# Density or Design? Which effects urban activity more?



## ShowMeKC (May 15, 2006)

I thought i'd start this discussion since I don't see it on here.

In a website for skyscraper fans, as well as urban fans (such as myself, though not a big skyscraper fan). 

Which do you think has more impact on the life, vitality, diversity and quality on an urban area. The design of the area and the buildings? Or the density of an area and the buildings in it?

Can an area be designed with skyscrapers and yet lack the vitality, diversity, quality and life of an area designed with equally dense shorter buildings?


----------



## ShowMeKC (May 15, 2006)

A couple examples to start off with, sorry if they are poor ones.

*Lower Manhattan, NYC:*

















and

*Greenwich Village, NYC:*








(forgive me, i know the aerial doesn't show the majority of Greenwich, but the closest i could find)


----------



## ShowMeKC (May 15, 2006)

*Champs Elysee's, Paris:*

















*La Defense, Paris:*


----------



## Darryl (Jan 14, 2007)

ShowMeKC said:


> Which do you think has more impact on the life, vitality, diversity and quality on an urban area. The design of the area and the buildings? Or the density of an area and the buildings in it?
> 
> Can an area be designed with skyscrapers and yet lack the vitality, diversity, quality and life of an area designed with equally dense shorter buildings?


In my opinion skyscrapers have very little to do with "vitality, diversity, quality, and life of an area". Most skyscrapers are office buildings and only contribute to the life of the area during daytime business hours. They might contribute more when having a residential component, but no more than a dense low rise area. Look at some of the cities known for their vitality, diversity, quality, and liveliness and many of them are not skyscraper cities: Berlin, Washington DC, Rome, etc... Even Paris and London's most "lively" areas are lowrise areas devoid of skyscrapers. Then look at many of the Sunbelt cities in the US: tall, sleek, skyscrapers and no urban life.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

Density gives a higher probability of interaction on the streets below, but depending on how spaces are designed, the flow of people can still be confined indoors, and the streets outside will remain dead. 

A well-designed space will attract people, so even less dense places can have a lot of activity.


----------



## Skyline_FFM (May 25, 2008)

Density - efficient, too much density - destructive, means higher crime rates, more accidents, smaller apartments, less space for leisure activities, less green space for recreation... The worst examples of exaggerated density are many megacities, especially many of those of the 3rd World and the Emerging countries. A city that I personally like when I look at it is Mexico City. It seems very dense and even though it is not as spoiled by ugly midrises as other cities. It is flat and has some nice outstanding buildings that bring some variety into the cityscape!


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Skyline_FFM said:


> Density - efficient, too much density - destructive, means higher crime rates, more accidents, smaller apartments, less space for leisure activities, less green space for recreation... The worst examples of exaggerated density are many megacities, especially many of those of the 3rd World and the Emerging countries. A city that I personally like when I look at it is Mexico City. It seems very dense and even though it is not as spoiled by ugly midrises as other cities. It is flat and has some nice outstanding buildings that bring some variety into the cityscape!


HK is one of the densest place on earth but the crime rate is low compared to other cities.


----------



## Skyline_FFM (May 25, 2008)

Yes, because it is in Asia. Asia has very safe cities. But look at cities in South America (except in Argentina or Chile) and Africa!


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Skyline_FFM said:


> Yes, because it is in Asia. Asia has very safe cities. But look at cities in South America (except in Argentina or Chile) and Africa!


Not all Asian cities are safe especially those in less developed countries


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

Skyline_FFM said:


> Density - efficient, too much density - destructive, means higher crime rates, more accidents, smaller apartments, less space for leisure activities, less green space for recreation... The worst examples of exaggerated density are many megacities, especially many of those of the 3rd World and the Emerging countries. A city that I personally like when I look at it is Mexico City. It seems very dense and even though it is not as spoiled by ugly midrises as other cities. It is flat and has some nice outstanding buildings that bring some variety into the cityscape!


