1 Introduction
Can a city be dense and green? At first glance, high-density urban living appears to contradict the ideal of a green lifestyle, particularly when contrasted with single-family homes on large plots surrounded by abundant vegetation. Yet, this apparent contradiction is largely perceptual. In reality, cities need not choose between density and environmental quality. When thoughtfully designed, compact urban environments may represent one of the most effective pathways toward a sustainable and environmentally responsible future. This view is supported by , who argue that denser cities can enhance ecosystem services depending on design, and by , who explore the compatibility of density and green infrastructure performance.
This argument begins with the observation that the concept of “green” is inherently multidimensional (e.g., environmental impact, energy efficiency, carbon emissions, resource use, biodiversity, and human health and wellbeing). Public perception, however, often privileges the dimension that is most immediately visible: the personal experience of living close to nature. In doing so, we risk overlooking the collective nature of sustainability—the reality that individual lifestyle preferences can carry broader environmental consequences beyond our immediate surroundings.
At the Bioeconomy Science Institute (BSI) in New Zealand, we previously explored related ideas in a conceptual framework for circular bio-based cities (). That work suggested that urban circularity is often translated into context-specific actions shaped by local cultural, geographic, and socioeconomic conditions. While this flexibility is valuable, it also reveals a challenge: without a shared overarching objective, it becomes difficult to determine which interventions generate the greatest systemic benefit.
2 Main dimensions of green cities
Before starting this discussion, it is useful to briefly examine the main dimensions through which the idea of a “green city” is commonly interpreted:
2.1 Integrating nature into urban environments
The term “green” naturally evokes healthy ecosystems and environmental wellbeing (). Over time it has evolved from a simple descriptor into a broader label for green policies, technologies, and practices aimed at protecting or restoring nature (). In urban planning, green cities seek to integrate natural systems into the built environment in ways that enhance nature experience ().
For example, the Bioeconomy Science Institute (BSI) building in Rotorua, New Zealand, was intentionally designed to integrate with its surrounding redwood forest environment (Figure 1). The colored glass façade of Te Whare Nui o Tuteata filters incoming light to reflect the forest canopy, producing a dappled lighting effect that evokes the experience of being within the forest. This design approach illustrates how architectural elements can emphasize the immediate sensory dimension of “green,” reinforcing perceptions of proximity to nature.
Figure 1
Urban vegetation provides multiple ecological benefits, especially if balanced with ecological and social needs (). Trees, parks, and green roofs cool cities by shading surfaces and promoting evapotranspiration, thereby mitigating the urban heat-island effect (; ). Nature-based stormwater solutions—such as bioswales and permeable pavements—help absorb rainfall and reduce flood risk. Vegetation also improves air quality by trapping pollutants and sequestering carbon, while supporting biodiversity by connecting fragmented habitats (). As and emphasize, green infrastructure in cities provides critical ecosystem services such as air purification, climate regulation, and recreational opportunities.
Beyond these environmental functions, green spaces contribute significantly to human wellbeing (). Parks and gardens encourage physical activity, reduce stress, and foster social interaction (). Even modest interventions—such as street trees, pocket parks, or green walls—can transform dense neighborhoods into healthier and more pleasant urban environments.
2.2 Making cities environmentally sustainable
Urban sustainability has emerged as a defining challenge of the 21st century. More than half of the world's population already resides in urban areas, and this proportion is projected to approach 70% by 2050 (). As cities continue to expand, the pursuit of sustainability increasingly converges with the question of how urban environments are designed, governed, and inhabited.
Developing urban systems that are environmentally responsible is therefore central to global sustainability agendas. In this context, the concept of the “green city” has gained prominence as a framework for minimizing ecological impacts. Achieving this vision requires coordinated strategies that integrate transportation systems, water and energy management, land-use planning, and pollution mitigation (). Such solutions are inherently political, often reflecting competing interests, governance structures, and power dynamics within cities ().
Rather than relying solely on simplified surface level indicators—such as green space per capita—urban sustainability should be evaluated in terms of how effectively cities function as integrated socio-ecological systems. From this perspective, urban ecosystems must be understood for their capacity to regulate carbon, sustain biodiversity, optimize energy use, and manage materials flows ().
