You are on page 1of 10

Density Can be a Good Thing

By Frank L. Elmer FAIA, FAICP

As 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 to
incorporate qualities that we associate with towns such as Marblehead.
Few ordinances tolerate (much less encourage) the concentration of uses, the
multiplicity of scales, the redundancy of streets, and the hierarchical fabric of public
places which characterize the towns of our memory and our travels.1

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 quantity of something per unit volume, unit area, or unit length. However, to
planners, 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 communities
that planners work with: low density plans are acceptable, while high density plans
generate 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 Le
Corbusier devised the “Radiant City,” a town of 60-story towers arranged in a grid with
park-like landscaping to replace the streets. “Corb” promoted his tower ideas in Paris as
a replacement for dense, slum-like neighborhoods. In 1930, Frank Lloyd Wright
published his plan for Broad Acre City, a place of four square miles, developed with the
Usonian Home, a residence embracing agriculture and office space, at a density of one
unit per acre.
Early planners took two things from these ideas. First, the concept of dull, featureless
towers 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 II
housing. Density, it was decided, was for poor people.

1– 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 development
reveals both quality of life concerns and possibilities for improvement in the future.
Foremost among these is increased street length. Longer streets mean that it takes
longer to get from home to other necessary places, and that drivers will travel faster to
get there. This requires intersections to be built with increased curve radii, which in turn
increases the distance a pedestrian must travel to cross the street at an intersection. In
many places, however, this matters little – for as streets lengthen in suburbia, sidewalks
disappear.
Low density development and increased speed provide incentive for homes to be set
back 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 residence
behind each house, in effect removing sociability from the street and making social
activity 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 the
current suburban pattern; that is, there must be destinations for people to walk to, such
as the corner store. Consider the convenience (or the present lack thereof) if people
can 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 stability
associated with varying levels of density. Low density suburban pattern development
generally possesses no visible organizational structure – much like Muzak, it can be
generally pleasant but never memorable. The quality of civility has also been lost in low
density 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 a
variety 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,2 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 to
fifteen years. However, the real estate industry and developers are pretending that they
do 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 commercial
land to residential land. This occurs because the piecemeal nature of subdivisions
means that residual parcels of land, isolated from residential developments (i.e. no
street network connection), become useful only for non-residential use, with access
from 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 local
commercial development becomes attractive. Never mind that in ten years this same
commercial 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 that
the “d-word” is bad, even though low density is responsible for many undesirable
qualities in a neighborhood. This requires new strategies for communication. First,
planners and urban advocates need to use new indicators of quality. Replace dwelling
units 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 people
might have to increase access to different types of housing, or to obtain public places
with facilities that support social, recreational, or public activities and events.
Second, survey places with outstanding qualities. After achieving consensus
concerning which developments are in fact excellent, assess and define the
development profile for each. People often like projects with higher densities when they
showcase design. For each project, define what higher density has accomplished.
Third, develop a new vocabulary. New words prevent the assignment of old

2“Getting to Density’” November 6, 2002, 2003 Audio Conference Program, American Planning
Association and the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
meanings. For example, “walkability” describes a positive facet of high density
development. Words like “pattern,” “grain,” and “texture” are effective visual cues for
describing land use mix, the repetitive elements of a place, or sections with other
similarities that vary only in density. The phrase “development intensity” can be
substituted for “density”. Reinventing the vocabulary of dialogue allows greater control
over a presentation to a community group.
Finally, structure urban design studies and present them at public meetings to
educate the community. Urban design plans depict the character of the urban form and
its component parts, so that people will understand what is of central focus, how certain
elements or places might have priority, and what is truly special or unique. Urban design
plans can provide conceptual visions that convey the character of new development, of
redevelopment, of proposed enhancements to older areas, and of proposed
improvements to the public realm. Urban design plans can also suggest design ideas to
enhance district or neighborhood identity and to address various issues, such as how
to integrate parking facilities into the urban fabric in a visually pleasing way.

Tools for an Alternative Development Pattern


Density is one factor, an important factor, in the quality of life possible for as much as
half of the population. From the description of the low density development pattern,
three others can be derived. One of these is land use mix. How mixed are job
locations, shopping opportunities, and homes? How fine is the grain of the mix? A good
example of grain can be found in comparing an ear of sweet corn to an ear of Indian
corn. The sweet corn is uniform, each kernel the same shape and color, just as a low
density suburban development is uniform where hundreds of the same houses are
grouped in a subdivision. The multicolored Indian corn illustrates an organizational
structure, where multiple development types are co-mingled.
The second factor in considering the quality of life of a development is public use.
Are there dedicated spaces for public use? Is there an opportunity for civility, for public
celebrations and events?
The third factor is accessibility, which is related to connectivity. How disconnected
are the low density subdivisions? Is there any degree of walkability? Are there bikeway
connections? Is public transit an option?

