Campoli

MacLean
Visualizing Density

Visualizing Density
Julie Campoli • Alex S. MacLean

Visualizing
Density

Julie Campoli • Alex S. MacLean

© 2007 by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Julie Campoli, and Alex S. MacLean

Text, ground photographs, and diagrams © 2007 Julie Campoli

Aerial photographs © 2007 Alex S. MacLean
All rights reserved.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Campoli, Julie.
Visualizing density / Julie Campoli and Alex S. MacLean.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN-13: 978-1-55844-171-2
ISBN-10: 1-55844-171-9
1. Population density—United States. 2. City planning—United States. I. MacLean, Alex S. II. Title.
HB1965.C25 2007
307.3’316—dc22
2006039014

Designed by Peter M. Blaiwas, Vern Associates, Inc.

Composed in Joanna MT. Printed and bound by Capital Offset in Concord, New Hampshire.
The paper is Sterling Ultra Matte, an acid-free, recycled sheet.

MANUFACTUR ED IN UNITED STATE S OF A MER ICA

Cover: Somerville, Massachusetts

Title page: Phoenix, Arizona
Page vi: Glendale, Arizona
Contents
Foreword, Armando Carbonell vii

Growing Closer 2 Patterns of Density 22 The Density Catalog 62

The Count 4 Planning for Density 22

The Coming Boom 5
Spreading Out or Growing In 5 Designing for Density 36 References 150
Crosscurrents 6
The Benefits 8 Acknowledgements 151
Why We Hate Density 11
How We Can Love Density 13 About the Authors 151
Visualizing Density 21
About the Lincoln Institute 152
of Land Policy

Foreword
For many Americans density is associated with ugliness, of land consumption? The second chapter, “Patterns of Den-
crowding, and congestion, even though it can be shown that, sity,” can be used as a manual on planning and designing for
when properly planned and executed, higher density can save “good” density, bringing together both quantitative and quali-
land, energy, and dollars. Moreover, many people—includ- tative aspects of residential development. Finally, “The Den-
ing some trained planners and designers—have difficulty esti- sity Catalog” is a set of reference images presented in order of
mating density from visual cues or distinguishing quantitative increasing density, based on Alex MacLean’s superb aerial pho-
(measured) and qualitative (perceived) density. We tend to tography and clear diagrams of street patterns drawn by Julie
overestimate the density of monotonous, amenity-poor devel- Campoli.
opments and underestimate the density of well-designed, I am very pleased to be adding this book to the body of
attractive projects, thereby reinforcing the negative stereo- materials on planning and urban form produced by the Lincoln
types. A primary objective of this work is to correct these Institute. It is the culmination of more than five years of collab-
misperceptions. oration with Alex and Julie, who have developed a classroom
This book was commissioned by the Lincoln Institute of course offered at sites around the country, as well as illustrated
Land Policy to help planners, designers, public officials, and working papers and a Visualizing Density Web site that can be
citizens better understand—and better communicate to oth- accessed through www.lincolninst.edu. We have packaged this
ers—the concept of density as it applies to the residential envi- book with a CD of the images in the Density Catalog to facili-
ronment. The need for such a work is borne out repeatedly tate their noncommercial use in public discussions and educa-
by participants in our classroom courses, also titled Visualizing tion programs.
Density,who share stories of proposed residential developments We hope this dramatic visual material and explanatory
of appropriate density that had been rejected outright or forced text will provide a robust set of tools and techniques for those
to reduce the number of housing units owing to public mis- engaged in planning and designing the roughly 60 million
conceptions about density. This is not to say that every resi- housing units that we can expect to build in this country over
dential project that has failed to win approval on account of its the next 25 years. While all density may not be “good” den-
density was necessarily well conceived. To address this issue, sity, it is time we redeem the word and reap the social, eco-
the authors also discuss and illustrate the importance of good nomic, and environmental benefits of creating the right density
planning and design in gaining acceptance of density. in the right places.
This book addresses both the “why” and the “how” of
density. In the first chapter, “Growing Closer,” Julie Campoli — Armando Carbonell
describes the density challenge in the United States: Will we Chairman
be able to accommodate significant growth in population and Department of Planning and Urban Form
housing units while reversing the trend of increasing rates Lincoln Institute of Land Policy

