Tanzer: How dense should Gainesville grow?

OPINION

BY KIM TANZER

Since 2018, the City has put forward three versions of the same proposal—increasing density within residential neighborhoods—arguing that Gainesville needs increased density City-wide, including every existing neighborhood.

We have not, as a community, had the opportunity to discuss the underlying premise: How dense should Gainesville become?

First, a definition: Density describes the number of people living per square mile in a defined place, like a city, county, or state. Using Wikipedia to compare, the City of Gainesville has 2,226 people per square mile, similar to Orlando (2,774 people/square mile) or Austin Texas (3,006 people/square mile), but far less dense than London (14,500 people/square mile) or Hong Kong (17,614 people/ square mile).

Urbanists argue the virtues of increased density, and many of us can find examples to support this position:

Increased density can reduce the linear feet of infrastructure. The pragmatic among us recognize that shorter infrastructure runs would save materials and labor costs, including reduction of the linear feet of road maintenance and repaving.

Increased density can increase the use of public transportation. Those of us who have benefited from robust public transportation—subways, commuter trains, frequent bus service—prefer it to long, individual driving commutes. It provides time to read, listen to podcasts, or reflect on the day’s activities rather than focusing on the road.

Increased density can promote pedestrian-based commerce by building a larger customer base. Most people would like the opportunity to walk down the street to meet friends for coffee or do simple grocery shopping. Better still, older children or elders would benefit from the car independence found in traditional city centers.

Increased density can conserve greenspace by clustering development. Greenspace provides many important ecological benefits, including stormwater retention, oxygen production, and habitats for native and migrating birds, bees, and other creatures. Even for those who don’t know or care about these benefits, we know intuitively that spending time in natural spaces is good for our emotional and physical health.

Density can create opportunities for serendipitous exchanges. About a decade ago, the book Emergence captured the imagination of some of Gainesville’s leaders. It suggested that random encounters on heavily populated sidewalks might lead energetic “creatives” to encounter each other while walking, leading to marketable innovations. This was the same logic that led Google and other Silicon Valley companies to offer their employees foosball, pool tables, and open office settings in the 2010s. 

Having just outlined the case that increased density can have many positive benefits for cities, why have I chosen to oppose each wave of City-wide upzoning proposals over the past six years? Simply put, I do not believe any of these proposals would lead to the positive outcomes described above. 

Taking each claim in order: 

Infrastructure. The sources of Gainesville’s primary utilities (water, power, wastewater) are located in disparate places across the City. Our water comes from Northeast 53^rd Avenue, while much of our power is generated near the intersection of NW 43^rd Street and Highway 441. Most wastewater west of West 13^th Street flows to the Kanapaha Water Reclamation Facility in the southwest, near Archer Road and SW 75th Street. Unlike the video game SIM City, we do not have centralized infrastructure to consolidate around.

Public transportation. Gainesville’s bus system, RTS, does not appear to be aligned with urban design goals. We have relatively few routes, and some run infrequently. In any case, they could not run through every neighborhood to pick up riders who prefer or require public transportation. Density along major roads, like University Avenue, 13^th Street, and Archer Road provide a start toward realistic public transportation, but zoning and public transit are not strategically aligned in most people’s minds. So far, bus service is not convenient, even for those who need it most.

“Market-sheds.” Developers and real estate professionals know that certain types of businesses require a certain size customer base. (For example, how many cups of coffee must be sold daily to pay for the staffing, rent, insurance, taxes, raw materials, and profit to successfully operate a coffee shop?) Obviously, most neighborhoods would not have enough customers to support such a shop, which is why they are found mostly on major roads in Gainesville and elsewhere. 

Greenspace. While building densely can preserve legally protected greenspace, in Gainesville we are building both out (sprawl) and up (apartment buildings). The City and County, along with the Alachua Conservation Trust, have purchased thousands of acres of greenspace over the past several decades. Still, as we see, much former farmland is being converted to subdivisions, an urban form still desirable to many. Like most 20^th-century American cities, the sprawling development patterns established decades ago cannot simply be eliminated; we need a plan to add density strategically.

Sidewalk exchanges. Regarding the value of serendipitous pedestrian exchanges, I have come to recognize that we are more likely to spark conversations in “third places” (neither home nor work, but a “third place” like in the TV show “Cheers”) than randomly on the street. 

If ordinances mandating city-wide increased density will not lead to positive density-related outcomes, how might we proceed? First, we need to discuss the pros and cons of increased density, preferably in respectful, in-person settings, to understand each other’s concerns. I believe most of us would acknowledge the value of strategic increased density.

Second, we need to understand the “shape” of our city. As Commissioner Cynthia Chestnut recently observed, our City is at least 62 square miles. It is one and a half times as large as Paris, by area. Allowing developers to randomly add housing anywhere across these 62 square miles will not lead to any of the density benefits described above.

Perhaps, rather than just asking, “How dense should we grow?” we should also ask, “Where—in which parts of the City–should we grow more densely?” Most of us recognize people are moving to Florida, as they have continuously over the last century. Where might they live that would contribute to a richer, more interesting community?  How might this increased density benefit most of us?

I propose we consider increasing density consistent with Gainesville’s current growth patterns and with centuries of recognized urban growth models. For example, we might consider adding density along major roadways or expanding out from our many activity centers. Each of these patterns already exists in Gainesville and could be amplified through combined public and private urban design initiatives.

In future columns I will discuss these approaches more thoroughly.

Kim Tanzer lives in Gainesville. She is a former UF architecture professor, who was also dean of the University of Virginia School of Architecture.

The opinions expressed by letter or opinion writers are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of AlachuaChronicle.com. Letters may be submitted to info@alachuachronicle.com and are published at the discretion of the editor.