Why Density Doesn’t Automatically Mean Sustainability
I feel like I should preface this article by saying I grew up in a city. I love visiting the city to see a movie, check out a museum or meet up with my friends. But, I have dedicated the last 15 years of my life to studying and testing solutions to the climate crisis, and I feel like it is time to dispel a myth about cities.
The idea that packing more people into cities — through apartment buildings, high-rises, and urban centers — is the best way to live sustainably has become a popular belief. The argument goes like this: denser living reduces individual carbon footprints by encouraging public transportation, cutting down on suburban sprawl, and using less land per person. But this perspective misses some big hidden costs. While cities can be efficient in some ways, they don’t necessarily reduce overall resource use. In fact, they often create new problems, like relying on massive supply chains, energy-hungry infrastructure, and concentrated waste. True sustainability isn’t about cramming people together — it’s about finding ways for human communities to live in harmony with nature.
This article takes a closer look at the environmental downsides of dense urban living, from the land needed to grow food to the energy required to keep cities running. It also explores an alternative vision: smaller, interconnected communities that blend modern life with natural systems, creating a more balanced and sustainable way of living.
A Bit of Context: How We Got Here
For most of human history, cities were small, lively hubs of trade and culture, surrounded by vast stretches of countryside where most people lived. Life in rural villages revolved around the land — growing food, raising animals, and crafting goods for everyday life. Cities like Florence in Italy or Bruges in Belgium were busy places, but they relied on the surrounding villages for food and resources. Even ancient cities, like Ur in Mesopotamia or Babylon, were deeply connected to the farms and fields that fed them. It was a balanced way of life, where urban and rural worlds supported each other.
Then came the Industrial Revolution, and everything changed. Factories sprang up, and cities began to grow at an incredible pace. Places like Manchester in England became magnets for people seeking work. In just a few decades, Manchester went from a small town of 25,000 to a sprawling city of over 300,000. Workers crammed into tiny apartments close to the factories, while the countryside emptied out. In Scotland, landlords forced farmers off their land to make way for sheep, leaving villages abandoned. Families who had lived on the same land for generations moved to cities or even left the country altogether. The same story played out in Japan, where young people left rural areas like Tohoku for jobs in Tokyo or Osaka, leaving behind empty homes and aging communities.
With fewer people to work the land, farming had to change. Machines and chemicals replaced human labor. In the American Midwest, small family farms were replaced by huge fields of corn and soy, tended by tractors and sprayed with fertilizers. In India and Mexico, the Green Revolution introduced high-yield crops and pesticides, which helped feed growing populations but also harmed the environment. The close connection between people and the land began to fade, replaced by industrial-scale agriculture.
In the cities, life wasn’t much easier. Workers often lived in crowded, unhealthy conditions, and their lives were tightly controlled by factory owners. Some companies even built entire towns for their workers, like Pullman in the U.S. or Krupp in Germany. These “company towns” were designed to keep workers dependent — they lived in company housing, shopped at company stores, and were always under the watchful eye of their employers. Even the grand redesign of Paris in the 19th century, with its wide boulevards and beautiful buildings, had a darker side: the new streets made it easier for the government to control protests and uprisings.
Over time, city life became more isolating. Kids growing up in places like London or New York often had little connection to nature. Many had never seen a farm or a wild animal up close. This disconnect from the natural world made it harder for people to understand or care about environmental issues. At the same time, the pressure of so many people living in one place drove up housing costs, leading to crises in cities like San Francisco and Hong Kong, where finding an affordable home became nearly impossible.
But now, things are shifting again. Many of the factory jobs that once drew people to cities are gone, and remote work is becoming more common. This opens up new possibilities. In places like Ollolai, a small village in Sardinia, homes are being sold for just €1 to attract new residents. In the U.S., the tiny house movement is helping people downsize and live closer to nature. These trends hint at a new way of living — one that blends the best of urban and rural life. It’s a chance to rebuild communities, reconnect with the land, and create a future that’s not just dense, but truly sustainable.
Why Density Isn’t Necessarily the Answer
The Hidden Land Footprint of Cities
Cities might not take up much space on a map, but they rely on a huge amount of land elsewhere to survive. Think about food: most of what city dwellers eat is grown on farms hundreds or even thousands of miles away. Cities depend on external sources for almost everything — food, building materials, energy, and more. This means that while cities themselves might seem compact, their environmental impact stretches far beyond their borders. Some argue that more production can be implemented within cities, and that’s true to an extent. But there’s a limit to how much this can be done without completely rebuilding cities. If we’re going to tear down and rebuild, there are better, more sustainable options.
In contrast, smaller, decentralized communities can grow their own food, produce their own energy, and use local resources in ways that work with nature, not against it. By integrating agriculture, renewable energy, and sustainable building practices into their design, these communities can reduce the need for long-distance transportation and create systems that regenerate the land instead of depleting it.
