disentangling the concept of density

7/30/2019 Disentangling the Concept of Density

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/disentangling-the-concept-of-density 1/23

Journal of PlanningLiteratureTheConcept of Density

Disentangling theConcept of Density

Arza Churchman

At first glance, the concept of density is wonderfully appeal-ing to planners. It is an objective, quantitative, and, by itself,neutral term. However, a secondandthirdglance reveals thatit is a very complex concept. Some of the complexity is inher-ent to the nature of the phenomena associated with density,but part of the complexity stems from the different ways inwhich density is defined and used in different countries anddifferent disciplines. This review of the literature presentsthis complexity in an attempt to contribute to a better under-standing of theconcept anda more careful approach to itsuse.

The review includes both academic and practice literature from the planning, urban studies, and environment-behaviordisciplines and selected planning documents from countriesaround the world.

At first glance, the concept of density is wonderfullyappealing to planners because it is objective, quantita-tive, and neutral. What more could one ask for? How-ever, on second and third glance, it becomes clear thatdensity is a very complex concept. Some of the com-plexity is inherent to the nature of the phenomena asso-ciated with density, but some of the complexity stemsfrom the different ways in which density is defined andused in different countries and different disciplines.The topic of density is cross disciplinary, as reflected inthe fact that the authors and publications surveyed forthis article come from planning, urban design, architec-ture, environment-behavior studies, transportation,economics, sociology, psychology, anthropology, andecology.

The purpose of this review of the literature is to pre-sent this complexity, thereby contributing to a betterunderstanding of the concept and a more careful ap-proach to its use. The article includes academic litera-ture that deals with density and planning documentsgathered from both readily availablepublishedsourcesand from colleagues in various parts of the world inwhich density is an issue that is specificallyaddressed.1

These planning documents demonstrate how the con-cept of density is addressed in practice. Regrettably,this review focuses almost completely on the literature

available in the English language. This is particularlyunfortunate with regard to the planning documentsused as examples. As a result, these examples are in noway a representative sample. Nevertheless, somethingcan be learnedfromthese documents byseeing what is-sues are addressed and what approaches are adoptedas long as we are careful to make no generalizationsother than that there areboth commonalitiesanddiffer-ences within and between countries.

There is no consensus on most of the issues raised inthis article; thus, the article presents some of the rele-vant pros and cons on each issue. Some of the differ-ences in opinion, or in results, are functions of different

“locations”, whether those locations are physical, cul-tural, or professional. Other differences are a function

ARZA C HURCHMAN is an associate professor on the Faculty of Architecture and Town Planning at Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Technion City, Haifa, Israel.

Journal of Planning Literature, Vol. 13, No. 4 (May 1999).Copyright © 1999 by Sage Publications, Inc.



of the nature and complexity of density-related phe-nomena, which no oneapproach or singlestudy canad-dress or encompass.

The topic of residential density intersects with somany other issues that to do it justice one needs anInternet site. Virtually every concept or issue requiresor justifies a detour that involves an in-depth elabora-tion and expansion into its own literature and into re-lated literatures. However, this is not possible withinthe pages of a journal article, so this article highlightsthe relevant issues and the debates surrounding thoseissues. It cannot be my role to resolve these issues anddebates; rather, I make their complexity explicit andvisible. These density-related concepts or topics in-clude urban form, city size, preferredbuilding or settle-ment type, site design, economic issues and policy,zoning and other land use issues, social issues and val-ues,women’s issues, children’sdevelopment, cognitiveand perceptual processes, stress, sustainable develop-

ment,compact cities, streetand transportation systems,conflicts between public transportation and the privatecar, urban sprawl, environmental quality policies, andthe role of professional planning and government insetting density standards.

Three concepts are used to address the issue of den-sity andhowdensity affects people’s lives:density, per-ceived density, and crowding (Alexander 1993).Density is a term that represents the relationship be-tween a given physical area and the number of peoplewho inhabit or use that area. It is expressed as a ratio of population size or number of dwelling units (the nu-merator) to area units (the denominator). Density is an

objective, quantitative, and neutral term. It is neutral inthe sense that one cannot know immediately whether agiven density level is positive or negative. Psycholo-gists distinguish between spatial and social density.Spatial density is created by a given number of peoplewithin different size spaces.Social density is createdbydifferentnumbers of peoplewithinthesame space. Theargument is that these two types of density are experi-enced differently (Baum and Paulus 1987; Russell andSnodgrass 1987; Altman 1975). This distinction is simi-lar to Hitchcock’s (1994) analysis of the difference be-tween increasing density by reducing residential landarea for the same number of people or by increasing thenumber of people in the same residential land area.

Perceived density and crowding are based on theprinciple that the same density can be perceived andevaluated in very different ways, by different people,underdifferent circumstances, in different cultures andcountries. Thus, even though planners operate on thelevel of density, they must be cognizant of the fact thatpeopleexperience andlive in a multilevelsituation thatmanifests itself in interactions between density and theperception and evaluation of density.

Perceiveddensity is defined as an individual’spercep-tion and estimate of the number of people present in agiven area, the space available, and the organization of that space. Cues in the environment that represent peo-ple and their activities play critical roles in this percep-tion of density (Rapoport 1975). Perception is, bydefinition, subjective because it is determinedby thein-

dividual and neutral because it does not include anevaluative component.

Crowding is defined as the subjective evaluation byan individual that a given density and perceived den-sity is negative. Crowding is also defined as a state of psychological stress that accompanies density that isevaluated as too high (Evans and Cohen 1987; Sund-strom 1978). It is a psychological state, the outcome of asubjective and experiential process that includes an ap-praisal of physical conditions, situational variables,personal characteristics, and coping assets (Baum andPaulus 1987; Altman 1975; Stokols 1972). Thus, crowd-

ing represents a subjective, qualitative, and affective(emotion laden) experience. There is a need for a moregeneral term than crowding for the subjective evalua-tion of density.Rapoport (1975)pointed outmany yearsago that research addresses the negative subjective as-pects of density (i.e., crowding) but virtually ignoresthe positive subjective aspects. There has been some re-cent attention paid to this lacuna that hopefully will re-sult in a term for positive evaluations of density.

MEASURES OF DENSITY USED IN URBAN PLANNING

One might assume that density, an objective andquantitative term, is not problematic, but that is not the

case (Hitchcock 1994; Alexander 1993). There is no oneaccepted measure of density between or within coun-tries or even withinmetropolitan regions. For example,a report by Lehman and Associates (1995) points outthat even between municipalities in the greater To-ronto, Canada, area, there is no consistency in the defi-nition of density. In general, density measures vary inseveral ways. First, different numerators and denomi-nators are used in different countries. Some countriesdefine density according to the number of people pergiven area(populationdensity),butother countries de-fine density according to the number of dwelling units

per given area (residential density).

2

Second, a varietyof land units, including acre, hectare, square mile, andsquare kilometer, are used as the denominator. Third,although it is common to distinguish between net andgrossdensity, the definition of net and gross densityvar-ies from place to place (see Table 1). For these reasons, itis very difficult to compare the densities of differentcountries (Alexander 1993). Hitchcock (1994) suggeststhat every document should include a set of definitionsfor the densityinquestion.To mitigate atleast partofthisproblem, I convert all denominators into a common

390 Journal of Planning Literature



term, hectare (1 hectare equals 2.47 acres, 1 square kilo-meter equals 10 hectares, and 1 square mile equals 2.58square kilometers). Where it is possible, I also specifywhether the reference is to net or gross density.

The translationof population density intoresidentialdensity requires knowledge about the relevant house-hold size in a particular context (Hitchcock 1994; Alex-

ander 1993). Given the broad range of household sizesthat characterize different countries, regions, andpopulation groups, this is neither a simple nor an insig-nificant task. For example, the average household sizeinToronto was2.6 persons in 1981 (BerridgeLewinbergGreenberg,Ltd. 1991b). In theNetherlands, theaveragehousehold size ranges from 2.2 to 2.5persons (Ministryof Housing 1996). In Israel, the average household sizefor the secular Jewish population in 1994 was 3.3 per-sons, for ultra orthodox Jewishhouseholds 5.0 persons,

for Moslem households 5.6 persons, and for Christianhouseholds 3.9 persons (Churchman et al. 1996). In Sin-gapore, the average household size in 1984 was 4.4 per-sons (Wong and Yeh 1985).

Population density givesa better idea of thenumbersof people likely to make use of the area in question.Residential density provides an indication of the

number of dwelling units in that area. However, resi-dential density and population density both representaverages; therefore, any discussion of density must be-ware the pitfalls of averages, especially when the areaof concern is large (Hitchcock 1994). As an example,Loo and Ong (1984) reported that the average popula-tion density in San Francisco was 183 persons per hec-tare. Yet, the variance between neighborhoods wastremendous, with part of the range in density from atleast 86 to 1,838 personsper hectare. The same problem

The Concept of Density 391

TABLE 1. Density Measures in Residential Areas

Parcel density (net-net density, Parcel density is measured in areas designated for residences. The two main ways tonet site density, net density, express this density are dwelling units per area and floor area per area. In some caseslot density) (Toronto, Israel, some regions of the United States), the measure consists only of the

number of dwelling units built on parcels allocated for residence—it excludes roads,parks, and other public lands (Alterman and Churchman 1998; Berridge LewinbergGreenberg, Ltd. 1991b; Wentling 1991). In the Netherlands, net density includes

neighborhood-related spaces such as the land of the houses, schools, local streets, andlocal parks (van Andel 1998). The measure of floor area per area density is expressed inthe ratio between the floor area and the lot area, both expressed in square meters. Thismeasure is especially useful when the same parcel consists of land for residential andnonresidential purposes or in areas of high density and large buildings. Since the parceldensity denominator is precisely defined, in contrast to other density measures, it is themost unambiguous measure.

Street density (net density) This measure includes the area of the public street rights-of-way that provide access tothe residential parcels. The prevalent numerator is the number of dwelling units,whereas the denominator is typically the parcel area plus half of the public rights-of way adjacent to the residential parcels.

Gross residential area density This term expresses the living space of the population in the residential area, including(gross site density, residential both private and public space. This measure is useful because many residential areasdensity, residential area density, include a limited variety of nonresidential uses meant to serve the local residents, suchgross density, gross living area as parks, schools, community centers and so forth. It takes into account the spacedensity, neighborhood density) needed by a given residential population, when all the residentially related uses are

taken into account, in addition to public streets and the residential parcels. Grossresidential density is the most ambiguous measure, because some neighborhoods mayinclude land for purposes that serve a wider population than that of the specific area,for example, zoos, theaters, and so forth. Wentling (1991), for example, defines grossdensity in parts of the United States as the number of units per acre of initialundeveloped site.

Density measures beyond Since the denominator in this measure includes the entire municipal area, it will reflectresidential areas ( population the lowest density mentioned so far, because the municipal region includes land thatdensity, community density) has other than residential uses, as well as undeveloped land. Hitchcock (1994) points

out that as the amount of undeveloped land differs from city to city, it is difficult tocompare the density of different cities whose density measure is based on dwellingunits. On the other hand, Berridge Lewinberg Greenberg, Ltd. (1991a) claims that twomeasures—gross population density and gross urban density—do not include, in mostcases, undeveloped areas and that these measures are therefore useful for a comparativestudy of cities.

SOURCE: Hitchcock (1994).



exists with average residential density, even at theneighborhood scale, because there may be a very un-equal distribution of units over geographic space(Evans and Cohen 1987). This is especially true in areaswith different building types. In a recent research proj-ect, Alterman and Churchman (1998) partially resolvethis problem by proposing that separate residential

densities be calculated for each building type (e.g., sin-gle family, multifamily,or high rise) so that the averagewould not mask the variability in densities between building types. Another potential problem with resi-dential density is that local public open space may bescattered or concentrated. Although this does notchange the density figure, it may have major implica-tions, particularly for children’s outdoor play opportu-nities (van Andel 1998; Calthorpe 1993).

Complicating the matter even further is the fact thatdensity is often confounded with other variables suchas population size andattendant levels of resources, es-

pecially in developing countries (Jain 1987). Other con-founding variables include building type (Alexander1993; Baum and Paulus 1987; van Vliet 1985), suburbanor inner-city locations (Shlay1985; Michelson 1977), so-cioeconomic status (Shannon and Cromley 1985; Shlay1985),andother stressors such as noise, heat, andpollu-tion. Asa result,manyofthe statementsmadeabout theproblems associated with high density may actually bea function of these other variables or of the interaction between these variables and density.

The connection made betweendensity and high-risehousing is particularly instructive. Although high-rise buildings are intuitively associated with high residen-

tial density, there is no necessary relationship betweenthe two (Michelson 1977). For example, a study con-ducted by the Tel Aviv Town Planning Departmentshowed that high-rise buildings do not necessarilyequal high densities. Within the city, there are areas of low-rise buildings of up to four stories varying from 80to 240 net dwelling units per hectare; areas of eight- tonine-story buildings with net densities of 100 and 290dwelling units per hectare; and a net density of 250dwelling units per hectare in an area of sixteen-story buildings. A report prepared by Lehman and Associ-ates (1995) gives examples of areas in the Toronto, Can-ada, metropolitan area in which net densities of between 120 to 230 dwelling units per hectare wereachieved with low-rise buildings of up to five stories.

