SOCIO ECONOMIC DETERMINANTS IN MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT

SOCIO ECONOMIC
DETERMINANTS IN
MIXED USE
DEVELOPMENT
Kolli Rajesh M.City Planning, B.Arch
kollirajesh888@gmail.com

MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
Mixed use development can be defined as
development which comprises of a
mixture of two or more land uses, either
comprised within a single building or
multiple buildings of different uses within
a distinct development site.
VERTICAL
• Different uses within
the same building
•Private areas on the
upper floors
•Public spaces on the
lower floor
HORIZONTOL
•Single-use buildings
within a mixed-use
zoning
•Complementary and
integrated uses that are
walkable
BOTH
•Combination of
horizontal and vertical
mixed use developm.
TYPES OF
MIXED USE
DEVELOPMENT
(SPRAWL)
LOW
DENSITY
• Low housing density of
about 1 home for each
600 to 700 square
metres
MEDIUM
DENSITY
•Average Density may be
about 1 home for each
300 square metres of
land
HIGH
DENSITY
•High Density will be
around 1 home for
each 150 square
metres of land
TYPES OF
MIXED USE
DEVELOPMENT
(DENSITY)
SOURCE - Noha Ahmed Nabil, G. E. (2015).
Influence of mixed land-use on
realizing. Housing and Building
National Research Center, 259-298.

3500 B.C. to
1000 B.C.
• The ancient civilizations emerged
• Services were concentrated around the religious element and then the zones were allocated to residence
700 B.C. to
1900 A.D
• The roman cities were the beginning of emergence of mixed use
• Convergence of a group of services with each other
1750–1850
• Emergence of industrial revolution along with the problems such as health issues , pollution within the living areas
emerged.
• Existing towns expanded and new towns like industrial and satellite towns were created with strict land use zoning.
1910 to 1900
• Post world war a great increase in owning cars.
• Migration started from the centralized cities to the suburbs
• Mixed uses were cancelled from all new plans of cities
1960 to early
1970
• Mixed use became a rare development
• Mixed use started to emerge again as a part of urban revitalization.
1970–1980
• Rehabilitation tolls of deteriorated zones and mixed use was applied on a smaller scale.
• Return was made to the mixed-use as interest in historic preservation grew.
1990–2000
• Basic element in designing the sustainable residential neighborhood
• It was a key component in transit orient development and traditional neighborhood development.
• Contemporary planning principles , livable communities and smart growth principle.
HISTORY OF MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
Source -HBRC Journal

SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES FROM
MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
PARKING
SUCCESS
DEPENDS ON
TWO DIFFERENT
MARKETS
SECURITY
ISSUES
NOISE
TRANSFER
TRASH AND
SMELLS
•ASSEMBLING
LAND PARCELS
• CONTEXT OF
THE EXISTING
AREA
•COORDINATION
AND
MANAGEMENT
SOCIO-ECONOMIC BENEFITS
FROM MIXED-USE
DEVELOPMENT
ACCESIBILITY
EQUITY AND
DIVERSITY
QUALITY OF
LIFE
VITALITY,
ATTRACTIVENESS
AND AESTHETICS
INTERACTION ,
SENSE OF
BELONGING
•HEALTH
•SAFETY AND
SURVELLIENCE
•EMPLOYMENT
SOURCE - Noha Ahmed Nabil, G. E. (2015). Influence of mixed land-use on realizing. Housing and Building National Research Center, 259-298.

KEY DESIGN
CONSIDERATION
BEHAVIOUR PATTERN MANIFESTATION/ACTION
Walkability People prefer to walk/cycle for basic needs; Visual/
verbal Interaction
Less use of automobile; Health issues reduces;
Open spaces with
human scale
Group Dynamics; Surveillance; Kids play without fear;
Elderly people relax
Interaction among different age groups; Frontage/
Openings/Blank facade
Closeness of
different land-uses
Reduce need for automobile; Time Saving;
Association and interaction
Less pollution/ less carbon footprint; Time for self and
community; Efficiency; Compatibility of uses
Mix of tenure and
housing typology
Diversity; Synergy increases; Group dynamics and;
Inclusive community
Affiliation; Instrumental and Classical Learning
Financing and
Feasibility
Networking & coordination; Awareness; Cost
efficiency
Acceptability; Public subsides; Location (dis-advantages;
Public revenue )
Governance Learned behaviour; Social awareness; Leadership;
Motivation
Learned behaviour; Social awareness; Leadership;
Motivation
Planning and
Design
Complex (norms, design); Decision making;
Functional utility and economical
Dedication; Harmonizing Conflicting land uses; Innovation
and creativity
Life and Quality Vibrant and active; Inclusive; Strong social networking Attention; Affiliation
Design Quality and
Context
Aesthetics; Diversity & Attractive; Socio-economic
wellbeing
Characteristic across an Urban area; Positive contribution