vii
 Growing Closer
Newark, Ohio This is where America lives—a neighborhood of free-standing market, the apartment building is far from reaching icon status
homes built on half- to quarter-acre lots, each with a yard and in the American imagination.
a garage, located on a sparsely traveled street. It’s a simple con- We can’t seem to get the low-density suburb out of our
cept—one family per house, each occupying its own distinct minds, which makes it easy to continue to build it. It’s what
realm defined by an expanse of lawn. When we think of hous- everyone expects—the architects and engineers who design it,
ing, this image usually comes to mind. Many of us live in this the bankers who finance it, the planners who approve it, the
type of place, and many others aspire to. It has become a sym- developers who build it, and the homeowners who move in.
bol of comfort, security, and privacy. In the past 50 years, we’ve created tens of thousands of these
Or maybe it’s just where we think we live. Although most neighborhoods. We can almost do it in our sleep. The low-
Americans occupy single-family homes, a full 40 percent of density subdivision has achieved a kind of inevitability.
existing housing units are attached or multifamily structures But despite its hold over our imagination, this type of
(U.S. Census Bureau 2000). In fact, many Americans are living neighborhood will not serve us well in the future. We simply
side by side in cities or dense suburbs. Their duplexes, town- cannot afford to use the land and resources required to house
houses, and apartments make up a substantial portion of the our growing population at such a low density.
housing stock. Yet, despite its solid presence in the housing

 Visualizing Density
 050629-0165

Growing Closer 
 ■ The Count the same amount of land. Whether this reality is problematic or
Every 10 years the U.S. Census counts Americans. In 2000 the not depends on our appetite for land. Census 2000 revealed that
count was 281 million. The Census also keeps track of many lately it has been voracious. In the past few decades we have
other details of our lives—where we live, how big our families combined steady population growth with unprecedented land
are, what types of houses we occupy, what our ethnic back- consumption. Urbanized land, or land that is used for residen-
grounds are, and how much money we make. To anyone even tial, commercial, industrial, or institutional purposes, increased
remotely interested in how we shelter ourselves and how we by 47 percent in the 1990s while population expanded by only
use land, the U.S. Census of 2000 revealed a startling fact: After 17 percent (Fulton et al. 2001). In essence, we’re taking up
dipping slightly in the past 50 years, our population growth more space per capita than we used to.
rate has turned sharply upward. Between 1960 and 1989 it Across the United States, suburbs grow faster than central
ranged from 22 to 24 million people added per decade. In cities, and jobs continue to migrate out of cities. As of 2000,
the 1990s, however, we grew by 33 million. Each year we add more than half of the population in 46 metropolitan areas lived
about 4.7 million people. At this rate, by 2030 we will be a more than 10 miles from the city center; in 1970, this was the
nation of roughly 350 million. case in only 13 metropolitan areas. Boston, with its tradition-
While the pace of population growth has accelerated, ally dense urban fabric, is a good example of this recent trend.
another fact remains constant—we have, and always will have, Unlike in earlier years of settlement, one-third of Boston-area
Tualatin, Oregon

 Visualizing Density

050629-0447
residents now live 30 miles or more from downtown. One-
fifth live at least 40 miles away (Joint Center for Housing Stud-
ies 2005). An increasing number settle not in the city, or even
in inner-ring suburbs, but on large parcels in emerging sub-
urbs farther afield. This echoes the national trend—40 percent
of new homes built between 1985 and 2001 were on lots of
more than an acre (Nelson 2004).

