The document discusses population growth strategies for the city of Malmö, Sweden, which expects an increase of 100,000 inhabitants over the next 30 years. It explores growing the population inwards by increasing density within the city, outwards by expanding the city boundaries, or both. Specifically, it models dividing the expected 100,000 new residents equally among 5 target areas in the city. Under this equal distribution, the document estimates the projected population increase in each area would range from 90% to 400%.

1. Malmö is expecting INWARDS OUTWARDS INWARDS AND
a growth of OUTWARDS
approx. 100 000 inh.
in the next 30 years.
According to the
Strategy department
of Malmö City, the
alternate strategies
for creating room for
these new inhabitants
are growing inwards,
outwards or both
inward and outwards.
This excercise explores
the different solutions
for densifying the city
and their consequences
on our target sites.

2. Theoretically, how
would the prognosis
be divided on the five
sites appointed as our
target areas?
100 000/5 = 20 000
VÄSTRA HAMNEN
2 019 inh.
+ 20 000
= 22 019
+ 990%
MÖLLEVÅNGEN
9 948 inh.
+ 20 000
= 29 948
ROSENGÅRD
+ 200%
21 955 inh. YTRE RINGVÄGEN
+ 20 000 OXIE
= 41 955 <50 inh. (Elisedal)
+ 20 000
+ 90% = 20 050 11 045 inh.
+ 20 000
+ 40 000% = 31 045
+ 180%
Source for the population statistics: Malmö City/ January 2007

3. Different scenarios can be explored:
How will the sites transform through different growth strategies?
How will the sites transform if they gain 20 000 inhabitants each,
3300 per each 5 years?
What happens if one of the sites gains 50 000 inhabitants and the rest much
less?
What will these areas look like if they gain 100 000 inhabitants each?
Will it make any difference anymore?
How does this compare to some of the densest cities in the world?
Could Västra Hamnen pull off the density of Tokyo, for instance?
Can the limits of growth be tracked down in an excercise like this -
or are there any limits, if the growth balances itself in terms of sustainability?