The Impact of Residential Densification on Perceptions of Public Space

Abstract

Problem, research strategy, and findings: City leaders are under pressure to increase urban residential density to provide affordable housing and meet sustainability objectives. Yet despite the advantages of urban densification, communities throughout North America persistently oppose new developments and housing projects in their neighborhoods. The impact of residential densification on the quality of life for existing residents is ambiguous. In this study we focus on measuring the impact of one key aspect of urban densification: the perceived quality of public space. We use an experimental design to increase pedestrians and stationary users in a pedestrianized green street for randomly selected periods over 3 weeks. We collected surveys with and without our pedestrian treatment and find that adding users to a residential street decreased the perceived quality of the space overall. The changes in perceptions were small yet significant and illustrate the real tradeoffs that planners must consider when increasing urban density in cities, especially in lower density residential communities.Takeaway for practice: Increasing the number of public users in a residential neighborhood may slightly decrease the perceived quality of the public space. Women's perceptions differ from those of men, and women are more sensitive to the addition of public users. We illustrate how planners may use public life experiments to anticipate how the public might respond to future changes in the public realm.

How small is too small? Assessing the wellbeing impacts of nano suites on university students

“…Our results indicate that the experience of living in a nano suite made residents more open to the possibility of living in an apartment in the future. This is particularly important in unaffordable housing markets such as Vancouver, where there are debates about residential densification or upzoning (Honey-Rosés & Zapata, 2021). It is conceivable that the emergence of tiny living may shape demand and open future opportunities to build tinier.…”

Spatial justice and the NIMBY effect: An analysis of the urban densification debate in Switzerland and the Netherlands.

“…The advantages and disadvantages of densification (Barresi, 2018;Cerin et al, 2020;Claassens, Koomen, & Rouwendal, 2020) and its potential to absorb population growth (Amer, Mustafa, Teller, Attia, & Reiter, 2017;Nabielek, Boschman, Harbers, Piek, & Vlonk, 2012) have been extensively studied. Less attention has been directed towards related perceptions of tensions between private and public interests (Honey-Rosés & Zapata, 2020). Whereas protecting green space, providing needed housing, supporting urban services, and promoting more sustainable lifestyles are widely endorsed, densification implementations are nevertheless 2 of 8 often met with opposition.…”

Effect of pretreatment parameters and binder concentration on the densification of wood residue

“…There are several ways to use biomass for energy purpose but the densification of biomass is increasing attention for efficient handling, transport, and storage of biomass and safety aspects. 11,12 Densification can improve the physical characteristics and volumetric calorific value of biomass, resulting in fuels that are more homogeneous, stable, and energy dense. Pellets made from biomass offer various benefits over other biofuels in the global market, including a very easy processing method and a large supply of feedstock.…”