■ The Coming Boom

To shelter a fast-growing population, the next few decades will
bring a significant need for new housing. There were almost
116 million units of housing in the United States in 2000. By
the time we reach 350 million people in 2030, we’ll need a
total of 155 million homes. Considering that about 18 percent
of existing units will be lost to fire, natural disasters, or demo-
lition in the next 25 years, we’ll need to build about 60 million
new units to house the population—that’s more than half of
the housing stock on the ground now. And that doesn’t include
the 104 billion square feet of new space that will be needed for
commercial, industrial, and institutional uses. The next genera-
tion of Americans will face an unprecedented building boom
041215-0432
(Nelson 2004).
Given this need for housing, our tendency to sprawl will
place a great strain on our environment and our future econ- tionally shifted to accommodate the need for built space. It’s Buckeye, Arizona
omy. How long we can sustain ourselves on our finite land mass the density of that new growth that has changed. The rapid pace
will depend on how carefully we use land in this new century. of conversion from resource land to suburb is due not to the
As we face the coming boom, we can choose between two amount of development, but to its low density. We are spread-
basic approaches to land development—spreading out or grow- ing fewer people across each square mile and using up more
ing in and up. land in the process.
The alternative to spreading out is to concentrate—to grow
in and up. This is the way we grew before the automobile age
■ Spreading Out or Growing In transformed our sense of scale and distance. Before World War
For the past 50 years we’ve been growing out—extending II, cities expanded outward in small increments in a dense
beyond the limits of existing settlements and converting farm- fabric. Developers filled in vacant parcels and rebuilt existing
land, deserts, and forests into building sites. Expansion outward structures, making room for newcomers within an area limited
is nothing new. The edges of our cities and towns have tradi- by pedestrian access and public transportation. As they added

Growing Closer 
 the 1990s. Several cities and suburbs in the West grew in rather
than out. People returned to the central cores of a few cities.
The market for multifamily homes grew. The movement toward
greater density is mostly evident in the West, where land costs
are high or water is scarce. Although this countertrend was
minor in relation to the amount of sprawl overall, it may well
point to a future direction.
One indicator is that a small minority of metropolitan areas
became more concentrated in the last decade of the twentieth
century. These cities used less land per capita to accommodate
their fast-growing populations (Fulton et al. 2001). Areas that
were originally built to a low density filled in at a faster rate
than they expanded outward. Phoenix is a good example of this
050630-0192 trend. Density in Phoenix increased from 2,228 persons per
square mile in the 1970s to 2,707 in the 1990s. Unlike other
cities, population and employment grew and remains concen-
trated in the center. Density in Los Angeles increased by 8 per-
cent between 1982 and 1997 (Fulton et al. 2001).
People are moving back into the hearts of some cities in
search of an urban lifestyle. Despite the fact that their larger
metropolitan areas sprawled, many downtowns grew denser.
Central districts of downtown Chicago, Denver, Seattle, and
Houston, among others, grew at a faster rate in the 1990s than
Above: Seattle, Washington population, cities grew more dense as an increasing number of the cities around them (Liu 2003). Demographic trends indi-
Opposite: Chicago, Illinois people shared each square mile of land. cate an emerging market for urban locations and city housing,
As we confront dwindling land and energy resources, this due in part to an aging population and declining family size.
concentrated growth pattern makes more and more sense: reuse Empty nesters and young singles, two of the faster growing
land that has already been altered; limit the range of new devel- segments of the population, are choosing multifamily hous-
opment to an area that is easily accessible; and build up, not ing over single-family options. Immigrants, who made up 34
out. It is becoming clearer that these ideas should not be rel- percent of new U.S. residents in the 1990s and represent a
egated to our past, but are the key to our future. growing presence in the housing market, also tend to seek out
urban settings.
This new market for density has emerged in places like
■ Crosscurrents Washington, DC, and its suburbs, where the demand for multi-
Along with the sprawl trends evident in the Census 2000 sta- family housing is high. Developers have stepped up production
tistics, researchers have detected some interesting crosscur- of apartments and condominiums and are having little trou-
rents. It seems that not every corner of the nation sprawled in ble renting and selling them to residents of all incomes. Sales

 Visualizing Density
 050529-0104

Growing Closer 
 are highest in the upper-income groups, which are choosing sity growth into existing areas of Massachusetts found that $11
luxury condos in mixed-use locations over detached homes in billion could be saved over the course of 25 years. Most of the
outer suburbs. Loft-style high rises and mid-rise buildings built savings would go to homebuyers and developers, but local and
near metro stations are also increasingly popular (Allen 2005). state governments also stood to gain (Burchell 2003).
In the Seattle area, between 1996 and 1998, half of all new When it comes to sewer, water, roads, electric, and other
suburban housing was made up of multifamily dwelling units. infrastructure elements, compact form equals fewer pipes and
poles, and less asphalt and concrete per unit of housing. Add-
ing population to existing service areas creates an economy of
■ The Benefits scale that translates into lower installation costs for developers
Just as we’ve discovered the specific negative impacts of sprawl and lower operational costs for municipalities. Consumers and
in recent years, we are now beginning to understand the par- taxpayers save money, too. Although the amount of the sav-
ticular ways in which arranging our towns in a compact pat- ings varies from study to study, research over the past decades
tern can provide benefits. A growing body of research shows has consistently shown that low-density development leads to
that concentrating homes, jobs, schools, and shops into a higher public and private development costs (Muro and Puentes
smaller area will help us prosper, protect our environment, and 2004).
strengthen our communities. Transportation savings is one of the biggest benefits of
Building at a higher density boosts the economy because it concentrating people and jobs into a smaller geographic area.
saves money for governments, developers, and consumers. One Households can save thousands of dollars a year if they drive
study analyzing the fiscal benefits of channeling higher den- less because the services they need are nearby. One recent study

