When Is Density Good, And When Is It Harmful To Cities?

[M II A II R II K]

When Is Density Good, And When Is It Harmful To Cities?


APR. 17, 2023

By PHILIP LANGDON

Read More: https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/202...harmful-cities

.....

While China propels vast assemblages of towers into its skylines, North America is experiencing a lower yet also disquieting form of densification: mid-rise buildings sometimes pejoratively called “stumpies.” The typical “stumpy” (the term seems to have originated in the press) consists of five stories of wood-framed apartments sitting atop a concrete podium often containing commercial space or enclosed parking at street level.

- Stumpies can fill entire city blocks. Generally, the buildings lack architectural distinction. The exterior is frequently divided into many vertical segments, sometimes in contrasting materials or colors, in an attempt to make whole thing look less bulky and overwhelming. This fragmented esthetic dismays many city-lovers. In January The New York Times published an article titled “America the Bland,” which reported, “Across the country, new developments are starting to look the same, raising fears that cities are losing their unique charm.”

- When done well, density has much to offer. By bringing large numbers of people together, it can make public transit possible. It can help shops, restaurants, and other enterprises thrive. It can entice people to walk rather than drive to many everyday destinations. If dense development includes moderately priced or inexpensive housing, it can offset some of America’s mounting economic inequality. --- But density, when it’s badly arranged, when it clusters only the narrowest range of income groups, household types, and economic activities, can be stultifying. Rather than giving residents multiple options, it constricts their daily experiences.

- Six decades ago, Jane Jacobs suggested—based on lively mixed-use districts she had studied across the US—that the ideal big-city density is somewhere between 100 and 200 net dwellings per acre. By her calculations, the North Beach-Telegraph Hill section of San Francisco achieved a net residential density of 80 to 140 units an acre. Philadelphia’s Rittenhouse Square area contained 80 to 100 units an acre. Brooklyn Heights had 125 to 174 units an acre in its core and 75 to 124 in the rest. The most fashionable pocket of Greenwich Village boasted 124-174 units per acre, and the remainder of the Village ranged from 175 to 254 units an acre.

......

A development such as Orenco Station, near a light-rail line west of Portland, may not be dense by world standards, but it’s significantly more compact than many American suburbs.

[Cory]

It’s harmful when the infrastructure doesn’t support it.

[TWAK]

Originally Posted by Cory

It’s harmful when the infrastructure doesn’t support it.

That's true, but it's always cool.

[mousquet]

In old urban fabrics made of ancient buildings dated prior to modernism - typically in European cities - excessive density may cause some oppressive feeling of discomfort, namely "promiscuité" (lack of privacy).

For instance, Central Paris is losing a bit of its population, which is not necessarily a bad trend at this point, when locals don't want to demolish their old urban fabric to build modern high-rises.
Slightly decreasing its density should help a lot of old buildings get more comfy and make the local real estate market more sensible.
You just don't want to pay an average $1,000 per square foot to live in a building that would feel like some slum.
I'm somewhat overstating it. But generally speaking, its population density has slightly exceeded what the old urban fabric can acommodate comfortably.
And yes, comfort does matter for the price you have to pay.

[mhays]

This is really more about urban design, not density.

[Steely Dan]

^ Design is HUGE.

I'd honestly rather live in an old street-car burb with 7,500 ppsm than some large commie-block project with 75,000 ppsm.

My ideal is somewhere in between those, but from an entire childhood of eating my Oreos filling first, I guess I'm just naturally predisposed to prefer creamy middles.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ Design is HUGE.

I'd honestly rather live in an old street-car burb with 7,500 ppsm than some large commie-block project with 75,000 ppsm.

My ideal is somewhere in between those, but from an entire childhood of eating my Oreos filling first, I guess I'm just naturally predisposed to prefer creamy middles.

I've been thinking a lot lately about how the terrible design of public housing was such a huge factor of why it failed in the U.S.