An Example from Practice


Recently Lincoln Street Studio studied several residual sites slated for commercial
development in Liberty Township, an affluent suburban community in Delaware County,
Ohio. Our brief was to improve upon “big box” and “strip mall” planning currently
proposed along Sawmill Parkway. What we found in Liberty Township should be no
surprise. There, the low density suburban land use pattern is fully entrenched. All
developments outside of the historic Powell Village area are configured in isolation, one
from the other. Residential subdivisions are disconnected more often as they are
connected. This situation causes traffic overloads at subdivision “entry” points along the
main roads, which serve as collector roads. The development pattern exhibits is no
sense of hierarchy. The overall settlement provides no clear organization, and lacks a
center; understandably outsiders are easily lost. Every commercial or residential
development is very much like every commercial or residential development anywhere in
America. Visible civic structures, such as monuments, public buildings, and parks, are
non-existent or seem unimportant. Lands zoned for commercial use are out of balance
in relation to residential acreage. In Liberty Township, there is a prevailing sense that
planning can change nothing, except a rearrangement of the “same old” development
types.
The roadway network is almost totally disconnected. Planners must find new
connections which do not cause traffic through subdivisions or destruction of key
elements of community character. The widening of Powell Road at the “four corners” will
be inevitable if traffic options cannot be defined. Only Powell Road and Home Road
serve as cross-township connectors within the southern half of Liberty Township, and
many other roads within the subdivisions dead-end without connecting to these major
roads. Railroad tracks divide the east from the west, making it difficult for residents living
east of the tracks to access shopping centers in Liberty Township along Sawmill
Parkway.
From a planning perspective, the suburban development pattern has not been
managed well. Developers have built with little regard for an overall plan, resulting in
disconnections even between subdivisions of the same use or development type. This
has laid the groundwork for zoning and development controversy, and made it likely
that residual tracts of land, isolated from residential subdivisions, will become suitable
for non-residential uses.
Palpable civic structure is absent. No one has developed honorific elements of
community, such as landmarks, monuments, and places for public events that would
present opportunities for the building of civic pride and a sense of community. As one
planner put it, “it’s like the Wild West out here” – everyone is fending for himself.
Residents focus on protecting their homes and developments, while developers focus
on their investment parcels and their profit potential.
The sum total of all development presently in place shows little originality or creativity,
and does not depict an awareness of current development trends. A current issue of
Retail Traffic (May 2004), an important new professional publication targeted to retail
real estate developers, points out that “lifestyle centers, mixed-use projects, and the
focus on creating unique retail destinations continue to dominate retail design trends.”
3Similarly, “The general trend is toward a more thoughtful pattern of development
regardless of building type or project type. . . . toward developments with ‘multi-layers’ of
interest and high quality materials that really create memorable experiences.” In
addition, the traditional placement of “out lots” in strip malls is also changing, as retail
development designers are advising grouping them closer to their centers to create
people-driven activity areas.4

3 “Annual Trade Expo at ICSC’s Spring Convention unveils latest industry products and services.”
Beth Mattson-Teig. Retail Traffic, May 2004. pp 166-174.
4 “Time to Rethink Pad Locations” Mark L. Tweed AIA. Retail Traffic, May 2004. pp 222.
Lincoln Street’s studies of the Liberty Township/Powell “big box” sites demonstrated
how density and land use mix can generate corrective development options. The
studies also led to a statement of objectives for development options for vacant sites,
and an initial definition of concepts.

Planning Objectives and Development Concepts


Two concepts and four objectives summarize our work.

The Liberty Crescent


Two of the planning objectives recommended to the Liberty Township/ Powell client led
to the development of the Liberty Crescent development concept, as an alternative to
“big box” development. These objectives were:
1. Adopt a vision which embraces building civic structure, seeking a “public good,” and

building a more complete settlement, one with a sense of community. Each new development

must contribute in some way to the formation or enhancement of civic structure.

2. Enrich the palette of development opportunity by encouraging denser use of locations

where urban characteristics would accent the overall settlement, and compete effectively with

“big box” market factors. Building density in specific locations would break the “hum-drum”

of the suburban pattern, and would help to preserve the character of the predominant

residential geography. Building heights up to 60 feet in these locations would help to establish

landmarks and the sense of place.

A predominantly residential, mixed-use development, four stories in height, formed the


shape of a crescent, and would become a landmark in Liberty Township. The building
shape embraces an upscale shopping street with views of public gardens, soccer fields
and tennis facilities. Proposed uses included ground floor commercial and social
function uses of 148,000 gsf, street-side commercial shops totaling 29,700 gsf, 156
condominium units, approximately 11.9 acres of open space, including two regulation
soccer fields, five tennis courts, public gardens, and parkland. The plan provides 1,075
parking spaces.

The reported value of the 34 acre site was $2,357,600. The land value of the Liberty
Crescent development concept exceeded that amount by more than $1,000,000.
Seldom Seen A Mixed- use Community
Two additional development objectives, which were recommended to the Liberty
Township/ Powell client, led to the formulation of the Seldom Seen Mixed-use
Community development concept. These were:
3. Employ an urban design scope of effort. Stop focusing on project planning. Begin

planning vicinities. Recognize that projects actually transcend property lines in their

operational characteristics of use. Adopt urban design standards that would not, for example,

permit additional “sea of asphalt” parking lot developments. Plan projects for pedestrians, not

cars.

4. Evaluate development proposals with additional criteria that measure project

compatibility. Seek development proposals that facilitate the success of adjacent development.

Eliminate buffering and other measures to isolate projects from each other. Require

interconnectedness.

The land value of the Seldom Seen proposal (on Seldom Seen Road) was estimated at
more than $9,750,000. The plan included 238 single family town lots, 26 fee simple
garden plots for resident gardeners, 11 single family estate lots, 120 condominium
units, 8 Parkway commercial lots, 1 Parkway office site, 5 community office sites,
112,000 gsf of neighborhood shopping center space, 1 site for a church with three
chapels and a columbarium, a site for Seldom Seen Station, including Post Office,
Bank, Coffee shop, and future rail transit stop, a community building and recreation site
(5.85 acres), and the Seldom Seen Lawn, a linear park of 7.5 acres.

-end-

You might also like