Olympia, Washington

050701-0203

 Visualizing Density
found that families in low-density regions like Houston and
Atlanta spend more than $8,000 per year to get around, while
those in Chicago average $5,000 (McCann 2000). Chicago resi-
dents, who have less expensive travel options such as walking,
biking, and public transit, are able to translate their transporta-
tion savings into better-quality housing through the Location
Efficient Mortgage program. Lenders recognize the efficiency
and cost effectiveness of urban locations and are willing to
extend more credit to those buying homes in dense areas
served by public transportation.
Where homes are spread out, more energy must be
expended to serve them: more gasoline to access them; more
oil or natural gas to heat them; and more electricity to cool
them. Freestanding or “detached” homes consume 85 to 99
percent more energy than houses of equal size that share a
common wall. Combining energy used for travel, home, and
an individual’s portion of what is used for community infra- 7806.12
structure, the contrast in energy consumption between low-
density and high-density housing is striking. The owner of a
3-units-per-acre, detached, suburban house uses an average of
440 million British thermal units (Btus) per year compared to An urban resident living at a density of 12 units per acre Reading, Pennsylvania
360 million Btus per year for his urban counterpart living in an generates about one-third less of these harmful emissions than
attached townhouse at a density of 24 units per acre (Allen and someone driving the miles necessary to live at a density of
McKeever 1996). 3 units per acre. She is also responsible for emitting a lower
We don’t often think of cities as environmentally friendly amount of the pollution that causes global warming—10.4
places, but by most significant measures they are. City dwell- tons of greenhouse gases per year at 12 units per acre versus 16
ers use fewer energy resources and generate less pollution than tons at 3 units per acre (Holtzclaw n.d.). Cities generate high
their suburban and rural neighbors. People drive less in places concentrations of pollutants, but on a per capita basis residents
where densities are high, streets are interconnected, and jobs of leafy suburbs are far more responsible for air pollution and
are interspersed with housing. They take fewer trips, and the global warming than their urban neighbors.
ones they take are shorter. They don’t start up their cars— Living closer together helps save agricultural and resource
a significant source of harmful emissions—as frequently land. The typical suburban density of 3 units per acre requires
because they have other travel options. Fewer vehicle miles four times as much land as a medium density of 12 units per
traveled translates into lower amounts of volatile organic com- acre. At a small development scale, this may seem like a negligi-
pounds, nitrogen oxides, and particulates that pose risks of ble difference. To build 10 houses at the lower density, only 29
asthma and cancer. more acres of land would be needed. But when the growth rate

