Higher Density Development: Myth and Fact

Richard M. Haughey, Urban Land Institute.
2005. Urban Land Institute. 36 pp. Free PDF here.

Getting Density Right: Tools for Creating Vibrant Compact Development

Richard M. Haughey et al., Urban Land Institute
2008. Urban Land Institute. 145 pp. $49.95, $39.95 members.

How fast can you revise the American Dream of every family on its own large lot? Pretty fast, if you’re the Urban Land Institute.

In 2005, ULI put out a short book, CD-ROM, and PowerPoint® in an effort to debunk eight “myths” about higher-density developments, such as the beliefs that density overburdens infrastructure and promotes crime. Now, just three years on, ULI asserts that myth-busting is no longer necessary: “In many growing, urbanized communities,” writes Richard Haughey in the introduction to Getting Density Right, “the debate over whether to build compactly – up rather than out – is over. For these communities, the debate is now over where to increase density and how best to encourage, facilitate, plan, and design new compact development.” {3}

Instead of eight myths, now ULI presents eight detailed case studies of places where denser development has proceeded successfully. Of course each place is starting from a different point along the density spectrum, which might make the discussion a bit vague. No problem, though — ULI’s not targeting some ideal density for all to achieve, just encouraging increased densities at all levels.

Each place has taken a somewhat different tack. In order of size: Huntersville, North Carolina (population 40,000), changed its zoning ordinance. Evanston, Illinois (76,000), allowed taller buildings in return for developers’ providing public-space amenities. Plantation, Florida (85,000), enacted a new master plan and zoning for its Midtown District, including a street classification system. (It also allows developers to build fewer parking spaces if they pay into a fund for structured parking.) Ontario, California (170,000), devised a mixed-use plan for “New Colony,” a former farm that will ultimately hold 100,000 people. Arlington County, Virginia (203,000), enacted a form-based code [see review] to encourage development along Columbia Pike, its “Main Street,” which had suffered from not getting a Metrorail commuter line. Seattle, Washington (580,000), revised downtown zoning to allow dramatically taller buildings, effectively reversing a 1989 initiative. Austin, Texas (735,000), established an incentive-based overlay zoning district near the University of Texas campus. San Diego (1,300,000) established five mixed-use villages near transit, each taking a different approach to denser development.

Without making a big deal of it, this book is rigorously ecumenical. It’s about increasing density, not about any particular branded way of doing so. New Urbanism, Smart Growth, and a host of more local initiatives rub shoulders on an equal basis. And the places described in the case studies don’t seem to be micromanaging the details of the new arrangements.

But these policy strategies only go so far. No incentivized form-based code ever created a beautiful building, or a neighborhood with flourishing public life. The authors recognize that density by itself guarantees nothing, observing that “the infamous Pruitt Igoe public housing project in St. Louis and Greenwich Village in New York City were equivalent in density.” {12}

Developers, land planners, and intelligent opponents of sprawl have long favored building at higher densities. Now there’s an opening, well described in this book. But an opening is all it is. Badly designed (or badly managed) dense developments will re-energize those myths.

Even indifferent design may not be good enough. Higher Density Development: Myth and Fact contains a picture of a new development in Minneapolis, with a caption referring to the value of having “eyes on the street” — but there’s not a single person in sight. {20} Without design that actually promotes public life, increased density can be a recipe for trouble.

Planners accustomed to routine approval of sprawling subdivisions have had to undergo some professional re-education to cope with the novelties of denser development. The same may be said of other design professionals. One lesson Huntersville learned was to offer an architectural design book to guide builders unfamiliar with non-sprawl design. In the absence of some such cheat sheet, “Initially developments suffered from a limited number of housing plans and too much repetition.” {36} In Plantation, some developers cut out the middleman, “engaging architects with demonstrated experience in compact development to design appropriate projects that are likely to require less review and modification for approval.” {53}

Even if well designed, compact development could become the new urban renewal — by acting as gentrification with a happy face, pricing out long-term residents and less affluent people in general. The authors don’t address this issue head-on, but some of the local activities described suggest that others have. Halstead @ Columbia Pike, the first project approved under Arlington County’s form-based code, will include 7500 square feet for a free medical clinic, as well as apartments and retail space. {73} Edenglen, the first community to open within Ontario’s New Model Colony, includes both single-family and multi-family residences. {65} Seattle’s new zoning code requires developers to contribute toward affordable housing and child care. {80, 83}

There’s little doubt that a more densely populated America will be thriftier in terms of energy and environmental costs. With the proper policy, design, and management, it will be more diverse, inclusive, and lively as well.

#