Monaco is dense, yet it is safe. The US, in general, is not that dense, yet murder and crime rates are relatively high. Japan is another example of how density and crime don't always correlate well.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

WANCH said:


> Not all Asian cities are safe especially those in less developed countries


Chinese cities are relatively safe, and even Vietnam wasn't bad at all. The lesser-developed countries aren't necessarily crime hotspots in Asia, although the story is very different over in South America.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

I think a denser city is more efficient in multiple ways (transportation, energy, infrastructure etc.), however I don't like superdense like Tokyo. People need space to live. I don't think I would be happy living in some communistlike-style apartment block in Harlem or something like that.


----------



## Skyline_FFM (May 25, 2008)

Me neither. I think cities that are too dense rapidly lose quality of life.


----------



## dlbritnot (Apr 8, 2006)

I would just like to say that the US, especially despite its density, is a high-crime country. It has a much lower density in urban areas, yet universally has a higher crime rate than many other countries, especially all developed ones. Ironically, NYC is the largest American city yet has one of the lowest crime rates. Not to mention, I'd much rather be mugged on a subway than shot down on a freeway. If you think about all of the effects of each situation, I think you'd agree.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Density is the basic requirement. Design is however needed to turn the density into a high quality of life for the inhabitants.

So effectively you need a certain density (does not have to be extremely high, but should be not too low either) and a good design. To question which is more important is like asking if the left or the right wheels are more important for the car to drive.


----------



## karim aboussir (Dec 4, 2006)

crime so true 
high density neighboorhoods in casablanca ( not all of them ) many have high crime rates
low density neighboorhoods in casablanca very low crime rates so in casablanca you see the difference 
metro casablanca is about 30 % very high density 30 % low density and the rest medium density


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

Design: just look at Dubai for wasted density


----------



## Galls (Feb 27, 2008)

Skyline_FFM said:


> Yes, because it is in Asia. Asia has very safe cities. But look at cities in South America (except in Argentina or Chile) and Africa!


HK use to be a murder capital.

And High density neighborhoods in NYC have lower crime rates than the surrounding areas.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

Galls said:


> HK use to be a murder capital.
> 
> And High density neighborhoods in NYC have lower crime rates than the surrounding areas.


Hong Kong a murder capital? I don't think so, not with 18 homicides in 2007. Back in 2001 there were 66.

http://www.police.gov.hk/hkp-home/english/statistics/index.htm

If you want to find out where the murder capitals are in the developed world, look to the US, where it is very plausible to find cities with 18 homicides a week.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Galls said:


> HK use to be a murder capital.
> 
> And High density neighborhoods in NYC have lower crime rates than the surrounding areas.


That's way impossible. Don't let those HK martial arts film fool you


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

krudmonk said:


> Design: just look at Dubai for wasted density


When I see it, I look at Dubai as sort of Chicago. They're both similar in many ways. Chicago's high-rise density is limited to the city centre and within the waterfront. But beyond its suburbs, its mostly low-rise. Same with Dubai. Its not like HK, Seoul or Shanghai where you see high-rises almost everywhere.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

WANCH said:


> When I see it, I look at Dubai as sort of Chicago. They're both similar in many ways. Chicago's high-rise density is limited to the city centre and within the waterfront. But beyond its suburbs, its mostly low-rise. Same with Dubai. Its not like HK, Seoul or Shanghai where you see high-rises almost everywhere.


Chicago's skyscrapers are concentrated around the Loop. Along the Lake Michigan waterfront, the amount of skyscrapers tapers off beyond the Loop. The primary axis / nucleus is the Loop, and much of the waterfront is actually not bordered by highrises.

The concept that highrises are predominantely confined to the city centre is a typical urban planning phenomenon especially in North America. Even for Shanghai, there is a significant amount of midrises throughout the city. It's actually not highrises everywhere as the perception may give from looking at a few select photos.


----------



## Skyline_FFM (May 25, 2008)

WANCH said:


> That's way impossible. Don't let those HK martial arts film fool you


:lol: Yes, Jackie Chan is not reality. Some people use to mic it up!!! :lol:


----------



## Twoaday (May 22, 2006)

krudmonk> Actually Dubai is just not dense at all. With about 1,000 people per square mile. Compare that to even Milwaukee, WI which has an decent density number (though still very low compared to a Chicago or New York) which has about 6,200 per square mile. To me density is number one. Then design is 1a.


