Does density matter?

Is there a critical number where density and placemaking converge? Why is Australia and other new western societies so car dependent for mobility? Could getting density correct be the answer for better places for everyone? Many questions to cover in this article, but let’s start by talking about density and urban planning.

When tackling growth areas planning for the now defunct Melbourne 2030, the urban management unit that I belonged to developed a model to determine the type of activities required and the densities needed to support these. The model was based on good urban design principles of walkability in the ranges of 400 to 800 metres. Similar to what is proposed in 15-minute cities and what has been at the forefront of Transit Orientated Development (TOD) since Peter Calthorpe revised the notion of activity centre development in the 1980’s.

For Melbourne’s built environment was nothing new, having been developed pre car, with incredible investment in light and heavy rail networks it has been the shining light in activity centre living long after other cities in Australia capitulated to removing light rail and creating highways through their centres. Melbourne maintained its trams, neighbourhood centres cultures thrived even during the tough financial times, while Brisbane and to less extent Sydney centres were somewhat deserted.

This Melbourne activity centre typology was good urban planning, for it gave mixture of uses and housing while providing government with confidence when investing in significant services such as transport, education and health.

For Melbourne it identified that 19 dwellings per hectare was the lowest of all services to support a corner or neighbourhood store, with in a 10-minute walk. While 44 dwellings (dw/ha) would provide one of our most thriving centre typologies that included, schools, health super market community centre, going all the way to 73 (dw/ha) the government would be convinced to develop secondary schools, train and light rail investment.

Figure 1: Understanding the relationship between density and services provided - what makes a sustainable neighbourhood

When working with Peter Calthorpe on similar projects around in China, Poland and the Middle East the figure of 38 dw/ha was our magical number to support street life. So, yes there is a correlation between density and placemaking, because without people there is little life, little attachment and therefore no place.

So why is most of Australia, especially in the new growth suburbs so car dependent. It’s simple, there are no policies dictating the densities that are required to support thriving activities. There is too much political bending over to the development industry in supporting low density sprawl, even Melbourne’s growth policies still only recommend densities of 15 dw/ha. It is the same in other cities where outer suburban development is devoid of any significant government intervention or investment in places because it doesn’t stack up financially. They know not to invest in these suburbs and leave it to the developers.

I remember when putting the policy together for the M2030 Development Model for the activity centres, I demonstrated that supply in the outer suburbs didn’t represent the demand, especially if we were to create great places where they attracted activity and provided for the residents. Our typologies were modelled on examples in Melbourne, where in the growth area workshops, the residents wanted that lifestyle and not to have dormitory suburbs that sprawl development provides. Yet, 20 years later we still keep doing the same low-density development but this time it getting a lot worst.  

Figure 2: Development supply when left to the market doesn't meet demand - only what they want to finance

Car dependence is defining our lifeworld. We rarely walk, to meet our neighbours, to play or watch activities in a park, or to go buy a coffee; when was the last time you walked to a coffee shop to meet friends, or more precisely walk to a grocery store? If you do then today you are one of the lucky ones, however shouldn’t we all be lucky and why can’t this be the norm.

So again, Density does matter if you are seeking a placemaking quality for your neighbourhoods. There is a residual number of people you need to proactively foster community engagement, foster investment, and to build pride in places.

Perhaps it’s not 44 dw/ha, but 42 which of course is the answer for everything!