Growing Closer 
 050629-0225

10 Visualizing Density
is high and the number of households rises, the need for land hood shopping center with local goods such as convenience Opposite: Portland, Oregon
also rises dramatically. One thousand new homes at a suburban items, videos, or a dry cleaner needs a minimum of 3,000
low density would consume 250 more acres of land than they people within a three-mile radius to be viable; a supermarket
would at a medium density; 5,000 new homes would require requires far more—40,000 residents within three to six miles
1,250 more acres of land. That development would most likely (Beyard and O’Mara 1999).
be on soils suitable for agriculture or on land that provides an
important ecological function.
Increasing the density in urban areas while restricting ■ Why We Hate Density
growth on resource lands prevents this loss of crucial land. Despite all the advantages of building closer, resistance to
Oregon has pursued this policy for the past 30 years. In 1973, density is widespread, to say the least. One reason is cultural.
300,000 acres of productive farmland in the Willamette Valley Unlike other nations that developed over a millennium, we
were rezoned from rural residential to agricultural use. Dur- don’t have a long-standing tradition of designing cities and
ing the same period, urban growth boundaries around Portland sharing close quarters. Our cities and villages were dense for a
directed growth inward. The results have been encouraging. mere 150 years before losing population to the suburbs in the
Only 1 percent of the farmland in the valley was lost between middle of the twentieth century. Psychologically, we’re a nation
1987 and 1999, while the population of nearby Portland rose of single-family homeowners. We’re accustomed to a lot of
by 23 percent. Compare this to a productive region of another space between our neighbors and ourselves. This cultural bias
state without a similar policy: California’s rich Central Valley often underlies discussions of growth and development and
loses 15,000 acres of farmland every year (1000 Friends of merges with negative stereotypes of recent public housing fail-
Oregon n.d.). Other studies have calculated the potential land ures. Many people view density as a threat, believing that
savings of following a similar course. For example, Massachusetts it leads to sinking property values, rising crime, and traffic
could save 51,000 acres of land by switching to a smart growth congestion.
development pattern for the next 25 years (Burchell 2003).
In addition to economic and environmental benefits, den- Crowding Although skepticism toward density is often
sity offers the advantages of urban life, namely the choices and based on fear and misconceptions, not all opposition is unjus-
options available wherever people live and work in close prox- tified. There is such a thing as “bad” density—that which is
imity. Cities generate diverse and specialized services that are poorly planned and designed without an understanding or
not possible in places with smaller populations—things like concern for human needs. Much recent development has
cultural events, medical services, shopping, and dining options. proven to be a poor model of how to live closer together. Many
At higher densities, it’s possible to offer more of these ameni- new subdivisions create density without amenities. They are
ties within a smaller geographical area. crowded and monotonous, offering few of the environmental
Many people like the idea of having a corner store or café or economic benefits described above.
in their neighborhood. In housing surveys, homebuyers regu- Density is often associated with crowding, but it is impor-
larly express a preference for “shops within walking distance.” tant to distinguish between the two. Density is the number of
But retail businesses need residents to survive. The larger a gro- people in a given space, while crowding is the subjective per-
cery store is—and the more extensive its selection—the more ception that that number is too high. Places can be very dense,
customers it needs to stay in business. For example, a neighbor- but may not be perceived as overcrowded if they are designed

Growing Closer 11
 to comfortably accommodate many people. William H. Whyte’s
research into the use of public spaces revealed how this can be
true. The two plazas that New Yorkers cited as the most pleasing
and the least crowded—Paley Park and Greenacre Park—were
also the most heavily used per square foot (Whyte 1980). They
attracted and held the highest density of users, but left people
with the impression that there was plenty of room.
Livable, or “good,” density requires a state of balance
between housing and population. Even if many people live
within an acre or square mile, enough housing units are avail-
able to shelter them comfortably. In residential settings, the
perception of crowding may be the result of too many people
trying to fit into too few housing units. Measured in persons
per square mile, some areas of South Central Los Angeles are
the densest neighborhoods in the country, but measured in
units per acre they have a relatively low density. They are dense
050528-0055 in population, but not in housing units.
Another phenomenon, known as “dense sprawl,” is
growth that is simultaneously dense and sprawling. Recent
growth in desert cities like Las Vegas and Phoenix has forced us
to rethink our assumptions about density and sprawl. The word
“sprawl” means spread out, so it’s natural to assume that den-
sity is its opposite. In fact low-density development has long
been a key component of the standard sprawl definition. But
sprawl as a land use pattern is defined by other characteristics
as well.
In sprawling environments, uses are separated by geo-
graphic area, and the circulation and storage of vehicles are
prime generators of form. Development gathers along highway
corridors and leapfrogs across open space in a haphazard pat-
tern. Growth in the desert Southwest fits this description, but
it’s occurring at a higher density. A remote 500-acre subdivi-
sion of single-family homes on cul-de-sac streets, located near
a highway interchange, but with a relatively high density of 8
units per acre, could be accurately described as sprawl. It’s just
a denser version of sprawl.