----------



## phattonez (Sep 14, 2006)

dlbritnot said:


> I would just like to say that the US, especially despite its density, is a high-crime country. It has a much lower density in urban areas, yet universally has a higher crime rate than many other countries, especially all developed ones. Ironically, NYC is the largest American city yet has one of the lowest crime rates. Not to mention, I'd much rather be mugged on a subway than shot down on a freeway. If you think about all of the effects of each situation, I think you'd agree.


The trend is that crime decreases as density increases.


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

Twoaday said:


> krudmonk> Actually Dubai is just not dense at all. With about 1,000 people per square mile. Compare that to even Milwaukee, WI which has an decent density number (though still very low compared to a Chicago or New York) which has about 6,200 per square mile. To me density is number one. Then design is 1a.


I was referring to the fact that is has tall buildings, mainly. However, you agree that it is wasted because of the broad boulevards and spacing between structures. It has the money and the resources but throws it away with poor design.


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

Twoaday said:


> krudmonk> Actually Dubai is just not dense at all. With about 1,000 people per square mile. Compare that to even Milwaukee, WI which has an decent density number (though still very low compared to a Chicago or New York) which has about 6,200 per square mile. To me density is number one. Then design is 1a.


I was referring to the fact that is has tall buildings, mainly. However, you agree that it is wasted because of the broad boulevards and spacing between structures. It has the money and the resources but throws it away with poor design.


WANCH said:


> When I see it, I look at Dubai as sort of Chicago. They're both similar in many ways. Chicago's high-rise density is limited to the city centre and within the waterfront. But beyond its suburbs, its mostly low-rise. Same with Dubai. Its not like HK, Seoul or Shanghai where you see high-rises almost everywhere.


Look at this streetscape and tell me that Chicago is not more compact and pedestrian friendly. Dubai is just a taller Las Vegas.


----------



## jarbury (Aug 20, 2007)

Yeah it really does remind me of Vegas actually.


----------



## LMCA1990 (Jun 18, 2005)

Definately a mix of both like NYC and Paris


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

krudmonk said:


> I was referring to the fact that is has tall buildings, mainly. However, you agree that it is wasted because of the broad boulevards and spacing between structures. It has the money and the resources but throws it away with poor design.
> Look at this streetscape and tell me that Chicago is not more compact and pedestrian friendly. Dubai is just a taller Las Vegas.


I was talking about the zoning of high-rises and stuff. Again, Dubai's high-rises are within the city core but beyond the suburbs, it's low-rise. Its the same with Chicago. I'm not talking about streetscapes. 

And yes Dubai looks like Vegas to some extent like The Strip. But Las Vegas is much more vibrant especially in its street activity


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

WANCH said:


> I was talking about the zoning of high-rises and stuff. Again, Dubai's high-rises are within the city core but beyond the suburbs, it's low-rise. Its the same with Chicago. I'm not talking about streetscapes.
> 
> And yes Dubai looks like Vegas to some extent like The Strip. But Las Vegas is much more vibrant especially in its street activity


That generalization is true for many North American cities, where it is predominantely lowrise beyond the city centre.


----------



## Skyline_FFM (May 25, 2008)

The best city in Germany for families to live is called Bielefeld. It is a small town with 330k inhabitants. It has an area larger than Frankfurt, my city which has twice the population. 
That little town has a lot of lakes, forest and greenery and a low population density, leading to affordable housing and it has one of the highest densities of medical care services in whole Germany. And that is why it is considered as the best city in GER with more than 100k inhabitants. 
I really prefer low-density Hamburg over high density Munich or Cologne. If frankfurt wasn't the city where my family and friends lived, I would live in Hamburg all the way!


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

^^ The living conditions in German cities in general are of a very high standard due to your generous social welfare. 

