The headlines keep coming: There’s public pushback about some development project because it’s “too dense.” Rather than focusing solely on density, we should be asking how the project is designed. Will it accommodate our growth in a way that will lead to a high quality of life for ourselves and our children?
Density battles have come to a head because we’ve been one of the fastest-growing states in the country for the last several years. A strong economy means our kids — who form most of our growth — can find jobs and stay close to home. It also means other people want to join us here to experience our prosperity and quality of life.
At the same time, we’re running out of land in our most urbanized counties. Salt Lake, Davis and Weber each have dwindling land supplies, as does northeast Utah County. In the past, as we grew we could just add another ring of suburbs, but now that next ring is on the other side of a mountain range, requiring very long commutes. That’s why we’re now seeing as many apartments, condos and townhomes as we are single-family homes. As land supply dwindles, prices rise, and people choose something smaller that they can afford. Accommodating the kinds of housing people can afford means more density. If we want to keep any semblance of affordability, we need to make sure we have ample supply of all kinds of housing.
That increased density isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It means we use less water, develop less agricultural land and spend less money on infrastructure. It means our firefighters, police officers, nurses and teachers can afford to live in the neighborhoods they serve. But how and where we build that density has huge implications for traffic and air quality. Not all density is created equal. Los Angeles, for example, is one of the densest metro areas in the country, but few of us aspire to be like Southern California when it comes to traffic issues.
The problem is that L.A.’s density isn’t well organized or planned. Density near rail stations, jobs and shopping can reduce driving by 50 percent or even more, particularly if the development is designed to accommodate pedestrians and cyclists, rather than just cars. Where there’s a grid system of streets and good road infrastructure, it’s easier to accommodate growth and density.
But simply spreading density everywhere without planning the rail, roads, jobs and shopping to go with it doesn’t give you the same bang for your buck. That’s why, hopefully before a large development project shows up, each community should have a vision for where to put village and town centers — places that include jobs, shopping and denser housing — planned in coordination with public transportation and a connected grid of roadways. The more we mix the jobs, shopping and housing, the greater the benefits. And the more connected our developments are, the better. If it’s easy to get from the housing to the jobs and shopping, we won’t see as much congestion.
If we do this, we’ll accommodate the housing people want and can afford without big disruptions to existing neighborhoods. We’ll use less farmland and water. We’ll pollute less and reduce how much time we spend stuck in our cars. And we’ll create the kinds of town and village centers our grandparents used to enjoy — places where you can walk with your children to buy an ice cream cone, or where workers can walk to lunch. But it’s about far more than just density. It’s about design. Growth is a reality in Utah, but how we grow matters.
Ari Bruening | Envision Utah
Ari Bruening is president and chief operating officer of Envision Utah.
