So I’m in D.C. this week for the Association for Commuter Transportation Conference.
I just attended a session on the relationship between land use and transportation demand management.
While a lot of the information in the presentation is probably old hat to many planners out there, it was new to me.
First thing discussed were the three D’s of Good Land Use:
1. Density (height of buildings, closeness of buildings, etc)
2. Diversity (of uses)
3. Design
Of those 3, it’s Density that is most contentious in our community. A contingent of people in Ann Arbor (and in many places) equate density with what could be called the 3 C’s: Cars (or Congestion), Crime and Crud.
But here’s the thing, if you look at the relative impact of density it’s often the case that as density increases, private auto use decreases. In other words, the closer that people are to where they want to go, the less people will drive. And the more density we have, the better the potential for robust public transit.
This makes a lot of sense and why I would say I am an advocate for density.
But again, here’s the thing. Density does not have to mean 50 story buildings or high crime or any of that stuff. Density can create a walkable community where people don’t have to spend time in traffic, and look good and have buildings that are high, but not insane. And I think for most people, that’s a good thing.
And yet, there are people in our community that do not trust developers and believe that if we allow our community to grow and allow density it will contribute to the deterioration of what we love about Ann Arbor. I don;t blame them for being wary. We’ve have some unfortunate developments proposed of late.
From my perspective, it’s obvious we have to understand that density is just a piece of the puzzle and diversity and design must also factor into the picture. But I also can’t deny that if we had more density in our community that would mean less people would have to drive, which has great implications for the environment and for our quality of life. And the work that I do to encourage people to try sustainable options instead of driving goes hand in hand with land use. If there was someone at the front door of an office building on the day new workers filed it, there is a much greater likelihood that many of those workers will try other ways to get to work (especially if they get a free transit pass and don’t get their parking subsidized). More density can certainly mean less cars if there is a conceited effort to incorporate transportation demand management into the development. It’s worked in other communities. It can work in our community.
While I don’t think cars are ever going to go away, I also don’t think that cars are always the best way for us to get around. I want us to find ways to create a community where we can have more and better options and enough affordable housing so that people can live close to where they work.
And perhaps this is the most mystifying part of this debate. Does anyone really just want to create high-rise buildings that will destroy our community? I don’t think so. Does anyone want to stamp out any effort to make our community for transit and walk/bike friendly? Probably not. While developers obviously want to make money on a project, they are not inherently evil and I would like to give them a chance to invigorate some parts of our community that are currently very suburban.
So let’s try to see density as just one way to get to a larger goal. If we want to attract talent. If we want to allow people to live close to where they work. If we want to cut down on congestion and make environmental gains we must use the tools that will get us there. Density might be one of them. Design and Diversity are two others. Transportation Demand Management plays a role. As does public input.
Maybe we need to focus on creating (or enhancing) our community to make it more livable rather than get into the density vs. no-density debate. Because I think we all want the same thing. It’s just the words that can get in the way.