Density matters, this is why.
High-density developments offer an alternative solution for climate change and fiscal problems.
Rising sea levels, catastrophic natural disasters and record-bashing temperatures are only a few of the issues we are currently dealing with and will have to deal with in the future. By the end of the century, it is estimated that the average sea level could rise up to 2.2 meters (7.2 feet) in the United States. To understand the calamities of rising levels, an example could be necessary. For instance, the latter would put the lower third of the state of Florida underwater.
It is true that things are not looking suitable for the south, but here in New Jersey, we have enough to worry about. Rising sea levels in the Garden State are still an important matter.
According to a publication by the Environmental Protection Agency, New Jersey’s shore is likely to experience rising sea levels between 18 inches to 4 feet.
All of this is to say that — whether we like it or not — the world is changing, and unless we adjust our current ways, we are going to keep paying with money, time and human lives.
In the discussion of climate change, certain technologies are posed as the solution. A common example is electric cars. The latter is usually posed as the solution to our climate change concerns, but is it really? In part, electrification is important. No one will debate the importance of being independent of fossil fuels. But, in my opinion, electric cars do not address the root cause but rather the symptoms of a long-lasting disease America has perpetuated.
Car dependency in most of the United States has caused many things, one of them being inefficient land use. Car ownership along with flourishing suburbs became widely popular in the 1950s. It might not have been such a big difference then, but now in 2022, where resources are scarce, we cannot keep affording low-density developments.
According to a data analysis by the EcoDataLab, in collaboration with the University of California, Berkeley “households in denser neighborhoods close to city centers tend to be responsible for fewer planet-warming greenhouse gases, on average, than households in the rest of the country” (p.1). This last means that suburbs — which are not dense neighborhoods — on average likely contribute more emissions than their urban counterparts.
It makes sense as people living in an urban core environment tend to drive less or not own a car at all. They tend to use alternative modes of transportation which are more energy efficient, and they are more likely to have apartments that require less energy to heat and cool. Hence, in the fight against climate change, housing policies are vital and cannot be ignored by policymakers.
For these reasons, it is important to build smaller homes in denser places, closer together and closer to jobs and to public transportation. Now, we can understand why electric cars are not the only answer to our climate change problems. They cannot solely address the land use problem, and they cannot solely stop the creation of suburbs that result in high-emissions communities.
Rather, they keep supporting the car-dependent lifestyle. The idea conveyed is that if you change your petroleum-based car to an electric one, everything will be solved. They make it seem as if nothing fundamental has to change, but things do have to change.
Doing the latter would give enormous benefits. According to an article from RMI, it is estimated that the nation may need to add as many as 20 million new homes in the next decade. If the latter were to be new single-family homes in low-density neighborhoods, the emissions from each new household would be way higher. Therefore we have to be smart about it. The same RMI article states that if we are able to build those homes in the right places and in the right ways (high-density developments) could avoid as much as 200 million tCO2e annually by the end of this decade.
If saving the planet was not enough motivation to start changing the way we use our land, then money might be the key to achieving the necessary density. According to an article by Dr. Jeremy Mattson, an assistant professor of transportation and logistics at North Dakota University, population density has an inversely proportional relationship with public costs. The latter means, the higher the density, the lower the costs of maintaining and providing public services.
This is expected as, urban sprawl means that for the same amount of people, you will require more land. This translates to longer distances to travel not only for people but for water and sewer lines as Dr. Mattson explains. Then there are also public services such as trash collection that will now require to travel further distances to service the same amount of people as in a densely populated neighborhood. All of this culminates in higher public spending for municipalities and cities. The latter shows the contrast between compact and sprawling developments, a contrast with dollar signs on it that policymakers cannot ignore.
Great American cities show how important density is in the fight against climate change. It shows the relationship between density and emissions, and how urban sprawl causes people to spend more energy on daily tasks.
High-density development produces positive fiscal results, reducing costs in public spending. In my opinion, the latter could be used as an economic incentive to promote the growth of high-density developments. In an era where resources are scarce, using land and money wisely only makes sense. Hopefully, we can realize that soon enough.
