This article offers a comparative analysis of how the Helsinki Metropolitan Area and Madison have approached the shared challenge of densification. Although the two areas differ greatly in scale, regional governance, and socio-political contexts, both face similar pressures stemming from rapid population growth, limited geographic expansion opportunities, and rising housing demand. Through this lens, we examine the ideologies, planning strategies, and on-the-ground realities of densification in each area.
Densification appears to be the solution to urban sprawl, afflicting metropolitan areas like Madison and Helsinki alike. Authors of “Density as an Indicator of Sustainable Urban Development: Insights from Helsinki?” suggest that density is a strategy for development that is both economically- and ecologically-focused, but provide a critique on its current and historical applications (1). Ideological conceptions of density within the field of urban planning range from busy streets, lively neighborhoods, efficient transportation and services to tall buildings, congestion, and crowding. The pursuit of urbanization and density is a complicated and weighted concept in urban planning history, intertwining with segregation patterns, socio-spatial inequality and gentrification. In addition to ideological conceptions, the unit and container of density can be defined and calculated in a number of ways, which can result in inconsistent or inaccurate comparisons and uses of density data. The goal to densify is vague and can lead to planning decisions inconsiderate of important, related factors such as connectivity, affordability and the quality and type of development being produced. The pursuit of densification in Madison, Helsinki Metropolitan Area and beyond identifies a need for clarity, consistency and sensitivity when defining and applying density in a planning context.
Madison, Wisconsin is a mid-sized American city in the Upper Midwest, serving as Wisconsin’s capital and home to the flagship campus of the University of Wisconsin system. The city’s population reached approximately 285,300 in 2024 and continues to grow at an accelerated pace. The city of Madison is shaped by its location on a narrow isthmus between Lakes Mendota and Monona, a geographical feature that places strict physical limits on outward expansion. This constraint is compounded by a municipal ordinance that limits building heights within a one-mile radius of the State Capitol building to preserve protected views. The State Capitol sits at the heart of Downtown Madison and is surrounded by the city’s most urban area.
Faced with these limitations, city planners have increasingly prioritized infill development and corridor-based densification to accommodate its growing population. Over the past decade, previously low-rise or industrial areas, particularly along East Washington Avenue and around the university campus, have been transformed into hubs of higher-density residential and mixed-use construction. Between 2020 and 2024, Madison added over 15,000 residents, and projections estimate the population will reach nearly 385,000 by 2050. This growth has been driven by the expansion of UW–Madison, which enrolled over 50,000 students in 2023 and regional employment opportunities at firms like Epic Systems, which continue to attract young professionals to the region. These factors, among others, contribute to a higher-than predicted resident increase and the production of housing stock cannot keep up with demands.
Public opinion in Madison remains divided on the city’s approach to densification. Many residents acknowledge the need for more housing units but express concerns about neighborhood character, rising rents, and the displacement of long-term residents. This tension is evident in local media coverage, with headlines such as "No Choice: Madison Council Flips to Yes on ‘Luxury’ Student Housing" and "Density Backlash Underway in Madison" reflect the polarized discourse. Affordability remains a major concern for students and downtown residents as affordable housing units are being overtaken by infilled luxury apartment complexes which are designated to help increase density but come at a high cost, making them unaffordable for many.
Helsinki offers a distinct yet comparably complex portrait of urban densification. The Helsinki Metropolitan Area (HMA) encompasses the cities of Helsinki, Espoo, Vantaa, and Kauniainen. The Helsinki city center serves as a strong urban core located on a peninsula, which creates geographic limitations comparable to Madison’s isthmus. In the 1960s, the Helsinki region experienced a major increase in rural-urban migration and this growth was channelled to a "hierarchical network of service centres" and “peri-urban” housing outside of the narrow peninsula, still within commuting distance to the urban center (1). The population in the greater Helsinki region has increased by over 40% since 1990 and is currently 1.27 million (1). The annual population growth for 2024–2026 for Helsinki alone is projected to be 8,200 residents, surpassing 700,000 by 2027. Page, et. al. comment that Helsinki lags behind other Nordic capitals in its densification, only really beginning to densify in 2010 after a long period of sprawl patterns as previously described (1). Helsinki has experienced recent development through infill densification via urbanizing former industrial areas in the city center. While there are many areas in Helsinki that could provide an interesting comparison to Madison, the neighborhoods outside of Helsinki, in the neighbouring city of Espoo, we discuss below were recommended by our colleagues and fellow members of Urbaria. We had the opportunity to visit three neighborhoods currently being developed in Espoo in order to learn more about how densification and development strategies are being implemented in the HMA.
Helsinki’s planning strategies now emphasize the concept of the "compact city" as a core tenet of sustainable development. Helsinki’s 2017–2021 and 2021–2025 City Strategies identify urban densification as a means to support public transit, active mobility, and economic agglomeration. In Finnish planning contexts, density is often measured in terms of Gross Floor Area (GFA) at the plot level. However, scholars have critiqued this metric as a poor predictor of urban form and amenity, noting that it fails to account for factors such as building height, quality, functional mix and population demographics. A single numerical measure of density cannot capture the full range of spatial and social characteristics that define sustainable urban development in the HMA or anywhere else.
