How compact cities can improve the quality of live
Introduction:
Cities are constantly changing. Neighbourhoods are planned, old industrial areas are changed or demolished and city centres are reformed. Some city areas celebrated their own successes, while city councils struggle with abandoned houses. Changes in city forms cost governments a lot of money. Money that’s often not available. Creating new suburban areas in times of suburbanisation and demolish them in times of urbanisation is ineffective in all kinds of ways. This principle leads to an important choice. Invest in new suburban areas or invest in the cities’ centres. Countries all over the world are facing the problems of a high urban sprawl, the phenomenon that urban spatial patterns changes into large outward expansions of low density areas (Burchell et al, 2000). Urban sprawl has serious consequences to a good quality of live in the whole city. For instance the average journey time from work to shopping- or residential areas becomes larger because of the urban sprawl. This also leads to other side-effects as pollution and accidents, problems with the facilitation of public transportation in low density areas and many, many more. This negatively effects the quality of life, especially in US-city’s where this problem often occurs. Investing in high dense cities (a.k.a. compact cities) is the solution to urban sprawl and it is convinced at the same time, and this article shows you why.
Causes of urban sprawl:
First of all it is necessary to understand the causes of urban sprawl before it’s possible to formulate regulations to go against it. The causes of urban sprawl can be grouped into two categories. First, general causes relation to the general drift of change in developed societies and second the government’ spatial policies related to that. (Compact City and Urban Sprawl F.Dielemans and M.wegener, pag 316). The main cause of urban sprawl is the raising affluence of people. Because of that people wanted to have more valuables and bigger houses. This caused a massive immigration from the city to the suburbia of cities. This was possible because of the decreasing prices of automobiles, that made travelling from the suburbia’s to work affordable. (Carruthers, 2002).This process mostly occurs in the United States, because the density of cities is three times lower in the US than in European cities. (Kenworthy et al ,1998). The reason why European cities are denser is caused by the history of European cities, but also stricter policies related to urban extensions. In the US the involvement of US-states in spatial planning variates widely across the US. (Carruthers, 2002)
Energy use:
One of the first benefits of compact city building is the energy used in the cities. Urban density and energy consumption have a negative correlation with each other. Newman and Kenworthy’s (1998) researched 32 major cities around the world to find a negative relation between urban density and the amount of gasoline that’s used. Cities with a low urban density as Houston or Phoenix seems to burn more patrol per capita than cities with a higher urban density like Vienna or Amsterdam. A denser city have shorter travelling distances between activities, which leads to a fewer amount of vehicle miles travelled (VMT) and patrol use (Cervero, 1988). This changes the modal split of the total mobility to reduce the part of the private car and increases the part of travelling by public transport, by foot and by bike. (Barrett, 1996). The shorter travel distances make the car become an option rather than a necessity. (Wegener, 1996). The fewer VMT reduce the negative effects on the liveability caused by motorised traffic, like CO2 emission, noise pollution and the spatially segregation that roads and traffic creates. One example of an urban region where those policies work is in the “Randstad” in the Netherlands. The “Randstad” consists of four major cities; Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague, and Utrecht. Those cities have a special layout to minimize the amount of VMT, and one of those is to invest in public transport and several high density cities. The amount of patrol per capita that’s used in the ‘Randstad’ is lower than in for instance New York.
Public transport:
The second benefit of compact cities is the better scare of public transport, caused by the changes of the modal split, leads to a better efficiency of public transport in frequency, capacity and travel time. (Barrett 1996). For instance in the Netherlands the government set a policy to invest in Greenfield areas in the “Randstad’. Those are high dense urban areas just outside of the city’ borders, which are strong connected to their ‘Mothercity’. Such as the city of Zoetermeer, near The Hague, and Almere, near Amsterdam, or Houten, near Utrecht. Those cities are part of a policy set in 1991 to prevent the Randstad for a too large urban sprawl. The better efficiency of public transport leads to a better accessibility of a certain place. Locations with a good accessibility to workplaces, shops, education and leisure facilities are more attractive for residential, industrial, office and retail development. This causality is in line with Hägerstand’s action-space theory (1974, 1979, Zahavi et al, 1981) which describes that individuals do not only look for the minimum in travel time or -costs, but instead want to find the optimum in opportunities within their travel budgets. As a result of that, buildings with a good accessibility, rise in profitability and have a higher chance of being developed at a higher density. (Hansen, 1959, demonstration for Washington DC). Those are the reasons why the Greenfield areas of the Randstad sometimes consist of 50.000 or 100.000 inhabitants in a relative small area.
Agricultural land lost:
Furthermore compact cities reduce the conversion of land from agricultural and other life supporting uses such as forest and wetlands into urban and transportation uses. This results in more agricultural- and life supporting land to deal with the raising demand for food and other resources. This mains compact cities are more sustainable. In a case study of the Pearl River Delta, Yeh and Li shows in detail the consequences of agricultural loss and urban sprawl, and why action is necessary. In the Netherlands policies are set to prevent the urban areas of the “Randstad” to destroy the “Green Heart”; a large nature park in the middle of the “Randstad”.
Brownfield areas:
Moveover, compact city policies can help to rebuild brownfield areas. Brownfield areas is a term used in the urban planning to refer to areas that previously were industrial areas but reformed to high density urban communities. (Sustainable brownfield regeneration, University of Nottingham 2006) Dutch examples are “Strijp-S” in Eindhoven and the ‘Westergasfabriek’ in Amsterdam. Brownfield areas are mostly located within urban structures in many European cities, and therefore are perfect for city expansions within the city structure.
Housing typologies:
The most common counter argument of compact cities is that every citizen, mostly in the US wants to live in a suburban house with a large garden. They want to ‘live the good life’ But actually this isn’t true. Especially in the United States the amount of different typologies is low. In the US however grows the diversity of lifestyles and housing preferences that trigger the house market. This may challenge the dominance of suburban living and opens the gates for urban development and compact cities. Building compact cities can also help providing cities to create more kinds of typologies of housing which helps counter this problem.
Anti-sprawl policies:
Keep in mind that building high density areas is not a goal on itself. According to the Calgary’s (Alberta, Canada) municipal development plan (MDP) the benefits of a high density city form can only be achieved when city councils are willing to invest in primary transit networks, mix-use communities and regulation of anti-sprawl policies like setting city boundaries to outlaw further city’ extensions. To achieve the changes in transport use, cities have to invest in creating pedestrian friendly environments, and locate main facilities and activities nearby public transport stations.
Conclusion:
So, compact cities are the solution against urban sprawl. Compact cities help to locate more mix-use high density areas into the cities’ core. Furthermore compact cities are beneficial in many kind of ways. It helps reducing the energy use of cities, it helps increasing the mass-transit network, it reduces the conversion of agricultural land into cities, which needs to be reduced, it helps rebuilding brownfield areas and it helps to create a more diverse housing market by increasing the amount of different available typologies. Compact cities are the liveable and sustainable method to increase the quality of live in current- and future cities. We as urban strategic planners are the people to interfere in the sociological and spatial changes which occurs in the cities environments. We’re able to anticipate on changes such as urban sprawl. So, let this be our task, and let’s scape society.