Our conversations about badly needed density and land-use change versus “community character” in cities, towns and suburbs are completely off-balance.
That’s true In almost every city I work in around the world.
Far too often I’ve seen “community character” trump not only any ONE of the long list of urgent, compelling public interests shown in this graphic, but in fact it’s too often allowed to trump ALL of them.
When did we decide that community character is more important than not just anything else, but EVERYTHING else?
You might think I’m exaggerating, but I’ve been in more public hearings, public discussions, and decision-making rooms affecting urban change than most human beings on the planet, and I can tell you this happens far too much.
Community character shouldn’t be a veto over whether we DO change in the face of our many overlapping crises. It should be an element of HOW we change successfully. It’s one of many considerations in how we do density and land use transformation better… what I’ve called
#DensityDoneWell for several decades now.
Ironically, my observations over almost 35 years as a city planner around the world illustrate that focussing too much on community character will never stop change… it will just lead to other kinds of change that can make your neighbourhood worse than the additional housing some are trying to prevent. It’s clear that the lack of new density and diverse land uses can easily make car traffic and car dependency worse, threaten local schools and shopping, prevent ageing in place and families staying together in neighbourhoods, make affordability worse, reduce choices and options for everyone, and more.
Does any of that sound like you’ve prevented change and preserved character?
This is a critical discussion for all of us as we face real crises that require a true transformation in how we vision, plan, discuss, design and build cities and suburbs. We badly need a more candid conversation about what’s really at stake when we talk about urban change, and why we’ve been getting it so wrong. That different conversation has been a big part of much of my career, but most cities still need to go much further and faster.
What do YOU think?
A quick note about the image attached. I’ve been describing this kind of visual, the out-of-balance scale, to illustrate my point for decades now. It’s never been critical enough for me that I felt I needed to commission a drawing, and I’m a notoriously bad drawer myself. A colleague and friend asked me if he could use it to show me that Ai is more helpful than I think, and asked me to describe in exacting detail how I make my point. This graphic is the result, which I have to admit isn’t bad. To be clear though, I don’t use Ai apps myself and don’t intend to make a habit of it, given the significant (and still largely unaddressed) questions, risks, costs, and consequences of Ai.