Compact city


Published on

The Compact City development is explained with appropriate case studies and study models..

Published in: Education, Technology, Real Estate
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Compact city

  1. 1. Compact City Sustainability Concepts Group Members: Rhujuta. S. Jadhav (111214009) Pratyusha. P. Kiran (111214017) Rhea. H. Motwani (111214025)
  2. 2. Structure of Presentation:                Origin of compact city Definition of compact city Compact model Characteristics of compact city compact city in developed and developing countries Urban sprawl Eco-compact city Eco-compact city more efficient than sprawl city Indicators of compact city Positive impact of compact city Negative impact of compact city Sustainability Cities participating in compact city model Main arguments regarding compact city Recommendations for compact city policy
  3. 3. ORIGIN of compact city:  The term Compact City was first coined in 1973 by George Dantzig and Thomas L. Saaty, two mathematicians whose utopian vision was largely driven by a desire to see more efficient use of resources.  Compact cities were created by the idea of SUSTAINABLE URBAN PLANNING in European countries in the late 1990’s.  The concept of COMPACT CITY is based on the SUSTAINABILITY , a term used by THE CLUB OF ROME in 1972.  Characteristics of SUSTAINABLE CITY can be seen in Urban justice , Urban beauty , Creativity , Ecology , Essay to move and access , Compact and Polycentric Diversity .
  4. 4. THE TERM : COMPACT CITY  The Compact City or city of short distances is an urban planning and urban design concept, which promotes relatively high residential density with mixed land uses.  It is based on an efficient public transport system and has an urban layout which – according to its advocates – encourages walking and cycling, low energy consumption and reduced pollution.  It is also arguably a more sustainable urban settlement type than urban sprawl because it is less dependent on the car, requiring less (and cheaper per capita) infrastructure provision.  A large resident population provides opportunities for social interaction as well as feeling of safety in numbers and “ Eye On The Streets.”
  5. 5. Compact city model
  6. 6. Characteristics of Compact City  FORM OF SPACE:  High dense settlements.  Less dependence of automobile.  Clear boundary form  Surrounding area. Compact city model: DISTRICT Compact city model: TOWNS Compact city model: CITIES
  7. 7. Characteristics Of Compact City  SPACE CHARACTERISTICS: -- Mixed land use. -- Less complex land use. -- Clear identity.  FUNCTIONS: -- Social fairness (less number of high dense settlements). -- Independence of governance. -- Self sufficiency of daily life. -- Efficient transport system.
  8. 8. Other compact city characteristics  Urban Infrastructure, especially sewerage and water mains.  Multi nodal transportation.  High degree of accessibility; local/regional.  High degrees of street connectivity (internal / external) including sidewalks and bicycle lanes.  Low open space ratio.  Unitary control of planning of land development or closely coordinated control.  Sufficient government fiscal capacity to finance urban facilities and infrastructure.
  9. 9. Over lapping  More convenient land use pattern reduces the car journeys.  Reduces the energy for transportation.  Lesser congestion due to fewer cars and better air quality.  Encouragement of cycling and walking rather than driving.
  10. 10. Compact city Variations DEVELOPED COUNTRIES POPULATION GROWTH CONDITIONS  Urban population ratio: 69.8% : 84%.  Urban population: 730 million 1 billion. DEVELOPING COUNTRIES  Urban population ratio: 26.7% : 57.1%.  Urban population: 2 billion 4 billion • Increasing amount of • Increase infrastructure land area , per capita , supply , to catch up with decrease in population rapid population growth density. , to keep close urban• Increase in energy use , rural linkages. average travel distance • Poverty deteriorating , electrification of life. urban environment. • Increase of waste and • Promoting equality in pollution. economic , social , • Increasing security political interferes. status of urban infrastructure. (compact urban form)
  11. 11. DEVELOPED COUNTRIES DEVELOPING COUNTRIES MIXED USES  Advance in quality of life.  More considerations on placing a strong emphasis on mix land use. GOALS  Social service and poverty alleviation.  There is less vacant land in urban areas due to high population density and little spare capacity for population growth.  Wise use of resourcesconservation management of urban ecosystem.  Undeveloped land that does exists is of high valued for urban agriculture purposes and losing this land would affect the poor urban dweller.  Control of physical expansion ; Developing  Not much visibility of wise use of various guidelines for the resources as it has more pressure sustainable development on resource utility due to immense of towns & cities. population.
  12. 12. DEVELOPED COUNTRIES HOUSING DEVELOPING COUNTRIES  The urban poor and those on low income tend to live in center , and the rich and middle class on the periphery , in suburbs.  The poorest people tend to live in center , at very high densities. The clusters of poor people on periphery are low or medium density squatter settlements or illegal sub divisions.
  13. 13. Urban Sprawl Characteristics 1.Low residential density 2.Unlimited outward extension of urban development 3.Spatial segregation of different types of land uses through zoning 4.Leapfrog development 5.No centralized ownership of land or planning of land development 6.All transportation dominated by privately owned motor vehicles 7.Fragmentation of governance authority of land uses among many local governments 8.Great variances in the fiscal capacity of local governments 9.Widespread commercial strip development along major roadways 10.Major reliance on a filtering process to provide housing for low income households Source: Burchell et al. 1998 (as quoted in Neuman, M2005)
  14. 14. Eco-compact city • The eco-city is an umbrella metaphor that encompasses a wide range of urban-ecological proposals that aim to achieve urban sustainability. • These approaches propose a wide range of environmental, social, and institutional policies that are directed to managing urban spaces to achieve sustainability. • This type promotes the ecological agenda and emphasizes environmental management through a set of institutional and policy tools. • The distinctive concepts of the eco-city are greening and passive solar design.
