Hard and Soft Densification Policies in the Paris City‐Region

Abstract

This essay is concerned with the planning and densification of suburbs, which present a huge challenge insofar as they form a large area of urbanized land that remains underexploited due to low residential density. Drawing on current research in the Paris cityregion, the essay focuses specifically on the difficulty in implementing densification policies in low-rise suburban areas. It examines the varying degrees of densification fostered by these policies, and builds upon recent urban studies literature on suburban change to trace how suburban areas are being transformed through regulations, instruments and market dynamics associated with densification processes. What kinds of densification policy are being implemented and what are the socio-economic, political and cultural determinants of each type of regulatory approach? This essay will attempt to answer this question via an analysis of the densification policies being put in place in the municipalities of the Paris city-region. It will offer in turn a typology of these different policies. It shows that densification is an instrument that can be used to address local political concerns which vary greatly depending on the economic, social and geographical position of municipalities within larger urban areas.

Urban density and spatial planning: The unforeseen impacts of Dutch devolution

“…The third type of development is densification through the addition of extra housing units to areas that are already predominantly residential. This type of densification can be subdivided into two categories: hard and soft densification [ 14 ], where hard densification refers mainly to the demolition of existing buildings and their replacement by new housing units [ 14 , 50 ]. Like brownfield and greyfield development it may completely change the appearance of neighbourhoods.…”

“…What is clear is that incumbent residents often oppose densification of their neighbourhood, which strongly suggests that they anticipate negative effects. Densification may diminish the number or size of parks and public spaces, cause property depreciation, or result in a change in social composition, and hence threatens to decrease their quality of life [ 14 ]. Planning procedures often take opinions of incumbent inhabitants into account for any proposed change in land use and weigh them heavily.…”

Under the radar? ‘Soft’ residential densification in England, 2001–2011

“…Formal planning policy and practice focuses on promoting relatively large-scale re/development involving major developers, investors and infrastructure providers. This results in a significant change in urban form and much disruption during the development period (Pinnegar et al, 2015;Touati-Morel, 2015, 2016. In contrast, densification may occur incrementally through the actions of local contractors and, to a lesser extent, of the owners of small sites and buildings.…”

“…Such gradual change is more difficult for planners to control and usually prompts limited local resistance 4 but, cumulatively, may result in substantial neighbourhood change (Pinnegar et al, 2015). Touati-Morel (2015, 2016) labels the former 'hard' densification and the latter 'soft' densification.…”

Land-policy instruments for densification: the Dutch quest for control

“…Densification can be the primary mechanism, for example, to contain urban sprawl, but may also be part of wider aspirations, as is the case with transit-oriented development, urban growth boundaries (Dierwechter, 2014), smart growth (Addison et al, 2013), the compact city (Westerink et al, 2013) or new urbanism (Neuman, 2005). The implementation of these densification policies is a challenge for local governments for both political and economic reasons (Touati-Morel, 2015). The lack of available land for development within existing urban areas is one of the main problems for densification.…”