12 Visualizing Density
monotony Many examples of “bad” density arise from
the “stack ’em and pack ’em” approach to housing design,
which is tempting to developers in our age of mass produc-
tion. This option has been available since the 1940s, when
William Levitt built 17,000 homes seemingly overnight on a 1-30AX1801
Long Island potato field. Applying factory techniques to on-
site construction and working at a large scale, his development
company created an instant suburb of affordable homes, which
sold quickly to first-time homebuyers. Levitt’s strategy relied
on speed and standardization. He offered only one model—a
30-by-20-foot Cape Cod–style house—that stood in a uni-
form location on a standardized lot. By eliminating variety and
employing an assembly-line construction method, Levitt pro-
duced thousands of homes in record time. Levittown became
a model for the successful mass production of housing. It also
became an icon of 1950s uniformity.
While large-scale standardization brings down the cost of
construction and makes housing more affordable, it also breeds
050309-0186
monotony. When the same building form is repeated relent-
lessly across a broad area, it provokes a response that there are
“too many” structures, regardless of the actual number. Density
is perceived to be greater than it is.
All too often, the term “density” evokes an image of repeti-
tive, featureless housing developments with little greenery and
no privacy. Some dense neighborhoods are bleak, but it’s not 1-30AX1801
a function of how many housing units are built on each acre.
Crowding and monotony are the consequences of poor design,
not the inevitable results of density.

■ How We Can Love Density

If the next 25 years are like the past quarter-century, we will
continue to spread ourselves thin across a diminishing land-
scape. If our fear of density persists and we build the next 60
million housing units at 3 to 5 units per acre, the costs will be
huge. To maintain the low-density lifestyle in this new era Top and bottom: Las Vegas, Nevada
Opposite: Chicago, Illinois

Growing Closer 13
Phoenix, Arizona

041215-0226

of rising energy costs and shrinking budgets, we will consume the land is subdivided, how the buildings are arranged and
significant energy resources and require government subsidies. detailed, whether trees are planted, and where the sidewalks
Our supply of resource land will shrivel within a generation. lead. These are all functions of design.
What type of pattern will and should dense growth take? Living closer together is more appealing when the built
What will it look like? Depending on the pattern it fits within environment is designed well and cared for. Dense urban neigh-
and the form it takes, density can be a blessing or a curse. borhoods such as Chicago’s Oak Park, Seattle’s Capital Hill, and
Despite the word’s power to provoke emotional responses, den- Brooklyn’s Park Slope have been valued over time for their high
sity merely expresses a numerical ratio—typically the number quality of life. These places offer the benefits of density without
of housing units to the acre of land. Examined rationally, it tells negative aspects like overcrowding or monotony. Not limited to
us something about how much activity is compressed into a big cities, dense, livable neighborhoods are common in settings
given area, but it reveals nothing about physical form. as diverse as Boise, Idaho; Sandusky, Ohio; and St. Johnsbury,
Two neighborhoods with the exact same density can look Vermont. There are many historic examples to serve as models,
as different as night and day. Although they measure out at the as well as newer places that combine the best attributes of the
same density, they are not necessarily perceived to be equally old. The key to creating new, high-quality density lies in how
dense. What really matters is how the streets are laid out, how we plan and design communities.

14 Visualizing Density
 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

050906-0058

Density in the Region Planning for density sively on private automobiles. At very low densities this mode
should begin at the regional level with a fundamental question: of transportation works well. There are few people per mile of
Where should growth go? Densities should vary across a town roadway and plenty of space to store vehicles. Parking is plenti-
as well as throughout a region. Determining which areas can ful and highways are clear. At the other end of the transporta-
accommodate more intense development and which should be tion spectrum, urban densities support a mix of alternatives,
protected is a good first step. Density is appropriate in built-up including walking, biking, buses, and trains, in a setting with
areas where infrastructure and services are already in place to little room for private automobiles.
serve a growing population. Underused urban sites with access Numerically speaking, there is not a large gap between
to public transportation and nearby jobs and commercial ser- these two ends of the spectrum. Rural densities are typically
vices are also a good choice. Density neither belongs in remote less than 1 unit per acre; transit-friendly densities begin at
locations, where a substantial investment in new roads, sewer, 6 units per acre and extend into the hundreds. Given the
water, and electric lines is required, nor on natural resource broad continuum of possible densities, this span of 1 to 6
land or fragile soils. units per acre is small, but it represents a huge portion of
Successful density requires a major shift in our thinking the housing stock and a very common density for new
about how we get around. Currently, we rely almost exclu- construction.

