Population Density in an Artificial Urban Setting
(Debate on Density in North American Cities)

In North America the issue of population density in city design and development became critical at the end of the 20^th century. While a relatively recent phenomenon of urban sprawl, which evolved after World War II, radically expanded boundaries of many cities leaving the downtown cores to deteriorate, attempts to create efficient high density housing in the cities also proved to be unsuccessful. As opposed to gradual evolution of cities in Europe, the fast leaps in the development of North American cities resulted in artificial urban environment that lacked certain basic characteristics, necessary for a city to maintain environmental, economic, and social well-being. Evidently, many modern North American cities need to be upgraded to become functional and sustainable, however it is necessary to determine whether higher population density in a city is a positive force for city design and development, since advocates of sustainability argue that higher density is beneficial.

The abundance of cheap land and the fast-paced processes of economical and technological development along with other equally important social and political factors, created unprecedented tendency of developing land at a faster rate than the population is growing [1] - a phenomenon, commonly referred to as “urban sprawl”. American suburbanization has its roots in nation’s nineteenth century industrial revolution. The crowded living conditions of industrial cities caused increasing numbers of urban dwellers to idealize the same rural countryside that many of them had left [2]. Among several factors, which contributed to creation of suburbs, are the advent of mass-produced affordable cars that offered freedom of transportation, the urban flight from the inner city, growing middle class seeking security and social status, availability of cheap houses and favourable tax policies [3]. “Based on dubious assumption that residences should be separate from commerce, civic life and even recreation, planning departments throughout North America adopted boilerplate zoning codes. The result was look-alike neighbourhoods that stretched from suburban Toronto to suburban San Diego.” [4] The new template of suburban design housed fewer people per unit of land than ever and required much more resource – intensive travel time. The suburbs were designed for consumption, not for efficiency. Ironically, urban sprawl in essence has the same major flaw as the compact cities of Industrial Revolution did– the adverse balance between population density and the available resources. The only difference is that during the Industrial Revolution the there were more people than the city’s resources could sustain, whereas majority of modern suburbs have more resources per person than necessary.

One of the most infamous high density projects in North America was an attempt to deal with a side effect of urban sprawl - city’s downtown deterioration. St. Louis’s Pruitt-Igoe - high-density project of 1950-4 was originally hailed for its modern architecture. However, socially it rapidly generated into a crime ridden and fearful environment and was demolished before it lasted twenty years.  “The case of Pruitt-Igoe, which may be a “worst-case scenario,” epitomizes what went wrong in many of the big projects in big cities.” [5] The project has failed to overcome the dangers from human sources (crime and vandalism). Certain design features in the apartment buildings and the planning of the housing complex itself, which originally were meant to encourage communication, in fact contributed to unsafe environment and encouraged disorder. In summary, the project did not take into account such factors as safety and identity of the dwellers, which are crucial for residential design (particularly of high density). “Density has a bad rap in America. It’s associated with big, scary public housing developments that were such sociological disasters they were blown up. Density is all that is cramped and unhealthy and somehow un-American about urbanism. Being free from density is associated with moving up in the world…” [6]

One might argue that Pruitt-Igoe project was bound to be unsuccessful, since it was a federal housing project and it could have many shortcomings because of the limited amount spent on it and due to modernist oversimplification of the design, whereas the suburbs were created for people with higher income, who care about their investments and therefore suburbs will not decline. Yet, there is the same underlying principle behind these seemingly different cases that resulted in unsuccessful planning. The tabula rasa approach to urban design in modern North America has shaped the cities according to a particular perception about dwellers’ lifestyle, which does not correspond to actual situation. For example, layout of suburban neighbourhoods is based on a perception that the dwellers will find it convenient to use cars to reach all the amenities, yet the recent proposals for turning suburbs into sustainable settlements emphasise the need to integrate the amenities in the neighbourhoods within walking distances from each other.  As the result, the modern North American city structure lacks the unifying system which was possessed by few century old European cities. The design of historical European cities was tested by time. There was no place for any particular assumptions about what dwellers might prefer, since the knowledge about the city design accumulated with experience.

The issue of density in a city design and development is directly related to the issue of sustainability. The guidelines for green design and for reducing ecological footprint strive for optimization of the use of available resources, efficiency of buildings and the buildings’ integration within the city fabric and infrastructure. The advocates of higher density in the cities argue that, for example, Paris is denser than the average American city and people love it. They list such advantages of density as amenities, affordability, community, and economic validity, as opposed to sprawl, which gives us isolation and social stratification and hours wasted, stuck in traffic.

Successful city design and development takes into account the available resources in combination with necessary factors for good habitation. Given the available resources and all the necessary factors are considered, the maximum possible density becomes more efficient than lower density scheme for a city, since the former offers the following benefits: more people get a chance to limit use of cars (since they can walk or ride transit), density adds value, more “eyes on the street” improve security, less land and habitat are destroyed. Also higher density is beneficial in cultural terms. It is evident that people prefer to be together, since they flock to cities seeking employment, entertainment and enlightment. However, they will not stay in high-density areas if the city has inadequate transit systems, inefficient planning and a low quality of life. “…If consumers are asked to consider choices other than spread-out, convenient suburban living, which offers elbow room and a private domain, the alternative has got to be just as convenient and appealing.” [7]

Nevertheless, higher density alone cannot be considered a positive force in city design and development, unless it is accompanied by certain factors that can create a successful community living (safety considerations, access to green areas, proper dwelling design, etc) and unless it is provided with appropriate infrastructure. The perfect model of such development is a town that evolved naturally over time, as opposed to the “leap frog development” of suburban neighbourhoods producing haphazard patchwork, widely spread apart and seeming to consume far more land than contiguous developments [8].  If the above mentioned factors for successful community living and the available resources are taken into account, the fundamental unifying system for efficient urban environment will be developed. If such system is present in a city, the higher density will become a positive force for design of any neighbourhood, regardless of the level of income of people who live in it.