O URDPFI 2015, LAWS GOVERNING MIXED USE ZONING
• MIXED USE ZONE (M)
The Mixed‐use Zone can be subdivided into -
1. Mixed Industrial use: M1
2. Mixed Residential use: M2
3. Mixed Commercial use: M3
• The activities permissible, restricted and prohibited shall be as given below.
• In M1 Zone activities falling within non‐ polluting industry/ service industry (dominant land use) categories
can coexist with maximum up to 20‐30% of commercial, institutional, recreational and residential land use.
• In M2 Zone all activities falling within permitted residential land use (dominant land use) shall be minimum
60% and to coexist with commercial, institutional, recreational.
• In M3 Zone all activities falling within permitted commercial, institutional land use dominant land use) shall
be minimum 60% and to coexist with residential, recreational and non‐ polluting and household industry.Restricted Uses/Activities
• Activities related to commercial, institutional and residential landuse in M1 Zone and non‐polluting
industrial land use in M2 Zone can be increased to between 20‐50% depending on the contextual
and locational feasibility of the area.
Prohibited Uses/Activities
• All other activities especially industrial which are polluting in nature and which will have an adverse
impact on the overall activities of this zone
Note: Mixed land use to be well defined by the Development control body by prescribing the limits on the
use of activity based on the abutting road width, compatible uses, plots size, ground coverage, FAR/FSI,
density, any other urban design guideline.

SOCIO-ECONOMIC DETERMINANTS IN
MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
Case Study of Neighbourhoods
in Nagpur, India
SOURCE - Kotharkar, S. B. (December 2012
Sustainability and Mixed Land use,
Case Study of Neighborhoods in Nagpur, I
International Journal of Industrial Engineer
Management Science, 76-82.

NAGPUR- CASE STUDY
• Nagpur is centrally located and well
connected to major cities in India by air,
rail and road. The total area of Nagpur
Municipal Corporation is 21,756 hectors
with a population of 2.4 million.
• The city has different typology of segregated and
mixed land use.
1. The old areas has vibrant mixed use
environment that have evolved over time.
2. The commercial or employment centre
(Central business district (CBD) and sub CBD)
has dominant commercial land use. These
areas have high land and rental value
making it non feasible for pure residential
use so mixed land-use leads other uses
3. There are planned and semi-planned areas
with a balance of residential and non
residential activities.
4. There are planned segregated residential
areas known as civil lines designed for
automobile and not for pedestrian, but they
form the greenest part of the city.
5. The last type is the sprawl areas in the
suburb planned or unplanned plotted
development with residential development.
SOURCE - Kotharkar, S. B. (December 2012). Social
Case Study of Neighborhoods in Nagpur, India. Bonfring
International Journal of Industrial Engineering and

1636-1743
• Fortified city with 6 major gates
• Kings and nobles in the fort to the
east
• Commoners in the west outside
the fort.
• Commercial area comprised of
open area market.
1743-1854
• Palace formed the center of a radical
street system.
• Hirarchy of neighbourhood based on
occupation and caste system.
• Mixed land-use of house+shop+cottage
industry was the prominent housing
typology.
1854-1947
• The civil stn (the situbaldi fort)
formed the nucleus of the
settlement.
• New British settlement on the
west-side.
• Well defined land-use pattern.
• Housing development in the form
of colonies for security reasons
SION UNDER GOND, BHONSALA AND COLONIAL RULE

1947-1976
• Civil lines area continue to serve
as the administrative zone.
• Low rise low density
development.
• Academic & Medical institutes
were developed in the south-west
and north-east regions.
1976-2000
• Nagpur improvement trust took
initiative to build transportation
networks and residences in the
fringe areas.
• Inner ring road was constructed
for ease of traffic movement.
EXPANSION OF NAGPUR IN POST-INDEPENDENCE PERIOD

SPACIAL LOCATION OF SELECTED NEIGHBOURHOODS FOR CASE STUDY
L1-Neighborhood One (NH1) Buldi:
Buldi, a 150 year old neighborhood is
currently the CBD with a medium rise high
density.
L2-Neighborhood two (NH2) Buddha
Nagar: Buddha Nagar is a part of the sub-CBD
with medium rise medium density.
L3-Neighborhood three (NH3) Aahuja
Nagar and Neighborhood four (NH4)
Kukreja Nagar: Aahuja Nagar and Kukreja
Nagar 20-30 years planned
neighborhoods are on the either side of
the major sixty feet wide Nara road with
low rise medium density development
pattern.
L3-Neighborhood five (NH5) Kalpana
Nagar: Kalpana Nagar is low rise low
density, a decade old planned-plotted
neighborhood along ring road.
L4-Neighborhood six (NH6) Shambhu
Nagar and Dhobale Layout: A sprawling
development in the prior green zone with
low rise low density development
pattern.
NH6
NH5
NH4
NH7
NH1
NH2
NH3

