It has often been written that compact, very dense cities
consume less energy and produce less pollution that the less dense suburbs and
residential areas dominated by single family homes. However, new research shows
that may not be true.
Researchers from the universities of Cambridge ,
Newcastle , and Leeds in the UK published a paper in the spring 2012
issue of the Journal of the American
Planning Association that showed that the urban form may have very little
impact on energy use and sustainability. An article in Atlantic Cities on
July 24, 2012 discussed the findings.
One of the authors, Cambridge Prof. Marcial
Echenique, told Atlantic Cities: “To our surprise, if you compare the compact
form versus the current trend, the difference in reduced transport by
automobile is very minor. And if you allow the city to expand, the increase in
the use of the car is only marginal.”
Echeniques continued: "If you make the city
more compact, it doesn't mean that people will abandon their car. Only 5
percent of people abandon the use of the car. Ninety-five percent carries on
using the car, which means there are more cars on the same streets, therefore
there is much more congestion and therefore there is much more pollution and no
great increase in the reduction of energy."
There are several limitations to the study. It
was done in England , and may
or may not apply to the United
States . Only a limited number of areas were
studied. However, this study does raise some important questions for those who
want to reduce the use of energy and the production of pollution. Echenique
argues, with support from his research, that making cars and buildings more
energy efficient may accomplish more. "Technology
offers a much better future than trying to constrain behavior of the
market."
4 comments:
That was an interesting study. However, another problem, not part of the scope, is that sprawl, caused by the low density suburbs, uses more land, destroying farms and forests.
How do we protect this natural land?
Susan,
You make a good point. However, an increase in density will not reduce the pressure to sprawl. Some people prefer to live in compact areas in apartments or multifloor condos. Others prefer suburban style single family detached houses. Those who prefer the SF detached housing (some polls suggest 75 to80%) have no interest in dense multi-family housing, even if it is available.
So density in one area does not protect other areas from development.
OK, so how would you protect rural areas from development?
One way, and the only way I know of, is urban growth boundaries, also known as rural buffers. Development at urban or suburban densities is not allowed outside of a boundary around cities, or in certain specified areas. That is being used in some parts of NC and in places like Portland, OR and other cities in the West.
Post a Comment