The research dealing with the subject of residentialdensity canbe divided into historicalperiods accordingto the focus of the research. Studies from the 1960s and1970s were interested in the social and psychologicalramifications of high density of mostly undefined lev-els. In the 1980s, density studies focused on how den-sity affected the physical layout of a building, aneighborhood, or a settlement. Toward the end of the

1980s, ecology emerged as the new focus of interest indensity research, marking a tendency that became evenstronger in the 1990s.

Most studies deal with high density and its effects, but different disciplines ask different questions, con-sider the subject from different angles, use differentconcepts, and apply different methods. The attitude to-

ward high density depends to some extent on the scien-tific discipline of the researcher conducting the study.Psychologists and sociologists concentrate on the detri-mental effects of density. Economists, transportationexperts, and environmentalists assert both the advan-tages anddisadvantages of highdensity. Multidisciplin-ary researchers in the field of environment-behaviorstudies try to examine density in all its complexity andto uncover the negative and positive aspects of densityin different contexts and under different conditions.

Unfortunately, researchers often refer to density inrelativeterms,such ashigh or mediumdensity,without

specifying numbers. The researchers in question arefrom various countries; thus, high, medium, or lowdensities may have very different numerical values.This variationmakes it impossible to relate conclusionsto the objective facts of the density in question (see Ta- bles 2 and 3). For example, in the Netherlands, 10 dwell-ing units per net hectare is considered low density, and100 units is considered high density (van Andel 1998).In Israel, 20 to 40 dwelling units per net hectare is con-sidered lowdensity, and290unitsperhectare isconsid-ered high density (Alterman and Churchman 1998).Even given the differences in the definition of net den-sity between the two countries, this is still a significant

difference. It is no wonder that a comprehensive out-look has not crystallized on the subject and the signifi-cance of density. It is impossible to come up with a clearand generally accepted picture.

RECENT URBAN PLANNING APPROACHES TO DENSITY

Much of the concern with density in planning andother related fields has been over high urban densityand its assumed negative effect on the quality of life of urban residents. The city has historically beenperceived to be a place of overcrowding, noise, dirt,crime, poverty, disease, and so forth (Radberg 1998;

Lehman and Associates 1995; Gowling and Penny1988). The high density existing in cities during theearly period of the Industrial Revolution was seen asone of the major culpritsof poverty and disease. Asa re-sult, planningcontrols (inCanada andGreat Britain, forexample) usually specified maximum densities. Theplanning reaction was a strong movement towardlower density housing outside of the city. In the UnitedStates and Canada, this took the form of a move to thesuburbs, but in Great Britain and Sweden, it resulted ingarden cities (Madanipour 1996; Gowling and Penny




1988). The garden city movement is described by Rad- berg (1998) as representing decentralized urbangrowth. The assumption was that these relatively low-density residential areas would not suffer from the illsfound in high-density cities and would offer a higherquality of life to residents. More recently, there have been many second thoughts on, and strong criticismsof, these trends. Environmentalists express concernabout the environmental implications of low density(Van der Ryn 1986), and urbanists are concerned aboutthe decline of the city (Lehman and Associates 1995; Ja-

cobs 1961) or of the community (Scully 1994; Smyth1992). Questions about low densities also have beenposed by those who are concerned about the efficientuse of land and public services (Lehman and Associ-ates 1995); by feminists and researchers who arguethat low-density suburbs are inimical to women’slives, especially employed women with children andsingle parents (Churchman 1993); and by sociologistswho criticize the social homogeneity and the socialsegregation in these low-density areas (Smyth 1992;

Shannon andCromley 1985).There aresome, of course,who mention all of these problems (e.g., Calthorpe1992).

Although the arguments against low density arewidelyaccepted andhave been very influential in plan-ning in the past two decades, more and more dissidentvoices can be heard. There are those who question the

basic assumptions of many of the arguments againstlow density and those who contend that the analysis of the problem is wrong or that the picture is not that clearas to how to achieve desired quality of life or equitygoals. Others argue that some of these goals are wrongor misguided (see, for example, Breheny 1996; Troy1995b, 1992; Gordon and Richardson 1997).

The current planning discourse on these issues is fo-cused on questionsof theadvisabilityof increasing resi-dential densities or the necessity for it. Terms used inthe discourse clearly reflect a point of view. For exam-ple, some speak of urban sprawl (Ewing 1997) versus

urbanconsolidation (Troy1996;Orchard 1995) orurbanintensification (Jenks et al. 1996). Others discuss reurbanization (Berridge Lewinberg Greenberg, Ltd. 1991a,1991b), urban compaction (Breheny 1996; Troy 1996),compact cities (Jenks et al. 1996b; Van der Ryn and Calt-horpe 1986b), and sustainable cities (Haughton andHunter 1994; Walter et al. 1992). And still others talk of town cramming (City of Newcastle upon Tyne 1993;Barton 1992; Breheny 1992a).

There are a number of planning and design ap-proaches coexisting at the moment, each of which hasits own proponents and opponents. When density is acentral issue, it is perceived as a means to some end.

None of theapproaches canbe presentedherein-depth,not even in terms of density. However, I integrate therelevant principles and claims of these approaches intoa discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of higher densities.

Two of the approaches, new urbanism and transit-oriented development, are concerned with many of theissues raised by the other approaches. However, themotivation of the proponents of new urbanism andtransit-oriented development is not that of increasingdensities—any increase indensity that isachievedisba-sically a by-product of a minimal nature. The emphasisof the new urbanismmovement is onsmall towns. New

urbanists envision towns or neighborhoods that arecompact, mixed use, and pedestrian friendly (Madani-pour 1996).Newurbanism hascome in forcriticism, forexample, for its emphasis on shape and form ratherthan substance(Peel 1995) andforinvoking thename of Jane Jacobs when new urbanist ideas are actually verydifferent (Montgomery 1998). In terms of the issue of density, the aesthetic, spatial, and programmatic prin-ciples of this approach are considered to be applicablein urban and suburban conditions at any density. Den-


TABLE 2. Single-Family Net Dwelling Unit Density

Units/Country Hectare Source

Australia 10 Haughton and Hunter 1994France 27 Alterman 1997Israel 20 to 40 Alterman and Churchman 1998

Netherlands 10 van Andel 1998Sweden 20 Radberg 1998United States 12a Bannister 1992

a.This istheaverage rate. The low rangesare 2.5 to10,andthehigh ranges are 17 to 29 dwelling units per hectare.

TABLE 3. Multifamily Net Dwelling Unit Density

Units/Country Hectare Source

Toronto, Canada 53 to 318 Lehman and Associates1995

Vancouver, Canada 47 to 89 Vancouver CityPlanning Department1986

Great Britain 28 to 48 Goodchild 1994Israel 290 Alterman and

Churchman 1998Netherlands 100 van Andel 1998Singapore 200 Wong and Yeh 1985Sweden 250 to 300 Radberg 1998



sity is mentioned as a way of making walking, cycling,and public transit use viable alternatives to automobileuse. Yet, increased density is not listed as one of thegoals of new urbanism, nor do proponents of new urbanism mention the densities achieved when they de-scribe their projects (Katz 1994).

The emphasis of transit-oriented development,

whose principal proponent is Peter Calthorpe (1993,1992), is to plan balanced, mixed-use areas with a sim-ple cluster of housing, retail space, and offices within aone-quarter mile walking radius of a light rail system.The motivation for transit-oriented development is toimprove the ills brought about by dependence on theautomobile and the mismatch that exists between oldsuburban patterns and the postindustrial culture. Thegoal is to preserve open space and reduce automobiletraffic without necessarilyincreasingdensity. Calthorpe(1993)defines average netresidentialdensities of urbantransit-oriented developments as 44 dwelling units per

hectare, with densities of 62 to 123 units per hectare forup to three-story apartment buildings.The vision of the compact city, embraced by the

European community, has had a significant effect inmany countries. Its basic principles include the intensi-fication of the use of space within the city throughhigher residential densities and centralization, mixedland uses, and limits on development beyond the pe-riphery of the city. Proponents of the compact city ap-proach assume that concentrated development willreduce the need to travel by car, thereby reducing vehi-cle emissions and leading to energy savings (Thomasand Cousins 1996). The approach combines concerns

about how urban growth affects the environment andconcerns about the future quality of life in urban areas(Breheny 1992a).

There is no consensus as to whether the notion of thecompact city is desirable,achievable, or even whether itis a sustainable urban form. (See Breheny 1992b and Jenks et al. 1996a for explications of many of the princi-ples of the compact city and the questions raised re-garding them.) Troy (1992, 1995b, 1996), for example,argues that the compact city approach adopted as a na-tional policy in Australia in the 1980s (Orchard 1995) isnot the best answer for the issues facing the country to-day. Troy’s arguments are that urban consolidation is a

smoke screen for other problems and that compact cit-ies will not achieve promised land and infrastructuresavings. Gordon and Richardson (1997) claim that thecase for the compact city has not been proven in envi-ronmental, economic, or transportation terms, andcompact cities should not be adopted as a goal becausethey contradict the overwhelming preference for low-density development. Ewing (1997) responds by inter-preting compact development as some concentration of housing and some mixing of land use but not high-

density development. To complicate matters even fur-ther, Preiser (1989) argues that the sprawl pattern of urban growth, which is characterized by discontinuousdevelopment, can lead to higher densities in areas thatare initially skipped over (depending on other factors);therefore, sprawl may not be such a detrimental devel-opment pattern. Goodchild (1994), from a different

point of view, questions the ability of the compact cityto achieve its promised benefits. For example, he saysthat one cannot take for granted that the people wholive in compact cities will travel more by public trans-portation or on foot because much depends on resi-dents’ attitudes and behaviors.

The sustainable city approach is confronted by theproblem of the definition of the term sustainability,which is interpreted both broadly and narrowly. Sus-tainabledevelopment ina broadsense includesecologi-cal sustainability (the continued productivity of ecosystems), economic sustainability (economic

growth), and social sustainability (the maintenance of social values, traditions,and institutions) (Ewing 1997).Breheny (1992a) reduces sustainability to the adoptionof policies that minimize both local resource consump-tion and pollutants. Often, the terms compact city andsustainable city are used interchangeably because their basic principles in terms of urban issues are similar.Oneof these principles involves increasing densitiesonthe assumption that increased densities will have thedesired environmental results. However, Goodchild(1994) argues that “very high” densities have undesir-able consequences in terms of sustainable develop-ment. He refers to the argument that sustainable

development requires a general reduction in net resi-dential densities and quotes Rydin (1992), who arguesthat the optimum for sustainable development is thirtyto thirty-five dwelling units per hectare.

Hitchcock (1994) andOrchard (1995) direct attentionto the fact that, on the whole, the discussion about in-creasing density andreducing urbanlandconsumptionconcentrates almost totally on residential densities. Itneglects all of the other land uses that make up a city,even thoughthese land uses represent a significant pro-portion of a city’stotal land area. If these nonresidentialland uses are not taken into account, the reduction inland consumption achieved by increasing residential

density will not be as great as initially conceived be-cause services andamenitieswill have to be augmentedto accommodate the increased population (see alsoGoodchild1994). Hitchcockalsocautions that increasesin population in individual areas of the city affect landconsumption in the urban region as a whole. Thus, heargues that achieving the goals associated with higherdensitiesmust take into account numerous interactionswith thelargergeographicarea andmust examine spot,rather than average, densities. Handy (1996) in her dis-




cussion of travel behavior and its relationship to den-sity makes a similar point about not using averages.

DENSITY IN PLANNING PRACTICE

This section provides a review of the ways in whichdensity issues are incorporated into plans in different

countriesandat differentscales (national, regional,andmetropolitan). Approaches to residential density varywithin andbetweencountries. This is an obvious neces-sity because of differing historical, political, economic,geographic, physical, social, cultural, demographic,technological, and ecological contexts. However, plan-ners and decision makers all over the world are alsocognizant of the zeitgeist at any given point in time andof what is being done in other countries. Thus, many of the same ideas and approaches are present in someform or another in most of these plans. Contextual dif-ferences lead to somewhat different policy goals andmeasures taken to achieve those goals.

Contextual factors also play a major role in motiva-tions for focusing on density. For example, in countriessuch as Israel, where land is scarce or perceived to bescarce, the primary goal is to make more efficient use of land to preserve agricultural land or natural openspaces (Alterman and Churchman 1998). Other coun-tries that do not have a scarcity of land may be moreconcernedaboutenvironmental factors andsustainabledevelopment (e.g., Norway) or about economic devel-opment (e.g., Australia). Areas with little populationgrowth, such as the City of Newcastle upon Tyne(1993), adopt one approach. Areas that anticipate a

large population growth, such as the metropolitan To-ronto area (BerridgeLewinbergGreenberg, Ltd. 1991a),adopt another.