Challenges to densification in the HMA include building and unit quality, allocation of services, and the need for socio-economic mixing. Since the 1990s, the average size of apartment buildings has doubled from 2,500 m² to over 5,000 m² while the average number of units per building has also nearly doubled. However, this growth has coincided with a decline in unit size and quality. Most new apartments are studios or one-bedrooms, which may not meet the diverse needs of a growing and varied population. Another challenge is the allocation of services in new developments within the HMA. While densification strategies often promote proximity and access, researchers note that essential services including retail, healthcare, and education, are not always equitably or efficiently distributed across high-density neighborhoods. This misalignment undermines the foundational goals of the concept of a 15-minute city, which emphasizes walkable access to daily necessities (2). Finally, socio-economic mixing remains a critical and complex challenge. New housing areas in the HMA often exhibit high rates of internal migration, resulting in rapid population turnover. These neighborhoods can become disconnected from the broader urban structure, risking socio-economic imbalance and limited social cohesion. Without intentional design to connect residents across income levels, backgrounds, and life stages, densification may inadvertently exacerbate social fragmentation.
During our fieldwork, we observed several residential neighborhoods that are experiencing new and continued densification in Perkkaa, Kera and Suurpelto. Arriving at each of our destinations via bus, it was clear that we had left the urban center and felt far away from the city in which we had grown familiar. However, the areas we visited were well-connected via public transit, something that came as a surprise being used to entirely car-centric American highways and suburbs.
In Perkkaa, a neighborhood in Espoo, recent housing developments offer dense units and benefit from proximity to transportation connections and the Sello Mall, a major hub featuring cinemas, a library, supermarkets, and fitness centers. While the area provides access to everyday services, navigating the space as a pedestrian felt somewhat confusing. One resident likened the neighborhood layout to a maze, and as newcomers, we shared similar impressions. While walkability infrastructure is present, improving wayfinding and connectivity could enhance the pedestrian experience in this otherwise active node. Though we traveled to Perkkaa by bus and observed many public transit users, private vehicles had a much larger presence compared to areas closer to the Helsinki city center.
In Kera, another part of Espoo undergoing redevelopment, planners have envisioned a walkable, high-density district. While the area includes new apartment buildings and transit links, it features wide roads and land uses that can create a disjointed urban feel like fast food restaurants and business parks. In Kera, the intention to build dense, walkable urban areas resulted in less land for housing with more area for traffic infrastructure (2). Regarding green space, which is a major attraction for areas outside of the city center, our observations revealed that many areas designated as 'parks' are leftover plots of land without intentional planning or accompanying improved public spaces. Although public spaces and infrastructure for walking and biking are present, their full potential as connectors of community life may not yet be realized.
Suurpelto, described as a growing ‘garden city,’ exemplifies efforts to blend residential density with green space. This Espoo neighborhood presented a mix of green space and residential developments but lacked mixed-use amenities and gathering places for adults. Although playgrounds and schools supported family life, we observed few cafes, restaurants, or cultural venues that might support broader community interaction. Suurpelto showed signs of established semi-urban lives with apartment complexes of mixed heights and styles in addition to new development, greenspaces, and transportation connectivity. By observing the few businesses and abundance of playground structures, we gathered that the social vibrancy of the neighborhood is limited to children and their parents’ waking and playing hours, leaving many spaces unused and perhaps uninviting at certain hours of the day. We believe its long-term livability could be further strengthened through greater mixed-use integration and implementing specific densification goals that align with the context and needs of the neighborhood.
Many of these observations echo earlier findings on the broader regional development process in the Helsinki Metropolitan Area. Historically, municipalities often zoned large amounts of floor space on inexpensive, outlying land and sold it to developers, who were also responsible for infrastructure construction. This approach helped maximize municipal gains but frequently produced “peculiar urban structures", or clusters of high-rise buildings isolated in forested or peripheral areas (3). These neighborhoods, while dense to some degree, were not always well-integrated into the surrounding urban fabric. Roads and developments were often designed with spatial separation in mind, rather than promoting urban continuity and integration. Consistent across the HMA, though the observed frequency of usage varied, were good infrastructure and connectivity of pedestrian and bike transportation. While Madison has seen more recent enthusiasm and emphasis on alternative transportation (e.g., bicycle and bus) infrastructure development, the city is still far behind the greater Helsinki region in this way.
Comparing the HMA and Madison through the lens of densification efforts shows us that density needs to be rooted in local geographic, social and economic context in order to be a meaningful and reliable indicator of sustainable urban development. Effective urban development must be rooted in the lived experience of residents, emphasizing walkability, access to services, green space, and community-oriented design. We hope Madison’s future densification efforts will incorporate these lessons, focusing not only on increasing housing supply but on building equitable, vibrant, and connected communities.
Jordyn Czyzewski and Sara Browne interned at Urbaria in the summer of 2025.
Jordyn is a rising senior at the University of Wisconsin–Madison studying Landscape and Urban Studies, People-Environment Geography, and Environmental Studies.
Sara is a recent graduate of University of Wisconsin–Madison with a B.S. in Landscape and Urban Studies and is from St. Paul, Minnesota.
Edited by Urbaria intern Meena Lindroos
Sources
-
Page, Mathew, Anssi Joutsiniemi, Mari Vaattovaara, Teemu Jama, and Oskar Rönnberg. 2024. “Density as an Indicator of Sustainable Urban Development: Insights from Helsinki?” European Planning Studies 32 (10): 2182–2202.
. -
Vaattovaara, Mari, and Anssi Joutsiniemi. 2024. “15-Minute City: Echoes of 1960s Suburbia.” Online Journal of Ecology & Environmental Sciences 1, no. 4 (January): 5.
-
Vaattovaara, Mari, Anssi Joutsiniemi, Matti Kortteinen, Mats Stjernberg, and Teemu Kemppainen. “Experience of a Preventive Experiment: Spatial Social Mixing in Post-World War II Housing Estates in Helsinki, Finland.” SpringerLink, January 1, 1970.
. -
Urban Research & Practice. (2025). Aerial view of Madison, Wisconsin with Lake Monona in the foreground. Towards more sustainable residential areas. Indicators of neighbourhood and block sustainability. Photograph, Madison, WI. Retrieved July 10, 2025, from
.