2.3 Providing social wellbeing and quality of life
The contemporary understanding of green cities extends beyond environmental performance to include governance, social inclusion, and urban resilience. Early definitions emphasized environmental quality and human wellbeing, but the concept has gradually expanded into a broader framework (). Today, green cities are understood as urban systems that integrate environmental stewardship, infrastructure planning, and public policy to reduce ecological impacts while improving quality of life. These cities strive for low ecological footprints while providing clean air, safe public spaces, and equitable access to environmental amenities ().
Sustainable urban policies in transportation, energy, waste management, and climate adaptation often operate as interconnected systems designed to reuse resources and minimize environmental burdens (; ). When successfully implemented, such approaches allow environmental sustainability and social wellbeing to reinforce each other, creating urban environments that are both liveable and resilient.
2.4 Social inequality: an uncomfortable reality
Despite great ambitions, the pursuit of greener cities often reveals significant social inequalities. Urban parks and tree-lined streets can improve liveability, but they may also increase property values and accelerate displacement. As a result, the environmental benefits of urban greening frequently accrue disproportionately to more affluent populations. This challenge extends beyond issues of fairness to the way greenness is measured (). This phenomenon, often termed “green gentrification,” has been documented in both the Global North and South (; ; ). Recent work further highlights this paradox, showing that dense urban development can exacerbate inequalities in access to green infrastructure if distributional aspects are not explicitly addressed ().
The idea of the metabolic city offers a promising alternative. In such systems, urban infrastructure is designed to generate ecological value rather than simply reduce harm. Density, in this context, becomes a catalyst for ecosystem services rather than a source of environmental pressure (). However, such urban ecosystems must be accompanied by policies that guarantee equitable access to environmental benefits. Without deliberate attention to environmental justice, the green city risks becoming a privilege rather than a universal right. This builds upon foundational work on urban metabolism by and more recent analyses by and , who highlight the importance of understanding cities as dynamic systems of material and energy flows.
3 Discussion: reconciling density and greenness
The tension between urban greening and social inequality often stems from how the concept of “green” is framed. Too frequently, it is interpreted as a lifestyle amenity—a desirable feature of neighborhoods where residents enjoy both proximity to nature and the full advantages of modern urban infrastructure. Those environments are understandably attractive, but their desirability often makes them economically exclusive. As property values rise, access to greenery becomes concentrated among wealthier populations, while lower-income communities are pushed to the urban periphery.
A different perspective emerges if sustainability is considered from a universal rather than egocentric standpoint. In this view, “green” is not primarily a private amenity but a collective good. Environmental responsibility may therefore require accepting certain lifestyle trade-offs in order to reduce humanity's overall ecological footprint. From this perspective, compact urban development offers a powerful opportunity. By concentrating populations and infrastructure, dense cities can reduce land consumption, lower per-capita energy use, and support efficient public transportation systems. These efficiencies can significantly reduce environmental impacts while preserving natural landscapes.
Multifamily housing—particularly when constructed from renewable materials such as timber—illustrates this potential. Prefabricated and recyclable building systems can centralize water, energy, and waste management while using substantially less land (). The resulting spatial efficiency creates opportunities to expand shared green spaces and ecological corridors throughout the city. Properly designed compact neighborhoods also increases opportunities for social interaction, particularly in standardized high-rise environments. Furthermore, recent studies have shown that mass timber construction has the potential to significantly reduce carbon emissions compared to conventional materials (; ).
Of course, integrating green infrastructure into increasingly dense urban environments presents significant planning and governance challenges (). Critics argue that the “compact city” model can oversimplify complex urban dynamics and may fail to deliver expected sustainability outcomes if not carefully implemented ().
In a previous discussion letter (), we argued that social interaction should form the center of gravity of circular cities. Conventional interpretations of urban circularity focus primarily on minimizing resources inputs and waste outputs from cities. While technically coherent, this perspective risks overlooking a defining feature of cities: they are engines of exchange. Urban prosperity has historically emerged from the circulation of people, ideas, goods, and services. Trade, mobility, and exchange are therefore not signs of inefficiency but expressions of urban vitality. A circular city should not aspire to local autarky, but rather to global circularity—minimizing environmentally harmful flows regardless of where they occur in global supply chains.
