Density Part II

After several complaints from people that I had called my first post in favor of urban density "Part 1" without shortly posting a part 2, I have decided it might be time to post another entry. I have also been reminded by Hurricane how long it has been since my last post. I have been remiss, I realize. But I might point out that unlike some people, I do not spend the better part of my workday in front of a computer.

 
 

So.

 
 

The next argument comes from something that I have noticed becoming a larger trend recently, namely the recycling of building materials. This has been covered in numerous journals, such as Dwell. While Dwell's primary mission is not necessarily promoting urban density, they do talk quite a bit about green structures, and as my previous posting on density argued, density makes green easier. In the course of recycling building materials, it makes sense to keep as much of the material on-site as possible. In effect, to remodel by recycling. This reduces the amount of transport required, obviously, and has at least in some cases inspired some truly beautiful remodels.

 
 

Next, we have an argument that as yet defies an easy title. Basically it involves a web of infrastructure that high-density development makes more useful and practical. I alluded to this in my first post, here is a little more detail.

 
 

One: public transit. As cities become more sprawling mass transit becomes less practical. I touched on this in my previous density post but it bears a little more discussion. In a city like New York, it is impractical to own a car because it is easy to get around by a combination of subway and bus. In a city like Austin, those without vehicles of their own are restricted to certain neighborhoods that are well serviced by the bus system, or to being homebound. Let's take a closer look at the two forms of public transport that are available in NYNY.

 
 

Trains are attractive for a number of reasons. For one, because they run on a proprietary set of paths, they are easier to schedule. Another is that with minor changes they can run on a completely different source of energy. Especially with systems that run on electricity (see below.)

 
 

Buses work okay by themselves on a small scale, but in larger cities they can be unbelievably useful as a supplement to a rail system. Like trains, because there is a limited fleet of buses, it is possible to change the type of energy they use for a low cost.

 
 

The second thread of the infrastructure that is made more efficient with higher density is electricity. Less mileage of power lines and less substation infrastructure means less overall loss of power due to power lines absorbing electricity. Electricity is a great form of power to use because it is cheap to transport and when you have an existing distribution network, it becomes easy to change the base power source. So, if something cleaner is discovered, it is a relatively simple matter to change what the power plant is running on. Of course, changing from one fuel source to another is still expensive, but it is a lot cheaper to change a power plant than it is to change every car and every central heater in the country.

 
 

The third is roads. More cars on more roads means more maintenance of those roads. With a dense urban development, road maintenance is still a hassle, but it becomes more reasonable to shut down a block or two for a day to resurface because people can walk where they need to go, or get on the public transportation. Sure, if you have the money to own a car, it's a pain in the ass, but you are not stuck in one place. With sprawl, especially with suburbs giving way to exurbs, it is completely conceivable that major road repairs would eliminate the only reasonable route to and from work.

 
 

The fourth infrastructure item is sewage and wastewater. This may be the least obvious but most important. As sewer systems attenuate, there is a greater chance for a catastrophic failure, and just as with roads, the maintenance becomes more and more costly and difficult. There is a second problem here that few people realize, although it is obvious when it is brought up. In sewage and wastewater pipes, small breaks, which do not result in obvious leaks, still allow water to enter. This became an issue during the floods in Houston TX in 2001, when a wastewater system so stretched out it was virtually impossible to maintain properly allowed huge amounts of rainwater to enter the wastewater system and from there caused sewage treatment plants to overflow, making the floodwaters more toxic than they already were.

 
 

Okay, discuss.