I come from a higher density town (2,100 people per sq km) and now live in a city without that kind of density and I can tell you that low density sprawl is VERY hard to live in for any length of time. Having to rely on a car for everything, it's horrible and unsustainable. Shops are not within walking distance, parks you have to drive to, supermarkets, swimming pools, beaches... You name it, you need a car.


----------



## el casanovas (Jun 1, 2008)

Even with good public transportation and some shops, low density is plain boring and a waste of space. I'm from Barcelona (15890 h/km^2), but I've also lived in a small, low-density town (480 h/km^2), where new developments are limited to two stages, and while that small town is somewhat important and has factories, shops, etc., it's a very boring and dead place, and new areas are even more so. Plus basically EVERYTHING is far away, and there's huge areas with hardly any shops and, what's more striking, hardly any population. How can anyone defend low density? It's beyond me.

The point is, you can't have good urbanistic design without density unless you're planning a really really really small town - as in, less than 5000 people small. Building new developments under 4 stages should be banned, it's as simple as that.


----------



## jarbury (Aug 20, 2007)

Svartmetall said:


> I come from a higher density town (2,100 people per sq km) and now live in a city without that kind of density and I can tell you that low density sprawl is VERY hard to live in for any length of time. Having to rely on a car for everything, it's horrible and unsustainable. Shops are not within walking distance, parks you have to drive to, supermarkets, swimming pools, beaches... You name it, you need a car.


Welcome to Auckland! Well at least the part of Auckland you live in. 

Fortunately I'm within 5 minutes walk of Sandringham shops, which is a reasonably surburban centre. 10-12 min walk to St Luke's shopping mall (one of the largest malls in Auckland for others) and there are about 3-4 reasonable parks within walking distance. Supermarket is a 5 minute drive away, but is within walking distance from where I work.

Not all Auckland is quite so low-density and car-oriented. Just unfortunately the newer suburbs are generally the worst.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

jarbury said:


> Welcome to Auckland! Well at least the part of Auckland you live in.
> 
> Fortunately I'm within 5 minutes walk of Sandringham shops, which is a reasonably surburban centre. 10-12 min walk to St Luke's shopping mall (one of the largest malls in Auckland for others) and there are about 3-4 reasonable parks within walking distance. Supermarket is a 5 minute drive away, but is within walking distance from where I work.
> 
> Not all Auckland is quite so low-density and car-oriented. Just unfortunately the newer suburbs are generally the worst.


You're right of course, there are areas which are better served in Auckland, but that is the case for all cities. 

The trick is to try and make it so that there is a greater percentage of neighbourhoods served in that manner than not, and that's where density generally comes into the equation. You're very lucky with your location (and I am mildly jealous :lol, however, can the whole of Sandringham say the same? I've got friends down in Blockhouse bay that are in the middle of nowhere with no PT, shops or general amenities nearby and that's not too far from your location!


----------



## particlez (May 5, 2008)

it's not a one or the other thing. plus design is subjective. you'd want functional (as opposed to purely aesthetic) design, alongside density, transit access, and mixed usages. if cities have all of these points, they'll function well.

functional design allows people to live comfortably in their surroundings. you'd want good ventilation in humid cooling climates, solar gain in heating climates, etc. that's very important. fashionable design is about conforming to the avant garde trends, it may look good, but doesn't affect how you live.

why are we harping on dubai again? that cluster of highrises has a high profile, but isn't nearly as nefarious as the many square kilometers of low rise, car dependent sprawl built here.


----------



## Skyline_FFM (May 25, 2008)

Low density means long distances... So in super dense cities like shanghai, NYC and Tokyo or Mexico city the distances are short. I would like to add that in those cities, some people use helicopters to get to work, because streets are jammed and you need twice the time for a 5 km ride that you would waste for a 10 km ride in a low-density town. :|


----------



## jarbury (Aug 20, 2007)

^^ They also use public transport far more often and generally are much more sustainable and have lower CO2 emissions per capita by far.


----------



## Skyline_FFM (May 25, 2008)

Oh, and the buses go faster in traffic jams?


----------

