A favorite scene of mine from the movie Back to the Future, is when George McFly walks up to his future wife, Lorraine in the 1950s soda shop and says the following,

George McFly: Lorraine, my density has bought me to you.

Lorraine Baines: What?

George McFly: Oh, what I meant to say was…

Lorraine Baines: Wait a minute, don’t I know you from somewhere?

George McFly: Yes. Yes. I’m George, George McFly. I’m your density. I mean… your destiny.

Source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088763/quotes

One of the red flags often raised by opponents when a new development project is proposed, is density. Somehow, over the years, a detrimental concept of density has been created to co-opt the debate by naysayers as a way to derail projects that are perceived beyond an acceptable level. What an acceptable density may be is variable from place to place (or project to project).

Density is not and should not be a dirty word. In fact, it may be the single best solution to many land use and environmental problems facing communities across our nation. The funny thing is, many of these same opponents to density also claim to oppose sprawl. What they never seem to grasp is that opposing density is supporting sprawl. You can’t have it both ways. The less dense your community builds out, the more land area it will cover – its simple math, not rocket science.

While I am not advocating for the Manhattanization of suburbia, reasonable people should be able to come to an agreement on an acceptable land use formula. Certainly traditional town centers, transit and utility corridors, as well as areas located along major highways should be allowed to develop at a noticeably higher density than exurban, rural, and agricultural settings.

The economic and societal costs of low-density sprawl are enormous. Just a few are listed below,

Higher infrastructure construction and maintenance costs to serve outlying areas.

Longer commutes generating more greenhouse gases and draining wallets to fill gas tanks.

More impervious surface area and loss of natural landscapes.

Increased growth of monoculture vegetation and the introduction of invasive species.

Loss of productive land for farming, gardens, orchards, etc. that could be producing locally grown goods.

Reduced access and participation in fitness and exercise activities, leading to higher rates of obesity and diabetes.

Less efficient transit and transportation systems that underserve less affluent areas.

Decay, desolation, and blight in areas abandoned for greener pastures.

All too often opponents will remain entrenched in the mindset that increased density is a bad thing. However, there are some groups and organizations that we, as planners should be reaching out to and embracing for support. These could include:

Participants in the organic and locally grown food movement;

The Millennial generation;

Cycling, walking, safe route to school, and active transportation advocates;

The medical community and health insurers;

Schools;

Religious organizations;

Urban pioneers;

Farmers; and

Advocates for the poor and for fair housing.

Many members of these groups support measures to curb sprawl and could be strong and convincing partners for change from cookie-cutter suburbanization to denser, diverse, and sustainable communities.

Who’s better to relay the detriments of less exercise than physicians?

Who’s better to document trends leading to rising insurance and health care costs than insurers?

Who’s better to speak for greater housing choices than housing advocates?

Who’s better to speak to our roles as stewards of this Earth than conservation organizations and some religious institutions?

Who’s better to document the loss of productive agricultural land than farmers?

Who’s better to frame the need for dense and mixed housing choices than those who are opting to live in urban setting like urban pioneers and the Millennial generation?

Who’s better to convince parents of the need for change than teachers, religious officials, and schoolchildren?

Who’s better for promoting the benefits of increased exercise, fitness, and active transportation options than cycling and walking advocates or health care providers?

As urban planners, we can sing the praises of density until the cows come home, but there must be consistent and varied voices coming from numerous sources for the concept to sink into the general public’s mindset. Will we convince everyone? Of course not. The challenge is convincing enough people (and decision-makers) to make a difference.

George was successful in convincing Lorraine that he was her destiny. Now, its our job to convince the general public and decision makers that for many communities across the nation and around the world, increased density is our best land use destiny.