  15. 15. Eco-compact city  It is remarkable that the core of many approaches is the management of the city, rather than the suggesting of any specific urban form; it is believed that not the physical shape of the city and its built environment that is important; it is how the urban society is organized and managed that counts most.  Therefore, the city is managed to achieve sustainability through different land use, environmental, institutional, social, and economic policies  In practice, many local governments, planning consultants, landscape architects, and so on are grappling much more specifically with aspects of ecological, pedestrian oriented, or otherwise sustainable urban form.
  16. 16. Eco-compact City vs Sprawl City: Efficiency  It consumes less territory.  It allows the correct density.  It allows small retail to be on street and on square.  It maximizes the investment.  It allows the creation of efficient network of public utilities.  It allows creation of an efficient public transit system.
  17. 17. Indicators of Compact Citiy Model INDICATORS (GENERAL) INDICATORS (GOAL SPECIFIC ) •Population •Regional GDP •Regional employment growth •Regional employment •Regional productivity by sectors •Built-up areas •Density in built-up areas •Density of new residential development •Sprawl •GHG emissions •Energy consumption •Share of public transportation use •Vehicle ownership •Length of public transportation lines per capita •Average trip distance and time •Per capita vehicle miles travelled •Transport energy consumption by transport mode •Proximity to public transport •Operational costs of public services (per capita) •Vacancy rates of housing and offices in built-up areas •Residential energy use per capita •Area of land for urban development •Concentration of urban facilities in core areas •Diversity in land use in urban centers •Green areas •Air pollution levels
  18. 18. Positive Impact Of Compact Cities GOALS ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY 1. Shortening commuting distance • less energy consumption •less GHG (Green Houses Gases) emissions •Lower travel cost, less congestion, thus higher mobility and higher productivity 2. Maximizing densification and intensification •Preservation of land for agriculture, water resources, etc. •Efficient use of energy •Lower electricity demand •More cost effective public service provision (e.g. road, water) •Maximized impacts of public investment
  19. 19. Positive Impact Of Compact Cities GOALS 3. Enhancing attractiveness and quality of life in urban centers ENVIRONMENT •Improvement of neighborhood level living environment (green, clean air, etc.) 4. Improving metropolitan governance ECONOMY •More frequent exchange of ideas, thus increased knowledge, innovation and wealth creation •More cultural diversity, higher quality of life, thus more talented, high-skilled labour force and more private investment
  20. 20. Negative Impact Of Compact Cities  Less domestic living space.  Lack of affordable housing.  Poor access to green space.  Increased crime level.  Higher death rate due to respiratory diseases.
  21. 21. Sustainable city
  22. 22. Cities depicting Compact City Model 1. Melbourne (AUSTRALIA)  MAIN AREA STUDY/ POPULATION: 31municipalities, 4 million population  MAJOR POLICY TOOLS: • Melbourne 2030 (Spatial development strategy published by the State of Victoria in 2002; revised in 2007). • MSS (City of Melbourne’s spatial master plan). • Deregulation policies on land use (for mixed use development) and conversions (from office buildings to residential) in downtown Melbourne in mid 90’s.
  23. 23. Cities depicting Compact City Model 2. Toyama (JAPAN)  MAIN AREA STUDY/ POPULATION: City of Toyama, 0.4 million  MAJOR POLICY TOOLS: • Compact city policies in a depopulating society • Incentives to concentrate residential development along the transportation corridors • PPPs in public transport
  24. 24. Cities depicting Compact City Model 3.Vancouver(Canada)  MAIN AREA STUDY/ POPULATION: Metro Vancouver, 2.2Million  MAJOR POLICY TOOLS: • Densification policy in residential neighborhoods (e.g., Laneway House Guidelines of 2009) • Regional governance in managing growth • GHG emission reduction and compact city Source: OECD
  25. 25. Arguments for the compact city: 1. Higher level of control over urban processes, reuse of previously developed facilities and derelict land, bigger urban vitality, rational city form and preserved outskirts of the towns. 2. Effectiveness of public transport and decreased fuel consumption, lower pollution per person. 3. Possibility of mixed use development due to higher population density. 4. Savings of energy in heating and other facilities as the result of dense urban fabric. 5. Possibility of social mix when different tenure and comfort level tenements are close together.
  26. 26. Five recommendations for compact city policy strategies 1. Set explicit compact city goals Establish a national urban policy framework Encourage metropolitan-wide strategic planning 2. Encourage dense and contiguous development at urban fringes Increase effectiveness of regulatory tools Target compact urban development in green-field areas Set minimum density requirements for new development Strengthen urban-rural linkage
  27. 27. 3. Retrofit existing built-up areas Promote brown-field development Harmonize industrial policies with compact city policies Regenerate existing residential areas Promote transit-oriented development in built-up areas Encourage “intensification” of existing urban assets 4. Enhance diversity and quality of life in urban centers Promote mixed land use Attract residents and local services to urban centers Promote focused investment in public space and foster a “sense of place” Promote a walking and cycling environment 5. Minimize adverse negative effects Counteract traffic congestion Encourage the provision of affordable housing Promote high-quality urban design Encourage greening of built-up areas Source : OECD Study : COMPACT CITY POLICES : A Comparative Assessment Thank u..