A totally confident prediction: those opposed to increasing density (any multi-family development), using road space for bikeways and greenways (Granville Bridge changes will be a target), reducing priority for cars (expect another fight over viaduct removal) and priorizing transit (why build SkyTrain extensions) now have a sure-fire argument: density whether in buildings or transit is how disease spreads.
Sprawl is safer. Cars are safer. Single-family homes are safer. Anyway, new development, especially the remaining need for workplaces, will be in lower density suburbs if not actually in our homes, but certainly not in concentrated urban centres.
So the last half-century when Vancouver led in designing and building livable high-density, mixed-use, less-car-dependent and more sustainable communities was just a diversion.
Fight the virus by returning to the Sixties!
This is an important debate, not just an argument, especially when governments will be under fiscal stress. Budget slashing is a great time to reverse the hard-fought progress of what the last three generations of designers, developers, planners and aligned political leaders have achieved in building more livable and higher-density cities, with a priority on transit and active transportation, especially when considering the consequences of climate change. One need only watch how easily the Trump administration is reversing that progress.
To begin with, let’s first call bullshit on the notion that the Covid virus is less controllable in highrise high-density environments than suburban ones. Just ask: which cities have been the most successful so far at not only bending the curve but keeping it from escalating in the first place?
These ones:
Taipei:
Hong Kong:
Seoul:
Singapore:
Notice anything in common?
From the last two days:
Singapore:
Coronavirus: Should the world worry about Singapore’s virus surge?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-52232147
Hong Kong, Taiwan
Why Coronavirus Cases Have Spiked in Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/09/world/asia/coronavirus-hong-kong-singapore-taiwan.html
Why is NYC the epicentre of the virus while LA escapes the worst:
“By late Friday, California had reported 598 deaths over two and a half months, fewer than New York experienced in a single day Wednesday, when 799 in the Empire State died from COVID-19, the disease caused by the virus. California has averaged just under 45 deaths per day over the last week, with no spike in fatalities.
New York became the epicenter of the disease in America because of several factors. The virus arrived there earlier than elsewhere and in more locations; it is denser than any other U.S. city; it depends more on public transportation, putting people close to one another; and it was behind California and Washington state in imposing restrictions on public movement, said Nicholas Jewell, a UC Berkeley”
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-10/california-coronavirus-slowed-hospitals-empty-new-york
Author
Is it really necessary to show the subway and metro systems of Seoul, Hong Kong, Taipei and Singapore to debunk the ‘public transportation’ causes epidemics bullshit?
The comparison of Los Angeles and New York suggests to me that density is not the determining factor. Some dense cities have high rates of Covid, some don’t. Cities of whatever density can be found along the curve.
Trump initially shut down travel from China (West Coast ties), but not from Europe (East Coast ties). Newscasts say the NYC cases probably came through Europe – plus there’s the hesitation in closing down the economic driver of the whole country (didn’t Toronto shut down later than Vancouver?).
I don’t think that you can say that suburban people interact with fewer potential transmitters than would city dwellers. It may be easier for suburban people to isolate after the fact and delve into the deep freezer without itching to leave their home.
I also don’t think you can view it as black and white. Many suburban people would ordinarily take transit into town for work.
The issue may be one of self-sufficiency.
Can you transport yourself to shop and work (whether walk, bike or drive)?
Can you fend for yourself (cooking, laundry, exercise, financial savings)?
You can do both of those in either an urban or suburban setting.
I think one thing that’ll come out of this is people will learn to cook and reduce their over-reliance on eating out.
I’d like to believe the proposition that higher density intrinsically increases the spread of disease will be seen by fair-minded people as facetious. But maybe, to my disappointment, I’d be wrong!
Surely viral outbreaks such as COVID must be considered as anomalous occurrences, with efforts to prevent/minimize recurrences focussed on refining our food supply chains, early disclosure and identification internationally of any outbreaks and early, comprehensively coordinated containment actions by all levels of government pre-planned and made public (“Here are the strategies and actions we’ll be pursuing in the event of another viral outbreak”). I would argue this last critical step would be more successfully implemented in our well-planned, higher density contexts than in suburbia.
It seems that poverty is a major contributor. Also travel. Cities are at a disadvantage because they are hubs for travel – not because they are dense.
When this all settles out you can bet it will be studied for decades. The amount of data will be massive, and experts in epidemiology will have their work cut out for them. Only then will we have real knowledge of who is most at risk and most vulnerable to poorer outcomes. Small towns are freaking out and telling people to stay away – even from their own cabins. Tells you something.
I saw this neatly summarized elsewhere. The problem is not density but crowding. Density does not = crowding. Hence the high rates in crowded Queens and not so much dense Manhattan.
