See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/240791883

Revisiting the Compact City?

Article in Built Environment · March 2010

DOI: 10.2148/benv.36.1.5

CITATIONS READS

88 3,315

1 author:

Nicola Dempsey
The University of Sheffield
57 PUBLICATIONS 3,752 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Reflecting on the River: rapid urbanisation and representations of Indian cultural heritage View project

Improving Wellbeing through Urban Nature (IWUN) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nicola Dempsey on 03 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Revisiting the Compact City, Dempsey, N., (NOT FINAL PROOF) published in BUILT
ENVIRONMENT VOL 36 NO 1, pp. 5-8.

Dr Nicola Dempsey
As we reach the end of the first decade of the 21st century, the global population has moved
from predominantly rural to predominantly urban: and by 2030, there will be almost 5 billion
urban residents, constituting some 60% of the world’s inhabitants (United Nations Population
Fund, 2007). The size of cities in Africa and Asia is increasing dramatically and the number
of cities with populations of 10 million or more (known as ‘mega-cities’) stood at 20 in 2005
and continues to grow (Jenks et al., 2008). Providing shelter for so many urban residents is
critical and there is no shortage of claims of suitable urban forms within which urban
residents can be sustainably housed. High up on the list is the compact city, which has been
a well-cited settlement type for considerable time. Indeed in 1992, Built Environment ran a
themed issue on the topic of the compact city, which all favoured the concept, ‘or variants of
it’ to some degree (Breheny, 1992, p. 241). Almost 20 years on, this issue revisits the
compact city and questions the extent to which it continues to be described, and adopted, as
a model of sustainable urban form.

The papers in this issue build on the growing body of knowledge that has developed over
the years and question the validity of the compact city model within an ever-urbanising
world. There is clearly an underlying question which this issue attempts to tackle: is the
compact city a relevant concept in the predominantly urban 21st century?

The characteristics of the compact city are well-known and oft-repeated within the dominant
theoretical paradigm of sustainability (after Dempsey, 2008) which underpins much of
current political discourse. The compact city has a relatively high residential density with
mixed land uses. It is based on an efficient public transport system and has an urban layout
which encourages walking and cycling. It also supports low energy consumption and
therefore pollution is reduced (Breheny, 1992, Burton, 2000). There are many opportunities
for social interaction because of the large resident population which also provides a feeling
of safety in numbers and ‘eyes on the street’ (after Jacobs, 1961). It is a also sustainable
urban settlement type, in the eyes of compaction theorists, because the form is argued to be
less dependent on the car than urban sprawl, requiring less (and cheaper per capita)
infrastructure provision (Williams, 2000).

It has however been pointed out that these seemingly simple features of the compact city
are subjective and complex, and open to some degree of interpretation (Dempsey, 2008).
For example, increasing residential density is an important tenet of compact urban
development in theory and policy but can be a contentious issue in practice (Jenks and
Jones, 2010). While the growing evidence base supports the hypothetical advantages of the
compact city in providing equitable access to services and facilities (Burton, 2002), it does
not support claims that residents in high-density areas feel safer simply because there are
more people living in the vicinity (Bramley et al., 2009). But more fundamental than this:
there is no consensus on how high ‘high density’ residential urban development is. Newton
(in this issue) discusses the push to increase densities in Melbourne, Australia to 15
dwellings per hectare (dph). This is low by recent UK standards where policy interpretations
of high density development are recommended at a minimum of 30 dph (Department for
Communities and Local Government, 2006). However, as Dave points out in this issue, such
figures are incredibly low compared to many cities in South America and Asia such as
Buenos Aires, Karachi and Mumbai.

Such a lack of consensus can also be found in descriptions of appropriate land uses within a
compact city. For example, while wholly residential neighbourhoods are rejected in favour of
mixed-use neighbourhoods, there is consistently no mention of where unwanted land uses
such as landfill sites, prisons and airports might be housed within the compact city model
(Dempsey, 2008, Healey, 1997). This issue of definition often arises, to the point where it is
nigh impossible to identify how dense, connected, accessible or even sociable the compact
city may be (Dempsey, 2009).

