The density dilemma: Part 1

Submitted by Suanne Z. Thamm
Reporter – News Analyst
November 1, 2016 6:35 a.m.

First in a series of articles on the concept of population density

With new areas of development popping up throughout Nassau County and around Amelia Island, many citizens have become concerned over what they see as destruction of wildlife habitats and shrinking green space. They oppose increasing density, which they believe contributes to the deterioration of quality of life and loss of the natural environment. But are their fears founded in fact? Can increasing density actually save green spaces and promote the community’s quality of life?

I set out to research these questions to try to de-mystify the density dilemma.

Background

After World War II, Americans began their love affair with the automobile and their quest for quiet places outside the central cities where returning GIs could raise families in places they could afford. This gave rise to the modern American suburb. As a consequence, traditional cities lost population to the suburbs, and they also lost chunks of their tax bases. The outflow of money led to decline in urban infrastructure. Once great American cities such as Pittsburgh and Buffalo deteriorated to shabby versions of their former selves.

With declining urban populations, schools and churches closed their doors to move closer to the new residential areas they served. People who had cars and money could afford to commute to work in the urban core. Those who had neither were forced to try to live closer to their place of employment in cities that offered fewer and fewer urban amenities. Inner city landlords let properties deteriorate, as their only remaining tenants could not afford higher rents; inner city retail businesses no longer had populations to support them.

Meanwhile suburban residential sprawl, in addition to gobbling up green space, required more roads with larger capacity to accommodate commuters. Shopping centers replaced neighborhood stores and restaurants. Since for the most part these centers were only accessible by car, even more green space was sacrificed to build parking lots.

Because people had to spend so much time commuting in order to find housing they could afford, time previously spent with neighbors and families decreased. Add to this the rise of the two working parents families. This meant that time at home with children led to more insular living, reflected even in the design of homes where the front façade showcased garage doors, not porches, the traditional space for neighbors to keep in touch with each other and their communities.

Beginnings of change

But probably beginning with the oil crisis in the 1970’s, attitudes began to change. People began looking toward ways to move back into cities, where serviceable buildings already existed, utilities were cheaper, cars were less necessary, and walking and biking were options. Protecting the environment, improving the health of the citizenry, and sustainability became criteria for both individual living choices and community development. This way of thinking resulted in more and more people and communities embracing a concept known as New Urbanism and a development philosophy known as Smart Growth.

Next Article: New Urbanism and Smart Growth

Editor’s Note: Suanne Z. Thamm is a native of Chautauqua County, NY, who moved to Fernandina Beach from Alexandria,VA, in 1994. As a long time city resident and city watcher, she provides interesting insight into the many issues that impact our city. We are grateful for Suanne’s many contributions to the Fernandina Observer.