A review of the various goals that national, regional,andlocalplanningauthorities aretryingto achieve, andthe implications those goals have for residential den-sity, is thus instructive. A few planning documents arepresented here as somewhat detailed case studies to il-lustrate some of the various combinations of goals thatexist. These are followed by a summary of differentcategories of goals that can be identified in these andother planning documents.

Randstad, the NetherlandsThis case study deals with national strategic plan-

ning, a type of planning in which the Dutch are consid-ered to excel. The following description is based onresearch by Manshaden andde Schmidt (1992), vanderValk and Faludi (1992), Faludi and van der Valk (1994),and van der Cammen et al. (1988). The Netherlands, asmall country, is themost denselypopulatedcountry inEurope, with a population density of 439 people persquarekilometer.Thecountry’sland policyis also quite

different from most other countries, and it has mani-festedin interesting developmentsover time interms of density. The urban agglomeration of Randstad is themost highly urbanized area in the Netherlands. Forty-five percent of the population lives in one-quarter of the country’s land area. Almost six million people livein an average density of more than one thousand per-

sons per square kilometer (one hundred persons persquare hectare).

Dutch national planning since the 1950s has focusedon the “Randstad” and “Green Heart” concepts. Theinitial approach to these areas represented a general re- jection of unbridled growth, particularly suburbangrowth, andan emphasis onnewtowns.Thechief inno-vation of the Second Report is the notion of concentrateddeconcentration. The Randstad was designed to be ahorseshoe-shaped pattern of urbansettlementsarrayedaroundtheGreen Heart.TheRandstad wassubdividedinto conurbations, city regions, and agglomerations,

which were all separated by green corridors. In the1970s, the Third National Physical Planning Report tookthe protection of the Green Heart region as its most im-portant mission.

In the mid-1980s, the Dutch national governmentembraceda policythat favoreda compact city approachwith a focus on the development andredevelopment of existing cities at greater densities. In the Fourth ReportExtra, emphasis on obstructing continuous urbansprawl, intensifying land uses in urban areas, and pre-serving nonurbanized space was even greater. All newdevelopment was tooccurwithinthe Randstad andto berestricted within the Green Heart. Preventing or amelio-

rating environmental problems was also emphasized inthe report. The compact city (representing high densitywithasmany mixedusesas possible) becamethekey cri-terion on which the plans of local authorities would beassessed by provincial and state planning agencies.

Singapore

Singapore represents a very unique case in manyways, including its large population and increasingneed for land for both residential and nonresidentialuses. Because of these problems, the Singapore govern-ment committed to the provision of public housing forthe majority of the country’s population (85 percent in

the1980s). Thewaythis policyhas developedis very in-teresting. Since Singapore obtained its independence,decisionmakers, town planners,and architects have ex-pressed concern over the country’s limited land re-sources. Net residential density (defined as dwellingunits in a site or area including access roads and carparks) in public housing projects constructed duringthe 1960s (mainly composed of one- to three-roomapartments) was between 200 and 500 dwelling unitsper hectare. In developments from the 1970s, which




are primarily composed of three- or four-room apart-ments, net residential density was reduced to between170 and 250 dwelling units per hectare. In recent years,there is a growing tendency in Singaporeto build largerapartments, with the net density goal set at 200 dwell-ing units per hectare.This density is seen to be counter- balanced by the decrease in average household size,

from 6.2 persons in 1968 to 4.4 persons in 1984. Netpopulation density, which decreased from 1,000 per-sons per hectare in 1981 to 880 persons per hectare in1985, wasexpected to continueto decline to 800personsin 1990. Residential density is the foremost criterion of site planning for housing development in Singapore.Housing development primarily takes the form of high-rise (twenty-five-story point block and ten- totwelve-story slab block buildings) and high-density buildings (Wong and Yeh 1985). The main goal is toprovide a favorable physical environment within thesedevelopments.

Israel

Israel is a small country with an effective populationdensity (effective population density deducts the 50percent of the country’s area that is mountainous des-ert) of more than five hundred persons per square kilo-meter (fifty persons per hectare). Since Israel has thehighest birthrate among industrialized countries andaccepts mass immigration, the nationwill become evenmore densely inhabited in the future. Israel’s use of urban land is relatively intense, and most urban residentslive in apartment houses. Residential net densitiesrange from 20 dwelling units per hectare to 290 units or

even higher (Alterman and Churchman 1998).There is a strong consensus among planners and

policymakers in Israel that the rapid depletion of landresources necessitates even higher densities. A reviewof recent metropolitan, regional, and national masterplans reveals that this consensus has been expressedsimply as a call for increased densities, without anyspecification of what kinds of increases may be re-quiredor appropriate. Forexample, thegoal of the1992National Master Plan (Israel Ministry of the Interior1992) was to cope with a mass immigration from theformer Soviet Union and from Ethiopia. The antici-pated need to absorb 1.6 million new immigrants

within five years (in a country with about 4.5 millionresidents) set the principles that no new small settle-ments shouldbe approved, that thepopulation of exist-ing settlements should be expanded, and that thedensity of existing cities should be increased withintheir present boundaries. However, the plan does notdefinethedensitiesrequired to implement these princi-ples. A regional master plan, the Master Plan and Devel-opment Plan for the Northern Region (Shefer et al. 1997),also does not quantitatively define densities. However,

at present there is a proposal for an amendment to theplan that will specify minimum average gross popula-tion densities fordifferentsize citiesindifferentparts of the region. For example, a city of more than fifty thou-sand persons in a central area of the region would haveto attaina minimum average density of seven thousandpersons per square kilometer (seven hundred per hec-

tare). A similar city in a more peripheral area of the re-gion would have to attain a minimum average densityof six thousand persons per square kilometer or sixhundred persons per hectare (Shefer et al. 1997).

A recentpolicy wasproposedto increase theefficientuse of urban land for residential development. The pol-icy included safeguards that were designed to mini-mize possible negative effects on residents’ quality of life or limits on freedom of choice between differenthousing types (Alterman and Churchman 1998). Thepolicyproposes that each village or town be required togradually decrease its proportion of single-family,

low-density dwellings to intensify residential land use before officials can request an expansion of town bor-ders at the expense of agricultural land or open space.The intensification requirement also ensures that thehigherdensitiesprovideforthepublic service, amenity,privacy, and open-space needs of residents. The pro-posal defines low net densities as a minimum of forty-five dwelling units per hectare and medium net densi-ties as one hundred to two hundred dwelling units perhectare. It regards net densities higher than these asnegative and not recommended.

Newcastle upon Tyne, Great Britain

The development plan for the City of Newcastleupon Tyne (1993)addresses theissue of existing andfu-ture residential densities, among other things. The Cityof Newcastleupon Tyne suffered forseveral years frompopulation declines that resulted from young adultsand young families with children moving out of thecity. The city was left with a high proportion of depen-dent groups, such as elderly people and single-parentfamilies, which require many support services but arelessableto contributeto the local economy. A growthinthe number of small households brought about an in-creased demand for dwellings, despite the overall dropinpopulation.Most of theexistingstockof high-density

housesalready hadbeen rehabilitated andrenovatedinthe 1970s. As land became scarce, there was a tendencytoward town cramming that was manifested in higherdensities andpressure for the development of land thatwas allocated for open space or economic activities.

The city’s plan allocated areas for development interms of the environmental capacity of the built-uparea. Development that overstepped theboundaries set by the plan was seen as unacceptably damaging to theenvironment. The residential goal set by the plan was




“to stabilize the city’s population at the level prevailingat the beginning of the Plan period, by providing suffi-cient land for a wide range of types and qualities of housing development” (City of Newcastle upon Tyne1993, 9). Increased density was not one of the statedgoals of the plan, but it was included as one of themeans to achieve the goal of providing varied and af-

fordablehousing that wouldmeetthe needs of differentgroupswithin thecity’spopulation. Theplan presents alist of sites within the city in which the minimum den-sity was set at a nominal thirty dwelling units per hec-tare.3 The actual density was to be determined in themaster plans of the specific sites that were allocated fornew housing development. The goal for some existinglocal authority housing sites was to reduce densitythrough redevelopment, yet the plan does not mentionexisting and planned density figures.

Other goals setby the Newcastle plan were “to worktowards thelong term goal of sustainability by progres-

sively reducing both the need for energy and othernatural resources, and the environmental impactcaused by their use;” to improve public transportation;and to increase pedestrian and bicycling opportunities(Cityof Newcastleupon Tyne 1993, 13). However, noneof the plan’s goals is specifically linked to the issue of residential density, perhaps because officials believethat existing density levels are high enough to supportthese goals.

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

The 1991 proposed Reurbanization Plan for Metro-politan Toronto, Canada, consists of two parts: a study

of the reurbanization process (Berridge LewinbergGreenberg, Ltd. 1991b) and planning guidelines (Ber-ridge LewinbergGreenberg, Ltd. 1991a). Thegoal of thereurbanization plan was to accommodate three hun-dred thousand new residents and three hundred thou-sand new jobs in twenty to thirty years. Toronto has anumber of advantages that facilitate this growth.Among these advantages are a vast supply of under-used sites that are distributed throughout the metro-politan area and a sophisticated public transit networkof buses, streetcars, and subways that reaches intoeverycornerofthemetropolitanarea.Oneofthecentralgoals set forth in the reurbanization plan was the ac-

commodation of as much growth as possible withinthecity’s already built-up urban areas. Urban density wasspecifically linked to several planning goals: (1) the re-duction of automobile dependency through the crea-tion of thecritical densitiesneededforwalking, cycling,and transit use; (2) the preservation of open spacewithin the city by not allowing increases in density tooccur at the expense of land for the “public realm,”which consists of parks, streets, sidewalks, and otheropen spaces; (3) the promotion of diversity in buildings

and living and working environments; and (4) the pro-vision of a range of housing types at a fullrange of den-sities within the City of Toronto to accommodate thecity’s increasingly diverse population.

The Berridge, Lewinberg Greenberg, Ltd. (1991b)study of theviabilityof these goals formetropolitanTo-ronto reached thefollowingconclusions.First, theneedto preserve farmlandandopen space at theperiphery of the city implied that development densities within themetropolitan area should always be maximized,withinspecified parameters.The reportnoted that evenif densities were to double, there was no need to buildhigh-rise buildings because maximum densities can be attained with single-family houses and low-riseapartment buildings. Second, to accommodate the ex-pected increase of three hundred thousand residents atgross residential densities of one hundred persons perhectare, about 5 percent of the metropolitan area’s landwould require development. Yet, the report notes that

such a density already exists in at least one of the city’sneighborhoods. Third, high urban density is associatedwith a higher degree of walking and bicycling, but den-sity is not the only factor influencing the decision towalkorcycle. The reportnotes that factors related tour- ban structure, especially the mix of land uses in a givenarea, affect these behavior patterns.

Finally, as inothercities, theuseof publictransporta-tion in Toronto increases with an increase in density.Toronto’s overall density exceeds the minimum grossurban density benchmark (30 persons per hectare)above which higher densities will increase the use of public transportation. However, densities vary within

Toronto, with higherdensitiesconcentratedintheinnercity. Some areas on the outskirts of the city, especiallysingle-family areas in suburban neighborhoods, do notreachthe required density benchmark.Increased densi-ties in these areas would support greater use of transit.Thegross densitiesof other residential areas range from150 to 250 persons per hectare, which is within the hightransit use range. The fact that these areas consist of four-story low-rise apartment buildings and high-rise buildings indicates that density ranges that supporttransit use can be achieved with low-rise buildings.

A basic premise of Toronto’s redevelopment plan isthat when the nature of the changed urban form is de-

termined, residential uses cannot be treated separatelyfrom employment uses. Thus, a newmeasure of densitywas proposed: gross reurbanization density. Grossreurbanization density is defined as the numberof resi-dents and employed persons per hectare, regardless of the relative predominance of members of each group(Berridge LewinbergGreenberg,Ltd.1991a,1991b). Forexample, a gross reurbanization density of one hun-dred residents andemployed personsper hectare couldinclude seventy-five employed persons and twenty-




five residents or any other combination of these twogroups. This density measure supports the implemen-tation of a balanced mix of land uses in a given area.

The draft guidelines for the reurbanization of metro-politan Toronto adopt a hierarchical, multicentered urban structure, which distinguishes between three levelsof centers. The gross density ranges that are recom-mended for each centeraremainly basedon levels of ex-isting or future transit availability. Low-density centersare to have between 125 and 175 residents and workersper hectare, medium-density centers between 250 and350 residents and workers per hectare, and high-densitycenters between 400 and 500 residents and workers perhectare.Regardlessof density,each center is to be devel-oped in a compact manner with densities maximizedwithin these compact parameters. These guidelines re-flectthenotion thatareaswithmixed usesare ableto sus-tain higher densities than single-use residential areas(Berridge Lewinberg Greenberg, Ltd. 1991a).

Types of Goals Related to Density

A summary of the types of goals that are linked todensity in these and other planning documents indi-cates that they can be divided into goals that relate toenvironmental quality, transportation systems, physi-cal infrastructure and urban form, social factors, andeconomic factors. Higher density goals that fall undereach of these categories are listed below.