Supporters of the concept would argue that this lack of consensus is due to the importance
of the wider cultural context of the compact city. Again looking at density as an example, a
comparison of some of the residential densities described as ‘high-density’ in this issue
would seem to confirm this argument. Lindsay et al examine UK housing developments
mainly between 26 and 42 dwellings per hectare, with two notable exceptions (of 87 and 153
dwellings per hectare). At the neighbourhood scale, Foord examines a dense London area
with 116 dwellings per hectare, also referring to London’s densest neighbourhood,
Kensington and Chelsea with over 130 dwellings per hectare. It is interesting to compare
these numbers with Dave’s sample in Mumbai, India. The residential densities are described
in her typology as low-density low-rise housing (up to 150 households per hectare (hph-
information on dwellings per hectare was not available)), medium density housing (150-300
hph) and high-density (over 300 hph). Residential density in Dharavi, the largest slum in
Asia, can reach between 600 and 1000 dwellings per hectare (Dempsey and Raman, 2009)
while in Kowloon, Hong Kong it reaches as high as 1,250 dwellings per hectare
(Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, 2005). The acceptability by
residents of the density of a development or neighbourhood can therefore be argued to
depend to some extent on the cultural and social norms in a given context. For example,
housing at the very high densities experienced in India and elsewhere in Asian cities would
not be accepted in the UK according to commentators given the widespread aspiration for
low-density semirural living, a legacy of Ebenezer Howard’s ‘Garden City’ (after Ward,
2002).

Part of the acceptability, or lack thereof, of the compact urban form might be attributed to
recent interpretations of the compact urban form which is often, by definition, high-density
and high-rise. Within the UK and Australian context, this is particularly contentious because
of this widespread propensity of low-density living. Lindsay et al report findings from a
project examining ‘sustainable’ new housing developments built between 2000 and 2005:
one of the criteria of such housing is that it is high (or of a higher than average) density.
They show how such housing developments can be designed and defined as ‘sustainable’ in
a range of ways. One such interpretation of ‘sustainability’ that has been adopted in UK new
housing is the widespread construction of housing (increasingly flats and apartments) at a
higher density than what came before, following the long-term national trend of providing
residents with less living space. Lindsay et al examine the impact that these and other
features of sustainability can have on perceived privacy in the home.

It has already been mentioned that sustainable housing developments also claim to provide
a mix of land uses for residents. In Lindsay et al’s study, the impact of such land uses is
examined from the perspective of the individual resident in the dwelling. Foord focuses on
mixed land uses at a wider urban scale. This study questions the compact city tenet that
concentrating diverse services and facilities in an urban setting creates local economic
vitality because local residents use locally provided services. Foord examines the overall
experience of a mixed-use neighbourhood from the perspective of resident and service
provider to ascertain the extent to which concentrating a diversity of services and facilities
leads to a vibrant local economy.

At the same urban scale, Raman explores the spatial structure of compact urban forms and
the extent to which this creates negative perceptions of high-density neighbourhoods.
Building on the general theme of understanding the relationship between urban form and
everyday life explored by Lindsay et al and Foord, he examines the impact that the spatial
layout and configuration of a dense neighbourhood can have on residents’ social networks
and social behaviour.
The other papers in this issue discuss a number of wider context-specific elements that can
have an impact on the urban form. Such elements include urban policies including the UK’s
green belt which looks to concentrate urban development and preserve the natural
environment in and around urban settlements (Hall, 2002). The implications of urban
development on greenbelt land are discussed by Lindsay et al and Newton. Floor area ratio
(FAR, or the floor space index) is another policy which can control how built-up a city is.
Dave discusses the wide range of FAR impact that this is having in Mumbai where there is
an ongoing debate about increasing the FAR, to allow for denser development and reduce
the urban sprawl. There may be development pressures in urban areas where land is
scarce, such as Hong Kong where only 21% of the land mass can be built on which is
amenable to a compact urban form (Lau et al., 2005, Tang et al., 2007). The rapid rate of
urban development which has occurred due to high economic growth is an important issue
for Mumbai and discussed in detail by Dave. Compact development is examined as a
potential and sustainable solution for Mumbai which is experiencing significant housing and
infrastructure shortages and increasing squatter settlements within a sprawling metropolis.
Mumbai is experiencing planned and unplanned urban development, at both ends of the
property spectrum, in the form of slums (such as Dharavi mentioned earlier) and gated
exclusive ‘townships’ (Dempsey and Raman, 2009). Dave’s paper calls on primary research
conducted in eleven neighbourhoods to examine the impact that features of the compact city
have on the social, economic and environmental sustainability of the city.

