Amazingly this is not another tedious anti-density rant. Nope, this is a pro-density post. Density is still a stupid idea but that doesn't mean it lacks aspects that some people desire. Okay, for the most part they want density for other people but still...
First. What is density and what is it not? What are we measuring and at what scale? What about demands on the same physical spaces from non-residential uses? How do architecture and geography and adjacent land uses affect the perception of density? What are the current energy/environment conditions and what portends for the future? How do shared spaces and public spaces fit into the equation?
This is a "Zero Level" post for asking questions and making suggestions. Next up; why density always costs more. Always.
Oh, and just to prove I'm not wholly opposed to crowding people:
39 comments:
Good morning and first ENers. And I've got to say you've got a very good argument for crowding people Rob.
I had to post that last picture of miserable overcrowding. All that human flesh packed... err.. cheek to cheek. You see, it was cold this morning. My morning commute was miserable. It probably dipped below 50 degrees last night. At least I'm not in El Paso who got 5 inches of snow last night.
My skull and the contents within it are pretty dense, Rob!
I am looking forward to your presentation on the high energy consuming (per capita) dense urban forms.
The last pic everyone looked miserable in all that density. Apparently, living in high density also limits your clothing choices!
Metro,
Just to be clear. Currently the Cenurb/Exurb energy balance is pretty much a wash. Both use about the same per capita and we'll discuss the differences and points of contention. It is the future where the Cenurbs look to be the big energy hogs in terms of sustainable consumption. Within that overarch we will also have to discuss some of the truly incredible outliers such as New York City for total consumption as reported and Swedish cities in terms of their real and very low transport per capita expenditures.
Rob:
Density is relative. What is spacious to a Chinese citizen would be a prison cell to an American.
What a Midwesterner would call a backyard, a Los Angeleno would call a "county".
The very term "high density" could also be defined as a euphemism for "overcrowding", which in the case of every species I can think of, is a bad thing...leads to localized Malthusian consequences.
"WE have to consider the possibility that the housing price downturn will eventually be as big as that of the last truly big decline, from 1925 to 1933, when prices fell by a total of 30 percent."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/business/25view.html?em&ex=1196226000&en=428d783f0cbd46b6&ei=5087%0A
Ok.. again with the living in Holland thing... but it's perfect for your post. Holland is one of the most densely populated countries in the world and the housing and facilities reflect that. I live in a beautiful "matchbox" town called Zwolle population around 150,000. Living here is much more communal. From my American backround, it took some getting used to. Backyards are small, so there are small parks every few blocks for the neighborhood kids. Having your own pool makes no sense with the small yards and weather, so all swimming is down at the swimming community centers. We have 2 in our town. Homes are a lot smaller and close together. Reminds me a little of the victorians in SF. But a row of houses will share a wall instead of being distinct. You only see true one family free standing houses in the countryside. Those that seem free standing are actually duplexes. My row house is considered "huge" but no one room is overwhelming. And even in my huge house, there is only one toilet and one shower for all the bedrooms. I just can't imagine this ever working in the States. People would feel totally stiffled. Yet, the upsides are many: in this compact non-sprawled city you can get from one side of town to the other within 30 minutes by bike. There is a real community spirit... people are not so isolated in their mcmansions. And homes have a really affordable price range- in my town from 50,000 euros to 400,000 - for good clean well built houses. Now, of course Holland is forced to do this because of geography: there's just only so much land they can claim from the sea. But the Dutch are also way less ostentatious. They really don't show off or play keep-up-with-the-Van Jones. Anyway, I find this style of high density living much more gratifying. Just had to get used to it.
I imagine the quality of life while living in high density areas is mostly dependent on WHO you are living with.
Debbie,
Zwolle, 114,500 people 46.1 sq mi.
Thousand Oaks, 128,000 people 55.0 sq mi.
Thousand Oaks is normally considered a poster child for all that is wrong with the low density sprawl epitomized by Southern California development patterns.