Growing Closer 15
Colorado Springs, Colorado

8282.16

As a region is solidly built out at densities of 1 to 6 units in alternative transportation and less in auto-oriented infra-
per acre, the demand for space on roads and highways often structure. Transportation funding in projects such as transit
exceeds the supply. This explains the epidemic of traffic con- centers, bike lanes, sidewalks, ride-sharing programs, and bus
gestion across the country that has accompanied widespread shelters should begin to take precedence over roadways and
suburban development. Depending on the extent of the devel- parking lots. In addition to this shift toward alternatives, land
oped area and road network, densities of fewer than 6 units use decisions should complement transportation investments.
per acre are often too high for the cars-only approach, but too The maximum distance people are willing to walk to catch a
low to support alternatives, resulting in a transportation limbo bus or train is about half a mile. It makes sense to concentrate
between rural and urban. housing within that radius around transit centers, allowing
Density goes hand in hand with alternative transportation. more people to take a shorter walk.
Higher concentrations of people make mass transit feasible, and Planning for high-density development requires two differ-
transit is the most efficient way to move larger numbers of ent leaps of imagination. It involves sacrificing the primacy of
people. As communities grow denser, they should invest more both the car and the big yard—each dear to American hearts—

16 Visualizing Density
 San Francisco, California

8349.25

to achieve a different sort of mobility and convenience. It areas are protected, where they are located, and how they are
compels us to embrace alternative transportation at a policy managed are decisions that need to be addressed through town
level and to choose it on a personal level. In this sense the and regional planning. Like a good transportation system, open
psychological gap between 1 and 6 units an acre can be space should be extensive, varied, interconnected, and acces-
immense. But in order to make density fulfill its promise of sible to all neighborhoods.
a better living environment, living closer together must be This is not a new concept. Frederick Law Olmsted advo-
accompanied by a willingness to drive less and walk or cated for open space networks in the nineteenth century and
ride more. convinced many cities to build them. He believed that dense
One of the most significant benefits of density is the poten- urban environments required the counterbalancing effects of
tial to save open land from development. Homeowners may green oases and that the restorative power of nature must be
be more willing to forgo a big yard if they have access to large available to all city dwellers. Olmsted designed city parks to
tracts of natural land for recreation. Like context and transpor- fill this need, but also suggested they be linked across a city or
tation, open space is a key issue in planning for density. Which region by greenways. His advice that no neighborhood be more

Growing Closer 17
St. Johnsbury, Vermont

8001.24

than a few minutes walk from a greenway or park extension is than large, blank lawns. Diversity in architecture is key. Green
worth heeding if cities and towns are to grow inward. infrastructure in the form of parks, greenways, or tree-lined
streets offers the connection with the natural world we all crave.
Density in the Neighborhood Living closer An interconnected street network that serves both vehicles and
together has some negative aspects—less private space, fewer pedestrians can make neighborhood life more community ori-
parking spaces, and more noise, to name a few—but good ented and convenient. These are the amenities that make people
design can help overcome some of these drawbacks. Specific forget, or not even notice, that a neighborhood is high-density.
design elements, or amenities, should be present in all dense Dense housing can be bleak if it’s architecturally monoto-
neighborhoods. Carefully placed and proportioned public nous. When the same building type is repeated up and down
spaces often compensate for the loss of large lots. Clearly identical streets, the result is tedious to look at. Density can also
defined private gardens can be more appealing outdoor spaces be boring to live in if there is only one type of use and one

18 Visualizing Density
type of housing. The best dense neighborhoods include a lively thing looks the same. The architecture is not distinctive enough
mix of uses, housing types, architectural styles, and public to register in our memories and serve as landmarks. As human
spaces. There is more to observe and more to do. Most impor- beings, we have an innate desire to know where we are and
tant, a broad range of people lives in them. Variety on every how to find our way around. This is easier when our environ-
level is what keeps dense neighborhoods from feeling oppres- ment is varied and has a comprehensible structure. In a neigh-
sive. It helps create places that are both visually stimulating and borhood setting this requires an assortment of buildings and a
socially dynamic. coherent street network. Distinctive elements such as a unique
One byproduct of monotony is an uneasy sense of disori- building or a view of a distant mountain provide landmarks.
entation that one feels moving through a setting where every- Neighborhood design should take this into account, not only
Camden, New Jersey

