05-7-14-PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Growing Closer 11 is high and the number of households rises, the need for land also rises dramatically. One thousand new homes at a suburban low density would consume 250 more acres of land than they would at a medium density; 5,000 new homes would require 1,250 more acres of land. That development would most likely be on soils suitable for agriculture or on land that provides an important ecological function. Increasing the density in urban areas while restricting growth on resource lands prevents this loss of crucial land. Oregon has pursued this policy for the past 30 years. In 1973, 300,000 acres of productive farmland in the Willamette Valley were rezoned from rural residential to agricultural use. Dur- ing the same period, urban growth boundaries around Portland directed growth inward. The results have been encouraging. Only 1 percent of the farmland in the valley was lost between 1987 and 1999, while the population of nearby Portland rose by 23 percent. Compare this to a productive region of another state without a similar policy: California’s rich Central Valley loses 15,000 acres of farmland every year (1000 Friends of Oregon n.d.). Other studies have calculated the potential land savings of following a similar course. For example, Massachusetts could save 51,000 acres of land by switching to a smart growth development pattern for the next 25 years (Burchell 2003). In addition to economic and environmental benefits, den- sity offers the advantages of urban life, namely the choices and options available wherever people live and work in close prox- imity. Cities generate diverse and specialized services that are not possible in places with smaller populations—things like cultural events, medical services, shopping, and dining options. At higher densities, it’s possible to offer more of these ameni- ties within a smaller geographical area. Many people like the idea of having a corner store or café in their neighborhood. In housing surveys, homebuyers regu- larly express a preference for “shops within walking distance.” But retail businesses need residents to survive. The larger a gro- cery store is—and the more extensive its selection—the more customers it needs to stay in business. For example, a neighbor- hood shopping center with local goods such as convenience items, videos, or a dry cleaner needs a minimum of 3,000 people within a three-mile radius to be viable; a supermarket requires far more—40,000 residents within three to six miles (Beyard and O’Mara 1999). why we haTe denSiT y Despite all the advantages of building closer, resistance to density is widespread, to say the least. One reason is cultural. Unlike other nations that developed over a millennium, we don’t have a long-standing tradition of designing cities and sharing close quarters. Our cities and villages were dense for a mere 150 years before losing population to the suburbs in the middle of the twentieth century. Psychologically, we’re a nation of single-family homeowners. We’re accustomed to a lot of space between our neighbors and ourselves. This cultural bias often underlies discussions of growth and development and merges with negative stereotypes of recent public housing fail- ures. Many people view density as a threat, believing that it leads to sinking property values, rising crime, and traffic congestion. Crowding Although skepticism toward density is often based on fear and misconceptions, not all opposition is unjus- tified. There is such a thing as “bad” density—that which is poorly planned and designed without an understanding or concern for human needs. Much recent development has proven to be a poor model of how to live closer together. Many new subdivisions create density without amenities. They are crowded and monotonous, offering few of the environmental or economic benefits described above. Density is often associated with crowding, but it is impor- tant to distinguish between the two. Density is the number of people in a given space, while crowding is the subjective per- ception that that number is too high. Places can be very dense, but may not be perceived as overcrowded if they are designed ■ Opposite: Portland, Oregon