This is a pretty terrible built environment that is located in a neighborhood that looks mostly like this. I can't think of any good reason why the public housing was designed the way they did it, other than it just being someone's idea of what housing should look like instead of following the successful development patterns that already existed.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I've been thinking a lot lately about how the terrible design of public housing was such a huge factor of why it failed in the U.S.

This is a pretty terrible built environment that is located in a neighborhood that looks mostly like this. I can't think of any good reason why the public housing was designed the way they did it, other than it just being someone's idea of what housing should look like instead of following the successful development patterns that already existed.

yeah for sure there are a lot reasons and things to think about, but big ones are straight up greed and racis. they wanted to grab up 'slum' real estate and put all the poors together and move them out of sight and out of mind. and they didnt want to spend money on it for good design, nor build apts over retail, because then people would be out on the street and not out of sight and out of mind.

[Gantz]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I've been thinking a lot lately about how the terrible design of public housing was such a huge factor of why it failed in the U.S.

This is a pretty terrible built environment that is located in a neighborhood that looks mostly like this. I can't think of any good reason why the public housing was designed the way they did it, other than it just being someone's idea of what housing should look like instead of following the successful development patterns that already existed.

There are other designs of public housing throughout the US that are just as bad (if not worse). There are 2 storey projects in CA and FL for example.
The main issue is the residents who do not respect the environment they live in... Look at all those dilapidated beautiful private homes in Detroit or rowhomes in Baltimore.

The reason why the tower-in-the-park projects are the way they are is:
1. At the time they were built, this was a popular urban design among the urban planners, not just in the US but in Europe as well. It was considered very modern and futuristic. Blowing up art deco and putting up brutalist boxes was in vogue.
2. It is also cheaper to build mass government housing that way.

Just an example of an equally failed projects with a different built form. This one was in New Orleans:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desire...e_Projects.JPG

[MolsonExport]

Great density:


Awful density:

[Doady]

There is density of housing development, but there is also density of transportation infrastructure: the amount of arterial roads, side streets, sidewalks, intersections. The latter is what American cities especially the suburbs are really lacking. You can complain about bad design and lack of variety and unappealing streetscapes, but the real problem is the layout of the corridors.

What separates Evanston from the rest of suburban Chicago isn't the population density, it's the density of the intersections. You can build higher density housing to support transit, cycling and walking, but it doesn't mean anything there are no corridors for transit, cycling and walking.

You can see suburban Toronto has ten times the transit ridership of suburban Chicago. Why does Brampton Transit alone have higher ridership than all of Pace? Brampton is almost pure SFH, so what is the difference? The difference is all in the layout of the major roads and sidewalks.

Getting people out their cars is actually very easy. Articles like this are just making it seem more complicated than it actually is. You can see the same with the push for new LRTs while the bus service remains neglected. Cities and advocates always trying to skip steps so they forget about the very basic foundations.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Gantz

There are other designs of public housing throughout the US that are just as bad (if not worse). There are 2 storey projects in CA and FL for example.
The main issue is the residents who do not respect the environment they live in... Look at all those dilapidated beautiful private homes in Detroit or rowhomes in Baltimore.

The reason why the tower-in-the-park projects are the way they are is:
1. At the time they were built, this was a popular urban design among the urban planners, not just in the US but in Europe as well. It was considered very modern and futuristic. Blowing up art deco and putting up brutalist boxes was in vogue.
2. It is also cheaper to build mass government housing that way.

Just an example of an equally failed projects with a different built form. This one was in New Orleans:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desire...e_Projects.JPG

I"m not talking about private housing, though. I'm talking about why public housing failed. There are a ton of housing projects throughout the U.S. that look like the one in Brooklyn that are just as unappealing. But those projects aren't typically located so close to very hot urban neighborhoods like they are in NYC.