A similar logic applies to the green city. If greenness is understood as a synthesis of ecological integrity, human wellbeing, and social justice, urban design should resist the privatization of nature. Access to greenery should not depend on individual property or exclusive neighborhoods but should instead function as a shared civic asset. In practice, this vision is compatible with dense residential environments that meet high standards of comfort, health, and sustainability, supported by efficient transportation systems and integrated energy, water, waste infrastructure, as well as accessible communal green spaces—parks, urban forests, and ecological corridors—that reconnect residents with nature while providing venues for social interaction.
4 Conclusions
The question posed in this opinion letter—whether a city can be both dense and green—reveals a deeper tension in how sustainability is commonly perceived. Public imagination often associates environmental quality with visible proximity to nature, such as private gardens and low-density neighborhoods. Yet this perspective can conflate personal environmental comfort with genuine ecological sustainability. From a systemic perspective, density and greenness are not antagonistic but mutually reinforcing. Compact urban development can reduce land consumption, enable efficient infrastructure, and lower per-capita environmental impacts while preserving natural ecosystems within and beyond city boundaries.
At the same time, the concept of the green city is inherently multidimensional. It encompasses not only urban vegetation but also environmental performance, resource efficiency, social equity, and resilience. Approaches such as metabolic urbanism, which align with the Building with Nature paradigm () and broader nature-based solutions frameworks, emphasize that nature can function as active infrastructure within cities, regulating flows of energy, water, carbon, and biodiversity (). However, the pursuit of greener cities also exposes social contradictions, and it is shaped by political and institutional contexts (). Urban greening often raises property values and contributes to green gentrification, concentrating environmental benefits among wealthier populations. These outcomes highlight the limitations of viewing sustainability primarily through the lens of individual lifestyle amenities.
A more universal understanding of greenness treats environmental quality as a shared civic and planetary good. Within this framework, dense urban living—supported by sustainable materials, efficient infrastructure, and accessible public green spaces—can distribute environmental benefits more equitably while reducing overall resource consumption. Ultimately, the compatibility between density and greenness depends less on urban form than on governance and design. Cities that combine compact housing with high-quality public green infrastructure, efficient metabolic systems, and inclusive access to environmental amenities can simultaneously advance ecological sustainability, social equity, and urban vitality.
In this sense, dense and green cities are not merely compatible—they may be essential for reconciling urban prosperity with the long-term stability of the planet's ecosystems.
Statements
Author contributions
DE: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This article was written with the financial support of the New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) through the Strategic Science Investment Fund (SSIF).
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
AnguelovskiI.ConnollyJ. J. T.MasipL.PearsallH. (2022). Green gentrification in European and North American cities. Nat. Commun.13:1234. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-31572-1
2
BeatleyT. (2011). Biophilic Cities: Integrating Nature Into Urban Design and Planning, Vol. 28. Washington, DC: Island Press. doi: 10.5822/978-1-59726-986-5
3
BolundP.HunhammarS. (1999). Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecol. Econ.29, 293–301. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00013-0
4
CeballosA.Jato-EspinoD. (2026). The paradox of the dense city: social equity and green infrastructure distribution. Front. Sustain. Cities8:1823456. doi: 10.3389/frsc.2026.1804142
5
ChurkinaG.OrganschiA.ReyerC. P. O.RuffA.VinkeK.LiuZ.et al. (2020). Buildings as a global carbon sink. Nat. Sustain.3, 269–276. doi: 10.1038/s41893-019-0462-4
6
de SouzaD. T.TorresP. H. C. (2021). Greening and just cities: elements for fostering a South-North dialogue based on a systematic literature review. Front. Sustain. Cities3:669944. doi: 10.3389/frsc.2021.669944
7
DryzekJ. S. (2022). The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