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE NEIGHBOURHOODS
L1-Neighborhood One (NH1) Buldi:
• Accessibility (walkable)
• Low travel cost and time(railway/road)
• Employment
• Middle and low income groups
• Vertical sprawl of mixed-use buildings
• Safety and surveillance.
• Very high sense of belonging/interaction

L2-Neighborhood two (NH2) Buddha Nagar
NH2
• Accessibility (walkable)
• Low travel cost and time
• Employment
• Middle income groups
• Medium cost for plots and apartments.
• Safety and surveillance.
• High sense of belonging/ interaction

L3-Neighborhood three (NH3) Kukreja Nagar and Neighborhood four (NH4) Aahuja Nagar:
NH3
• Accessibility (vehicular/walkable)
• Moderate travel cost and time
• Partial employment
• Lower income groups
• Safety and security.
• High sense of belonging

L3-Neighborhood three (NH3) Kukreja Nagar and Neighborhood four (NH4) Aahuja Nagar:
NH4
• Moderate travel cost and time

L3-Neighborhood five (NH5) Kalpana Nagar:
NH6
• High travel cost and time
• Medium cost for plots and apartments.
NH5

L4-Neighborhood eleven (NH11) Shambhu Nagar and Dhobale (NH12) :
Shambhu nagar- sprawl growth
Dhobale- sprawl
NH6
• Accessibility (vehicular)
• Very high travel cost and time
• Low cost for plots and apartments.
• Lack of employment
• Low and middle income groups
• Crime and theft prone.
• Less interaction and sense of
belonging.
• Lack of physical and social
infrastructure.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF NEIGHBOURHOODS FOR SOCIO-ECONOMIC DETERMINANTS
1. Accessibility
• High mix neighbourhood has better access to both physical
and social infrastructure as against segregated areas.
• NH1 being CBD acts as a transit node and is well
connected to all parts of Nagpur with transit facility.
• NH2 also has good transit facility followed by NH3 and
NH4, fairly in NH5 but NH6 lacks transit facility.
2. Travel time
Proximity of the basic amenities in the neighbourhood
• Increase in trip length also increases the travel time for
both work and education trip in all neighbourhoods except
in NH1 for work trip.
• The trip length for education of school going students is
less in NH3 but time consumed is more due to the mode of
travel which is either cycle or walk.
• Higher travel time consumption leads to less quality time
available for the personal and family enrichment.
Travel time in minutes

3. Economic status and travel habits
• Overall the residents in all neighbourhood except NH3 had higher range of selected middle and higher income group
households.
• All the facilities in NH1are in close proximity thus residents spend less capital and time on travel as against NH5 and 6
where the residents need to move out for all amenities.
• The ownership of vehicles is less significant to the land use mix but is more associated with the economic status of the
individuals as against the common notion.
Travel Cost in Rupees and Percentage of Income
4. Sense of belonging /Interaction
Vehicle Ownership in Percentage
• None of the residents feel that they have poor sense of
belonging (figure 6) irrespective of the lack of the facilities in
some neighbourhoods.
• Sense of belonging is also directly related to the age of the
neighbourhood.

5. Safety and Surveillance
• NH1 is safe except at few commercial pockets which tend to remain vacant during night hours.
• Residents in NH2, 3 and 4 feel safe both on streets and home and has natural surveillance due to diverse mix. The mix of
business and service oriented occupation make it vibrant and active even till late night.
• Except on the major periphery roads the neighbourhoods are safe for all age group people.
6. Employment
• NH1 being the CBD, is the main source of employment generation, so has an intrusion of floating population.
• NH2, 3 and 4 has a mix of both resident’s comprising their workplace nearby (business) and at other places
• Residents in NH5 and 6 has to move out from their neighbourhood for work.
7. Infrastructure Quality
• NH1 has overloaded physical and social infrastructure. There is lack of open spaces, natural light and ventilation. The
major problem is noise and air pollution caused by the floating population.
• Nh2, 3 and 4 has moderate to good social and physical infrastructure. Major problem is in NH6 which lacks the
provision of basic infrastructure like municipal water supply, sewage line and street lights.
• There is also lack of social infrastructure like health, education and recreation facilities in nh6 making it more
vulnerable to unsocial activities like crime and theft.
SOURCE - Kotharkar, S. B. (December 2012). Social Sustainability and Mixed Land use,
Case Study of Neighborhoods in Nagpur, India. Bonfring International Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management Science, 76-82.

