1. Achieving higher density development is a core principle of contemporary planning professionals, but the reality is much more complex than the simplicity of its claims.
2. Local planners in London over-rely on easily quantifiable measures like the London Density Matrix, but also demonstrate reflexive qualities in assessing outcomes.
3. Balancing the multiple advantages and disadvantages of density requires a complex act of balancing, as adjustments to density may lead to negative outcomes elsewhere.
The article "Coordinating density; working through conviction, suspicion and pragmatism" by Nancy Holman, Alan Mace, Antoine Paccoud, and Jayaraj Sundaresan explores the complexities of achieving higher density development in London. The authors identify three discourses of density that local planners are at the interface of and look at this complexity through London case studies.
The article highlights the tension between the simplicity of claims about density and the complexity of application. While achieving a positive outcome through adjustments to density may lead to negative outcomes elsewhere, planners seek to balance the multiple advantages and disadvantages of density. The authors address this question by looking at four higher density developments in London.
Overall, the article provides a comprehensive analysis of the challenges associated with achieving higher density development in London. However, there are some potential biases and missing points of consideration that need to be addressed.
Firstly, while the authors acknowledge that achieving a positive outcome through adjustments to density may lead to negative outcomes elsewhere, they do not explore these negative outcomes in detail. For example, they mention that increasing density can be detrimental in terms of housing affordability but do not provide evidence or explore this issue further.
Secondly, the article focuses primarily on the benefits of higher density development without exploring potential risks or drawbacks. For example, there is no discussion about how increased population densities can impact public health or social cohesion.
Thirdly, while the authors acknowledge that local planners over-rely on easily quantifiable measures such as the London Density Matrix, they do not explore alternative approaches or solutions in detail.
Finally, there is a potential bias towards promoting higher density development as a core principle of sustainable development without exploring alternative approaches or considering potential drawbacks. While higher densities may have benefits such as greater public transport use and mixed-use developments providing a more lively street scene, it is important to consider other factors such as public health and social cohesion when making decisions about urban planning.
In conclusion, while the article provides a comprehensive analysis of the challenges associated with achieving higher density development in London, there are some potential biases and missing points of consideration that need to be addressed. It is important to consider both the benefits and drawbacks of higher density development and explore alternative approaches to urban planning.