Do Compact Cities Save Energy?

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."

Special provision for developer

The NC House has approved SB 382 with an amendment that will require that cities to supply water and sewer connections to any development within an urban growth area that request the service. Although this amendment did not mention the project and applies statewide, it has been reported that the amendment was specifically designed to help the developers of the “751 South” development, a large development with 1,300 homes and 600,000 sq. ft. of commercial development. This development has been opposed by environmental organizations. Durham had refused to extend water and sewer to the development, saying that it would cost Durham taxpayers more that the revenue would provide.

Land for Tomorrow Lobby Day

Today, people from many organizations concerned about land preservation, for clean water protection, farmland preservation, recreation, and other purposes, came together to lobby the NC General Assembly for preservation and improvement of the four NC trust funds that are used to protect land in North Carolina.

The trust funds are (information copied from www.landfortomorrow.org):