8
ElustondoD.StoccheroA.GauntD. (2023). A definition for circular bio-based cities based on a reductionist metabolic approach. City Environ. Interact.20:100121. doi: 10.1016/j.cacint.2023.100121
9
HaalandC.Konijnendijk van den BoschC. (2015). Challenges and strategies for urban green-space planning in cities undergoing densification: a review. Urban For. Urban Green.14, 760–771. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2015.07.009
10
HadjichambisA. C.Paraskeva-HadjichambiD.SinakouE.AdamouA.GeorgiouY. (2022). Green cities for environmental citizenship: a systematic literature review of empirical research from 31 green cities of the world. Sustainability14:16223. doi: 10.3390/su142316223
11
HaksevenlerB. H. G.SenikB.SengulZ.SorhunE. (2025). Developing a framework for a sustainable city index: a comprehensive approach to urban sustainability. Sustain. Cities Soc.130:106669. doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2025.106669
12
HimesA.BusbyG. (2020). Wood buildings as a climate solution. Dev. Built Environ.4:100030. doi: 10.1016/j.dibe.2020.100030
13
KaplanR.KaplanS. (1989). The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
14
KennedyC.CuddihyJ.Engel-YanJ. (2007). The changing metabolism of cities. J. Ind. Ecol.11, 43–59. doi: 10.1162/jie.2007.1107
15
KumarP.SahaniJ.Corada PerezK.AhlawatA.AndradeM. D. F.AthanassiadouM.et al. (2025). Urban greening for climate resilient and sustainable cities: grand challenges and opportunities. Front. Sustain. Cities7:1595280. doi: 10.3389/frsc.2025.1595280
16
MadureiraH.MonteiroA. (2021). Going green and going dense: urban form, density and green infrastructure performance. Sustainability13:2004. doi: 10.3390/su131910643
17
McDonaldR. I.AronsonM. F.BeatleyT.BellerE.BazoM.GrossingerR.et al. (2023). Denser and greener cities: Green interventions to achieve both urban density and nature. People Nat.5, 84–102. doi: 10.1002/pan3.10423
18
McHargI. L. (1969). Design with Nature. New York, NY: American Museum of Natural History.
19
NeumanM. (2005). The compact city fallacy. J. Plan. Educ. Res.25, 11–26. doi: 10.1177/0739456X04270466
20
NewmanP.KenworthyJ. (2013). Sustainability and Cities: Overcoming Automobile Dependence. Washington, DC: Princeton University Press. doi: 10.2307/jj.41003507
21
RautR.DeshpandeA. (2026). The symbiotic city: when density becomes green. Front. Sustain. Cities8:1760474. doi: 10.3389/frsc.2026.1760474
22
TorresP. H. C.IrazábalC.JacobiP. R. (2022). Urban greening in the Global South: green gentrification and beyond. Front. Sustain. Cities4:865940. doi: 10.3389/frsc.2022.865940
23
TzoulasK.KorpelaK.VennS.Yli-PelkonenV.KazmierczakA.NiemelaJ.et al. (2007). Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Infrastructure: a literature review. Landsc. Urban Plan.81, 167–178. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.02.001
24
UlgiatiS.ZucaroA. (2019). Challenges in urban metabolism: sustainability and wellbeing in cities. Front. Sustain. Cities1:1. doi: 10.3389/frsc.2019.00001
25
UlrichR. S. (1984). View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science224, 420–421. doi: 10.1126/science.6143402
26
van der JagtA. P. N.SmithM.Ambrose-OjiB.KonijnendijkC. C.GiustiM.GoodnessJ.et al. (2020). Nature-based solutions or debacles? The politics of green infrastructure in urban planning. Front. Sustain. Cities2:50. doi: 10.3389/frsc.2020.583833
27
Van SlobbeE.de VriendH. J.AarninkhofS.LulofsK.de VriesM.DirckeP. (2013). Building with Nature: in search of resilient storm surge protection strategies. Nat. Hazards66, 1461–1480. doi: 10.1007/s11069-013-0612-3
28
VogtM. A. B. (2025). How green does a dense city need to be? Functional urban biodiversity for dense cities. Front. Sustain. Cities7:1722129. doi: 10.3389/frsc.2025.1722129
29
WolmanA. (1965). The metabolism of cities. Sci. Am.213, 179–190. doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican0965-178
Summary
Keywords
circular cities, green cities, green gentrification, metabolic urbanism, sustainable development, urban density
Citation
Elustondo D (2026) Can a city be dense and green?. Front. Sustain. Cities 8:1830868. doi: 10.3389/frsc.2026.1830868
Received
15 March 2026
Revised
04 May 2026
Accepted
04 May 2026
Published
29 May 2026
Volume
8 - 2026
Edited by
Alexandra Solomou, Independent Researcher, Athens, Greece
Reviewed by
Richard Kotter, Northumbria University, United Kingdom
Itxaro Latasa, University of the Basque Country, Spain
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Elustondo.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Diego Elustondo, diego.elustondo@scionresearch.com
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.