GOALS RELATED TO ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Higher density goals that are related to environ-mental quality include the following:

1. reducing the need for energy and other natural re-sources and associated environmental effects (Re-gional Municipality of York1994; Cityof Newcastleupon Tyne 1993),

2. improving air quality through increased transit useand reduced car trips (Regional Municipality of York 1994),

3. saving energy by planning high-density mixedland uses (Stenhouse 1992),

4. protecting farmland and natural resources (Alter-man andChurchman1998;Faludi and van der Valk1994; Regional Municipality of York 1994; BerridgeLewinberg Greenberg, Ltd. 1991a), and

5. preserving green open spacesand air, water, fauna,

and flora systems within the plan’s boundaries(Martin County 1994; Regional Municipality of York 1994; New York City Planning Commission1993; Berridge Lewinberg Greenberg, Ltd. 1991a).

GOALS RELATED TO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS

Higher density goals that are related to transporta-tion systems include the following:

1. reducing the frequency of use of private vehiclesand shortening routes to various land uses (Wood-hull 1992),

2. encouragingthe useof publictransportation by im-proving thequalityof public transit systems andbyproviding easy access to mass transportation sys-tems through high-density development (NewYork City Planning Commission 1993; BerridgeLewinberg Greenberg, Ltd. 1991a), and

3. increasing the incidence of walking and cycling(Berridge Lewinberg Greenberg, Ltd. 1991a).

GOALS RELATED TO PHYSICAL

INFRASTRUCTURE AND URBAN FORM

Higher density goals related to physical infrastruc-ture and urban form include the following:

1. meeting the need for more dwelling units that re-sults from an increase in the number of households(City of Newcastle upon Tyne 1993; Israel Ministryof theInterior1992;BerridgeLewinbergGreenberg,Ltd. 1991a),

2. obviating the problem of the gradual depletion of land reserves in specific urban areas (City of New-castle upon Tyne 1993),

3. intensifying the use of urban areas (Martin County1994; Manshaden and de Schmidt 1992),

4. creating a hierarchical multicentered urban struc-ture that enables gradations ofdensity anda varietyof residential choices (Berridge Lewinberg Green-

berg, Ltd. 1991a), and5. providing a favorable physical environment in

terms of maximum building heights with at leastminimal spacing between buildings (Wong andYeh 1985).

GOALS RELATED TO SOCIAL FACTORS

Higher density goals that are related to social factorsinclude the following:

1. providing a wide range of housing types and den-sity levels to provide choice and meet the needs of an increasingly diverse population (Regional Mu-nicipality of York 1994; City of Newcastle uponTyne 1993; New York City Planning Commission1993; Berridge Lewinberg Greenberg, Ltd. 1991a);

2. ensuring a sufficient supplyof apartments infutureyears (Regional Municipality of York 1994; Wongand Yeh 1985);

3. creating a livable urban environment (BerridgeLewinberg Greenberg, Ltd. 1991a), possibly as Ja-cobs and Appleyard (1987) define livability as aplace in which everyone canlive in relativecomfortin a well-managed environment that is relativelydevoid of nuisance, overcrowding, noise, danger,

air pollution, dirt, trash, and other unwelcome in-trusions;4. meeting the needs of particular groups in society,

including single-parent families, the elderly (Ber-ridge Lewinberg Greenberg, 1991b), and low- andmoderate-income households (Martin County1994);

5. redeveloping at densities that are high enough torecapture a neighborhood’s former vitality (NewYork City Planning Commission 1993); and

6. bringing buildings closer to the street to provide“eyes on the street” for safety purposes (New YorkCity Planning Commission 1993).




GOALS RELATED TO ECONOMIC FACTORS

Higher density goals that are related to economicfactors include the following:

1. promotingthe criticalmass necessaryto support lo-calretailandserviceareas (NewYork CityPlanningCommission 1993);

2. attractingbusinesses,hotels,shopping, andupscaleresidential development to urban areas (Faludi andvan der Valk 1994);

3. improving a city’s economic efficiency (Frost andDingle 1995; Troy 1995b);

4. enabling the construction of low cost, middle-density housing (two- and three-story row houseswith unenclosed parking andno elevator) in neigh-

borhoods in which this is appropriate (New YorkCity Planning Commission 1993); and

5. enabling the use and extension of necessary urbanservices in an efficient and economical manner(New York City Planning Commission 1993).

Planning professionals differ in their opinions aboutthe importance of these goals and whether increaseddensity is the right way to achieve them. Furthermore,many researchers contend that high densities have nu-merous negative effects. These issues are addressed inthe next section.

Advantages and Disadvantages of (Relatively) High Densities

The advantages and disadvantages of high densitiesthat are presented here are discussed in the literatureincluded in this review. To reiterate, the level of densitythat is considered high varies between and even within

countries, cultures, socioeconomic classes, contexts,and at different stages of development. Every aspect of high density has both advantages and disadvantages, but whether an advantage or disadvantage applies in agiven situationdepends on context in itsmost inclusivesense. Furthermore, all of these advantages and disad-vantages are on some level theoretical—they repre-sent possibilities or potentials, not certainties or inevi-tabilities. Whether they actually exist in a particularsituation depends on the characteristics of that placeand time. For example, it is quite commonly acceptedthatone ofthe advantages ofa higher density isthe op-portunity for a high-quality public transit system. Yet,

the opportunity does not guarantee that such a systemindeed exists and thus that residents benefit from thisadvantage.

One of the problematic aspects of attempting to linkdensity and positive or negative consequences is thetendency to make assumptions about how various lev-els of density affect people’s lives. There is no system-atic evidence as to whether higher densities affecteveryone or most people the same,who is affected,and

to what extent they are affected. Fischer (1976) arguedthat we do not even know how much of an “average”urban resident’s life actually is spent in high-densitysituations. For example, the assumptions are oftenmade that a person living in a high-density area en-counters a large number of people in various parts of that environment, that many of these encounters are

with strangers,andthat these multiple encounters withstrangers have negative behavioral, cognitive, percep-tual, and emotional consequences. These assumptionsshould be taken as hypotheses that require testingrather than as facts (Churchman and Ginsberg 1984b;McCarthy and Saegert 1978).

The pros and cons of low density are not presentedhere because they are the implicit opposite of the prosand cons of high density (see Haughton and Hunter1994 for a discussion of the pros and cons of high andlow density). The order of presentation of the advan-tages and disadvantages of relatively higher densities

parallels the order of presentation of theplanning goalsin the previous section. There is no value statement re-flected in the order. However, it should be noted thatthis list also includes personal advantages and disad-vantages that could not be separated from social factorsin the list of density-related goals that are specified inplans.

POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL ADVANTAGES

1. High density can help protect agricultural landfrom urbanization (Alterman 1997; Burton andMatson 1996).

2. High density results in less depletion of the naturalresources needed for construction purposes (Bre-

heny 1992a).3. Built forms that facilitate higher net densities may

result in significant reductions in energy demands(Owens 1992; Stenhouse 1992). Energy use within

buildings can be reduced by passive solar architec-ture, superior insulation, and energy-saving tech-nology (Stenhouse 1992) or by built forms withlow-surface areas and combined heat and powersystems (Rydin1992). Owens (1992) notes that verydifferentdensities (ranging from 37 to 250 dwellingunits per hectare) are attainable using combinedheat and power systems, depending on discountrates and fuel prices.

4. Decreased pollution from vehicle exhausts can beachievedasaresultofadeclineintheuseofcars,the

mixing of land uses, the provision of efficient andaccessible publictransportation, andwalking(Sten-house 1992; Owens 1992). High densitieshave beenfound to be associated with lower gasoline con-sumption per capita (Breheny 1996; Newman andKenworthy 1989); however, this is a controversialissue(e.g.,GordonandRichardson1997; Jenks et al.1996a; Orchard 1995).

5. Decreased emission of pollutants may result fromenergy-saving land use plans and from energy-efficient buildings (Breheny 1992a).




POTENTIAL TRANSPORTATION

SYSTEM ADVANTAGES

1. High density may result in a decrease in the totalnumber of car trips (Breheny 1992a). Nasar (1997)found lower automobile dependency scores inhigh- versus low-density neighborhoods. Thesedifferences were greater for older people, women,and households with no children.

2. Highdensity mayresultin a decrease inthe numberof kilometers per trip (Bannister 1992; Stenhouse1992; Woodhull 1992; Berridge Lewinberg Green-

berg, Ltd. 1991b).3. High density has been found to be related to a

higher proportion of travel on public transit, togreater public transit service provision per person,and to transit useby a higherproportion of workers(Breheny 1996; Newman and Kenworthy 1989). In-creased public transit use, in turn, may reduce pol-lution emissions (an environmental advantage).

4. High density enhances the opportunity to use pub-lic transportation, since high density brings the de-velopment of public transportation systems to thethresholds ofprofitabilityand efficiency. Thereport

prepared by Berridge Lewinberg Greenberg, Ltd.(1991b) adopts several benchmarksfor the relation-ship between residential density and transit use. Itsuggests that 17 to 75 dwellingunitsper nethectareare necessary to sustain significant transit use, and150 dwelling units result in a modal split of differ-enttransportationtypes in which more than 50 per-cent is public transit.

5. As a result of an increase in transit use, traffic con-gestion in residential, work, and commercial cen-ters may decrease (Berridge Lewinberg Greenberg,Ltd. 1991b).

6. Public transit can be more energy efficient (Reid1986). Handy (1996) reminds us that it is the set of choices correlated with density, not density itself,

that shapes travel behavior. Bannister (1992) dis-cusses the interaction between socioeconomic cir-cumstances and people’s propensity to travel withdifferent frequencies, trip lengths, and transporta-tion modes. Gender should be added to these inter-vening variables (Pickup 1984). Self (1997)questions the effect that a change in density wouldmake. He argues, for example, that a 50 percent in-crease in the density of Canberra, Australia, wouldproduce only a modest increase in public transituse.

7. High density offers more opportunities to walk orride a bicycle to work, service, and entertainmentfacilities (Bannister 1992; Woodhull 1992).

POTENTIAL PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

AND URBAN FORM ADVANTAGES

1. High densitiesmay resultin economiesof scale thatfacilitate the use of better quality and more attrac-tive building materials (Hitchcock 1994).

2. High density enables the use of a building complexas an element of the urban composition (Hitchcock1994).

3. High density allows for a variety of densities andtypes of construction in a given region. Variation in

density and construction, in turn, makes the envi-ronment more interesting (Hitchcock 1994).

4. High-density development intheproximity of pub-lic transportation lines candecrease the demand forland located further from these lines (Shireman1992).

5. High-densitydevelopmentas infill inexistingareascan revitalize those areasandreducethepressureto

develop open spaces (Berridge Lewinberg Green- berg, Ltd. 1991a).

POTENTIAL PERSONAL AND

SOCIAL ADVANTAGES

1. High density facilitates the supply of a variety of relatively high-quality resources and housing,health, education, culture, recreation, and munici-pal service opportunities (Churchman et al. 1996;

Jenks et al. 1996; Audirac and Smith 1992) and em-ployment opportunities (Berridge LewinbergGreenberg, Ltd. 1991b) of a quality notprovidedinlow-density housing. This is particularly impor-tant to meet the needs of various populationgroups and household types and of people withdifferent interests and lifestyles (Forsyth 1997;Lehman and Associates 1995; Churchman 1993;Wohlwill 1985).

2. As a result of high density, a large number of ser-vices may be located within walking distance fromdwellingsandin close proximityto each other.Thisencourages walking and bicycling, thereby ena-

bling individuals (such as children or the elderly)who cannot drive a car, people of limited meanswho donotown a private car,or peoplewho wouldrather not use their private car to move around in-dependently (Churchman 1993; van Vliet 1985; Looand Ong 1984). However, Christoforidis (1993) ar-gues thatpeoplethink interms oftimenotspace,soa three-minute drive may seem closer than a five-minute walk.

3. Highdensity makesitpossibleto maintainan acces-sible, comfortable, and frequent system of publictransportation that contributes to the independentability of various kinds of population groups (chil-dren, teenagers, the elderly, the handicapped, andthose without cars) to availthemselves of resourcesthat are out of their immediate reach (Churchmanet al. 1996; Hillman 1996). Theimportance of such apublictransportation systemis that it is an essentiallinkbetween homes, services,employment, andso-cial networks. Where such a system does not exist,or where it only fills minimum needs, thequality of life for those whodepend on it is seriouslyaffected.Women areespecially affectedbecausetheyusuallyshoulder the burden of managing the demands of

family and work, among others, in the absence of aproper public transportation system (Churchmanet al. 1996; Haughton and Hunter 1994).

4. High density frees land for recreation and openspace(VanderRyn andCalthorpe1986a).A consid-erable amount of land for open space may also bereleased if higher densities result in a reduction inautomobile dependency (Owens 1992).

5. High density facilitates more activities in the centerof a city, thus contributing to the city’s vitality




(Jenks et al. 1996; Haughton and Hunter 1994; Rob-erts 1978).

6. High density may offer possibilities for social sup-port and attachment on one hand and the potentialfor obtaining desired kinds of privacy (e.g., ano-nymity) on theother (Lehman andAssociates 1995;

Jain 1987; Churchmanand Ginsberg 1984a; Roberts1978).