The prevalent urban form in Australia couldn’t be more different than the high-density
housing found in Mumbai. Newton discusses the very low-density and predominantly low-
rise housing in the Melbourne and the challenges that this poses for the city in the 21st
century. He reports on the potential for Australian cities to shift to more compact urban forms
through the development of ‘greyfield’ sites: those areas of low-density and ageing suburbs
which could be intensified through regeneration. It has been forecast by the Victorian state
government that Melbourne must provide 600,000 additional dwellings by 2030, over half of
which would be provided on greyfield sites. The other 40% or so would be developed on
greenfield sites. Newton points out that the energy use and impact on greenhouse gas
emissions of such sites are considerably higher than compact urban developments of the
same size, raising interesting questions for the potential that the compact city has to
contribute towards climate change mitigation. Such questions are posed by Williams et al.

Their paper complements Newton’s in its focus on the challenges inherent in aligning the
compact city concept with the need for climate change adaptation and mitigation. They
argue that the stance taken by many compact city advocates does not take into account
potentially conflicting priorities for the long-term protection of the environment. For them, the
‘compact good, suburban bad’ mantra ignores the fact that (in the UK context) most people
live (and choose to live) in the suburbs. They argue that recognition of this is fundamental to
any approach of climate change mitigation through the urban form.

The final paper in this issue by Dempsey and Jenks attempts to answer the question posed
at the beginning of this introduction. The relevance of the compact city model is examined in
light of the empirical findings discussed in these papers within the context of key challenges
facing cities in both developed and developing countries. Such challenges are wide ranging.
Fundamentally, the world’s population is in uncharted territory: it lives in a predominantly
urban setting which brings with it a wide range of social, economic and environmental
problems which affect everyone to varying degrees of cost and benefit. The implications of
this are discussed with a practical view of the contribution that research can make towards a
better understanding of the global and local situation.
 References
Bramley, G., Dempsey, N., Power, S. Brown, C. and Watkins, D. (2009) Social Sustainability
and Urban Form: evidence from British cities. Environment and Planning A, 41, pp. 2125-
2142.
Breheny, M. (1992) The Compact City: an introduction. Built Environment 18, pp. 241-246.
Burton, E. (2000) The Compact City: Just or Just Compact? A Preliminary Analysis. Urban
Studies,37, pp. 1969-2001.
Burton, E. (2002) Measuring Urban Compactness in U.K. Towns and Cities. Environment
and Planning B: Planning and Design 29, pp. 219-250.
Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (2005) Better Neighbourhoods:
Making higher densities work. London: CABE.
Dempsey, N. (2008) Quality of the built environment in urban neighbourhoods. Planning
Practice and Research, 23, pp. 249-264.
Dempsey, N. (2009) Are good-quality environments socially cohesive? Measuring quality
and cohesion in urban neighbourhoods. Town Planning Review, 80, pp. 315-345.
Dempsey, N. and Raman, S. (2009) UK-India collaborative research network examines
sustainable urban form in India’s rapidly growing cities. Urban Design and Planning, 162,
pp. 49-51.
Department for Communities and Local Government (2006) Planning Policy Statement 3
(PPS3): Housing. London: Communities and Local Government.
Hall, P. (2002) Urban and Regional Planning. London: Routledge.
Healey, P. (1997) Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies.
Basingstoke: MacMillan Press Ltd.
Jacobs, J. (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Harmondsworth: Penguin
Books.
Jenks, M. and Jones, C. (eds.) (2010) Dimensions of the Sustainable City. London: Springer.
Jenks, M., Kozak, D. and Takkanon, P. (eds.) (2008) World Cities and Urban Form:
fragmented, polycentric, sustainable? London: Routledge.
Lau, S., Wang, J., Giridharan, R. and Ganesan, S. (2005) High-Density, High-Rise and
Multiple and Intensive Land Use in Hong Kong: a future form for the new millennium, in
Jenks, M. and Dempsey, N. (eds.) Future Forms and Design for Sustainable Cities.
Oxford: Architectural Press.
Tang, B., Wong, S. and Lee, A.K. (2007) Green belt in a compact city: A zone for
conservation or transition? Landscape and Urban Planning 79, pp. 358–373.
United Nations Population Fund (2007) State of World Population 2007: Unleashing the
Potential of Urban Growth. New York: UNFPA.
Ward, S. (2002) The Howard Legacy, in Parsons, K. C. and Schuyler, D. (eds.) From
Garden City to Green City: the legacy of Ebenezer Howard. Baltimore: John Hopkins
University Press.
Williams, K. (2000) Does Intensifying Cities Make Them More Sustainable? in Williams, K.,
Burton, E. and Jenks, M. (eds.) Achieving Sustainable Urban Form. London: E & FN
Spon.

View publication stats