“Density” is the seventh principle of New Urbanism, a word frequently uttered by mayors, developers and city planners to justify infill projects, brownfields, inner-city highrises, and more.
Density is (rightly in this author’s view) an important component to making our cities more human-scale (read “Cities on a Human Scale”). But it’s often executed clumsily. Here’s why.
Most “density” projects are designed by people who will never call these developments “home.” They’re based on the paternalistic notion that planners, developers and elected leaders know what’s good for you.
Or worse, they’re designed and built based on a combination of:
- What they believe the market wants (often based on the most recent fads in design - look at the homogenity in all the glass windows, slate countertops and hardwood floors that are “options” in today’s inner city infill projects)
- What they can get passed through the city council
- What they think they can sell.
For all these reasons, I was thrilled to read this article in Dwell about a group of Dutch citizens who banded together to create their own solution for urban density, Villa van Vijven.
Here, a group of folks who shared a similar design aesthetic found the site, found each other, found an architect, made decisions about how decisions would be made (when in disagreement, the architect decides) and became “best neighbors,” not best friends.
Here’s how Villa van Vijven differs from most of the “density” projects I see in cities. How can these contrasts better inform Next Cities’ approaches to density?
- In most cities, architects work for developers. In Villa van Vijven, the clients found Next Architects, an upstart firm willing to work directly with the clients, the future inhabitants of the dwelling. And because there were five families (clients) involved, it was worth the architects’ time.
- Density projects in many cities are infill in the urban center. The Villa van Vijven site was ten minutes from downtown; it’s not an infill project, but it is a density project. By creating a “density” project outside the urban core, the inhabitants get the benefit of great views and the accessibility that New Urbanism espouses. Most residents and their children - like many Dutch - traverse primarily by bicycle.
- Many traditional residential infill projects are built for a range of purchase prices - a narrow, upper-end range. They’re affordable mostly to Baby Boomers of a certain socio-economic class, and therefore result in a narrow (and boring?) profile of inhabitants. (I’ve found that even Boomers hate this homogeneity.) And it keeps young professionals outside of cities. In Villa van Vijven, the single tie that bound all the clients together was their shared sense of aesthetic, not their economic fortitude. Families, singles, and retirees all cohabitate in Villa van Vijven, making a more diverse, multi-generational development.
- Traditional housing projects often lead to feelings of isolation; the entrances are separate and secluded and “neighbors” rarely see each other, let alone know their names. By design, Villa van Vijven has one large shared entry area where the five families see each other coming and going. The residents are “unanimously keen to emphasize that they are best neighbors, not best friends.” Resident Bob Krone says, “Another advantage is that when you’re on vacation, there’s someone to pick up the mail, water the plants, and feed the pets.” In other words, Villa van Vijven has just enough community to make it feel good, with enough privacy to avoid feeling communal.
Villa van Vijven proves that density can be different. Here’s how our cities could think differently about density:
- Provide a forum where residents who share an aesthetic can find each other, and find an architect. Think “Match.com” for people, place, and architect.
- Require that citizens and their architect (not the developer) have more face-time, and suggest that citizens approve the final design before building commences.
- Zone common spaces that are primary, not secondary. In Villa van Vigven, the front doors are set together, not apart, and the families share a garden and grounds. In the U.S. the “common spaces” of many housing projects are nice to look at, but never used.
Additional links:
Comments