7. Highdensity enables diversityin thechoiceofpeersand associates, not only because more people arepresent but also because there is greater varietyamong those present (Churchman 1993; van Vliet1985; Wohlwill 1985).

POTENTIAL ECONOMIC ADVANTAGES

1. High density makes it possible to economize on theconstruction costs of housing units. Higher densityhousingclusters,in which dwellingunits aggregatemore closely to leave larger common open spaces,can be much more economical (Studies quoted byAlexander 1993). High-density development re-duces land, infrastructure, and building costs(Christoforidis 1993; Preiser 1992).

2. High density is economically efficient because it is based on dense construction on high-priced land(Ottensmann 1977 andButtler 1981 quoted in Alex-ander 1993).

3. High density affords economies of scale in relationto the public and private provision of urban infra-structure, services, and amenities (Haughton andHunter 1994; Hitchcock 1994).

4. Highdensity allowsfor theefficient useof land andpublic services yetmaintains a high “qualityof life”(Lehman and Associates 1995).

5. High density is more spatially andenergy efficient.It also requires less land for urban development(Lehman and Associates 1995). (See Gordon andRichardson 1997 for a challenge to this claim.)

6. High density makes public transportation more vi-

able (Rydin 1992; Reid 1986).7. Smyth (1992) argues that 40 percent of the initial

cost of development in conventional land use plan-ning is automobile related (e.g., freeways, streets,stoplights, parking lots, driveways, garages, park-ing structures, and associated land). A differentkindoflanduseplanning,basedonhigherdensitiesand public transportation, could reduce some por-tion of this cost.

8. High density (along with mixed land uses) allowsfor the technical and economic viability of certainenergy technologies and transportation systems(Owens 1992).

POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL

DISADVANTAGES

1. High density may result in the loss of open and rec-reational space (Jenks et al. 1996; Breheny 1992a)and thereby reduce an area’s capacity to absorbrainfall (Troy 1996).

2. High-densityconstructionmayrequirehighenergyuse (Rydin 1992).

3. High density limits the use of some forms of ambi-ent energy systems, such as passive solar power(Owens 1992; Rydin 1992).

4. A high-density area may be subject to congestionandpollution (Breheny 1992a).Higher levels of pol-lution also may occur because of reduced space fortrees and shrubsthatpurify theair and cool thearea(Troy 1996).

5. High density reduces the capacity to cope with do-mestic wastes anddecreasesopportunities for recy-cling (Troy 1996).

POTENTIAL TRANSPORTATION

SYSTEM DISADVANTAGES

1. Highdensity mayleadto traffic congestion (Jenksetal. 1996;Rydin1992)and to an increased number of traffic accidents (Troy 1996).

2. High density may create pedestrian congestion andcongestion in public transportation facilities if pe-destrian and public transportation systems havenot been developedto accommodate high densities(Ruback and Pandey 1992; Roberts 1978).

3. High-rise, high-density construction may cause amajor point source of congestion at the street level(Troy 1996).

POTENTIAL PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

AND URBAN FORM DISADVANTAGES

1. There islesschoice asto the placement ofa buildingon a lot when net density increases (Hitchcock1994).

2. High-rise, high-density construction may obstructviews, cause shadowing, and give a visual sense of lack of proportion (Hitchcock 1994).

POTENTIAL PERSONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL

DISADVANTAGES

1. High density may cause psychological stress andviolations of personalspace (Jain1987;Loo andOng1984).

2. High density may lead to physiological overstimu-lation, negative health effects (Evans and Cohen

1987), or cognitive overload because of the de-mands of functioning in a very dense environment(Baum and Paulus 1987).

3. High density may lead to constraints on an indi-vidual’sbehavior andfreedom of choice (Baum andPaulus 1987).

4. Negative personal consequences associated withhigher densities may be manifested in anxiety, so-cial withdrawal, and a feeling of loss of control(Baum and Paulus 1987; Fleming et al. 1987; Jain1987).

5. High density may invoke a feeling of reduced pri-vacy and personal security (Troy 1996; McCarthyand Saegert 1978).

6. High density may lead to difficulty in supervising

the location of children’s outdoor play spaces andchoice of friends (Aiello et al. 1985).

POTENTIAL SOCIAL DISADVANTAGES

1. High density may lead to competition betweengroups for space and to other social conflicts (Jain1987; Loo and Ong 1984).

2. High density may be associated with a severing of social ties (McCarthy and Saegert 1978), perhaps

becausepeople are less able to regulatetheir contact




with others (Fleming et al. 1987). Higher densitymay also be related to a lower overall sense of com-munity (Wilson and Baldassare 1996).

3. High density (with high-rise buildings) may pro-mote social segregation (Radberg 1996).

4. Highdensity may beassociated withrelatively littlepublic open space (Breheny 1992a; Simon andWekerle 1987). Yet, van Andel (1998) did not find a

clear relationship between neighborhood openspace and the amount of open space per child. Thisdifference in results clearly illustrates that there areother intervening factorsthataffectwhether thereispublicopenspace ina high-densityneighborhood.

5. High density may make it difficult to maintain anautomobile and thus may result in the loss of astatus symbol (Mullins 1995; Rapoport 1977).

POTENTIAL ECONOMIC DISADVANTAGES

1. Very high-density constructionmay be more costlythan medium- or low-density construction (Alex-ander 1993).

2. The operational energy costs of buildings increasefor taller high-density construction (Troy 1996).

4

High-rise, high-density buildings frequently costmoreto build andmaintain(Ewing1997; Haughtonand Hunter 1994).

3. The value of land in the city center may soar as theresult of high-density development (Alexander1993).

4. High density in the city may have a detrimental ef-fecton economicdevelopmentin surrounding ruralregions (Breheny 1992a).

5. Land absorption for high-density projects takeslonger than for low-density projects because moreunits must be sold to absorb each acre of land (Prei-ser 1992).

6. Higher density development in inner-city areasmay require the very costly upgrading of existinginfrastructure (Troy 1992).

Considering all of these potential advantages anddisadvantages, in very simplistic terms, one could rec-ommend maximizing the advantages of high densityand minimizing the disadvantages. However, this isnot as simple as it sounds because (1) there is no clear-cut agreement among professionals and researchers asto what is an advantage and what is a disadvantage of high density; (2) for the residents and users of an envi-ronment, one person’s advantage may be another per-son’s disadvantage; (3) at least some of the factors arenot under the control of planners or politicians, includ-ing subjective interpretations by residents and users(ChurchmanandGinsberg1984b);and(4) subjectivein-tervening variables that relate to the concepts of per-ceived density and crowding. These concepts will bedescribed in the next section.

Furthermore, many of the statements made by plan-nersand researchersareassertionsandassumptions,notsubstantiatedfacts.This would be acceptable if these as-sertions were stated as hypotheses that need to be ex-

amined and tested (see, for example, Churchmanforthcoming), but they usually are not. Perhaps evenmore problematic, many of these assertions are stated indeterministic languagethat says that if onedoes such andsuch in the physical environment, people will behave orfeel in a particular way. Audirac and Shermyen (1994)pointto anexampleof deterministic languageintheTND

ordinances:“bywalkingindefinedpublicspaces,citizenscome to know each other, and to watch over their collec-tivesecurity.”Yet,thereisnowaytoknowwhetherciti-zens will indeedwalk inthese publicspaces or whether,if they do, they will meet and get to know others. Thereis also no way to know whether citizens will perceivethese spaces, in terms of collective security, as placesthat they are responsible for watching over.

It is important, therefore, that we begin by not usingdeterministic language (Haughton and Hunter 1994).We must also recognize the contingent nature of all de-sign and planning actions and that these actions inter-

act with many other variables, especially the choicesmade by people.

PSYCHOLOGICAL AND SOCIALSIGNIFICANCE OF DENSITY

The concepts of perceived density and crowding aregrounded in a contextual approach to the study of theperson-environment unit. This means that the theoryand research on these concepts attempts to identify theconditions under which high density does or does notlead to negative effects on health, behavior, feelings, orattitudes. The difficulty in defining high density illus-trates the importance of a contextual approach that in-

corporates all relevant physical, social, cultural,economic, geographic, ecological, technological, andpersonal aspects of a situation. There is great variationin terms of which aspect is relevant in a given situationandin what ways that aspectis relevant (Stokols1987).

Studies that have attempted to investigate the subjective aspects of density have a number of methodo-logical limitationsthat must betakeninto account.First,results from oneenvironmental scaleareoftenassumedto be relevant to other environmental scales. For exam-ple, mostresearchhasdealt with livingdensity (densityinside the home), which is clearly very different fromresidential density(density outside thehome),whetherat the building, street, or city level. Second, some of theresearch has been short term and conducted inlaboratory-type settings in which “extraneous” vari-ables are controlled. These studies suffer from seriousproblems of ecological validity (Stokols 1987). Ecologi-cal validity suggests that the assumption that a phe-nomenon studied in a laboratory setting will be thesame in a real-life situation is unjustified. A similar ca-




veat is legitimate for past attempts to argue thatonecanlearn about human behavior from animal studies.Third, it isnot a simpletaskto define the relevantphysi-cal area for examination, particularly at the neighbor-hood scale. There is much evidence that indicates thatresidents’ subjectivedefinitionof theirneighborhood isoften very different from the official definitions of their

neighborhood’s boundaries (Chaskin 1998; Rapoport1997). (See Churchman andGinosar forthcoming for anattempt to deal with this problem.) It is also not clearthat the neighborhood is a relevant and important set-ting for everyone in the same manner or to the same de-gree. The amount of time adults who work outside thehome spend in a neighborhood is likely to be very dif-ferent from the time spent by children, the elderly, andpeople without access to private or public transporta-tion. Furthermore, each of these groupsmay experiencedifferent environments and different numbers of envi-ronments in their daily lives that have different levelsof

effectivedensity. Thus, evenif people nominally live inthe same neighborhood, they may experience very dif-ferent levels of density and combinations of densitiesover time.Whatdoes it mean if a person lives ina denseneighborhoodbutworksina very low-densityenviron-ment? Or what does it mean if a person lives in a high-density neighborhood and attends a high-densityschool, plays on a high-density playground, and walksin high-density streets?

Perceived Density

Perceived density is defined as an individual’s per-ception and estimate of the number of cues in the envi-

ronment that represent people and their activities.Factors contributing to perceived density are hypothe-sizedto include the perceptual,associational-symbolic,and physical aspects of an environment; the temporalaspects of activities; and the sociocultural characteris-tics of actorsandsettings (Rapoport1975).The notionof perceived density is based on the fact that any environ-ment offerscues that enablepeople to judge anenviron-ment’s nature, the potential for action that anenvironment offers, and the behavior appropriate forthat environment. Certain physical and social cues can be read and interpreted as indicating a high-density en-vironment. Other cues can be read as indicating a less

dense environment. In both cases, these cues areat leastpartly independent of the actual number of people perunit area (Rapoport 1977). The degree to which a per-ceived environment makes demands on our attentionandthe level of information processing an environmentrequires are related to the degree of density that is per-ceived. These factors interact with a person’s percep-tual abilities because individual thresholdsforvisualorauditory stimuli may be very different. For example, a

person who is blind will judge the level of informationprovided by an environment differently than a personwho is not blind. However, such a judgment is not in it-self an evaluation. Evaluation is the step during whichthe appropriateness of this level of density is assessed.Evaluation is the essence of crowding.

Physical variables are hypothesized to be related toperceived density by affecting the number of physicalsensory stimuli in an environment that indicate the ac-tual or potential presence of people. These physicalvariables include tight or open spaces; intricate or sim-ple spaces; large or small building height to space ra-tios; numerous or few signs, lights, cars, and people (ortheir traces); thepredominance of artificial versusnatu-ral elements or smells; high or low noise levels (CooperMarcus and Sarkissian 1986; Rapoport 1975); and thepresence or absence of nonresidential or mixed landuses (Vancouver City Planning Department 1978).

Cooper Marcus and Sarkissian (1986) recommend a

list of design variables that may serve to reduce per-ceived density. These design variables include a rela-tively small neighborhood size, greater spacing between buildings, visual and functional accessibilityfrom a dwellingunit toopen spaces,respect forprivacy,division into small clusters, diverse elevation designs,fewer dwelling units that use the same building en-trance, minimal noiseinfiltration, well-located commu-nity services, and convenient parking. The importanceof the concept of perceived density is that it shows howphysical phenomena can be manipulated in an attemptto increase theprobability of greateror lesser perceiveddensities (Jacobs and Appleyard 1987).

Crowding

The theoretical approaches and proposed hypothe-ses for the psychological and social significance of crowding and the research available that deals withcrowding in the context of residential density are pre-sented in this section. Crowding is the concept associ-ated with the negative psychological and socialsignificance of density. The inherent difficulty in defin-ing the crowding experience stems from the fact thatdensity, by itself, does notnecessarily generate stress.Afeeling of crowding may be occasioned by intraper-sonal, interpersonal, or physical conditions or by thein-

teraction between all of these conditions in a givensituation. In high-density conditions, for example,stress may be experienced asa resultof heat or noise, anoverflow of social stimuli, an excess of interpersonalphysical proximity, toomany partners sharing an inter-action, or some combination of all of these factors. Thedifficulty in identifying crowding lies in the complexconditions that give rise to stress at different levels of density.




