Why urban densification ignores the social dimension of sustainability

The business of densification refers to more or less aggressive urban development practices that use the broad political consensus on the need for urban densification to promote profit-driven development, often dressed up in the rhetoric of eco-efficiency, and to the detriment of social policy objectives (e.g. affordable housing, cultural heritage, community cohesion). The implementation of urban densification requires deep changes in the practice of land-use planning because, as opposed to greenfield developments, it occurs in a complex web of established rights and interests. These more active forms of planning interventions are referred to as “land policy” in a growing body of literature (including in this special issue). In the context of densification, land policy tends to be appraised in planning debates as purely instrumental, that is, as a more effective and proactive administrative strategy for improved project implementation. In this commentary, relying on empirical data from the Netherlands and Switzerland, we argue that land policy is in fact a hybrid construct that merges both progressive and neoliberal elements. We discuss how the hybrid nature of land policy generates tensions in project implementation as different discourses and representations collide. Therefore, there is a real need to accurately assess the true ideological scope of urban changes implemented in the name of densification, as land policy is fundamentally value-loaded. If planners remain blind to the political dimension of land policy, the business of densification will flourish, and social sustainability objectives will be systematically relegated to the background.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Urban Studies
Published
2025-11-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980251386974
Primary Topic
Urban Planning and Governance
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Why urban densification ignores the social dimension of sustainability

Stéphane Nahrath, Mathias Jehling, Deniz Ay, Josje Bouwmeester et al.
Urban Studies
Urban Planning and Governance
article

Why urban densification ignores the social dimension of sustainability

Stéphane Nahrath, Mathias Jehling, Deniz Ay, Josje Bouwmeester, Jean‐David Gerber, Jessica Verheij, Vera Götze, Thomas Hartmann
article en

Abstract

The business of densification refers to more or less aggressive urban development practices that use the broad political consensus on the need for urban densification to promote profit-driven development, often dressed up in the rhetoric of eco-efficiency, and to the detriment of social policy objectives (e.g. affordable housing, cultural heritage, community cohesion). The implementation of urban densification requires deep changes in the practice of land-use planning because, as opposed to greenfield developments, it occurs in a complex web of established rights and interests. These more active forms of planning interventions are referred to as “land policy” in a growing body of literature (including in this special issue). In the context of densification, land policy tends to be appraised in planning debates as purely instrumental, that is, as a more effective and proactive administrative strategy for improved project implementation. In this commentary, relying on empirical data from the Netherlands and Switzerland, we argue that land policy is in fact a hybrid construct that merges both progressive and neoliberal elements. We discuss how the hybrid nature of land policy generates tensions in project implementation as different discourses and representations collide. Therefore, there is a real need to accurately assess the true ideological scope of urban changes implemented in the name of densification, as land policy is fundamentally value-loaded. If planners remain blind to the political dimension of land policy, the business of densification will flourish, and social sustainability objectives will be systematically relegated to the background.

Urban Studies
University of California, Los Angeles (US), Utrecht University (NL), TU Dortmund University (DE), Swiss School of Public Health (CH), Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and Regional Development (DE), Institute of Geography of the Slovak Academy of Sciences (SK), University of Lausanne (CH)
Openalex Percentile: Top 55%
Urban Planning and Governance
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.