Urban density has a bad reputation.
You might have noticed a viral tweet from April that criticized a satellite view of New York City as proof of the bad environmental outcomes of urban living. “Imagine living here and thinking rural conservatives are the ones who don't care about the environment,” reads the tweet.
On one level, the tweet is just another low point in the ongoing culture war that seems to be visiting the subjects of planning more and more often. But on another level, this tweet reflects the views of most Americans, as revealed by a recent survey by YouGov. Taylor Orth wrote in an article for YouGov in April about the results of the survey, with the implication that the survey was inspired by the viral Tweet.
The survey’s findings:
Three in four Americans say it’s better for the environment if houses are built farther apart, while one in four say it’s better for houses to be built closer together. While Americans who live in cities are somewhat more likely than Americans who don’t to say that high density is more environmental, the vast majority of city-dwellers still believe that it’s more eco-friendly to build out rather than up. While Republicans and Independents are aligned on this issue, Democrats are somewhat more likely to say high-density living is environmental, though again, the majority still say it is worse for the environment than building farther apart.
The survey also included questions about whether density causes congestion—a subject I wrote about at great length very recently for Planetizen (spoiler alert: three in five Americans say development causes more traffic).
Writing for Greater Greater Washington, Stephen Hudson took these survey results as inspiration for another article, this one focused on providing some data and research about the actual environmental effects of urban density, citing a map from the University of California Berkeley’s CoolClimate Network for the majority of the evidence that it’s actually sprawl that creates more greenhouse gas emissions. While the map shows that emissions do tend to emanate from urban areas, because of the sheer number of people living there, the primary cause of emissions are all found in much greater supply in sprawling land development patterns.
“According to the researchers’ data, household income, vehicle ownership, and home size make up the biggest predictors of emissions. In other words, in low-density areas, more driving, higher energy use from larger houses (as well as housing type, and higher consumption increase greenhouse gases,” writes Hudson. “This means suburban ZIP codes can emit up to four times the household emissions of their urban counterparts –enough to more than wipe out any gains from lower C02 emission-households in higher density areas.”
More details on the map, and some of the misunderstood concepts that can mislead thinking about development and emissions can be found in the source article below.
FULL STORY: This map shows how low-density sprawl makes climate change worse
Planetizen Federal Action Tracker
A weekly monitor of how Trump’s orders and actions are impacting planners and planning in America.
The state-sanctioned urbicide of Austin
People don’t kill cities. Freeways do.
US to reduce Colorado River water deliveries to Mexico
A new Colorado Treaty amendment reduces Mexico’s Colorado River water allocation by 250,000 acre feet.
Guerilla urbanists are building DIY bus stop benches in Chicago
A before-and-after of one of the bus stops with a new bench. The new benches are not officially sanctioned or permitted, but the residents who placed them hope they will be the start of a network of DIY benches across the city.
Mamdani overhauls NYC's Vision Zero plan with 100 new policy goals
The overhaul aims to reduce traffic deaths and make streets safer for pedestrians, cyclists and drivers through lower speed limits, new safety infrastructure and more.
Amtrak not solely to blame for New Jersey commuter rail's unreliability, report finds
A new study from the Garden State Initiative found that NJ Transit’s budget grew 20% across a 4 year period, but reliability declined significantly over the same period.
FREE Course: Walkable City 1: Why Walkability?
After describing his path towards focusing on walkability as the essence of good planning, Jeff Speck marches through his five principal reasons for making more walkable places.
Reinventing Malls: Planning Alchemy—Turning Gray Fields Into Gold
The course focuses on the opportunities and imperatives that shape reinvention of mall sites.
Eagle County Government
Harvard University Graduate School of Design
Nashville Planning Department
The Architects Foundation
University of Cincinnati Online
The Pocatello Development Authority
The Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Pocatello
Journal of the American Planning Association