Read on Twitter
One question that comes up a lot for me at work is: “what is the goal of more density in Cleveland?”, and it’s a good question. It is not always obvious how the community/city benefits. Over the last few weeks I have done some math and some mapping to inform this discussion.
To start, I did some research. The FTA has a practitioner’s guide for transit-supportive development (2014) which found the median density of urban projects to be 36 units/acre. Cleveland participated in a study on West 25th (2015) which recommends 11 units/acre as a minimum.
Next I mapped a 1-acre hexagonal grid across the Near-West side, and cropped it to fall within a ¼ mile walkshed (~ 5 min) of the current high-frequency transit lines like West 25th. I also added in the 81 line as it’s the only bus line in my neighborhood (Tremont).
Then it's just a matter of counting the number of units in each hexagon. The results are pretty cool! Adding up all of the units in my neighborhood, we’re sitting at about 9.65 units/acre. To hit a minimum of 11, we need about 1,347 more units!
In case the legend isn't readable: grey = no units; light blue = <11 units/acre; aqua blue = 11-35 units/acre; dark blue = >36 units/acre.
There are some caveats here: the data isn’t perfect, and I need to go back and add in some projects that are currently planned. But I can tell you those projects do not yet add up to 1,347 units. This is a work in progress.
But so is Planning. And adding density isn’t simple: it ought to be done in ways that are contextually compatible with neighborhoods, and the growing pains need mitigation strategies like parking meters, better ride-sharing, and more bike infrastructure.
However we still need clear goals to shoot for, and explicitly connecting density to transit (because it is implicitly connected) is one way to do so. We want a city where taking a bus is a convenient and reliable way to get around.
Density is a neccessary, but not sufficent part of that. Still, more people is good in a city: it makes it easier and safer to get around without a car. This is important: 1. not everyone owns a car (about 25% of Clevelanders don’t) and 2. cars are dangerous, and they pollute.
Having more people around adds to an “eyes on the street” strategy for safety, and it’s more sustainable to live closer to things. It’s important strategy as we adapt to climate change. The goal isn’t to ban cars, it’s about balance, and in my neighborhood it feels imbalanced.
Anyway, my goal here is to put more information, more positivity, out into the world. Social media can be tough for these topics, so I am planning some Planning workshops to better explain the City's processes, and discuss the thornier things. When it's ready I'll share here.
