Talk:Urban density

Urban densification

• I was surprised when I entered "Urban densification" into the search field and got nothing. I want to write an Urban densification article, but not being really hip to urban planning lingo, I want to make sure before I do that that I'm not reduplicating any existing page or material. Does anyone know if this topic is already covered on Wikipedia? Does anyone have any ideas for such an article or want to help?--Hraefen ^Talk 03:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Effects of urban density

The article should include research on the effects of urban density. There is quite a bit of research to suggest that dense, mixed-use areas create healthier populations, more integrated communities, etc. There may be contrary research. Either way it should be included. Some good examples in the "Urban Density, Sprawl, and Land Use Planning" section of this page: http://www.nwpublichealth.org/web-specials/built-environment . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.153.94.169 (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Graph

ive removed the graph.... it was blatently inaccurate. afaik, new york is denser than london or paris [edit: London but not Paris from what i find when i search], and it is CERTAINLY denser than Los Angeles, but not according to the graph. make a new one with proper data if you want it back BBnet3000 (talk) 00:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Liddle's comment on this article

Dr. Liddle has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

The comment attributed to O’Toole: Something seems missing from the idea that higher density causes higher real estate prices (it’s ironic that a libertarian would complain about high prices unless the prices were caused by regulation). If real estate markets function, then higher prices are a result of improved amenities. So density would not directly increase prices unless people valued density explicitly.

The last sentence of the Sustainability section could be expanded/made more precise. For example, as reported in Liddle (2014) several studies demonstrated a relationship between higher levels of urban density and (i) lower levels of transport energy consumption (e.g., Newman and Kenworthy 1989; Kenworthy and Laube 1999), (ii) lower levels of electricity consumption in buildings (e.g., Lariviere and Lafrance 1999), and (iii) lower levels of greenhouse gas emissions (e.g., Marcotullio et al. 2012). (Newman and Kenworthy only considered energy used in transport.)

Kenworthy, J. and Laube, F. 1999. Patterns of automobile dependence in cities: an international overview of key physical and economic dimensions with some implications for urban policy. Transportation Research Part A, 33, 691–723.

Lariviere, I. And Lafrance, G. 1999. Modelling the electricity consumption of cities: effect of urban density. Energy Economics 21(1), 53-66.

Liddle, B. Impact of Population, Age Structure, and Urbanization on Greenhouse Gas Emissions/Energy Consumption: Evidence from Macro-level, Cross-country Analyses. Population and Environment, Vol. 35, 2014.

Marcotullio, P., Sarzynski, A., Albrecht, J., and Schulz, N. 2012. The geography of urban greenhouse gas emissions in Asia: A regional analysis. Global Environmental Change 22, 944-958.

Newman, P. and Kenworthy, J. 1989. Cities and automobile dependence: An international sourcebook. Gower Technical, Aldershot, UK.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Liddle has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

• Reference : Liddle, Brantley & Lung, Sidney, 2013. "Might electricity consumption cause urbanization instead? Evidence from heterogeneous panel long-run causality tests," MPRA Paper 52333, University Library of Munich, Germany.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Sustainability

There seemed to be a problem with the sustainability section. In particular, the statement that “The link between urban density and aspects of sustainability remains a contested area of planning theory” did not appear to be adequately supported by the sources cited.

The section presented the literature as a debate between, on the one hand, claims about the sustainability benefits of greater urban density and, on the other, claims attributed to Randal O’Toole that increasing density results in more expensive real estate, greater road congestion, and more localized air pollution. However, no source was provided for the latter claims. O’Toole is a libertarian economist affiliated with the Cato Institute, and the section did not cite first-hand empirical research supporting these claims.

I have therefore revised the section to focus more directly on empirical research concerning the relationship between urban density and environmental sustainability. I also removed the unsupported O’Toole sentence, as well as the general characterization of the relationship as a “contested area of planning theory.” If reliable sources establish a relevant contemporary scholarly debate, this can of course be reintroduced with appropriate citations.

In revising the section, I also checked for more recent research rather than simply retaining the older Newman and Kenworthy (1999) source. The evidence suggests a more nuanced picture than either a simple positive or negative relationship between density and sustainability. Jones (2014) finds lower average household carbon footprints in urban cores than in surrounding suburbs, while showing that the relationship between population density and household carbon footprints varies across density levels. Wang et al. (2024), using data from 276 Chinese cities, find a significant negative relationship between population density and per-capita energy consumption. Finally, a 2023 systematic review by Narimani Abar et al. finds that 67% of the studies reviewed report a negative relationship between density and residential energy use, while also showing that the direction of the relationship depends on methodological and contextual factors, including climate.

On this basis, I replaced the section with text that reports these empirical findings and their qualifications directly, rather than framing the literature as a general dispute between proponents and opponents of urban density. The revised section now reads:

“Empirical research has found associations between urban density and several measures of environmental sustainability, although these relationships vary depending on the measure and urban context. A study of household carbon footprints in the United States found lower average carbon footprints in urban cores than in surrounding suburbs, with the relationship between population density and household carbon footprints varying across levels of density.[6] More recent research based on 276 Chinese cities found a significant negative relationship between population density and per-capita energy consumption.[7] A systematic review found that 67% of the studies it examined reported a negative relationship between density and residential energy use, while also finding that the direction of this relationship varies according to methodological and contextual factors, including climate. In particular, higher density was associated with lower residential energy use in cold climates but not necessarily in temperate regions.[8]”

This seems to me to better represent the current empirical evidence while also making clear that the environmental effects associated with urban density are context-dependent rather than uniform.~2026-43582-04 (talk) 15:39, 7 August 2026 (UTC)