Social and Cultural Considerations
High-density living can sometimes lead to social isolation, stress, and mental health challenges due to overcrowding, noise, and lack of green spaces. Smaller, nature-integrated communities would foster stronger social bonds and improve overall well-being. For example, eco-villages often emphasize shared spaces and collaborative decision-making, creating a sense of belonging and mutual support.
Decentralized communities are also better able to help preserve local cultures and traditions that are often lost in homogenized urban environments. This cultural diversity is an important aspect of a resilient global ecosystem, as it encourages innovation and adaptability.
The Energy and Transportation Trade-Off
Cities are often praised for being energy-efficient, but this isn’t the whole story. While it’s true that people in cities might drive less, the resources needed to keep cities running — like food, water, and building materials — have to be transported in from far away. This creates a massive web of trucks, ships, and planes burning fossil fuels to keep cities supplied.
On top of that, urban infrastructure is incredibly energy-intensive. Skyscrapers need elevators, heating and cooling systems, and lights that stay on around the clock. Building and maintaining these structures requires a lot of energy, far more than smaller, low-rise buildings or homes built into the landscape. Cities also suffer from the “heat island” effect, where all the concrete and asphalt trap heat, making them hotter and increasing the need for air conditioning — which, of course, uses even more energy.
Smaller communities, on the other hand, can adopt simpler, low-energy solutions. For example, they can use passive solar design for heating and cooling, rely on local renewable energy sources like solar panels and wind turbines, and implement bike-friendly or walkable layouts. These approaches not only reduce energy use but also make communities more resilient to disruptions in centralized energy grids.
The Strain of Urban Infrastructure
Cities require a lot of infrastructure to function: roads, sewage systems, power grids, and water networks. All of this needs constant upkeep and consumes vast amounts of resources. Cities also produce enormous amounts of waste, much of which is shipped off to landfills or incinerators far away. Recycling and composting are often limited by space, which means more trash ends up polluting the environment. Additionally, the foundations of cities are heavy and often interfere with natural water flow and soil compaction.
Another issue is that dense living creates artificial scarcity. With so many people competing for limited space, the cost of housing and food skyrockets, making it harder for people to afford sustainable options. Instead of making sustainable living easier, cities often push people into systems where they have no choice but to rely on resource-intensive, expensive ways of life.
The Walkability Myth
One of the biggest arguments for cities is that they’re walkable, reducing the need for cars. While it’s true that city dwellers might drive less, this doesn’t cancel out the environmental impact of everything else that goes into keeping a city running. Food, goods, and materials still have to be transported long distances, and public transportation systems, while better than everyone driving, still require a lot of energy and resources to build and maintain.
Get Avriel Skolnick’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
In smaller communities, transportation can be simpler and more sustainable. Think bike paths, electric vehicles powered by local solar energy, and walkable village designs. These options don’t just reduce emissions — they also make communities more resilient, since they’re less dependent on large, centralized systems that can fail during economic or political crises.
A Better Way: Reintegrating into Ecosystems
Let’s be really clear, current ways of rural living have their sustainability downsides. Mainly, difficulty accessing things they need without driving, more infrastructure to bring energy to their homes, and less investment into making rural farming spaces function as healthy ecosystems. But, as we discussed at the beginning, the current rural way of life is a consequence of industrialisation and the brain drain of newer generations to city centers.
So What Am I Talking About?
Instead of packing more people into cities, we can create smaller, interconnected communities that work with nature instead of against it. These communities can grow their own food, generate their own energy, and manage waste in ways that turn it into resources rather than pollution. Imagine “LightFactories” — local hubs where communities produce what they need, reducing reliance on global supply chains while still staying connected to larger cultural and technological centers.
This approach wouldn’t just reduce environmental impact — it would also help people feel more connected to the natural world. When people see where their food comes from and understand how their energy is produced, they’re more likely to care for the environment. This shift from extraction to stewardship is key to creating a sustainable future.
Economic Implications
Transitioning to decentralized living would require significant upfront investment in infrastructure, education, and technology. However, the long-term benefits outweigh the costs. Smaller communities would revitalize local economies by creating jobs in agriculture, renewable energy, and small-scale manufacturing. This would reduce dependence on global markets and create more resilient economic systems.
For example, the Transition Town movement has shown how local economies can thrive by focusing on sustainability and community resilience. By producing what they need locally, communities can keep money circulating within the local economy, creating a more equitable and sustainable model.
Technological Innovations
Advances in technology will play a key role in making smaller communities more sustainable and self-sufficient. Decentralized energy grids, vertical farming, and 3D printing are just a few examples of innovations that would reduce reliance on global supply chains. Digital connectivity, such as high-speed internet, would also allow people in smaller communities to stay connected to global networks for education, work, and cultural exchange.
