ABSTRACT
This chapter spotlights the connection between density, place, and context, arguing that these elements need to be in close alignment to ensure successful places. Density is needed for sustainability goals, but also to create meaningful places. In turn, good places, at least in an urban context, are often supported by density. This alignment between density and place – such that density is sustained by place and place is sustained by density – requires an understanding of the context of this density. Cities need to be dense, but not necessarily everywhere. They need to be dense especially near public assets, and good place quality needs to sustain density in exactly these places. I expand on these arguments and then illustrate the relationships for three contexts: pedestrian-oriented retail streets, parks, and transit station areas. What is the connection between density, in these contexts, and the creation, maintenance, and quality of place? How should we analyze the experience of density through the lens of place, limited to key locations? Place tends to be a very subjective concept, with any number of definitions and a lack of agreement on what it is, how it matters, or who defines and builds it. Yet, there are certain times when it makes sense to be less fluid and open-ended about place. One of those times is when place is considered an important part of supporting walkable urbanism: the quest for a city that is pedestrian-oriented and not car-dependent. If that normative objective is agreed to, then that means, in turn, that cities need to have density for some pretty basic reasons: above all, to maximize access, to promote productivity and innovation, and to foster social connection. By bringing together a critical mass of people, density creates conditions that sustain social organizations, street life, and small businesses, making it feasible to locate services and public assets within walking distance of residential populations, a key component of the sustainable city. Density increases the opportunity for chance encounters or random social interaction. As early as 1968, urbanist Lewis Mumford argued that the lack of ability to spontaneously interact not only negates the possibility of collective action but produces “silent conformity” in society.1 These arguments are widely known by scholars and practitioners, and, for the most part, agreed to.