The stress occasioned by crowding experiences mayresult in coping responses and in short-term and long-term psychological, physical, and physiological conse-quences. The individual effects of the feeling of crowd-ing can consist of psychological, behavioral, anddelayed cumulative responses. Psychological re-sponses to distress include perceptual, cognitive, or

emotional processes of adjustment or changes in atti-tudes toward other people. Behavioral responses mayinclude assertiveness or psychological withdrawal,physical withdrawal (or the intent to withdraw) fromthe scene (Ginsberg and Churchman 1984), attempts tochange the environment or adapt to the demands of thesituation, or changes in task performance or coping re-sponses to diminish interpersonal interactions (Gifford1997). Delayed cumulative responses include changesin health and in performance that take place after theemergence of the feeling of crowding (Sundstrom1978). Cumulative effects may result from the stress it-

self, the effort expended during coping, the effort spentin adaptation, or some combination of these responses(Baum and Paulus 1987). A cautionary note is called for because virtually all available data on these conse-quences are related to living density, not residentialdensity (Altman and Rogoff 1987). These consequencesmust, therefore, still be considered hypothetical.

Four theoretical models have been proposed to ex-plain the conditions under which crowding will be ex-perienced, the underlying processes of the crowdingexperience, and the mechanisms that account for thenegative effects of high density. The behavioral con-straint model holds that density that interferes with

goal attainment, restricts or inhibits movement, and isgenerally noxious because of reduced freedom may beevaluated as crowding. Thecontrol-density model sug-gests that density that makes environments more un-predictable and allows less control over a situation andover privacy may be evaluated as crowding. The over-load/arousal model suggests that a feelingof crowdingresults when density generates excessive stimulationthat overwhelms the sensory systems. This causes anoverload or overarousal of the nervous system. Thedensity/intensity model indicates that high densitymay intensify existing life stresses and problems, suchas interpersonal relations (Evans and Lepore 1992). It is

very probable that some combination of the four mod-els operates simultaneously in any given situation.

Based on these models and on the results of empiri-cal studies, researchers have suggested variables thatmay interact with density in such a way as to lead to afeeling of crowding.These variablescanbe divided intovariables that pertain to the physical environment, tothe social environment, to situational characteristics,and to the characteristics of the individual(s) involvedin the situation. However, it is critical to recognize that

these variables are interrelated and none operate inde-pendently, and many of them are culturally defined.

VARIABLES IN THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

Density. This is, of course, the necessary first vari-able. There is no existing research that addresses thequestion of how important net or gross residential den-

sity is to the experience of crowding. However, there isno direct relationship between density and crowding(Gifford 1997)—this has been an accepted basic tenetsince Stokols (1972) first distinguished between the twoconcepts.

Resources. Thedegreeof inconvenience, competition,andstress generated by high densitydiminishes in pro-portion to increases in the number and quality of avail-able physical resources and services, such as socialservices and public parks (Gifford 1997; Jain 1987).

Community size. The possibility exists that the samedensity is experienced differently in large and small

neighborhoods(Gifford 1997).Theremayalso bediffer-ences in reactions to different size projects that have thesame density in terms of the number of dwelling units(Bonnes et al. 1991; Vancouver City Planning Depart-ment 1978).

Housing type homogeneity. This variable may have anindirect effect inthe sensethat residentswho liveinsimi-lar housing mayassume that they have similar lifestylesand norms of behavior (Gifford 1997; Merry 1987).

Greater space between houses. Because this affordsmore privacy, it may enable residents to avoid conflicts

between neighbors (Merry 1987).Balance between built and open spaces (public and pri-

vate). Open space is important to people for many rea-sons. These reasons include the fact that open spaceprovides opportunities for specific kinds of behaviorandrecreation, forprivacy, forreducing perceivedden-sity, and, insomeplaces, forindicating socialstatusandquality of life (Bonnes et al. 1991; Merry 1987).

Weather. There issome indicationthat heatcan inten-sify the negative evaluation of a given density (Rubackand Pandey 1992).

Mixed land use. Proximity to commercial and indus-trialactivitiesisfoundtoberelatedtofeelingsofcrowd-ing (Fleming et al. 1987; Schmidt et al. 1979).

Defense measures. Defensemeasures, such as erectinga tall fence or locking doors, are efforts to prevent inter-ference that is caused by the presence of others. Re-course to a greater number of defense measures maymitigate the feeling of crowding (Jain 1987).

Sensory overload. Sensory overload reduces an indi-vidual’s capacity to attend to the stimuli important to a




specific situation (Gifford 1997;Holohan and Wanders-man 1987).

SOCIOCULTURAL VARIABLES

Control. Theability to regulatesocial interactionsandchoose the frequency and duration of interpersonalcontacts diminishes the feeling of crowding (Gifford

1997; Evans and Lepore 1992; McCarthy and Saegert1978).

Other people in the interaction. It matters whetherother people in the interaction are family, friends,neighbors, strangers, similar, or perceived as not dan-gerous (Gifford 1997; Bonnes et al. 1991; Jain 1987).

Ability to achieve different kinds of privacy. Selectiveso-cial interaction, solitude, and anonymity are examplesof differentkinds of privacy. Sometimesa personneedssolitude, but at other times a person may wish for vari-ous kinds and degrees of social interaction (Altman1975).

Primary or secondary environments. A primary envi-ronment is an environment, such as home or work, inwhich a person spends a great deal of time, relates toother people in the environment on a personal level,and engages in important personal activities. Primaryenvironments that have high densitiesmaycause a per-son to feel a greater “psychological security” threatthan anywhere else. Thus, the feeling of crowding in ahigh-density apartment is hypothesized to be greaterthan that experienced in a high-density neighborhood(Loo and Ong 1984; Stokols 1976).

Source of interference. If a social interference or threatis perceived as deliberate and personal (originatingfrom a particular person), crowding is experiencedmore intensely than when the interference is perceivedas impersonal. Similarly, a breach of interpersonal dis-tance norms maycause a more intense feeling of crowd-ing when the breach seems intentional and not theresult of physical conditions beyond a person’s control(Russell and Snodgrass 1987; Stokols 1976).

Cultural norms and expectations. It is widely assumed,and sometimes found, that culture plays a moderatingrole by defining coping mechanisms, acceptable dis-tances for personal space, and appropriate densities forparticular settings (Bechtel 1997; Jain 1987; Merry 1987;Rapoport1977; Gilliset al.1986). However, it isnotclearwhat the nature of that moderating role is and whetherit stands on its own or is linked with other variables(Loo and Ong 1984). It is interesting to note in this re-gard that there are no words in the Dutch language forcrowding and privacy (Stringer and Kremer 1987).

Cultural heterogeneity or homogeneity. There are cul-tural and personal mechanisms for coping with high-

density situations. In situations in which there is muchheterogeneity, it is possible that these coping mecha-nisms may fail because of differences in values and theabsence of shared norms of behavior (Merry 1987).

Perceived safety. In some situations, the presence of many others may be perceived as a threat. In other

situations, it may be seen as affording safety (Bernard1992; Jacobs 1961). This depends on the other variablespresented here.

Latent and manifest meanings or functions. Environ-mental elements may have latent meanings that aremore culturally determined than their manifest mean-ings. Latent meanings relate to values, images, andsymbolic landscapes that may be positively or nega-tively evaluated, regardless of density (Rapoport1977).

SITUATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

Perceived density. The assumption is that a high per-

ceived density is more likely to be related to crowdingthan a lowperceived density. Nevertheless, it is also as-sumed that there is no simple and direct relationship between perceived density and crowding. It is the inter-action between perceived density and other variablesthat may result in a negative evaluation (Gifford 1997;Rapoport 1975).

Social or spatial density. Whether a specific high den-sity is a function of large numbers of people or a func-tion of a lackof space may make a difference inpeople’sreaction to that density (Baum and Paulus 1987).

Competition over resources. The perception of whetherthere are sufficient resources (e.g., services, transporta-tion, and open space) for all may affect feelings of crowding (Jain 1987; Wohlwill 1985).

Duration and frequency. Exposure to high density can be tolerated for a short time (e.g., an elevator ride), butextended exposure increases the probability of experi-encing a feeling of crowding (Loo and Ong 1984). Onthe other hand, extended periods of high density may be tolerable if a person knows how long exposure willlast (Roberts 1978; Sundstrom 1978).

Predictability. Adverseconditions will generate more

stress when they are unpredictable (Sundstrom 1978).Choice. Choice involves whether a situation can be

changed or whether a person is free to leave a situation(Bonnes and Secchiaroli 1995; Loo and Ong 1984).

Behavioral freedomsor constraints.Towhatextentdoesthe presence of other people limit a person’s behaviorrather than offer more opportunities for social interac-tion (Evans and Lepore 1992; Roberts 1978; Saegert1978)?




Goalachievement. To what extent does the presence of other people inhibit or facilitate the achievement of aperson’s goal(s)? Forexample, a high density at a politi-cal demonstration may not be evaluated as crowding because the presence of many people who share a per-son’s political goals contributes to the achievement of those goals (Russell and Snodgrass 1987).

INDIVIDUAL ASPECTS

Adaptation. People who grow up in a high-density building may adjust more easily to social stimuli andmayprefer to live in a relatively high-density neighbor-hood. A history of intenseor frequentsocialstimulationmay result in greater tolerance for high-density condi-tions (Sundstrom 1978) and an improved ability to copewith high-density conditions. Adaptation may be ex-pressed, for example, as satisfaction with a high-densityneighborhoodandits accessible physicalservicesor as awish to continue living in present conditions (Jain1987).

Personal experience. There is some evidence from re-lated research that people who experience a particularsituation (e.g., high-rise living) are more favorable to it(Churchman and Ginsberg 1984a).

Other intervening variables that may affect the feel-ing of crowding are personal characteristics such asgender(Bechtel 1997),age(Merry1987; Wohlwill 1987),socioeconomic status(Bonnes andSecchiaroli1995;Jain1987), lifestyle (Merry 1987), stage in the life cycle(Churchman and Ginsberg 1984b; Michelson 1977),personal preferences, expectations, attitudes, personal-ity, and coping capabilities (Gifford 1997; Baum and

Paulus 1987; Altman 1975).

Attitudes Toward Density

To round out this discussion on the subjective as-pects of density, it is important to look at the question of whether people (excluding planning professionals ordecisionmakers) are willing to accept higher densities.There is not much direct research on this question, butthere are some indications as to what the different atti-tudes might be.

In many countries—particularly the United Statesand Australia—the often unexamined assumption isthat most people (or even everyone) would like asingle-family home andthat this inherently implies lowdensities (Gordon and Richardson 1997; Mullins 1995;Scully 1994; Audirac and Shermyen 1994). However,Table2 showsthat single-family homes canand alreadydo exist at various levels of density. Accepting the as-sumption that most people want a single-family home,some have attempted to intensify this building type torelatively higher densities. For example, using smallerlots and varying the shape and proportions of lots candouble density from the typical seven to ten single-

family homes per net hectare to seventeen to nineteenhomes per hectare (Preiser 1992; Wentling 1991). En-couraging the development of attached townhousesmayincrease netdensityfrom twenty-five to forty unitsper hectare (Alterman and Churchman 1998). Con-structing passive solar houses at forty dwelling unitsper hectare, instead of the typical twenty-five dwelling

unitsperhectare, hasbeen used toincrease netdensitiesin Great Britain (Owens 1992). Audirac and Smith(1992) found that there are people who are willing totrade large lot sizes for more access to parks and recrea-tion or fora morecentral anddenserlocation.However,the increases in density that result from these ap-proaches are relatively small. They cannot achieve themajor goals and presumed advantages of high densitythat have been discussed in previous sections of thisarticle.

Some suggest that low-density suburbs should bechanged, not totally rejected. Van der Ryn and Calt-

horpe (1986a) suggest that there is a need to intensifythe culture of suburbs rather than dismiss suburbs be-cause they ostensibly lack culture. Troy (1996)similarlyargues for the improvement of suburbs for teenagersrather than encouraging them to move to the cities.However, these suggestions ignore the question of whether any changes can be significant enough toachieve the goals of intensifying culture or improvingthe situation for teenagers. The list of the advantagesof high density suggests that they cannot be. Further-more, coming to some sort of conclusion about themerits of relatively low-density housing, even when ithas been moderately intensified, requires revisiting the

literature that identifies the problems of low-densitysuburbs for many groups in the population (Church-man 1993).

The question then becomes whether people can beofferedinducements that will affect their assumed pref-erence for single-family homes and low density. Shlay(1985) argues that expressed preferences for single-family home ownership may actually be shorthand forother unrevealed preferences such as a preference for amiddle-class status, a family-centered lifestyle, or a ho-mogeneous residential suburb. Doyle (nd) argues thatit maybe possible to separate thedesirablecomponentsof housing bundles (or particular characteristics thatare often found together) and use those components tocreate new housing types based on new bundles. If, forexample, many people associate higher densities withfewer residential amenities (e.g., ownership, openspace, and parking), planning that offers these ameni-ties at higher densities may be able to attract people tohigher density areas.

