Article - 2026 Planning at odds with what residents want

Architect Rafael Campos de Pinho believes the new survey by the Housing, Construction and Planning Authority (HMS) shows that current planning policy in the capital region does not reflect the wishes of residents.

The survey was published on Tuesday 21 April. The results indicate, among other things, that opposition to densification increases with age and is greater in the suburbs of Reykjavík than elsewhere in the capital region. The survey also suggests that many respondents are looking toward smaller and medium-sized multi-family buildings, which HMS considers reason "to reflect on whether the composition of new construction sufficiently reflects the diverse housing preferences of households."

Rafael says that if current planning policy continues to be enforced, the distinctive character of the built environment may gradually disappear.

“Someone driving into the capital region for the first time is captivated by what meets the eye. Moderately dense development in a hilly landscape with colourful houses and pitched roofs. This character of the area is both memorable and distinctly Icelandic. Individual aluminium-clad apartment buildings in grey tones fade into the shadow of the warm and cohesive appearance of the Icelandic town and cityscape. Until that same visitor finds themselves between Hlíðarendi and the new Landsspítali – gigantic, disproportionate buildings devoid of any connection to local identity – and asks: where am I? These are presumably well-insulated, sustainability-certified and even award-winning buildings, in perfect conformity with Reykjavík City’s planning policy – but they could just as easily be almost anywhere in the world,” says Rafael.

Whatever it costs

Rafael studied architecture and urban planning at the Brazilian university Escola de Arquitetura Universidade Federal de Minas (EA-UFMG), and also holds an MA in real estate from the economics faculty of the Universidad de Barcelona. He has worked in Iceland for 20 years.

"Over the past decade or so, planning decisions in Reykjavík have revolved around one idea: densification at whatever cost. Every city now wants to become a '15-minute city' – sustainable, efficient, economical and connected to strong public transport. In many ways this is a sensible goal. Dense European cities like Copenhagen and Barcelona have become the primary models for planners.

The ambition is admirable and in keeping with international trends and theories. But the problem lies not in the goal itself, but in the context. We import such ideas without asking whether they apply here. That is a fundamental issue. Do these ideas reflect the reality of how people in Iceland live, travel and use the city? Urban planning must be guided by reality, not by doctrine. We need to be realistic and must not be blinded by ideology."

A clear-cut conclusion

Rafael considers the HMS survey to demonstrate a mismatch between such ideas and the wishes of residents.

"According to the survey, there is a clear gap between the kind of housing Icelanders want to build and the housing that is actually being built. The survey, conducted in March 2026 with over 2,000 participants, brings this out in a clear and decisive way.

When asked what type of housing people expected to live in five years from now, 52% said they expected to live in a detached house or semi-detached house. Only 6% mentioned large apartment buildings – which is the type of housing that has dominated new construction in recent years. Regarding building height, 60% expected to live in one- or two-storey buildings, while only 10% expected to live in buildings of five storeys or higher.

Preferences regarding the immediate environment tell the same story. When asked what mattered most in choosing where to live, 50% mentioned good natural light and 51% mentioned adequate parking — well ahead of good public transport connections, which ranked considerably lower. Moderate density was twice as popular as high densification as a preferred neighbourhood option.

The survey also showed respondents four street images and asked where they would most like to live. The top-ranked image – by a wide margin – showed a quiet, low-density residential street with detached houses and space between them. The bottom-ranked showed a dense urban street with large apartment blocks, a bus, and cyclists. The gap was not marginal: the suburban street scored more than twice as high. Notably, this preference held consistently across all age groups, income levels, and whether people lived in the capital region or elsewhere in the country," says Rafael.

Entirely different conditions here

“Barcelona is one of the most densely populated cities in the western world, and densification works very well there – but it is important to understand why. Density brings real advantages: walkability, convenience, efficient transit and a strong sense of urban life. But it also comes with trade-offs. Many apartments have few windows and limited direct daylight, which is not a major problem in a place where the challenge is to escape the heat. Spaniards spend a great deal of time outdoors, socialising in plazas and dining on terraces late into the evening.