See why density is such a slippery subject?
Screw all this high fallutin smart people topics....more pics of hot babes in lingerie bent over motorcycles please....
Ain't no smart pepules here Legion. We'uns jus' hangin' 'round the cracker barrel a'talkin 'bout whatever. Dem purty gurlz, dey be comin' aroun' shortly.
Rob, just wondering where you got the 46.2 sq mi for Zwolle. I guess it's true, but I think it might be a trick of the maps. Cause I'm guessing that upwards of 80% of the city's population lives in just a few small sections. In other words, the "geographical" borders of the city of Zwolle might be a lot different than the size of the functioning/lived-in parts. I don't know how one would find that out, just saying from living here. Anyway, I grew up in Hollywood so I know Thousand Oaks well, and it's definately not apples to apples. But it is a slippery subject, as you so smartly say. IMHO mostly because space and ownership is so pychological. I mean, I always associated space and big ole backyards, and pools, and number of en suite bathrooms with wealth/good living. So my first reaction here was a feeling of poverty. Like if I didn't own it myself, then it meant my lifestyle was less. On the contrary, owning certain things communally has been much more socially fun and less hassle. But my whole perception had to change. Higher density living requires a paradigm shift of sorts. And as another commenter said, it matters a lot who your neighbors are. Still, when the credit and peak oil shit hits the fan, I think the benefits of secluded exurban dwelling will seem like a ball and chain.
Oh and Legion- I'm a purty girl with fishnets bent over a keyboard, and I like these a' high falutin' subjects.
W,
That is so right. In high density you require a bit of sensitivity, especially when it comes to noise. But many people clamor to live in some high density locations like NYC, Chicago, etc.
Living in high density is a personal choice and while I have lived in 4 cities in my life, I currently life in a Planned Unit Development in the exurbs. I find my current situation best for my girls to be raised in.
Debbie: I adore Holland. I would have stayed indefinitely had I been able to find gainful employment. I had an interesting experience in Luxembourg, where a friend of a relative said he left Holland for Luxembourg because he counted one day how many people were watching him wash his car. He thought Luxembourg was lower density, if only that you didn't see as many people. Talk about dense. 45 square miles, if I remember. Farther to the next town here.
I did years in LA, as well, and Houston. And yes, you have to be kind to your neighbors to live in high density. And they have to be kind to you. Personally, I can't stand high density now in my old age. We are about 10 people per acre here, and dropping as Cali washes over the Tahoe basin. And, as a former resident of LA, I can hardly blame them.
Debbie,
Careful, teasing about fishnets on EN is a spankable offense. ;-)
Anyway, wiki has an entry for Zwolle as does an obscure portion of the CIA Factbook. I used the wiki because everyone can get that easily. Just like Zwolle T.O. has huge portions of undeveloped open space. some is agriculture, some public lands, some just urban designated but unimproved. There is also a lot, I mean a lot of intersitial space; land that may be "owned" but won't get developed or fenced or whatever.
You are correct as to the psyche and perceptual issues. That is why I've decided to devote a few days at least to the subject. One hot button issue here is crime. The topic is usually called "defensible space" but the problem is an excess of unowned i.e. public space with no clear territorial markings. It will be a few posts before we even try to tackle that one. This is the other side of the coin you mention with the benefits of communal spaces.
We won't talk peak oil here in this thread. It just eats whole blogs nevermind whole threads. We will discuss relative energy intensities and their prospects.
What do you mean, density is always expensive? I suppose there is a certain cost, but I suppose it is more efficient to build densely, up to a certain point, where the returns taper off. Don't builders favor attached housing because they don't have to build as many free standing walls? And we should consider the hidden costs to society, and the intangibles, such as more free time to spend with family.
There certainly is a maximum efficient point, I would agree. Factors that go into determining this should not all be economic. The same building can be designed to foster privacy that can also be an oppresive display case. I wouldn't mind owning 3500 sq ft, even if it was in a building containing many units, if I never saw my neighbors.
