I've been reading a very interesting book called Cities in Full, which talks about what makes cities work and what doesn't, focusing on American cities. One thing it talks about is the "gray zone" of a city, typically areas that are not of sufficient density to survive well in the city.
One example it gives is Boston's Roxbury neighborhood. It cites one problem with the neighborhood being that despite it's urban location, it has many single-family detached houses, many which replaced larger higher density buildings of the past. In the somewhat recent past, density was equated with crime, thus HUD and others replaced higher density housing with lower density housing, with the goal of reducing crime. However, what we've now seen is that this is failed logic.
The book cites how a solid streetwall and a certain density of residences actually makes the streets safer, as there are more eyes on the street and less places for criminals to run. With single family houses or even larger buildings not filling enough of their property, criminals can run between and behind buildings, whereas row houses or town houses form an impenetrable streetwall.
Among other things, low density in the city does not have the critical mass of people to support neighborhood business or a sufficient level of transit. It's the wrong type of development for the location it's in. It ends up being an enclave of car-dependency in the wrong location, one that is not appealing to the middle or upper class, and therefore continues to breed many problems.
I'm encouraged somewhat by recent developments in Boston to build new housing and retail of sufficient urban density in the city, replacing lower density uses (Charlesview and Ashmont Station, among others, come to mind), although I fear somewhat that neighborhood activists do not understand that density is a good thing. There is so much focus on "traffic", that people lose sight of the benefits of having more people in the area and the additional safety, business, and transit that those people will support. The reality is that denser developments generate LESS traffic than the suburbs because there are more places to walk to and better transit service.
Anyone care to comment on this?
One example it gives is Boston's Roxbury neighborhood. It cites one problem with the neighborhood being that despite it's urban location, it has many single-family detached houses, many which replaced larger higher density buildings of the past. In the somewhat recent past, density was equated with crime, thus HUD and others replaced higher density housing with lower density housing, with the goal of reducing crime. However, what we've now seen is that this is failed logic.
The book cites how a solid streetwall and a certain density of residences actually makes the streets safer, as there are more eyes on the street and less places for criminals to run. With single family houses or even larger buildings not filling enough of their property, criminals can run between and behind buildings, whereas row houses or town houses form an impenetrable streetwall.
Among other things, low density in the city does not have the critical mass of people to support neighborhood business or a sufficient level of transit. It's the wrong type of development for the location it's in. It ends up being an enclave of car-dependency in the wrong location, one that is not appealing to the middle or upper class, and therefore continues to breed many problems.
I'm encouraged somewhat by recent developments in Boston to build new housing and retail of sufficient urban density in the city, replacing lower density uses (Charlesview and Ashmont Station, among others, come to mind), although I fear somewhat that neighborhood activists do not understand that density is a good thing. There is so much focus on "traffic", that people lose sight of the benefits of having more people in the area and the additional safety, business, and transit that those people will support. The reality is that denser developments generate LESS traffic than the suburbs because there are more places to walk to and better transit service.
Anyone care to comment on this?
