How can compact cities keep house prices under control?

Southwark (left): surprisingly un-dense. Image: Getty.

Islington is the most densely populated are in the United Kingdom – yet wandering around the quiet streets of the north London borough, it is difficult to appreciate just how many people live there. Handsome terraces, elegant squares and a plethora of parks disguise the fact that there are nearly 14,000 people per km2.

By comparison, anyone passing through Southwark, on the other side of the Thames, is immediately aware of the crowds of people who live and work in the area. New glass towers loom over the major roads, while older council housing squat heavily on the back streets. Cars crawl through the famously congested roundabout and the air is heavy with pollution.

Yet Southwark has fewer than 10,000 residents per km2. This means it is significantly less dense than many of its more desirable northern neighbours: Kensington and Chelsea, Hackney, Camden, Tower Hamlets and, of course, Islington.

Measuring the benefits of urban density

Increasing the number of people living and working in an area can generate huge benefits for a city. Productivity rises as people spend less time and money travelling, and can share knowledge and ideas more freely. Businesses can reduce their production costs when they have access to a greater choice of specialised suppliers and workers. And it’s cheaper to provide services such as health care, waste collection and buses when more people can use them.

For the first time, researchers have estimated the monetary value of these benefits to urban residents. Their findings have just been published in the first working paper from the Coalition for Urban Transitions, a network of over twenty organisations committed to enhancing the economic, social and environmental performance of cities.

Drawing on more than 300 academic papers, Demystifying Compact Urban Growth: Evidence from 300 Studies Across the World demonstrates that increasing population density generates significant economic returns. The authors find that a 10 per cent increase in the number of people living and working in an area enhances productivity by approximately £54 per person per year. Better access to jobs is worth another £48, while improved access to services and amenities is valued at £38. Increased population density is also associated with better environmental outcomes, including preservation of green space and greater energy efficiency.

All other things being equal, this suggests that compact cities like Hong Kong, New York and Paris are likely to be richer and more sustainable than sprawling cities such as Houston or Melbourne.

Managing the risks of urban density

A more compact city is not a silver bullet: there are also risks associated with increasing population density. Careful urban planning is required to mitigate these risks, and deliver the potential economic and environmental benefits.

First, a 10 per cent increase in the number of people living and working in an area can lead to more congestion, with an estimated cost of £27 per person a year. Significant investment in public transport, cycling lanes and pedestrian walkways is essential to ensure that people can move around the city without cars.

Second, this increase in density increases housing costs by £186 per person per year. Such growth in house prices might benefit people who own their own homes or rent out property – but it will be a challenge for renters. As low-income households are more likely to rent, there is a risk that compact city policies will exacerbate inequality within cities.

Governments can avoid an increase in housing costs through policies to increase housing supply. A steady flow of new homes coming on to the market can have a downward effect on housing prices, which may outweigh the upward effect caused by increasing population density.


Lessons from London

In the 19th century, the city of London undertook a series of extraordinarily ambitious urban infrastructure projects that continue to shape the city. The world’s first underground railway was opened in 1863; today, the London Underground carries an average five million passengers per day.

In the 1860s, a vast network of sewers and drains were constructed to serve the three million people living in London. These pipes ended the waves of dysentery, typhoid and cholera that devastated the city, and continue to be used by over 8m Londoners. These far-sighted investments enabled people to live and work in close proximity to each other, helping to sustain London’s population and economic growth for over a century.

A walk through London today suggests that the city is now struggling to manage population density. Despite Crossrail, the proliferation of cycling lanes and iconic red buses on every street, many people continue to depend on cars. As a result, London has the worst air pollution in Western Europe. A normal day’s exposure is equivalent to smoking 15 cigarettes.

The problems extend from transport to housing. House prices in Islington have doubled in the last decade, a period when real wages have stagnated. The soaring property prices are the favourite topic of struggling renters or prospective buyers. The city needs to build over 50,000 homes a year to keep up with population growth, while redressing decades of neglect in the existing housing stock.  The failures of London’s housing policy were made all too clear with shocking fire that devastated Grenfell Tower and the lives of its residents.

Thousands of people move to London every year for the economic and social opportunities associated with this extraordinary city. Its dynamism is due in no small part to its high population density. However, the city’s strained transport system and spiralling house prices underscore the importance of strategic government intervention to manage the risks of crowding so many people into such a small area. Large-scale investment in public transport and housing are essential to ensure that compact cities are also liveable and affordable.

Sarah Colenbrander is a researcher with the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) and senior economist with the Coalition for Urban Transitions. The working paper, Demystifying Compact Urban Growth: Evidence from 300 Studies Across the World, was prepared for the Coalition for Urban Transitions by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

 
 
 
 

There isn’t a war on the motorist. We should start one

These bloody people. Image: Getty.

When should you use the horn on a car? It’s not, and anyone who has been on a road in the UK in living memory will be surprised to hear this, when you are inconvenienced by traffic flow. Nor is it when you are annoyed that you have been very slightly inconvenienced by another driver refusing to break the law in a manner that is objectively dangerous, but which you perceive to be to your advantage.

According to the Highway Code:

“A horn should only be used when warning someone of any danger due to another vehicle or any other kind of danger.”

Let’s be frank: neither you nor I nor anyone we have ever met has ever heard a horn used in such a manner. Even those of us who live in or near places where horns perpetually ring out due to the entitled sociopathy of most drivers. Especially those of us who live in or near such places.

Several roads I frequently find myself pushing a pram up and down in north London are two way traffic, but allow parking on both sides. This being London that means that, in practice, they’re single track road which cars can enter from both ends.

And this being London that means, in practice, that on multiple occasions every day, men – it is literally always men – glower at each other from behind the steering wheels of needlessly big cars, banging their horns in fury that circumstances have, usually through the fault of neither of them, meant they are facing each other on a de facto single track road and now one of them is going to have to reverse for a metre or so.

This, of course, is an unacceptable surrender as far as the drivers’ ego is concerned, and a stalemate seemingly as protracted as the cold war and certainly nosier usually emerges. Occasionally someone will climb out of their beloved vehicle and shout and their opponent in person, which at least has the advantages of being quieter.

I mentioned all this to a friend recently, who suggested that maybe use of car horns should be formally restricted in certain circumstances.

Ha ha ha. Hah.

The Highway Code goes on to say -

“It is illegal to use a horn on a moving vehicle on a restricted road, a road that has street lights and a 30 mph limit, between the times of 11:30 p.m. and 07:00 a.m.”

Is there any UK legal provision more absolutely and comprehensively ignored by those to whom it applies? It might as well not be there. And you can bet that every single person who flouts it considers themselves law abiding. Rather than the perpetual criminal that they in point of fact are.


In the 25 years since I learned to drive I have used a car horn exactly no times, despite having lived in London for more than 20 of them. This is because I have never had occasion to use it appropriately. Neither has anyone else, of course, they’ve just used it inappropriately. Repeatedly.

So here’s my proposal for massively improving all UK  suburban and urban environments at a stroke: ban horns in all new cars and introduce massive, punitive, crippling, life-destroying fines for people caught using them on their old one.

There has never been a war on motorists, despite the persecution fantasies of the kind of middle aged man who thinks owning a book by Jeremy Clarkson is a substitute for a personality. There should be. Let’s start one. Now.

Phase 2 will be mandatory life sentences for people who don’t understand that a green traffic light doesn’t automatically mean you have right of way just because you’re in a car.

Do write in with your suggestions for Phase 3.