Lost Cause,
You have most of the issue in your mind. Good. Density is most certainly not just a bottom line issue.
When I say density is always expensive I mean that whatever outcome you desire, if it is enumerable, it will cost more at higher densities. I hope also in coming posts to make the case that innumerable consequences are not as great as the advocates purport. Again, there are benefits to density. Very few are of the enumerable variety. Most benefits are of the "sense of community" variety. That is not an insult, just an explanation.
When I say density is always expensive I mean that whatever outcome you desire, if it is enumerable, it will cost more at higher densities.
I have often wondered to what extent the climate plays a role. I spent a few years in Toronto and Montreal a while back. High density definitely makes for efficient snow clearing. Colder climates are also much harder on pavement due to frost heaves etc. Higher density means fewer roads to keep in plowed and in repair.
I have often wondered to what extent the climate plays a role. I spent a few years in Toronto and Montreal a while back. High density definitely makes for efficient snow clearing. Colder climates are also much harder on pavement due to frost heaves etc. Higher density means fewer roads to keep in plowed and in repair.
Climate matters in cross region comparisons but in any one place density costs more. Granted at the extremes it becomes difficult to document but in the big cities less plowing means also more shipping of snow rather than pushing it to the side and still more mantainence regardless.
Coming up, just in time for the holidays:
http://img.timeinc.net//time/cartoons/20071123/cartoons_07.jpg
California, Nevada, Florida are already in recession.
Debbie;
As much as I like the Netherlands, it ain't all that and a bag of chips.
There are/were areas of Rotterdam the Surinamer Ghetto, where the famous Dutch "Live and Let Live" attitude definitely had been abused to a sinister side.
Heck, I remember when Makro (a grocery chain), decided that it would stay open past five pm.
The other shopkeepers in The Hague banded together and made them close at 5;00 pm, since it was considered an unfair trade practice.
And as another poster alluded to:
Good luck finding a job.
"...but in the big cities less plowing means also more shipping of snow rather than pushing it to the side and still more mantainence regardless."
Yup. If you're ever in NYC after a blizzard you can watch dump trucks being (slowly) loaded with snow for disposal in the Hudson River. In Brooklyn, the city doesn't even bother; DPW trucks just flatten out the snow into a surface perfect for sleigh riding. This is true in every northern U.S. city I've lived in, except Milwaukee (Germans, you know). Due to budget constraints, some cities (e.g. Detroit) have almost given up on plowing.
I agree with our host's conclusion concerning the economics of density. I look forward to the explanation.
Okay, there appears to be an educated and receptive audience. Lots of good questions. I'll start with the unfortunately dry subject of what is density and where the data hides and how both sides manipulate the data. Never fear there will be plenty of chances to bust on Kunstler, Cox, Kotkin and Fulton as is your preference as well so there will be enough blood in the water to keep the sharks interested as well.
> there will be enough blood in the water
> to keep the sharks interested as well
Yes, but will there be enough fishnets?
I'm glad you asked that question of "what is density", "what the data hides", how "both sides manipulate the data".
Because that comparison you made between Zwolle and T.O. was sooo counterintuitive to me ( I know T.O. very well and I sort of know Holland, but not Zwolle) - it made no sense. I went and actually checked your numbers - right down to getting Zwolle numbers in sq. km and converting and checking whether we were comparing 2000 in one instance versus say 2006 pop in the other.
It all stacked. Yet, it IS counter-intuitive - cos my sense of of T.O. is roughly Apple Valley etc to the south, where the grade starts on the West, Calabassas on the East and that big Mtn range that separates T.O. from Simi on the North. I simply can't see how such a big place can have a high pop den than Zwolle !
Over to you.
-K
Debbie said...
Oh and Legion- I'm a purty girl with fishnets bent over a keyboard, and I like these a' high falutin' subjects.
Gee like that image isn't going to be keeping a few of us here at EN fantasizing all night....
