From Charles Marohn in Better! Cities& Towns:
I’m not sure why planners zoners are generally so keen on density, but they are, to the point where it often comes across as an obsession.
I have a theory. I think a lot of planners zoners yearn to be spatial planners. They go to school to build great places. They get out into the real world and are given this ridiculously blunt instrument — zoning — and are frustrated that they can’t wield it to create Paris. Few stop to ask what zoning regulations were used to create Paris (hint: there weren’t any).
Density, especially when given as a bonus for attainment of certain performance objectives, is the closest thing a modern planner zoner gets to their professional roots. We all suffer the consequences.
UPDATE: Neil21 submits an interesting and relevant article on mid-rise mixed-use.
I can’t wait for Voony to jump in regarding the development of Paris which, btw, at 20000 persons per km2, is the densest city in Europe.
Here it is 😉
yep, he seems to ignore Haussman among others- since regulation on building form has been implemented since the XVII century in Paris (and Haussman didn’t overthrown them)
as I have already mentioned here
Where he could have a point is that those regulation are not aimed to densify – indeed Haussman “de-crowded” Paris – Density in certain neighborood like “les Halles” ou “Ile de la Cite”, was around 100,000person per km2 . The later neighborood has been virtually “zoned” as “civic precinct” under the Hausman watch.
But when “density” was judged “neccesary”, it has been enforced, That has been the case of Avenue de l’Opera.
(see “building form section of this post http://voony.wordpress.com/2011/12/12/impressionists-on-the-parisian-boulevards/ for more detail) – May be what Brent Toderian could call “density done right”.
That is, while I agree with much of the thurst of the article- – I don’t on the assertion that
“Density is an expected byproduct of a successful place, not the implement by which we create one”.
If density shouldn’t be a goal in itself, it is a mean to achieve certain desirable goals.
Wow, I love that capsule description of the frustrations of being a planner. It explains so much!
What zoning regulations were used to create Paris:
Ummm, I’m not a planner, but I still know that the Paris we know was built under a strict plan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haussmann's_renovation_of_Paris
yes, but it was not a plan that had anything to do with zoning, in the sense of zoning today in Canada and the US. Hausmann was an architect/planner, and because his patron was Napoleon, he could do great and terrible things.
The powers that planners have today, in a democracy with rule of law and private property rights, are so much more restricted.
I have not read Charles Barhm’s full piece yet, only scanned it, but his repeated use of the term “planner zoner” betrays a certain agenda.
I don’t know about the US, but in all my years of planning in Canada, I have never heard that term. Current planners – yes; development planners – yes; but planner zoners – no.
Many, if not most local government land use planners in Canada spend part of their day trying to figure out how to fit land use regulation and development control into zoning regulations (and other tools), and part of thier day trying to figure out how to make zoning regulations (and other planning tools) that fit land use patterns and development trends, both exisitng and desired.
But under political direction, such as it is, it is not an easy task.
This is a disappointing article, because I agree generally with the title, and yet the condescending tone and the way in which he approaches the piece, especially as though density has no positive effects in itself but rather is only the byproduct of good urban design and nothing more, is disappointing and I think wrong.
Density is a prerequisite for fast, effective and frequent anywhere-to-anywhere transit. It is a prerequisite for vibrant and diverse neighbourhood retail. It is a prerequisite for higher walking scores in cities. It also is a prerequisite for environmental benefits that all these things bring. Yes, you can do density badly, and have none of these benefits, but I find it hard to believe that a city as sprawling as Atlanta, for instance, could ever achieve transportation choice, diverse neighbourhood retail and end car dependence. It requires density, and given the current problem too much sprawl in most North American cities, some focus on density is inevitable.