Woodhull (1992) contends that automobile traffic as-sociatedwithhigh densityisdislikedmost bypeople.Heargues that, at present, much is done to make high-




density living unbearable by, for example, locatinghigh-density developments near freeways or not pro-viding adequate services or green space. Converting asignificant portion of the spatial resources consumed by the car to other land uses may increase the positiveeffects of high density and reduce the negative effects.

A number of studies have found that density is notnecessarily the key issue for residents of multifamilyhousing. A report prepared by Lehman and Associates(1995) notes that the most important multifamily hous-ing issues raised in public focus groups were buildingdesign, neighborhood integration, landscaping, visualappearance, and scale in terms of height, not densityper se. Planners inVancouver found that the number of units in a multifamily project was more important thandensity to user satisfaction (Vancouver City PlanningDepartment 1978).

There are many people who choose to live in multi-familyhigh-density housing fora variety of reasons, in-

cluding location, life cycle stage, lifestyle (Mullins 1995;Michelson 1977), relative cost (Mullins 1995; Audiracand Shermyen 1994), and the social benefits of neigh- boring and of having a variety of friends for children(Churchman and Ginsberg 1984a). Furthermore, thereare many people who do not have the luxury of choice,either because of economic circumstances (Self 1997) or because of social or legal restrictions on where they areallowed to live.

There are some indications that people are willing toaccept intensification and higher levels of density un-der certain conditions. For example, a study conductedin Vancouver found that residents in single-family ar-

eas were more willing to accept new infill high-densityhousing if it was clearly family housing, if it was an im-provement over previous land uses, if it was accompa-niedbyacommunityfacilitysuchasapark,andifitwaslocated in areas that were already heterogeneous (Van-couver City Planning Department 1986). A study in TelAviv, Israel, found that residents were more open togradual increases in scale—that is, increasing density by adding two additional stories to existing two- orthree-story multifamily buildings—than to the con-struction of new high-rise buildings of sixteen or morestories (Churchman 1998). In Paramount, California, aplanning proposal for a high-density residential devel-opment policy of 148 multifamily dwelling units peracre was rejected by voters, but a proposal for a maxi-mum of 54 dwelling units per acre was approved (Di-Mento et al. 1997).

A number of researchers advocate low-rise, high-density residential development as a good middleground that offers social, economic, and ecological ad-vantages (Alterman and Churchman 1998; Goodchild1994; Cooper Marcus and Sarkissian 1986). Low-rise,high-density developments may be able to achieve

many of the advantages of high densities without thedisadvantages, depending on intervening contextualvariables and specific site, urban design, and land useplanning. Breheny (1992a) cautions that these types of developments may require reducing open-space stan-dards and the subsequent loss of green space. This isone of the disadvantages of low-rise, high-density de-

velopment that needs to be prevented, if possible.One way to attempt to ameliorate some of the nega-

tive aspects of high density may be to attempt to de-crease perceived density. Any design or planningaction that lowers the level of sensory stimulation thatrepresents human activity or the potential for such ac-tivitycouldalso decrease perceiveddensity. Anavenueworthexploring, butthat receives virtuallyno attentionintheliterature other than a brief mention by Haughtonand Hunter (1994), is the use of underground space formore than just underground parking, infrastructure, orstorage (Carmody andSterling 1993).There isgoodrea-

son to hypothesize that many land uses, particularlyuses that are affected by windows and sunlight (e.g.,cinemas, theaters, and conference centers), would beacceptable candidates for underground development.Increasingthe use of underground space would reducedensity and conserve land.

It should be noted that there may be situations inwhich an increase in perceiveddensity is useful. For ex-ample, an increase in perceived density could be usedto enhance the perceived vitality and urban quality of an environment. An increase in perceived densityshould occur if actions opposite to those describedabove (with the exception of violating privacy) are

used.

CONCLUSION

What lessons can be learned given the complexity of the meaning and use of the term density and the addi-tion of the subjective terms perceived density andcrowding? At the most basic level, density measuresmust be clearly andexplicitly defined so that communi-cation can take place and so that wecan learn from eachother’s experiences.Second, real-worldcomplexityandthe interrelationships between variables and factorsmust beaddressedinresearch ondensityas itis inprac-

tice. Real-world complexity includes a subjective ele-ment that is always present in people’s behaviors,expectations, and attitudes (including those of decision-makers, planning professionals, and researchers); thus,it must be taken into account. It is easier for planners toaffect density and perceived density than to affect thesubjective experience of crowding. However, plannershave no choice but to try to address the implications of the intervening factors that are relevant to crowding.Another lesson is that no one solution will meet theneeds of every situation, context, person, or group.




Therefore, a variety of solutions (different types of set-tlements, neighborhoods, housing, and transportation)are essential to meet the needs between and withincountries, regions, and towns. Solutions should be based on an understanding of the differences in needsand expectations of relevant groups so that they can of-fer choices that can meet these needs and expectations.

A final lesson is that much more research is needed onthe various aspects and ramifications of different kindsand levels of density. This is particularly true for the re-lationship between objective density, perceived den-sity, and positive or negative subjective evaluations.

Planners will continue to use the term density be-cause it is too good to resist. This article synthesizes re-search and practice literature in an attempt to provide a better understanding of the various ramifications of density so that its use is more considered. The hope isthat a better understanding of density will result inmore effective density-related planning.

I wish to express my heartfelt thanks to the three anonymous re-viewers who read the first version of the article with such care and

provided me with extremely helpful and challenging comments. Theinitial basis for this literature review was undertaken as part of a

planning policy project commissioned by the Israel Ministry of theInterior (Alterman and Churchman 1998). Michal Mitrany servedas research assistant for that literature review.

NOTES

1. Many of the articles reviewed hereare literature reviews. Thus,this literaturereviewis evenmore extensivethan thelist of referencessuggests.

2. Anotherimportantkind of density, living density, relates to thenumber of persons per room in a dwelling. In this case, density-

related problems involvequestionsabout howa household isdefinedandwhich rooms areincluded in thedensity calculation.Some calcu-lations include the kitchen and bathroom(s), others do not. This arti-cle focuses solely on residential density and does not deal with thequestions of living density because living density is too important to

be included here in a minimal way. Gaps in present knowledge ondensity include an understandingof how living densityand residen-tial densityare related and whether a positive experience at one den-sity level can compensate for a negative experience at the other level.It is also unclear which level of density is more important.

3.There isno indication whether this isa grossor netdensity figure.4.No indication is givenas to what height is consideredproblem-

atic in thissense. Presumably,the cutoffpointwouldvaryand becon-text related. Alterman and Churchman (1998) suggest a cutoff pointof greater than twelve stories for Israel.

REFERENCESAiello, John, Donna Thompson, and Andrew Baum. 1985. Children,

crowding, andcontrol: Effects of environmental stress on socialbe-havior. In Habitats for children: The impacts of density. See Wohlwilland van Vliet 1985.

Alexander, Ernest. 1993. Density measures: A review and analysis. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 10, 3: 181-202.

Alterman, Rachelle. 1997. The challenge of farmland preservation:Lessons from a six-nation comparison. Journal of the American Plan-ning Association 63, 2: 220-43.

Alterman, Rachelle, and Arza Churchman. 1998. Housing density: A guide to increasing the efficiency of urban land use (in Hebrew). Haifa,Israel: Technion, Center for Urban and Regional Studies.

Altman, Irwin. 1975. The environment and social behavior. Monterey,CA: Brooks/Cole.

Altman, Irwin,and Barbara Rogoff. 1987. Worldviews in psychology:Trait, interactional, organismic and transactional perspectives. In

Handbook of environmental psychology. See Stokolsand Altman1987.

Audirac, Ivonne, and Anne Shermyen. 1994. Postmodern placebo orremedy for suburban malaise. Journal of Planning Education and Re-search 13, 3: 161-73.

Audirac, Ivonne, and Marc Smith. 1992. Urban form and residentialchoice: Preference for urban density in Florida. Journal of Architec-tural and Planning Research 9, 1: 19-32.

Bannister, David. 1992. Energy use, transport and settlement pat-terns.In Sustainabledevelopmentandurbanform. See Breheny1992b.

Barton, H. 1992. City transport: Strategies for sustainability. In Sus-tainable development and urban form. See Breheny 1992b.

Baum, Andrew, and Paul Paulus. 1987. Crowding. In Handbook of en-vironmental psychology. See Stokols and Altman 1987.

Bechtel, Robert. 1997. Environmentand behavior:An introduction.Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bernard, Yvonne. 1992. North American and European research on

fear ofcrime. Applied Psychology:An International Review 41,1: 65-75.Berridge Lewinberg Greenberg, Ltd.1991a. Guidelines for the reurbani-

sation of Metropolitan Toronto. Toronto, Canada: Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Corporate Printing Services.

. 1991b. Study of the reurbanisation of Metropolitan Toronto. To-ronto, Canada: Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto CorporatePrinting Services.

Bonnes, Mirilia, Marino Bonaiuto, and Anna Paola Ercolani. 1991.Crowding and residential satisfaction in the urban environment.Environment and Behavior 23, 5: 531-52.

Bonnes,Mirilia, and Gianfranco Secchiaroli. 1995. Environmental psy-chology: A psycho-social introduction. London: Sage.

Breheny, Michael. 1996. Centrists, decentrists and compromisers:Viewson thefuture ofurban form.In Thecompact city: A sustainableurban form? See Jenks et al. 1996a.

. 1992a. The contradictions of compact city: A review. In Sus-tainable development and urban form. See Breheny 1992b.

, ed. 1992b. Sustainable development and urban form. London:Pion.

Burton, Tony, and Lilli Matson. 1996. Urban footprints: Making bestuseof urban land andresources: A ruralperspective. In Thecompactcity: A sustainable urban form? See Jenks et al. 1996a.

Buttler, H. J.1981.Equilibriumof a residentialcity,attributes of hous-ing and land-use zoning. Urban Studies 18, 1: 23-40.

Calthorpe, Peter. 1993. The next American metropolis. New York:Princeton Architectural Press.

. 1992. The pedestrian pocket: New strategies for suburbangrowth. In Sustainable cities: Concepts and strategies for eco-city devel-opment. See Walter et al. 1992.

Carmody, John, and Raymond Sterling. 1993. Underground space de-

sign. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Chaskin, Robert. 1998. Neighborhood as a unit of planning and ac-

tion:A heuristic approach. Journal of Planning Literature 13,1:11-30.

Christoforidis, Alexander. 1993. New alternatives to the suburb:Neo-traditional developments. Journal of Planning Literature 8, 4:429-40.

Churchman, Arza. Forthcoming. Women and the environment:Questioned and unquestioned assumptions. In Theoretical perspec-tives in environment-behavior research: Underlying assumptions, re-search problems and methodologies, Seymour Wapner, John Demick,Takiji Yamamoto,andHirofumiMinami, eds.New York:Plenum.




. 1998. A study of attitudes towards housing issues in the City of Tel Aviv (inHebrew).Haifa, Israel: Technion, Center forUrbanand Re-gional Studies.

. 1993. A differentiated perspective on urban quality of life:Women, children and the elderly. In Perception and evaluation of en-vironmental quality, Mirilia Bonnes, ed. Rome: UNESCO Pro-gramme on Man and Biosphere.

Churchman, Arza, Rachelle Alterman, Yael Azmon, RonitDavidivici-Marton,and ToviFenster. 1996. Habitat II: Shadowreport.

Jerusalem: Israel Women’s Network.

Churchman,Arza, and OdedGinosar. Forthcoming.A theoreticalba-sis for the post-occupancy evaluation of neighborhoods. Journal of Environmental Psychology.

Churchman, Arza, andYona Ginsberg. 1984a.The image and experi-enceof high-rise housing in Israel. Journal of Environmental Psychol-ogy 4, 1: 27-41.

. 1984b. The use of behavioral science research in physicalplanning: Some inherent limitations. Journal of Architectural andPlanning Research 1, 1: 57-66.

City of Newcastle upon Tyne. 1993. Newcastle upon Tyneunitary devel-opment plan. City of Newcastle upon Tyne.

Cooper Marcus, Clare, and Wendy Sarkissian. 1986. Housing as if people mattered. Berkeley: University of California Press.

DiMento, Joseph, Sherry Ryan, and Drusilla van Hengel. 1997. Localgovernment land use policy responses to the Century Free-way/Transitway. Journal of Planning Education and Research 17, 2:145-57.

Doyle, D. Gregg. nd. Giving the people what they want: Residentialpreference and increasing density. Unpublished paper.

Evans, Gary, and Sheldon Cohen. 1987. Environmental stress. In Handbook of environmental psychology. See Stokols andAltman1987.

Evans, Gary, and Stephen Lepore. 1992. Conceptual and analytic is-sues in crowdingresearch. Journal of Environmental Psychology 12,1:163-73.

