TOGETHERNESS: Density is necessary, but not sufficient

We are in a housing crisis across most urbanized areas in Canada, and governments are pushing to mandate densification as an easy solution. This means more homes and more people will be packed closer together. But how dense can our neighborhoods get?

I feel that the average North American neighborhood was not designed for future densification.

Photo by Avi Waxman

In almost every city or community, properties were divided by unique municipal plans. These typically included specific calculations to address people's needs, such as water demand, energy access, waste removal programs, safe land uses, and more.

The planning was well-intentioned, but it seems that it may have primarily been aimed at meeting the needs of the time. Potentially lacking the long-term flexibility needed for future densification.

The land division and uses reflect a time when society was focused on capitalization and expansion. Governments and developers were incentivized by cash flows and property valuations. Cities grew along with a steady rise of centralized services and amenities for people to build their community around. Economic hubs were developed and encouraged further centralized growth.

Eager citizens were motivated by the dream of owning their piece of the land. Tying their selves, their values, and their ambitions to the ownership of property, and its valuation.

And while I'm very happy for those folks whose $10,000 bought them a few acres to use and hold as generational wealth. It seems that over time, this planning has had some shortcomings.

There are the obvious issues, such as aging, undersized, and in some cases, poisonous (lead) utilities that no one wants to pay to fix. Especially municipalities that can barely float enough revenue to develop their communities as they try to keep up with the maintenance of their systems.

There are also the roads, energy-intensive and material-demanding projects, which are both directly and indirectly funded by every homeowner and renter. Requirements for parking and access that overvalue the use of cars for society, and directly impact both our safety and our environment's health....

But no, these are not the biggest reasons why I believe our neighborhoods aren't designed for future densification. The biggest reason is our mindset, or the one we were provided with from these designs.

Large setbacks, a nicely painted fence, some ornamental ground cover, minimal street exposed activity (because who wants to see all that traffic on those roads), and plenty of room to yourself. This is what has made densification so difficult.

The designs developed the experience of these communities and set the expectations that people recognize in these spaces. Our homes and communities are designed for security and comfort, for ourselves—a privilege which we can choose to share with other people if we want to.

It's my impression that this mindset is a large part of why densification developments see pushback from the likes of people with a "Not in my backyard" mindset.

People have been taught to love what they're familiar with. And they are familiar with big ol' fuck-off front yards, private cars, and their own space.

Ownership vs Stewardship; I think this is where the way was lost. I won't say good or bad, but I will say it’s a fundamental characteristic of the Canadian housing model. When we own something, we see it as a thing that we have the right to use and control.

The housing market is consumed by consumer marketing and social currency. It is a me, myself, and I first model. I don't rent, I own. This is my property. It demonstrates my value. It holds my things, and the more things I put in it, the better that makes my life.

Stewardship, on the other hand, is the careful and responsible management of something entrusted to one's care. A dreaded word for most of us, responsibility. But the difference is in this context, whether something is yours or something is yours to take care of. And I think this context provides the environment for a more versatile community.

The Great Wall of WA by Luigi Rosselli, noted in https://www.studiojay.ca/post/embanked-designs-or-earth-sheltered-homes

What if our need to be social and also to be safe could be achieved communally? I think that this is what a shared sense of responsibility has the power to achieve.

https://www.studiojay.ca/post/gentle-density-micro-multi-use

There are some examples of communities that have found success in Canada.

Co-housing and Social Housing have both played small but exemplary roles in the development of community-focused real estate options. I think of these types of projects as micro-mixed-use developments or pocket neighborhoods.

To me, in the best of cases, these developments can include healthy living spaces for personal use, engaging spaces for socialization, and motivating spaces that enable people to focus and develop themselves as members of a community. (1st, 2nd and 3rd places.)

Overall, I think developing urban spaces that encourage us to relate to our neighbors is the thing that most city plans for densification and housing construction are missing. The people yearn for community.

This is why we are exploring the idea of providing value to housing through community at Studio Jay. If you'd like to provide some feedback on this topic and what makes a community valuable, please contribute your thoughts on our ongoing Survey.

Thought to be continued ...