-
CENTRES
Progammes & Centres
Location
While urban density has a lot of advantages, urban development must be decentralised to mitigate the negative effects of too much density and the concentration of resources in a few megacities
Image Source: Getty
Urban density can be defined as the ratio of the total population of a city and the total footprint the city occupies. On a global scale, there are wide variations in urban density. The World Population Review 2024 puts Manila at the top of the chart with 74,750 persons per km2. While Asian cities are some of the densest, cities of the Western world are comparatively less dense. New York City, the densest in the United States (US), has 16,844 persons per km2, London has 9,904 persons per km2, and Berlin has 3,809 persons per km2, reflecting the huge asymmetry in urban densities worldwide.
Over time, cities in the Western world have altered their policies about urban density. In the United States, the 20th century witnessed massive urban population growth and enhanced densities. Within three decades (1900-1930), Detroit saw a four-fold demographic multiplication, and New York doubled its population size. However, with the onset of the 21st century, New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco took an anti-density stand. They decided to curtail the growth of their populations through tight zoning regulations. No such policy has been scripted in India despite urban densities that are much higher in its cities.
By bringing lots of people in close proximity, a very large number of productive activities are triggered, leading to higher economic productivity.
Western economists, social scientists, and urban planners have been robust advocates of urban density. The standout benefit, decidedly, is that urban density fosters economic growth. By bringing lots of people in close proximity, a very large number of productive activities are triggered, leading to higher economic productivity. Moreover, urban density helps generate innovation. This is substantially aided by the congregation of a highly diverse set of creative knowledge workers. This “urban creative density” catalyses innovative processes.
Spatial demographic concentration in cities results in a more efficient utilisation of space. This prevents the conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses, thereby reducing the negative impact on food productivity and natural vegetation. In the US, zoning regulations aim to minimise urban expansion into agricultural lands. In India, planners use zoning for the same purpose. The objective is clear: stop urban sprawl.
Urban density also supports public transportation. Low-density developments, on the other hand, have the proclivity to promote auto dependency and discourage pedestrian trips, biking, and public transit. In this context, “Transit-Oriented Development” (TOD) has become a great tool for compact city growth. It promotes the kind of urban development where housing, businesses and amenities are concentrated at walking distance from public transit, designed to bring commuters, services and activities together.
Low-density developments, on the other hand, have the proclivity to promote auto dependency and discourage pedestrian trips, biking, and public transit.
There is no denying the fact that cities are the prime generators of economic growth and national wealth. However, density is not without its downsides. High urban density results in overcrowding. Evidence suggests that there are undesirable psychological, social and biological impacts due to crowding. These ill effects are coupled with a lack of privacy, depression and psychological frustrations. In a study carried out in a hyper-dense Mumbai slum, there was evidence that slum dwellers suffered from a high risk of mental disorders on account of overcrowding.
High urban density makes cities more vulnerable to pandemics. COVID-19 hit the largest cities the worst. In April 2020, in the US, non-metropolitan areas had a rate of 0.43 deaths per 100,000 population; small metros were slightly higher at 0.72 deaths; mid-sized metros stood at 0.85 and large metros at 0.94 deaths. The situation was no different in India. In April 2020, India’s ten largest cities had over half the coronavirus cases in the country. Mumbai and Delhi had 30 percent of all cases.
Increases in urban density tend to push up land values. Housing, therefore, gets costlier and out of reach for the lower-middle-class and the urban poor. The American Community Survey (ACS) for 2019 busted the argument that the densification of urban areas would result in better housing affordability. It established that higher urban densities are associated with worsening housing affordability. In India, this was exemplified by the Delhi Master Plan 2041 which estimated that 85 percent of residents cannot afford regular shelter.
The American Community Survey (ACS) for 2019 busted the argument that the densification of urban areas would result in better housing affordability.
High-density cities are most likely to face heavy traffic congestion. In Tom Tom’s latest Traffic Index ranking 2023, London, New York, Paris, Tokyo, Berlin, Mexico City, Rome, Jakarta, Istanbul and Barcelona, all figure among the top 100 cities facing traffic congestion. So do India’s largest cities—Bengaluru, Pune, Delhi and Mumbai. Besides being a drag on the city economy because of time lost in commuting, automobiles generate pollution and cause human stress to individual commuters while driving.
One of the sad consequences of heavy urban density is a reduction of public open spaces. Government of India guidelines stipulate 10 to 12 m2 of open space per person. However, growing density in cities leads to regulatory amendments that eat into open spaces. For instance, in Mumbai, public open spaces have fallen below the stipulated standard and reached levels as low as 1.24 m2 per person.
Climate change has catapulted itself into a major challenge in the context of urban density. Cities are witnessing urban floods, cyclones, harsh winters and oppressive heat waves with increasing frequency and intensity. Apart from the loss of human lives, these events take a heavy toll on municipal infrastructure and livelihoods. Sadly, the consequences on the urban poor are devastating. The most worrying part is that, as cities densify further, mitigation and adaptation become more difficult. Disasters by their very nature require space to manoeuvre and relocate services and people. However, the denser the city gets, the more it builds and the less it leaves space to handle disasters.
Cities are witnessing urban floods, cyclones, harsh winters and oppressive heat waves with increasing frequency and intensity.
Urban density is associated with higher crime rates. The top 19 metropolitan cities, holding 8.12 percent of the national population, have 14.65 percent of cognisable crimes. This seems to corroborate the widely acknowledged finding that crime rates are much greater in larger cities than in smaller towns and villages. This appears to be internationally true. The 1994 Statistical Abstract in the US found that metropolitan cities had 79 percent more crime than other American cities. Further, New York and Los Angeles, the largest US cities, had crime rates that were approximately four times higher than other metropolitan areas.
This scenario highlights that, though several benefits flow out of urban density, excessive urban density begins to amplify its negatives. The Western emphasis on urban density is in a different context. Western cities today are losing population on account of low fertility rates along with an economic downturn. Unlike their Western counterparts, the big cities in India face rising economies and swelling populations. While the virtues of urban density are undeniable, we need to ask how much density starts becoming counterproductive.
The latest data regarding Indian cities seem to suggest that, when liveability falls drastically in cities, it begins impacting the economy as well. While India’s largest cities contribute a disproportionately large share of the total urban gross domestic product (GDP), undeniably fuelled by high density, their demographic densities are rising unsustainably, generating problems for the economy, environment, equity and climate resilience. The ill effects of excessive urban density are undeniable. When resources are over-concentrated in very few locations, road congestion, living costs and costs of production rise to excessive levels, deteriorating the quality of urban services.
The idea is to disincentivise further densification of highly dense cities and pull migrating populations towards other eligible cities.
Against this backdrop, a plan for investment into other potential cities and towns should be drawn up at the national and state level. Investments should then flow into those towns to enable them to create employment. The idea is to disincentivise further densification of highly dense cities and pull migrating populations towards other eligible cities. It is quite clear that the cited methodology would only be possible if governments and planners concentrated on the creation of economies and infrastructure in other potentially viable cities. Decentralised urbanisation holds the key to sustainable urbanisation. In its absence, a handful of megacities in this country are all set to get denser, falter in their quality of living, and become more unsustainable.
Ramanath Jha is a Distinguished Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
Dr. Ramanath Jha is Distinguished Fellow at Observer Research Foundation, Mumbai. He works on urbanisation — urban sustainability, urban governance and urban planning. Dr. Jha belongs ...
Read More +
PREV