Ewing,Reid.1997. Is LosAngeles-style sprawl desirable? Journal of the American Planning Association 63, 1: 107-26.

Faludi, Andreas, andArnoldvan derValk.1994. Rule andorder: Dutch planning doctrine in the 20th century. Dordrecht, the Netherlands:Kluwer Academic.

Fischer, Claude. 1976. The urban experience. New York: Harcourt,Brace, Jovanovich.

Fleming, India,Andrew Baum, andLinda Weiss. 1987. Social densityand perceived control as mediators of crowding stress in high den-sity residential neighborhoods. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology 52: 899-906.

Forsyth, Ann. 1997. Five images of a suburb: Perspectives on a newurban development. Journal of the American Planning Association 63,1: 45-60.

Frost,Lionel, andTony Dingle. 1995. Sustainingsuburbia: An histori-cal perspective on Australia’s urban growth.In Australian cities: Is-sues, strategies and policies for urban Australia in the 1990’s . See Troy1995a.

Gifford, Robert. 1997. Environmental psychology: Principles and prac-tices. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Gillis, A. R.,Madeline Richard, andJohn Hagan.1986.Ethnicsuscep-tibility to crowding: An empirical analysis. Environment and Behav-ior 18, 6: 683-706.

Ginsberg, Yona, and Arza Churchman. 1984. Housing satisfactionand intention to move: Their explanatory variables. Socio EconomicPlanning Sciences 18, 6: 425-31.

Goodchild,Barry. 1994. Housingdesign, urban form and sustainabledevelopment. Town Planning Review 65, 2: 143-58.

Gordon, Peter, and Harry Richardson. 1997. Are compact cities a de-sirable planning goal? Journal of the American Planning Association63, 1: 95-106.

Gowling, Derek, and Leith Penny. 1988. Urbanisation, planning andadministration in the London region: Processes of a metropolitanculture. In Four metropolises in Western Europe, Hans van der Cam-men, ed. Assen/Maastricht, the Netherlands: Van Gorcum.

Handy,Susan. 1996.Understanding thelink betweenurbanformandnonworktravel behavior. Journal of Planning Education and Research15, 3: 183-98.

Haughton, Graham, and Colin Hunter. 1994. Sustainable cities. Lon-don: Jessica Kingsley.

Hillman, Mayer.1996. In favor of thecompact city. In The compact city: A sustainable urban form? See Jenks et al. 1996a.

Hitchcock, John.1994. A primer on the use of density in land use planning.Papers on Planning and Design no. 41. Toronto, Canada: Programin Planning, University of Toronto.

Holohan, Charles, andAbraham Wandersman.1987. The communitypsychologyperspective in environmentalpsychology.In Handbook of environmental psychology. See Stokols and Altman 1987.

Israel Ministry of the Interior. 1992. National master plan integratingconstruction for development and immigrant absorption. Tel Aviv: Is-rael Ministry of the Interior.

Jacobs, Allan, and Donald Appleyard. 1987. Toward an urban designmanifest. Journal of the American Planning Association 53, 1: 112-20.

Jacobs, Jane. 1961. The death and life of great American cities. NewYork:Random House.

Jain, Uday. 1987. The psychological consequences of crowding. NewDelhi, India: Sage.

Jenks, Mike, Elizabeth Burton, and Katie Will iams, eds. 1996a. Thecompact city: A sustainable urban form? London: E & FN Spon.

. 1996b. Compact city and sustainability: An introduction. InThe compact city: A sustainable urban form? See Jenks et al. 1996a.

Jenks, Mike, Katie Williams, and Elizabeth Burton. 1996. A sustain-able future through the compact city? Urban intensification in theUnited Kingdom. Environments By Design 1, 1: 5-20.

Katz, Peter, ed. 1994. The new urbanism: Toward an architecture of com-munity. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Lehman and Associates. 1995. Urban density study: General report. To-ronto, Canada: Office for the Greater Toronto Area.

Loo, Chalsa, and Paul Ong. 1984. Crowding perceptions, attitudes,

andconsequencesamong the Chinese. Environmentand Behavior 16,1: 55-87.

Madanipour,Ali. 1996. Designofurbanspace.NewYork:JohnWiley.

Manshaden, Walter, and Marc de Schmidt. 1992. The northern wingof theRandstad: Suburbiaversusthe cityin theNetherlands.Nether-lands Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 7, 2: 179-92.

MartinCounty.1994. Martin County comprehensive growth management plan. Martin County, FL.

McCarthy, Dennis, and Susan Saegert. 1978. Residential density, so-cial overload, and social withdrawal. Human Ecology 6, 3: 253-72.

Merry, Sally. 1987. Crowding, conflict and neighborhood regulation.In Neighborhood and community environments, Irwin Altman andAbraham Wandersman, eds. New York: Plenum.

Michelson, William. 1977. Environmental choice, human behavior andresidential satisfaction. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment. 1996.National report of the Netherlands on habitat. The Hague, the Nether-lands:Ministryof Housing, Spatial Planning andthe Environment.

Montgomery, Roger.1998. Is there still life in Thedeath andlife? Journalof the American Planning Association 64, 3: 269-74.

Mullins, Patrick. 1995. Household, consumerism and metropolitandevelopment. In Australian cities: Issues, strategies and policies for ur-ban Australia in the 1990’s. See Troy 1995a.

Nasar, Jack. 1997. Neo-traditional development, auto-dependencyand sense of community. In Space design and management for placemaking: EDRA 28, Maurice Amiel and Jacqueline Vischer, eds. Ed-mond, OK: EDRA.




New York City Planning Commission. 1993. Shaping the city’s future:New York City planning and zoning reports . New York: New YorkCity Planning Commission.

Newman, Peter, and Jeffrey Kenworthy. 1989. Cities and automobile dependence:An internationalsourcebook .Brookfield,VT: GowerTechnical.

Orchard, Lionel. 1995. National urban policy in the 1990’s. In Austra-liancities:Issues, strategies andpoliciesfor urban Australiain the1990’s.See Troy 1995a.

Ottensmann, J. R. 1977. Urban sprawl, land values and the density of development. Land Economics 53, 4: 389-400.

Owens, Susan. 1992. Energy, environmental sustainability and landuseplanning. In Sustainabledevelopment andurbanform. See Breheny1992b.

Peel, Mark. 1995. The urban debate: From “Los Angeles” to the urbanvillage. In Australian cities: Issues, strategies and policies for urban Aus-tralia in the 1990’s. See Troy 1995a.

Pickup,Laurie. 1984. Women’sgender-roleand its influence on travel behavior. Built Environment 10, 1: 61-68.

Preiser, Richard. 1992. Professionalreal estatedevelopment. Washington,DC: Dearborn Financial Publishing and Urban Land Institute.

. 1989. Density and urban sprawl. Land Economics 65, 3: 193-204.

Radberg, Johan.1998.Ebenezer Howard’s dream:100 years after.Pa-

per presented at the 44th International Federation of Housing andPlanning World Congress, September 13-17, Lisbon, Portugal.

. 1996. Towards a theory of good urban form. Paper presentedat the 14th conference of the International Association for People-Environment Studies, July 30-August 3, Stockholm, Sweden.

Rapoport, Amos. 1997. The nature and role of neighborhoods. UrbanDesign Studies 3: 93-118.

. 1977. Human aspects of urban form. Oxford: Pergamon.

. 1975. Toward a redefinition of density. Environment and Be-havior 7, 2: 7-32.

Regional Municipality of York. 1994. York region official plan. York,UK: Regional Municipality of York.

Reid, Fred. 1986. Real possibilities in the transit myths. In Sustainablecommunities: A new design synthesis for cities, suburbs and towns, SimVan der Ryn and Peter Calthorpe, eds. San Francisco: Sierra Club

Books.Roberts, Caralee. 1978. Stressful experiences in urban places: Some

implications for design. In Priorities for environmental design and re-search: Part I , Sue Weidemann and James Anderson, eds.Washing-ton, DC: Environment and Design Research Association.

Ruback, R. Barry, and Janak Pandey. 1992. Very hot and reallycrowded: Quasi experimental investigations of Indian “tempos”.Environment and Behavior 24, 4: 527-54.

Russell, James, and Jacalyn Snodgrass. 1987. Emotion and the envi-ronment. In Handbook of environmental psychology. See Stokols andAltman 1987.

Rydin, Yvonne.1992.Environmentaldimensionsof residentialdevel-opment and the implications for local planning practice. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 35, 1: 43-61.

Saegert, Susan.1978.High densityenvironments: Their personal andsocial consequences. In Human response to crowding, Andrew Baumand Yakov Epstein, eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Schmidt, Donald, R. Goldman, and Nickolaus Feimer. 1979. Percep-tions of crowding: Predicting at the residence, neighborhood andcity levels. Environment and Behavior 11, 1: 105-30.

Scully, Vincent. 1994. The architecture of community. In The new ur-banism: Toward an architecture of community, Peter Katz, ed. NewYork: McGraw-Hill.

Self, Peter. 1997. Environmentalism and cities. Newsletter Urban Re-search Program no. 32, Canberra: Research School of Social Sci-ences, Australian National University.

Shannon, Gary, andEllen Cromley. 1985. Settlementand densitypat-terns:Towardthe 21st century. In Habitats for children: The impacts of density. See Wohlwill and van Vliet 1985.

Shefer, Daniel, Shaul Amir, Amnon Frenkel, and Hubert Law-Yone.1997. Master plan and development plan for the Northern Region. Haifa,Israel: Technion, Center for Urban and Regional Studies.

Shireman, William. 1992. How to use the market to reduce sprawl,congestionand waste in our cities. In Sustainable cities: Concepts andstrategies for eco-city development. See Walter et al. 1992.

Shlay, Ann. 1985. Castles in the sky: Measuring housing and neighborhood ideology. Environment and Behavior 17, 5: 593-626.

Simon, Joan, and Gerda Wekerle. 1987. Planning with scarce re-sources: The miniaturization of an urbanneighborhood. In Housingandneighborhoods:Theoreticaland empirical contributions, WillemvanVliet, Harvey Choldin, William Michelson, and David Popenoe,eds. Westport, CT: Greenwood.

Smyth, Joseph. 1992. The economic power of sustainable develop-ment: Building the new American dream. In Sustainable cities: Con-cepts and strategies for eco-city development. See Walter et al. 1992.

Stenhouse, Douglas. 1992. Energy conservation benefits of high-densitymixed-use land development. In Sustainable cities: Conceptsand strategies for eco-city development. See Walter et al. 1992.

Stokols, Daniel. 1987. Conceptual strategies of environmental psy-chology. In Handbook of environmental psychology. See Stokols and

Altman 1987. . 1976. The experience of crowding in primary and secondary

environments. Environment and Behavior 8, 1: 49-86.

. 1972.On thedistinction betweendensityand crowding:Someimplications for future research. Psychological Review 79, 3: 275-78.

Stokols, Daniel, and Irwin Altman, eds. 1987. Handbook of environ-mental psychology. Vol. 1. New York: John Wiley.

Stringer, Peter, and Andre Kremer. 1987. Environmental psychologyin the Netherlands. In Handbook of environmental psychology. Vol. 2,Daniel Stokols and Irwin Altman, eds. New York: John Wiley.

Sundstrom, Eric. 1978. Crowding as a sequential process: Review of research on the effectsof population densityon humans. In Humanresponse to crowding, Andrew Baum and Yakov Epstein, eds. Hills-dale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Thomas, Louise, andWill Cousins. 1996.The compact city: A success-

ful, desirable andachievable urban form? In Thecompact city: A sus-tainable urban form? See Jenks et al. 1996b.

Troy, Patrick, ed. 1996. The perils of urban consolidation. Sydney, Aus-tralia: Federation.

. 1995a. Australian cities: Issues, strategies and policies for urban Australia in the 1990’s.Cambridge:UniversityofCambridgePress.

. 1995b. Introduction. In Australian cities: Issues, strategies and policies for urban Australia in the 1990’s. See Troy 1995a.

. 1992. The new feudalism. Urban Futures Journal 2, 2: 36-44.

van Andel, Joost. 1998. Children’s use of neighborhood public spacein relation to density. Paper presented at the 24th Congress of theInternationalAssociationof Applied Psychology,August 9-14, SanFrancisco.

van derCammen,Hans, Rob Groeneweg, and Guusvan de Hoef.1988.RandstadHolland: Growthandplanningof a ring ofcities. InFourme-

tropolises in Western Europe, Hans van der Cammen, ed. Assen/Maastricht, the Netherlands: Van Gorcum.

Van der Ryn, Sim. 1986. The suburban context. In Sustainable commu-nities:A newdesign synthesis for cities, suburbs andtowns. See VanderRyn and Calthorpe 1986b.

Vander Ryn, Sim, andPeterCalthorpe. 1986a.The newsuburbanfab-ric. In Sustainable communities: A new design synthesis for cities, sub-urbs and towns. See Van der Ryn and Calthorpe 1986b.

, eds. 1986b. Sustainable communities: A new design synthesis forcities, suburbs and towns. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.


disentangling the concept of density

Documents