Density is
arguably the most important aspect of urban design, for without sufficient population
densities an urban area will be left deserted and struggling. In fact, the very nature of
urbanity relies principally on a high concentration of people in a small area.
Unfortunately, in modern North America, density is often seen as an evil that will
ultimately harm a neighbourhood, a source of congestion and noise and all the bad things
associated with the gritty, unsafe city. This kind of myth and the so-called NIMBYism
– "Not In My Backyard" advocacy – it spawns only serves to hurt a city
instead of enriching it. High population densities can be found in neighbourhoods that are
just as pleasant and livable as any suburb and measures that would add density to an urban
neighbourhood should be welcomed.
One of the chief arguments against higher density is that
density causes traffic. This theory makes sense, at first glance: ten people in each acre
will put more cars on the road than five people in each acre, right? Of course. However,
the density-equals-traffic argument is flawed because it fails to acknowledge that the
denser a neighbourhood becomes, the less it relies on the automobile. In urban areas
essential services such as grocery stores are simply more abundant, requiring a shorter
trip that is more convenient to complete by foot rather than car. Individual census tract
statistics gathered in the 1996 Canadian census, released by the City of Montreal, show
that the denser a neighbourhood gets, the less it relies on auto travel and more on foot
and public transit. The southwestern end of Montreal’s Plateau district, specifically
the electoral district of Jeanne-Mance, has a population density of 42,769 people per
square mile. Just over 20% of its residents use a car to travel to work, compared to an
auto-usage figure of 65% in the Cartierville district, which has a population density of
11,205 people per square mile. Similar examples can be seen in any large city: the denser
the neighbourhood, the less people need cars.
Another harmful myth surrounding density is that very
dense neighbourhoods are squalid and dirty. This is mistaken assumption since the urban
squalor we associate with turn of the century industrial ghettos was the product of
overcrowding, not density. Overcrowding is a high amount of people in each dwelling unit,
or home; on the other hand, population density is simply a high amount of people in a
given area. To put it into context, a downtrodden neighbourhood with several homes and ten
people in each of those homes is less dense but more crowded than a neighbourhood of the
same size with several hundred homes and two people per dwelling. Many of the world’s
most exclusive and desirable neighbourhoods are high density. A recent Robb Report
study found that among world corporate executives, the Upper East Side in New York is the
most desired address. As it happens, The Upper East Side is the most densely populated
part of the United States with more than 150,000 residents per square mile. It is a very
urban yet pleasant area, similar to many other dense areas around the world. The Upper
West Side in New York is nearly as dense as its eastern neighbour, yet is a popular
community for families. Toronto is filled with dense, pleasant and liveable neighbourhoods
such as Deer Park and the Annex. Density by no means equals poverty and dirtiness.
The virtues of density are many. It can reduce auto usage
and increase the popularity and effectiveness of more environmentally sound transport
methods such as public transit or foot. There are far too many downtown areas and central
city neighbourhoods that are urban by design, but lack the population density to make them
dynamic and successful communities. Vacant lots and parking lots can easily be filled with
apartments and condominiums, and the resulting rise in pedestrian activity can only
benefit urban businesses and create an atmosphere of diversity. The demand for dense
neighbourhoods is evident, as evidenced by the rebirth and "densification" of
urban sections of many North American cities. Over the past ten years Vancouver and
Toronto have added thousands more people to many of their core neighbourhoods by building
condominium buildings, and these cities continue to be safe and desirable for a great
variety of people and families. Density can act as a catalyst for safer communities as
well, by filling urban dead space and increasing the overall amount of people walking
– and more people walking means more eyes on the street.
There are countless urban areas in North America that
could benefit by adding density. By and large the myths that surround high density are
false and unfounded and the benefits of density are many: the denser you go, the less
local auto traffic there is, and often dense neighbourhoods are safer and more diverse
than their low-density counterparts. New condominium and apartment projects in cities
should not be feared for the density they may add; instead, they should be celebrated and
encouraged for the vitality and success they give our cities. High density need not be
viewed with apprehension; it has far too many benefits and as such we must embrace it.