The flaws of how public housing in the United States was designed tend to be more obvious walking around NYC than other places because the functional neighborhoods near them didn't get destroyed like they did in other cities.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

The flaws of how public housing in the United States was designed tend to be more obvious walking around NYC than other places because the functional neighborhoods near them didn't get destroyed like they did in other cities.

And in the case of some cities like Chicago, the old 20th century highrise public housing projects have now been destroyed as well, leaving largely still unused scorched earth super-blocks in their wake

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Gantz

There are other designs of public housing throughout the US that are just as bad (if not worse). There are 2 storey projects in CA and FL for example.
The main issue is the residents who do not respect the environment they live in... Look at all those dilapidated beautiful private homes in Detroit or rowhomes in Baltimore.

Often times dilapidated private homes are due to people being too poor to properly maintain them. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with "respect". People may have had more money when they bought them and then fall on hard times and things go down hill. Job loss, health problems, etc.

[Gantz]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Often times dilapidated private homes are due to people being too poor to properly maintain them. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with "respect". People may have had more money when they bought them and then fall on hard times and things go down hill. Job loss, health problems, etc.

True, but also, pissing in elevators has nothing to do with your income level.

[Gantz]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I"m not talking about private housing, though. I'm talking about why public housing failed. There are a ton of housing projects throughout the U.S. that look like the one in Brooklyn that are just as unappealing. But those projects aren't typically located so close to very hot urban neighborhoods like they are in NYC.

The flaws of how public housing in the United States was designed tend to be more obvious walking around NYC than other places because the functional neighborhoods near them didn't get destroyed like they did in other cities.

There are also private developments that were designed that way. Look at those co-ops in LES or Coney Island for example. Even today, a lot of people mistake those buildings for projects. The tower-in-the-park/commieblock/le corbusier concept was more of a feature of the architectural norms of the time, rather than government housing specific. In fact, a lot of the times when you see people talk about these classic massive NYC projects they show footage/pictures/b-roll of Co-Op City, Bronx, which is a private development that looks like an epic NYCHA projects concentration of towers.
Like I said before, there are plenty of lowrise government housing developments in other cities (LA, Orlando, etc.) and those neighborhoods are just as bad.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Gantz

There are also private developments that were designed that way. Look at those co-ops in LES or Coney Island for example. Even today, a lot of people mistake those buildings for projects. The tower-in-the-park/commieblock/le corbusier concept was more of a feature of the architectural norms of the time, rather than government housing specific. In fact, a lot of the times when you see people talk about these classic massive NYC projects they show footage/pictures/b-roll of Co-Op City, Bronx, which is a private development that looks like an epic NYCHA projects concentration of towers.
Like I said before, there are plenty of lowrise government housing developments in other cities (LA, Orlando, etc.) and those neighborhoods are just as bad.

It's really only the high land values and density that is saving those private tower-in-the-park developments in NYC. Put those towers in any other city and they would have failed decades ago.

[Gantz]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

It's really only the high land values and density that is saving those private tower-in-the-park developments in NYC. Put those towers in any other city and they would have failed decades ago.

I am not defending these designs at all whatsoever. I think its the worst thing that happened to urban planning, worse than urban highways.
If it were me, I'd try to privatize NYCHA projects, especially the ones sitting on high value land, and let the developers demolish them with a caveat that they'd have to restore the street grid.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Gantz

If it were me, I'd try to privatize NYCHA projects, especially the ones sitting on high value land, and let the developers demolish them with a caveat that they'd have to restore the street grid.

Honestly, the reason that will never happen is also because of cost of living in the city.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Gantz

True, but also, pissing in elevators has nothing to do with your income level.

Dunno. If you earn a decent living you're probably not insane or on hard drugs, and therefore not likely to pee in elevators. Further, in a higher-end building, the management would review the footage and make you pay for it.

In my building, an elevator controversy would be moving a large object without permission and protective sheeting, or (gasp!) christmas tree needles on the floor.