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

Abstract

Urban compaction policies have been widely adopted in developed countries in pursuit of more sustainable cities. Compactness is achieved through a process of 'densification', of developing and using land and buildings more intensively. However, empirical evidence on the processes and outcomes of urban densification is lacking. The paper addresses this lacuna. It considers densification in England, a country that has long experience of applying policies of urban containment and consolidation; and one where new data sources allow the analysis of recent land use change at a level of detail not hitherto possible. In England between 2001 and 2011, the bulk of additional dwellings were accommodated within urban areas, increasing their density. Yet, there were wide inter-and intra-regional variations in the pattern of densification: for example, in the contributions of large scale, formal development and of small scale, informal, gradual change -of 'hard' and 'soft' densification -to the process. The significant differences in local experiences of densification that result raise major issues for policy.

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.…”

“…Like brownfield and greyfield development it may completely change the appearance of neighbourhoods. Soft densification is accomplished by, for example, adding extra floors to existing buildings [ 50 ], or by building extra housing units on existing larger residential parcels that were still vacant [ 14 , 51 ], or by splitting existing larger units into smaller units [ 50 ]. This type of densification often has a much smaller impact on urban structure and sometimes is hardly visible to a visitor of the area.…”

Household presentation of influenza and acute respiratory illnesses to a primary care sentinel network: retrospective database studies (2013–2018)

“…Based upon factors including density of population, this classification relies upon a methodology employed by a UK government agency (the Dept. for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs), published by the ONS (Office for National Statistics); see, for example, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/239477/RUC11methodologypaperaug_28_Aug.pdf, [22] and differences related to urban, rural or regional location. We stratified by age, gender, deprivation (determined by converting post code at individual level to IMD quintile (the national measure of small area socioeconomic status) [23].…”

Incremental residential densification and urban spatial justice: The case of England between 2001 and 2011

“…In all other regions, infill construction was the dominant form of soft densification: markedly so in the South-East and the South-West. Using the example of the London region, Bibby et al (2020) also illustrated the substantial intra-urban variation in soft densification. Some of the conurbation's inner suburbs were obvious foci of soft densification: densification primarily achieved through the subdivision of dwellings.…”