The Icelandic reality could hardly be more different. Opportunities to spend time outdoors are limited and seasonal. People place great emphasis on natural light, warmth and the comfort of the home. Here, daylight is not a luxury but a necessity.

Good natural light was among the top housing priorities for half of all survey respondents – above apartment size, above number of rooms. There is also a physical dimension to this that planning documents rarely acknowledge. Barcelona sits at 41° latitude; Reykjavík at 64°. The winter sun here is low and oblique, and the dense perimeter blocks that catch light beautifully in a Mediterranean city will cast each other in shadow for months on end in Iceland. A building typology is not climate-neutral. And neither is a lifestyle. In Iceland, the home is an important social space where people gather and entertain. The open-plan micro-apartments optimized for density work against exactly what Icelanders need their homes to be.”

As for transport, Rafael believes car ownership has become more of a burden than a convenience in many European capitals. “Heavy traffic, congestion charges, lack of parking and better alternatives mean that many people forgo the car. Copenhagen has become a model city for cycling to work, supported by broad, safe bike lanes and an efficient rail network that makes car-free weekend trips to the countryside or other cities entirely practical.

Reykjavík is fundamentally different. Starting with the bicycle itself: cold, wind, rain, and frequent ice make cycling unpleasant and often unsafe. It is possible, but certainly not for everyone. The car remains the most practical option for many everyday situations – for the elderly, for a single parent with young children and multiple after-school activities, for a quick trip to the store in a storm, for weekend trips to the countryside, for fishing, kayaking, cross-country skiing and all the gear-heavy hobbies Icelanders love.

The level of transit investment required to replace the car in Reykjavík without a drastic change in lifestyle is simply not realistic. We should absolutely support cycling and improve public transport – but as an addition, not a replacement. More pragmatism, less ideology.”

We need to be realistic

"The Borgarlína light rail is often presented as the solution to the city's transport problems. While it can certainly improve certain transport corridors and make some journeys more efficient, there is reason to examine what bus rapid transit systems with dedicated lanes (BRT) have – and have not – achieved elsewhere.

The first major BRT system, built in Curitiba in Brazil, significantly improved transport for those who already relied on buses. It did not, however, replace the private car. Despite decades of successful BRT operation, car ownership in Curitiba remains among the highest in the country. Borgarlína can be a valuable addition to the system, but it is unlikely to replace the flexibility the car provides in a city like Reykjavík," says Rafael.

His conclusion is that it is best to build moderately dense development.

"This is what is often called the 'missing middle' in planning. Smaller apartment buildings, like those found in Hlíðar, Vesturbær and Þingholt. Moderate density that creates liveable streets, lets natural light into every apartment and eliminates the need for large parking structures," says Rafael.

"Environmental psychologist Páll Jakob Líndal has for years pointed out that a built environment that fails to meet residents' needs does not merely fail aesthetically. It exhausts people. It erodes communities, dissolves culture and gradually undermines mental health. These are not trivial consequences," says Rafael.

Shaped by ideology

"Recent years' development has been shaped by a particular ideology and set of doctrines driven by technical constraints. War on cars, cycling for everyone, streets shaped by turning radii for larger fire engines — because taller and denser buildings require larger fire trucks. Building facades clad in flat aluminium panels, because the specialists say it is ideal for Iceland — durable and low-maintenance, but dull from day one. Each decision seems reasonable in isolation, but together they form a soulless blend of building standards that fits perfectly into a financial spreadsheet.

The result is visible across the entire capital region. Buildings that meet every single criterion on the checklist but fail catastrophically at place-making. Reykjavík has a spirit of place — an Ortsgeist — that took a whole century to build and that people feel even if they cannot point to it. When the character of a city is lost uniformly, there is no identity left that can be recreated. We cannot certify our way back to the streets we love," says Rafael in closing.

Rafael considers Hlíðar in Reykjavík (above) an example of a neighbourhood with moderate density that is well designed.

Planning at odds with what residents want.