from personal experience that middle-class city-dwellers can't afford that kind of room. That's why families gravitate to at the very least townhouses.