Nobody is spitting on your elevator buttons in a single family home:
https://www.citynews1130.com/2020/04/12/man-filmed-spitting-elevator-panel-vancouver-building-apologizing/
That’s what you’ve got? I see you’ve run out of actual arguments. But if you want to go there, just for fun, who says your packages from on line shopping aren’t being spit on? Disgruntled, low paid staff running around delivering expensive and unnecessary doo-dads to wealthy homeowners. Almost seems likely. A lot more likely than this obvious anomaly.
So you dismiss my argument by creating a fictional story? Weak.
Delivery drivers are probably happy to have work at this point.
You cannot dispute a single family home is less likely to be a disease vector than a multi-unit highrise, Do you know everyone in your building? Most people don’t even know who is living mere inches above or below them. Even the most well-intentioned resident can have a child with a runny nose that touches the elevator buttons, door handles etc. That’s not to say every highrise is a plague village but there is no question your chance of catching something from a stranger is greater than if you had your own home.
I’m just surprised so many get so tetchy about the urban critique. I don’t recall anyone here ever saying who much they miss being able to attend the symphony, a Canucks game, the Jazz Festival etc. It seems that riding your bike is the most important part of city life for many here and you could that just as easily in Vernon or Cowichan.
I wasn’t dismissing your arguments. I was dismissing a cheap shot that was really scraping the barrel with an example of something equally low.
Of course many of us miss those urban amenities and attractions. But if we lived in the suburbs or beyond we’d miss them permanently instead of for many months every century. When this has all blown by we’ll have all those things again and appreciate them even more. You never will except by relying on the city you hate so much.
I have my own home. Just because my street is a corridor doesn’t make it less so. I am not convinced that I am at higher risk than a suburbanite who must also interact with strangers beyond their immediate neighbours. You cannot say, “there is no question…” I probably know as many people on my floor and within the building as suburbanites know of their neighbours. Likely more. We are compelled to meet each other at strata meetings and other events. So I’m careful about touching elevator buttons and door handles. It’s not that difficult. On the other hand I have zero chance of getting run over outside my door.
I don’t need to get in a car to do anything in my daily routine reducing my risk of carnage and reducing my risk of inducing carnage on others to near zero. I’m a twelve minute walk to a hospital and can expect emergency services within minutes. There are all sorts of diseases linked with the sedentary lifestyles associated with car dependence that I am at much lower risk of.
This is pure speculation, so take it as such. But I wouldn’t be surprised if we find out that urbanites who are exposed to far more human interactions are more resistant to these outbreaks even if we don’t have antibodies specific to the latest pathogen. Only time will tell.
Don’t take this as applying to COVID19 because who knows, but kids exposed to more pathogens via daycare have been shown to have stronger immune systems as adults and get sick less.
(Not) surpringly this article from the biggest of big city newspapers wasn’t mentioned here:
“…The pandemic has been particularly devastating to America’s biggest cities, as the virus has found fertile ground in the density that is otherwise prized. And it comes as the country’s major urban centers were already losing their appeal for many Americans, as skyrocketing rents and changes in the labor market have pushed the country’s youngest adults to suburbs and smaller cities often far from the coasts.
The country’s three largest metropolitan areas, New York, Los Angeles and Chicago, all lost population in the past several years, according to an analysis by William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution. Even slightly smaller metro areas, like Houston, Washington, D.C., and Miami grew more slowly than before. In all, growth in the country’s major metropolitan areas fell by nearly half over the course of the past decade, Mr. Frey found..”
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/19/us/coronavirus-moving-city-future.html?searchResultPosition=2
Only long after this crisis is over and unbiased research can pick out who and where was hardest hit will we be able to make claims about the spread in relation to density. Wealth distribution and the flow of strangers through vital hubs among many other things will play roles. It is absurd to trot out density as the reason while ignoring the vital role cities play in transportation and important social and economic gatherings. While the latter may be treated differently in the future they are unlikely to disappear.
Meanwhile, there is a fundamental difference between density and the scale of cities. Small European cities often have densities far higher than large North American ones. The largest of cities can become unwieldy and difficult o manage. They are both creators of and magnets for wealth and the recent wave of speculation through major global centres made affordability a major problem. So a minuscule loss of population isn’t a real surprise. We’re talking 0.5% per year in NY.
That doesn’t foretell the demise of cities – and it’s moot with regard to density anyway. Sprawl occurs in and around cities, towns and modern villages. It is anti-social and hard on the environment. Mixed use, higher densities can also occur in cities, towns and villages. It’s not about the size of the place. Good urban design can and should occur everywhere.