Rosslyn-Ballston corridor, Arlington County, VIrginia

This vision for Crystal City Conceptis expressed through the following seven goals and
supporting objectives which are reflected in the concept plan and policy framework:
1. Create a High Quality Public Realm that Strengthens the
Sense of Place
• Coordinate the public realm so that the street system, transit system, sidewalks and
interior walkway system, and a variety of public open spaces work together to establish
the framework around which redevelopment shall occur.
• Improve the urban form and pedestrian experience while enhancing street-level
activity and connectivity for all users by designing smaller, tree-lined neighborhood
blocks.
• Target existing underutilized paved spaces for consolidation into development sites
before impacting existing green spaces.
• Increase the amount of high-quality, accessible and “usable” public open space in
Crystal City.
• Create a variety of accessible public spaces that are strategically phased and located
throughout Crystal City. These public spaces should be appropriately sized, designed,
and programmed to attract, serve and support the anticipated population of residents,
workers, and visitors including their recreation, leisure, social and cultural needs.
• Acknowledge residual open spaces between buildings for their ability to provide visual
relief and a calming influence.
FACTORS LEADING TO INCEPTION

2. Provide a Mix of Uses by balancing office,
residential, retail, cultural, and civic uses
among several defined neighborhood centers.
• Define the City by its neighborhoods, including the northern
neighborhood, the central Metro station district, the
entertainment district, and the hotel district.
• Create a more even balance between residential and office uses
and daytime and evening populations, and maintain an
economically sustainable hotel base.
• Improve the availability of primary elements of daily living within
Crystal City.
• Create a thriving “Class A” office environment.
• Provide a mix of housing options to accommodate households
with differing income levels, family composition, and accessibility
requirements.
• Provide varied cultural and civic facilities and uses (such as
theaters, emergency service facilities, health care, day care,
urgent medical care, meeting spaces, etc.) for all age groups, and
strategically locate them near transit centers, public spaces, and
restaurants to promote those venues and help define
neighborhood centers.
• Encourage a diverse mix of retail spaces, including grocery
stores, to maintain and attract local retail and neighborhood
services in addition to major and national retailers.

3. Relate Architectural and Urban Design to the
Human Scale
• Create new buildings where the base of at least one or two stories
relates to the street level and the top creates a meaningful connection to
the sky.
• Use wide expanses of glass for the base of building retail spaces to
promote street activity.
• Use building massing and elevations to create and frame the public
realm and to preserve and enhance views from within the public realm.
• Create distinct and defined block edges.
• Provide a meaningful and careful transition from the core of the city to
the adjacent single family neighborhood.
4. Enhance Multimodal Access and Connectivity
• Improve transportation and land-use connections within and beyond
Crystal City through transit-oriented development.
• Enhance City’s transit orientation with new and better transit services
and facilities designed to meet the future needs of the city, and to
further encourage residents, workers, and visitors to select transit over
personal vehicles.
• Enhance City’s multimodal transportation infrastructure by designing
transit facilities as integral architectural elements and improving overall
transit, pedestrian, and bicycle access and connectivity.
• Provide high quality surface transit service that has travel times
competitive with private automobiles, attracts riders.

Economic Aspects Observed-
• Transit Orientation- The corridor comprises of
Metro rail transit around which each zone is planned in
a concentric pattern.
• Cheaper Than Sectored Layout- It is much
cheaper and logical when majority of the population is
centred around a major transit route utilised by many.
• Long-Term Economic Sustainability- Provide
flexibility to phase development to meet market
conditions, support timely redevelopment of
properties most impacted by BRAC, encourage
redevelopment, andaddress future public
improvements.
• The Revenue Generation Boom-The result is
seven mixed-use, walkable and bicycle-friendly Metro
transit villages. Two Metro corridors accommodate 36
million square feet of office space, 6 million square feet
of retail space and over 47,000 residential units.
Basically, higher revenue per sq km of area.
Social Aspects Observed-
• High Quality Public Realm- Due to closeness
of every facility, the quality of life has a higher median
index.
• Integrity of the Single-Family
Neighborhood- Provide improved pedestrian, bike
and other connections between the corridor and
adjacent single-family neighborhoods, to help reduce
the barrier effect of the highway.
• Cultural Enhancement- Establishment of
identifiable landscape, public art, or architectural
features at gateway locations, as much land is
preserved for a cultural scenario, in a compact
establishment.
• Defining neighborhood centers- Varied
cultural and civic facilities and uses (such as theaters,
emergency service facilities, health care, day care,
urgent medical care, meeting spaces, etc.) for all age
groups can be strategically located near transit centers,
public spaces, and restaurants to promote those
venues and help define neighborhood centers.

Kolli Rajesh M.City Planning, B.Arch
kollirajesh888@gmail.com
Thank You

SOCIO ECONOMIC DETERMINANTS IN MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to SOCIO ECONOMIC DETERMINANTS IN MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT

Similar to SOCIO ECONOMIC DETERMINANTS IN MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (20)

More from Rajesh Kolli

More from Rajesh Kolli (14)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

SOCIO ECONOMIC DETERMINANTS IN MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT