{"id":36321,"date":"2023-03-06T10:00:48","date_gmt":"2023-03-06T18:00:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/spacing.ca\/vancouver\/?p=36321"},"modified":"2025-08-14T10:51:31","modified_gmt":"2025-08-14T17:51:31","slug":"s101s-understanding-density-net-vs-gross-density","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/spacing.ca\/vancouver\/2023\/03\/06\/s101s-understanding-density-net-vs-gross-density\/","title":{"rendered":"S101S – Understanding Density: Net vs. Gross Density"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

What is the difference between “net” and “gross” density, and how do these relate to urban planning?<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

In Understanding Residential Density: Why is it so Confusing?<\/i><\/a> we covered why density is considered an important but baffling issue in urban planning. Although it broadly refers to the number of people living in a specific area and helps us understand how densely populated an area is, there is a lot of misunderstanding about it. One of the most common involves the definition of \u201cnet\u201d and \u201cgross\u201d density, so let\u2019s dig in a bit deeper and try to find a little clarity. <\/span><\/p>\n

As discussed in \u2026Why is it so Confusing?<\/i><\/a>, residential density is often expressed in dwelling or housing units per acre, in contemporary North American urban planning circles. Although one may find densities measured in dwelling or housing units per hectare in particular parts of Canada, acres remain the standard measure for reasons not worth delving into here. <\/span><\/p>\n

Within this context, densities can be measured as \u201cnet\u201d or \u201cgross\u201d, both of which can be important measures in helping urban planners and designers understand the density of population and land use within designated area towards making more informed decisions about how to create or transform the built environment.<\/span><\/p>\n

Broadly speaking (with caveats coming later!), net density refers to the number of people living in an area, excluding<\/i> parks, open spaces, and other non-residential land uses. This measure is calculated by dividing the total population by the total net residential<\/i> land area. Simply put: it refers to the number of units per acre within a specific land area devoted to residential purposes. <\/i>So, it may\u2014but not always\u2014<\/i>include in driveways, private yards, and additional residential accessory structures, excluding public rights of way, parks, open spaces, and other non-residential land uses.<\/span><\/p>\n

Gross density, on the other hand, generally<\/i> includes all types of land uses<\/i>, including parks, open spaces, and other non-residential land uses. This measure is calculated by dividing the total population by the total gross land area. Gross density often also includes infrastructure such as streets, sidewalks, and public spaces. This gives us a more comprehensive understanding of the overall land use in an area but often results in lower density numbers since including non-residential increases land area and the resulting units-to-land ratio. It\u2019s important to also note that this also means that mixed-use urban neighbourhoods tend to have lower densities than ones that are primarily residential. Since gross density measures give us a more comprehensive understanding of the overall land use in a given area, many find it useful for comparing density across different areas.<\/span><\/p>\n

Comparing net and gross density can give us a better understanding of the density of population and land use within a community or designated area. As a simple example: a neighbourhood with a high net<\/i> density may have many people living in apartments and homes, while a neighbourhood with a high gross<\/i> density may have many people living in high-rise buildings, as well as large parks and open spaces. As we learned from \u2026Why is it so Confusing?<\/i> though, \u201dmay\u201d is a keyword here. This might not be the case. Furthermore, labeling a density as “high” is vague since there is no standard definition of what “low\u201d, \u201cmedium\u201d, and \u201chigh\u201d densities mean. This opens the doors to misinterpretation.<\/span><\/p>\n

Given their differences, many believe that <\/span>gross density measurements are often most useful when looking at large development areas that include internal roads, open spaces, and such. Net densities, in turn, are often considered more appropriate when looking at existing areas in search of infill opportunities. Again, however, their usefulness depends on intent.<\/p>\n

Net and gross densities come with three important caveats. First, \u201cnet\u201d and \u201cgross\u201d density definitions do differ slightly from place to place, so you\u2019ll have to take the above explanation with a grain of salt. When looking at density-related information\u2014be it maps, charts, graphs, or anything similar\u2014the specifics matter. So, what is each municipality includes and excludes in each term is critical if you want an accurate picture.<\/span><\/p>\n

Second, net and gross density numbers are intimately related to the area of land being measured. Base land area matters.<\/span><\/p>\n

Third, many public and internal documents that include density numbers don\u2019t explicitly specify whether the numbers are  <\/span>\u201cnet\u201d and \u201cgross,\u201d let alone the specifics of each definition. The public document from the City of Vancouver below is a case in point. <\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
2011 Population Density -City of Vancouver. What do these density figures include and exclude?<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Presumably, the fact that the green park spaces are visually separated from the rest of the blocks means that the densities are net, but this is an assumption: explicitly clear annotations and definitions are required. Specifics matter: if it is net density, do the numbers include driveways? Yard spaces? The answers to simple questions like this will ultimately change the meaning of the numbers. <\/span><\/p>\n

Now don\u2019t get me wrong, kudos to the City of Vancouver for providing this scale of density information. Publicly available density by the block information is a rarity. But lack of clarity can and does lead to large misinterpretations of density information by the public, municipal officials, and others. Misinterpretations also can\u2014and has\u2014been used strategically towards more dishonest ends, as a means of legitimizing shady developments under the guise of \u201cnecessary densification\u201d of \u201clow-density\u201d areas. As discussed in \u2026Why is it so Confusing?<\/i><\/a> clarity about density numbers is very important given how baffling it is.<\/span><\/p>\n

So, what can we take away from this?<\/span><\/p>\n

Well, both net density and gross density can<\/i> provide equally valuable perspectives on the density of population and land use in a specific area. Net density generally refers to a specific land area devoted to residential purposes <\/i>while <\/i>gross density <\/i>refers to other non-residential land uses including parks and streets. But specifics matter and like so many planning-related issues the devil is in the details.<\/span><\/p>\n

In summary<\/b>:<\/span><\/p>\n