5417.28

Growing Closer 19
 in the design of buildings, but also in the layout of streets and arranging buildings to create well-proportioned outdoor
public spaces. spaces, and designing streets to encourage human interaction.
One of the great benefits of density is that it brings people Street trees, narrow roadways, wide sidewalks, prominent
close enough together that they can interact without traveling crosswalks, bike lanes and racks, and bus shelters are some of
far. The higher the density, the more people and activities there the design elements of a pedestrian-friendly street. As pedestri-
are within walking distance. This proximity shrinks the propor- ans, we like buildings that are a few footsteps away, walls that
tions of a place from a scale oriented to vehicles to one suited don’t dwarf us, windows that reveal a glimpse of life within,
to pedestrians. Since we perceive the world at the size of a and doorways that invite us. We move slowly and appreciate
human being and not a car, this is an inherently more comfort- details that are lost to drivers. We may not consciously notice
able scale in which to exist. The design of dense neighborhoods the well-trimmed cornice or gracefully proportioned fenestra-
should take full advantage of this, by locating a mix of uses and tion, but our experience of it makes walking a pleasure rather
public spaces within an optimal walking distance from homes, than a chore.

Location to come

8258.21

20 Visualizing Density
 Density increases the need to formalize and strengthen our about density, there is a growing realization that design and
connection to nature. Just as all cities need infrastructure in planning are at the heart of the issue—that people’s attitudes,
the form of roads, pipes, and wires, healthy cities need a green pro and con, reflect the quality of the housing around them,
infrastructure. Such a system of open spaces and natural ele- rather than the concept of density (Oppenheimer 2006). Many
ments would reach into every neighborhood. Green infrastruc- Oregonians now recognize they need to determine why some
ture could include natural features like riparian stream edges density appeals, while other density disappoints, so they can
and wooded tracts, but it also might contain formal elements learn to do it better.
like pocket parks and tree-lined boulevards. The greenspace Which is what this book is all about—showing density and
system should weave through town, offering every resident a the design behind it to help you decide what works and what
direct connection to nature and natural processes. Trees, which doesn’t. When you examine the many ways to achieve density,
fit in the smallest of spaces, play an indispensable role. Green you can begin to understand how different design approaches
infrastructure offers many environmental benefits—cleaner create different results.
air, better water quality, cooler summer temperatures—but the Chapter 2 presents “Patterns of Density,” a selection of
main advantage is that it provides an element of tranquility photographs that illustrate the points made in this introduction.
to areas of high activity. It satisfies a human need that is often The accompanying images show examples of monotony, diver-
denied in urban life. sity, amenities, open space, and other elements to demonstrate
In dense neighborhoods, architectural design matters how they contribute to or detract from an environment. They
down to the last detail of construction. It is just as important highlight the differences among various planning and design
to add sound insulation to apartment walls as it is to build a strategies, showing how town and neighborhood layout, build-
parking garage. High ceilings add a sense of spaciousness.Large ing design, and landscaping affect the quality of living spaces.
windows let in more daylight. A balcony offers a place to eat Chapter 3 is a “Density Catalog.” This collection of neigh-
outdoors. One large tree in the back patio can make the neigh- borhood photographs represents a broad sampling of density
bors seem twice as far away. Shielded streetlights help keep the at many levels, from rural low to urban high. It will help you
night sky dark. Living close together should not mean saying get a feel for what different densities look like. And it will show
goodbye to privacy and quiet. how design, much more than density, is what shapes the physi-
cal character of a place.

■ Visualizing Density
Americans will be wrestling with issues of growth and den-
sity for generations. We are growing rapidly and are not sure
we want to continue to sprawl. We can learn something from
Oregon, a state that chose density 30 years ago. After decades of
brisk growth and a land use policy mandating density, the state
has experienced both successes and failures. Compared to other
regions, sprawl has been curtailed and open land protected. But
Oregonians give mixed reviews of the density they’re now liv-
ing in. Some love it; others are skeptical. In the public dialogue

Growing Closer 21