Comparing types and patterns: A context-oriented approach to densification in Switzerland and the Netherlands

Abstract

While governments worldwide develop policies to promote urban densification, critics point to possible negative effects of densification on social sustainability. The occurrence and distribution of these negative social effects are strongly influenced by land policies. This makes it crucial to monitor the role of land policies and understand what processes shape urban development in the context of densification. To do so, detailed, large-scale international comparisons of densification patterns, including building and social changes, are needed. We address this issue by introducing a method to measure and compare urban development in two countries with contrasting planning systems: the Netherlands, where public actors play a strong and active role, and Switzerland, where strong private property titles and a highly democratic planning system are prevailing. Our GIS-based method analyses densification processes within their surrounding morphological and socio-demographic context. A k-proto cluster analysis on highly detailed spatial and statistical data based on housing units, covering 2011–2019, results in five densification types. The distribution of these types reveals different patterns in the two city regions of Utrecht (NL) and Bern (CH). Most strikingly, contiguous redevelopments frequently occurred in Utrecht but hardly in Bern, pointing at possible advantages for Dutch municipalities to intervene in property rights. While having developed an empirical basis in this study, future research that refines the analysis of the legal, planning and ownership conditions underlying the identified densification patterns can contribute significantly to policy evaluation.

For whom do we densify? Explaining income variation across densification projects in the region of Utrecht, the Netherlands

“…In the case of soft densification, the resulting apartments (or rooms) are significantly smaller than those in their surroundings (Go¨tze and Jehling, 2023). It is an inexpensive strategy of individual property owners in response to the high demand for housing in city centres.…”

“…The presented approach showed great potential for exploring the factors that influence household income in densification projects. Crucially, highly detailed income and building data allowed for a precise distinction of densification projects and their residents from their surroundings, covering a complete city region (Go¨tze and Jehling, 2023;Jehling et al, 2020). In addition, combining regression analysis and qualitative case studies proved helpful in highlighting interesting cases (Seawright, 2016).…”

“…no natural or agricultural land use), the housing unit is labelled as densification, otherwise as expansion. We further distinguish between the transformation processes ‘urban green space transformation’, ‘brown- and greyfield transformation’, ‘densification in residential areas’, ‘densification that included the demolishing of existing housing units (redevelopment)’ and ‘soft densification’ (Götze and Jehling, 2023). Contrary to ‘densification in residential areas’, which requires the construction of a new building, ‘soft densification’ only covers housing units that were created within existing buildings, for example, through the subdivision of apartments or transformation of offices, shops or attics (Bibby et al, 2020).…”

Mapping soft densification: a geospatial approach for identifying residential infill potentials

“…Today, as urbanisation processes continue and the demand for new housing stays high, many cities are facing a shortage of developable land, accompanied by high land prices (Ehrhardt et al 2022;Siedentop 2018). Additionally, questions of negative social and ecological effects of densification emerge (Götze & Jehling 2022). The mobilisation of the remaining infill development potentials (IDPs) is complex, due to soil contamination, individual owner interests or speculation (Adrian et al 2018).…”