On Saturday, we walked from the AAP NYC Studio to the Skyscraper Museum as part of an exercise to better understand the history urban density and housing development in NYC.
Housing density has a large impact on the fabric of an urban area both socially, environmentally and economically. Over the course of history housing density has fluctuated, adapting to other drivers such as industry, activism, visionary architecture and private development. Jane Jacobs suggested 500 people per acre, a number which would support the neighborhood feel and character of the street. As progressive and socially oriented her vision for the city was, the urban context Jacobs lived and worked in does not reflect the environmental concerns of today.
How we go about deciding the optimizing number is more significant than the number itself. Though finding an optimal number of units per acre may provide helpful guidelines both for the city and developers, focusing too heavily on numbers glosses over the significance of the planning process. An indicator of optimization could instead measure thought, intent, and design decisions aimed to create desirable housing for permanent residents. Design and planning focused solutions dictating density, as opposed to a density determining the design, will likely lead to more environmentally, economically and socially resilient urban spaces.
Too often, development fixates on short term profit, a practice that cripples the city in the long run. Lack of affordable housing and funding as NYCHA tries to keep up with its own maintenance costs is an illustration of urban renewal’s long term failures, housing constructed by developers instead of designers, and an interest in profits. Now, due to high repair costs and lack of funding for NYCHA, the city has proposed plans to lean more heavily on private development, constructing high rise towers in low income housing areas. One proposed project will demolish the Fulton housing development in Chelsea and replace it with a glass tower. This will likely deteriorate the urban landscape and jeopardize the social fabric of the neighborhood as residents will instead answer to a private landlord.
Both historical and current events question the role of the private and public realms in determining housing density and design. The city could use private development as a tool to create optimal housing so long as the development projects are guided by values and visionary ideas as opposed to bottom line profit seeking behavior. Design recommendations may also require people to adapt their way of living, considering co-living as an opportunity to increase densities without compromising on quality or adequacy of space. Adequate access to public parks, green streetscapes as well as clean and efficient public transportation emitting next to no air or noise pollution, make the disjointed towers in the park irrelevant. Tall, high density buildings with joined facades and pedestrian oriented streetscapes such as they are on 31st Street between 5th and 6th avenue are possibly better alternatives (see below image).
The western world, particularly the United States, is starting to wake up to the fact that the family unit not only plays a large role in the social psychology and the importance of feeling connected, but that it is also financially and environmentally efficient. Moving towards higher densities, with human scale facades, open floor plan, shared living, dining and kitchen space could be both environmentally and socially resilient option for housing in the future. Whether co-living is desirable is a controversial topic, however encouraging people to make these transitions through design and policy decisions is a possibility.
Focusing on density informed by design, as opposed to design determined by density will likely help to plan conscientiously for long term sustainability. Architecture and urban planning require thoughtful, coordinated and purposeful decisions wherein form and function go hand in hand.