@Rob
So...CFC possibly ready to declare bankruptcy? How low can this mofo go?!?
...comparison you made between Zwolle and T.O. was sooo counterintuitive
I didn't choose at random nor lightly. I'm being provacative. And let's not pretend Zwolle is some jobs node. T.O. has Amgen and Countrywide as major employers.
The comparison is to get people to think. Why is Thousand Oaks assumed to be low density and for that matter why is Greater Los angeles considered to be sprawling when as an Urban area it is by far and away the densest UA in the US. One reason is sinister; planners hate LA for its results despite it having the greatest proportions of planner advocated characteristics of anyplace in the US.
Portland still suffers from a single sentence that accidentally leaked out from a document more than a dozen years ago:
Los Angeles has 51 miles of freeway per one million people
while Portland has over 100 miles per one million people.
[Federal Highway Administration, "Highway Statistics 1998"].
Smart-growth planners in Portland compared Portland to
other major cities for purposes of identifying goals for
Portland's future. Planners concluded that "In public
discussions we gather the general impression that Los
Angeles represents a future to be avoided", but that "with
respect to density and road per capita mileage it displays
an investment pattern we desire to replicate" here in Portland.
[Metro, "Metro Measured", Portland, Ore., May 1994, p. 7].
Metro planners have decided to plan on reducing per capita
freeway mileage from more than 100 miles per million people
to under 70 miles per million, a ratio higher than only three
other major urban areas: Miami, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia.
[Metro, "Region 2040 recommended Alternative Technical
Appendix", Portland, Ore. 9-15-94].
So, Los Angeles' nightmare congestion reputation is the
result of the nation's highest metropolitan densities
(*not* low density sprawl) coupled with the fewest number
of freeway [centerline] miles per capita. [Randal O'Toole, "The
Vanishing Automobile and other Urban Myths", 2000, pp394-5].
Wow, there's some raw meat.
From the housing bubble blog
"Scott and her husband Joseph, 27, were served with a notice of default in September and put their house on Tea Rose Court up for sale in late October for $400,000. They bought the home in March 2006 for $515,000 and, because of a job change, now can't afford monthly payments."
C'mon now, be honest, they couldn't afford the house even if there was no job change..I mean c'mon, the only other thing I can think of is the husband went from being a real estate agent or mortgage broker to working as a greeter at walmart(Which has I higher barrier to entry these days I might add).
Where is santa flipper claus? It's that time of year again, and edgar is in a foul (and poetic) mood. Not a good mix:
Snorting through the blow
On a HELOC option pay,
Over the mortgages we go,
Laughing all the way;
Bells on hummers ring,
Making spirits bright,
What fun it is to ride and sing
A flipper song tonight.
Jingle bells, Paulson smells,
Agent Orange screwed the pooch!
O what fun it is to ride
On a two year cash back mooch.
Edgar,
The song contest isn't for another two weeks. good one though.
When I was 27 it would never have occurred to me that I should buy a $515,000 house. But I guess that's a starter house nowadays in parts of the country, particularly in "dense" areas.
Seems like an interesting coincidence: The areas that have the least amount of government zoning regs, the places that "smart growth" people love to loathe, have the most affordable housing prices.
The Nikkei just shot up 500 pts in less than half an hour.
@Edgar
You call yours "Nikkei"?
I call mine Spike, and he's been shooting plenty too...
Good News! Citi Group is liquidating assets!
That was bizarre. The only thing I could see on Bloomberg is that Shiti Group has agreed to sell assets to the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority. They will be duplicating the investment success the Japanese had in 1989, IMO.
There are many stupid billionaires. Let's fleece them while the fleecing is good.
Lou -
My immediate thought when seeing the Citi sale to Abu Dhabi was "Hawaii - Japan". I don't know if I accurately remember the details, but it seemed to me they bought high and sold cheap. And I haven't kept up, so take it with the requisite table salt.
Post a Comment