Environmental Benefits Beyond Land Use
Decentralized communities can help restore biodiversity by reducing habitat destruction and creating spaces where wildlife can thrive. They can also implement localized water management systems, such as rainwater harvesting and natural filtration, improving resilience to droughts and reducing strain on large-scale water infrastructure.
The Big Questions
Aren’t There Too Many People to Live Comfortably in Rural Areas?
Let’s address the elephant in the room: yes, there are too many people on the planet for our current systems to sustain indefinitely. Ecosystems have a way of restoring balance when a species oversteps its bounds — whether through natural disasters, resource depletion, or other corrective mechanisms. We’re already seeing this play out with climate change, extreme weather events, and biodiversity loss. But here’s the critical question: do we wait for these forces to painfully reduce our population, or do we take proactive steps to create a better system?
The answer is clear. We should design a thriving, sustainable alternative to our current model — one that can support a smaller, more balanced population over time. By decentralizing our communities, integrating regenerative practices, and reconnecting with natural systems, we can create a way of life that doesn’t just survive but flourishes. This approach allows for a natural, gradual reduction in population through education, empowerment, and access to family planning — rather than through crisis or coercion. It’s not about forcing people into smaller spaces; it’s about creating a world where fewer people can live better, more fulfilling lives in harmony with the planet.
What Would We Do with Existing Infrastructure?
There’s a persistent myth that retrofitting old buildings is more sustainable than starting fresh. This idea is as outdated as the crumbling infrastructure it seeks to preserve. While retrofitting might seem like the “greener” option at first glance, the reality is far more complex — and far less sustainable.
To be clear, I am not proposing getting rid of historical buildings of importance. I’m talking about updating the spaces that we live, work and interact with every day.
Let’s start with energy efficiency. Retrofitting an old building to meet modern sustainability standards is like trying to turn a gas-guzzling SUV into an electric vehicle. Sure, it’s possible, but it’s incredibly inefficient and often prohibitively expensive. Most older structures weren’t designed with energy efficiency in mind, and no amount of retrofitting can fully compensate for their outdated designs. In contrast, new buildings can be constructed from the ground up with cutting-edge materials, passive heating and cooling systems, and renewable energy integration — features that are nearly impossible to retrofit effectively.
Then there’s the issue of waste. Many of our existing buildings are already falling apart, held together by constant repairs and patchwork solutions. We’re pouring resources into maintaining structures that are fundamentally unsustainable. Instead of propping up the past, we should redirect those resources toward building smarter, more sustainable homes and communities. And when it comes to demolition, we can prioritize responsible waste management — recycling materials, repurposing what we can, and ensuring that what’s left is disposed of in ways that minimize environmental harm.
While it is hard to say exactly, a well-designed, sustainable new build can pay off its carbon debt and become more environmentally friendly than a retrofit within 10 to 20 years, and sometimes as little as 5 to 10 years in optimal conditions. While retrofits have their place, they often can’t match the long-term efficiency and sustainability of a new build designed with cutting-edge materials and technologies. Some examples are:
- The Edge, Amsterdam: This highly sustainable office building uses 70% less energy than a typical office building and is powered by on-site solar panels. Its carbon debt was likely paid off within 5 to 10 years due to its ultra-efficient design and renewable energy integration.
- Brock Commons Tallwood House, Vancouver: This 18-story student residence is built primarily from cross-laminated timber, which has a much lower embodied carbon than concrete or steel. Its carbon debt is estimated to be paid off in 10 to 15 years due to its low-carbon materials and energy-efficient design.
The truth is, clinging to outdated infrastructure isn’t just inefficient — it’s a barrier to progress. By embracing the opportunity to build anew, we can create homes and communities that are truly sustainable, resilient, and aligned with the needs of both people and the planet. It’s time to let go of the past and build a future worth living in.
Conclusion
Density doesn’t automatically mean sustainability. While cities can be efficient in some ways, they rely heavily on external resources, long-distance transportation, and energy-intensive infrastructure. In many ways, cities are more extractive than regenerative.
A better future might involve smaller, self-sustaining communities that produce their own food, energy, and goods while staying connected to larger cultural hubs. This approach reduces the need for long-distance transportation, decentralizes resource use, and helps people live in harmony with nature. Instead of trying to force sustainability into the rigid framework of high-density cities, we should rethink how we live — moving toward models that are regenerative, adaptable, and resilient.
Of course, transitioning to this kind of system won’t be easy. It will require new ways of governing, investing in infrastructure, and adapting to new ways of living. But with thoughtful planning and collaboration, it’s possible to create communities that are not just sustainable, but thriving — for both people and the planet.
