Urban density after Jane Jacobs: the crucial role of diversity and emergence

Abstract

Background: In the early part of the twentieth century, planning theory and practice always voiced strong opposition to density. The error of this insistence was persuasively argued by Jane Jacobs in the 1960s. Subsequently, planning theory and practice came to recognise the importance of density, but this return to favour requires remaining constantly alert to the possible dangers and pitfalls. Methods:Critically considering the traditional and contemporary urban planning literature and the empirical evidence in the recent economic and geographical research, this article investigates the whys and wherefores of density in urban planning. It addresses two main questions: Is urban density really desirable (and why)? Is it effectively manageable (and how)?Results: Density per se is meaningless unless it is a tool or condition for achieving something further. And even if the instrumental function of density were to be acknowledged, it is crucial to take into account that density is not solely (or merely) a tool which-in certain conditions-can be useful in reducing commute times and minimising the encroachment on undeveloped land. Its primary advantage concerns favouring the concentrated diverse admix of human preferences, tastes, abilities, know-how, uses, activities, and so forth. Conclusions:After having expressly laboured to avoid it for so long, the aim is not to create density directly, but to open the door and allow density to happen in our cities, thanks to more abstract and general planning rules.

Densidad urbana, forma y sociabilidad en la ciudad neoliberal: el caso del barrio Santa Isabel en Santiago de Chile

“…Con respecto a la densidad se indica que cuando esta es muy alta, restringe la interacción entre los habitantes (Freeman, 2001;Hamdan, Yusof & Marzukhi, 2014;Jacobs, 1961), mientras que las densidades muy bajas, la incentivar el uso del automóvil dificultan el contacto a pie entre vecinos (Farber & Li, 2013;Freeman, 2001), por lo que lo idóneo para la generación de vínculos entre habitantes sería barrios con una densidad media (Jacobs, 1961;Moroni, 2016;Talen, 1999). La presencia de espacio público, a su vez, incentivaría el uso peatonal del barrio y la interacción entre vecinos (Francis, Giles-Corti, Wood & Knuiman, 2012;Jacobs, 1961); mientras que algunas de sus características, como la presencia de mobiliario, sus dimensiones, su vegetación o el distinto equipamiento, a su vez incentivan la realización de actividades no funcionales por parte de los transeúntes y su interacción (Gehl, 1987;Mehta, 2014).…”

Transportation sustainability in the urban context: a comprehensive review

“…First, movement toward sustainability means different changes in different contexts. For instance, most megacity dwellers in developing countries would likely view densification as less sustainable and desirable, while the opposite would be true for most U.S. cities (McFarlane, 2016;Moroni, 2016). Second, little is known about the diffusion of transportation technologies from less-to more-developed cities.…”

Desirable Dense Neighbourhoods: An Environmental Psychological Approach for Understanding Community Resistance to Densification

“…Density per se is a conceptual tool used to achieve broad objectives such as sustainability and liveability in cities (Moroni, 2016). It is a multi-faceted and complex concept (Churchman, 1999, Cheng, 2009 and a keyword in the history of the city, reflecting the way urban areas have been conceived and understood (McFarlane, 2015).…”

“…McFarlane (2015) uses this approach to discuss issues related to slum housing, suburban developments and emerging ideas such as New Urbanism. Accordingly, the traditional aversion to density in historical planning intervention and recent uncritical acceptance of density (in New Urbanism and Transit Oriented Developments) may both generate problems if increasing density does not result in bringing together people of all kinds, from all walks of life in our cities (Moroni, 2016).…”

“…TODs, in a similar way to other dense/infill developments 22 , encourage a high density lifestyle which will change the character of current low density cities and cultural change for those living in such dense areas is required for their success (Troy, 1996;McManus, 1998;Lewis, 1999;Bunker et al, 2002;Searle, 2003Searle, , 2007Randolph et al, 2005;Woodcock et al, 2011;Nematollahi et al, 2015, Newman, 2017. Not only the community, but even some researchers are cautious about promoting a rapid increase of density through urban policies such as TOD (Hitchcock, 1994;Goodchild, 1994;Orchard, 1995;Gibbs and Krueger, 2007;Moroni, 2016). They argue that increasing residential density without considering not only the need for change in current lifestyle and culture, but also other land 22 In addition, tackling housing affordability by only increasing density (compact city model), is not a valid argument (Van Den Nouwelant et al, 2014).…”