“So when someone says they don’t want density, instead of bending over backwards trying to convince that person that density isn’t so bad, I’m suggesting we should start pushing back and ask, “OK, then what is your alternative plan for combating climate change?” ”

And the difficulty for me comes when citizens who are opposing a 6 storey mixed-use development (far too dense! they say) on the site of a dying mall tell me that their SFH are more environmentally friendly because they have lawns while the new development has little green space. That is such a gap in perspectives/understanding I don’t quite know where to begin.

Your point about cities potentially becoming more unsustainable when they get too big is also a good one. That is the kind of critical analysis I would expect to hear from people who oppose growth, but never do.

In my opinion, Mumford and his cohorts had a brilliant concept for city design that Mumford calls the “regional city” (see The City in History) and has its origins in Howard’s “Garden City.” But to do that here, we’d have to break up Seattle into four of five pieces and then put green belts between the pieces — not exactly practical

The fact is, we’re already forced to do this, that, and the other thing. You come into a built environment and look for your ecological niche. Like a beach scoured by tides and storms, that niche is always changing. In fact, for most of us, the only hope of any stability is to sign on to a plan that looks to the future.

In the late 20th century, life in Seattle was an incredible bargain, because of two things- cheap gas and racial prejudice. So many people had moved out of town that those who chose to stay had the best of both worlds. It was, in fact, largely suburb within city limits.

But both of those factors were transitory- they would go the way of the dodo bird and the historical forces favoring density would regain their sway.

A century ago, Turner described the closing of the frontier. Since then, the population has increased about five times.

Understandably, people who have a nice SFH would like to write some laws “keeping the developers out”. A lot of their optimism about the ability to do that is based on their experience of the extremely low “urban tide” of the past 50 years. Well, guess what, the tide is coming in now. The question is not how the tide can be stopped, but how it can be channeled.

Is Seattle required to take more population? Of course it is! For decades the state and King County have built roads, power lines, sewage plants, airports and port facilities, all based on the assumption that Seattle was the city. Seattle is not in a position to suddenly say, “Oh, we’ve changed our minds, we don’t want to be the city- someone else will have to do that”.

To live in Seattle, you need a thick skin and deaf ear to put up with the demagogues who always get their say in the daily papers. Anyone who lived through the Seattle Commons debacle will know what I’m saying.

Sure, Fox, the Stranger, and the auto dealer managed to kill the Commons plan, but that didn’t stop development in South Lake Union, it just made it worse.

And that, in my opinion, is one of the lessons that needs to be taught.

Perhaps you say that they are taking up space others could have and thus, pushing people out farther into exurbs, but remember this is all within the context of the Growth Management Act. This essentially means that our growth is (supposedly) fixed and so in the grander region we are forced to get denser. (Now, I’ll admit that this Act is constantly being dismember in State Congress so its efficacy is debatable)

Not to mention that cities can also be huge drains on the environment. Concentrating too many people in one area means a larger exploitation of the surrounding area. Cities lack any meaningful agriculture or industry. So, while we can all walk or bike to friend’s houses and to restaurants and shops, the denser we are the farther we have to ship our foods and other material goods. Pheonix is a wonderful (or terrible) example of this.

I think when we argue for denser cities, while the environmental benefits can be good, the reasons have to be more than that. The safety, the diversity, the community. The sheer intensity of life and culture. Aren’t these the arguments that Mumford used for the benefit of cities (although I can’t say I know him well. I just started The Myth and the Machine. On your recommendation of course)

This is a GREAT read. This is why people are so opposed to density. Developers are building away - but the city IS NOT keeping up with the density. Where are the parks? The *safe* public spaces? (Let’s not forget the Beacon Hill groper).

I live on the west edge of DT Bellevue. My street is full of lowrise condo’s and townhomes. This type of density could easily extend farther west and north, it’s a great neighboorhood to do this in.

BUT, people buy in SFH ‘hoods because they like them, if Bellevue upzoned this nice SFH area there would be hell to pay.

To give Bellevue credit they are upzoning the Bel Red area to be MUCH more dense, and see that region as the key to our grown in the next 20 years.

My personal wish is more density that appeals to family’s, condo’s are almost always 2 bedrooms or less, and most of these new townhomes are complete eyesores. I have a newborn and don’t want to be forced to the hinterlands…

I write these posts assuming most readers have a solid understanding of urbanism, and so I don’t always explicitly state the basics. In this case, that would include: that it is counterproductive to try to force people to accept what they don’t like; that there are lots of people who don’t like density; that it is helpful to show people good examples of density; that there are many different ways to build density and no one best way; that top down planning has an ugly history; that community is important and fragile.

My main point is that, given the extraordinary global circumstances we are facing, it’s time we started asking — and expecting — more people to take some responsibility for understanding their world and their impact on it, and to face up to the fact that we’re going to have to make some serious changes and it won’t be painless. We need to get beyond excuses like blaming the media. It would pretty much impossible at this point not to have heard about global warming. Even the concept of density has penetrated the pages of Time magazine.

So when someone says they don’t want density, instead of bending over backwards trying to convince that person that density isn’t so bad, I’m suggesting we should start pushing back and ask, “OK, then what is your alternative plan for combating climate change?” It’s as if we’re trying to trick people into accepting density as a back door way to get the environmental benefits. Why not just emphasize the truth that density is a critical path solution to a very serious problem? Once people accept that density is necessary, if follows that they will be highly motivated to figure out how to make it as livable as possible.

When Hitler was attacking England, Churchill didn’t go around setting up workshops to help people become more comfortable with war. He told them the truth that the threat was real and that extreme sacrifice was necessary. And the amazing thing is, people responded and made incredible things happen.

Of course with climate change we don’t have bombs dropping in the streets. Thus the inspiration for people to step up and take responsibility has to come intellectually, and so is much more difficult to rouse. Which brings me to my second point on the need to spare no strong words about the threat of climate change and what should be done about it. I’m not saying that we should be yelling at people to move from single family homes to apartments. I’m saying we need to forcefully speak the truth until it sinks in and people rise to the challenge. But no one’s going to rise to the challenge if they aren’t challenged to do so.

The operative assumption in your position is that the vast majority of people are not as smart or responsible as you are, and so we must treat them like tantrum-prone toddlers.

Not only is that far over the top, it’s wrong*.

My operative assumption is that our complex society saturates the typical citizen with information, and almost all folk apply a filter.

In addition, the denial industry increases the S:N and our corporate media has abdicated its responsibility to filter out the noise.

Nonetheless, the answer you provided for me has one slight flaw in it: if it was how it works, how come we are in this situation?

In order for societies (or subsets thereof) to change, there must first be galvanization, then motivation, then organization. Without these three, there’s no movement.

I had hoped the dialogue here would explore how examples of good design could be gathered and used to shape public dialogue into more positive images of density.

Because I can tell you (from working the counter, among other ways of mingling with the publics) that lots of folk don’t want density. If we shove them into it because ‘its good for them’ (as opposed to ‘because they chose to move there’), then there will be a lot of grumpy neighborhoods. That’s a consequence we don’t want, so we need to prepare the soil first. As Josh said, preparing the soil with vinegar won’t help the seed much.

Lastly, we have an implementation problem because there aren’t enough examples of good design that reg’lur folk like and demand.

So let us start again: what can be done to make density a positive in discussion?

* I can also tell you don’t work the counter at your firm. Oh, there’s no counter?