Dear John,
Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, density became a scapegoat for the
rapid spread of the coronavirus in urban centers like New York City.
Some predicted that the public health crisis would lead to a resurgence
in suburban sprawl, as we collectively sought to distance ourselves from
one another. In response, proponents of density touted its benefits – including increased access to jobs, health care and social services –
and its potential to mitigate the effects of climate change through
compact, mixed-use development and access to public transit.
However, as award-winning place-maker and author Jay Pitter pointed out in a recent article
for AZURE magazine, the debate over density is more nuanced than simply
weighing the public health risks versus the benefits. We need to ask
ourselves who is bearing the brunt of the risks, and who is reaping the
benefits?
Pitter distinguishes between “dominant density, designed by and for
predominately white, middle-class urban dwellers,” and “forgotten
densities” including “favelas, shanty towns, factory dormitories,
seniors’ homes, tent cities, Indigenous reserves, prisons, mobile home
parks, shelters and public housing.” In the U.S., 400 years of systemic
racism have resulted in forgotten densities across the country that are
disproportionately populated by black and brown people.
The public benefits described by pro-density advocates, including
access to jobs and services and – as communities begin to reopen –
walkability and ample green space, are primarily associated with dominant density, while the public health threats of crowding and environmental exposures that contribute to the development of preexisting conditions are hallmarks of forgotten densities.
Notably, Pitter emphasizes that forgotten densities exist in both
urban and suburban spaces. Just as the benefits of urban density are
distributed unequally along racial and economic lines, the protection
afforded by suburban spaces is available to some, but not all residents.
This is one of many factors underlying racial disparities in COVID-19
infections in Northern Virginia and nationwide.
As we seek to protect our communities from the novel coronavirus and
other public health threats, our focus should not be on erecting
barriers to increased density, but on dismantling barriers to racial
equity. Planning and zoning policies that increase density and promote
compact development should include explicit provisions to ensure
equitable access to the benefits of such development, and equitable
protection from its potential harms.
In addition to the threat of COVID-19, Northern Virginia is facing an
impending population boom following the construction of Amazon HQ2 and
Virginia Tech’s Innovation campus. As our region rises to meet these
dual challenges, we cannot abandon density as a strategy to increase
housing supply and affordability. But we also cannot expect density to
work for us, unless it is made to work for all of us.
Policies such as inclusionary zoning, mixed-use, mixed-income and
transit-oriented development promote equitable access to dominant
density. But substantial investments must also be made in our forgotten densities
– our mobile home parks with poor drainage and no decent space for
children to play, and our older, market-affordable communities that have
been left behind as the region develops. Overcrowding and unhealthy
living conditions should not be treated as an excuse to raze these
communities, but as a call to action to prioritize their needs and
concerns. Because equitable density means not only creating access to
new, dominant density development, but also transforming forgotten
densities into spaces where residents who choose to stay put can thrive.
Nora Daly
Director of Programs and Community Engagement
Join Us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn for the latest housing news.
