SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES

Code 3675

Lecture Five

PROF. DR. NOMANA ANJUM

ALLAMA IQBAL OPEN UNIVERSITY
ISLAMABAD
Unit 4 The Neighborhood as Ecosystem

4.1 The Ecosystem Approach

4.2 Social Capital and Housing Mix
4.3 Access to Work and Services
4.4 Movement and the Public Reteam
4.5 Local Resource Management Functional
Intergeneration
Unit 5 Urban Form and Locality

5.1 Disposal versus Concentration

5.2 Location of Neighborhoods
5.3 Mix use development
Local Densities
Unit 5 Urban Form and Locality

Since the Earth Summit in Rio questions about

sustainable spatial strategies and urban form have
become increasingly central to planning policy debates.

They also loom large in academic inquiry. There has been

a deepening and broadening of work in the field. The new
environmental agenda has brought together academic and
policy interests that previously had little contact, and
according to Breheny there is an ‘integrity of effort’ that
has not been witnessed for a long time
Unit 5 Urban Form and Locality

5.1 Disposal versus Concentration

5.2 Location of Neighborhoods
5.3 Mix use development
Local Densities
Unit 5 Urban Form and Locality
5.1 Disposal versus Concentration
Rural Autonomy

The ongoing arguments over dispersal versus

concentration pit the Eco idealists and market realists
against the urban revivalists and transport researchers.

The eco-idealists expound an ecosystem approach to

settlements partly justified by the hope of social
transformation. Ecologically and socially they consider
‘small is beautiful’ (Schumacher 1972).
Unit 5 Urban Form and Locality
5.1 Disposal versus Concentration
Rural Autonomy

They picture small-scale self- sufficient communities

repopulating the countryside, relying on locally-grown food,
ambient sources of energy and water, linked to the global
village by internet, fax and view phone: as the influential
Blueprint for Survival put it ‘broadly speaking, it is only by
decentralization that we can increase self-sufficiency - and
self-sufficiency is vital if we are to minimize the burden of
social systems on the eco-systems that support them’
(Ecologist, 1972).
Unit 5 Urban Form and Locality
5.1 Disposal versus Concentration
Rural Autonomy
The idea of decentralized self-sufficiency has been recently
enlivened by Mollinson’s persuasive guide to ‘permaculture’
(1990), which has helped to spawn the active world-wide
movement for eco-villages noted in Chapter 5. In the UK
Simon Fairlie has articulated the hopes of the rural
dispossessed and eco-idealists with Low Impact Development
(1996).
Fairlie’s vision is of a rejuvenated rural economy based
around sustainable, organic use of the land. By giving people
the opportunity to live in the countryside, in low impact
dwellings and pursuing a low impact lifestyle, he believes the
planning system could create richer and more diverse rural
communities.
Unit 5 Urban Form and Locality
5.1 Disposal versus Concentration
The Compact City
At the other end of the spectrum are the ‘urban revivalists’ who advocate
the compact city. They are represented pre-eminently by the EU
Commission (the Green Paper on the Urban Environment, 1990) and the
Government.
The 1998 White Paper Planning for Communities of the Future puts in
place the targets and decision processes intended to foster urban
regeneration and increased urban density as the sustainable alternative
to greenfield development.
Other advocates include Sherlock (Cities are Good For Us, 1991) and
Elkin and McLaren (Reviving the City, 1991). The researchers whose
work underpins this strategy are primarily in the transport energy field
and may be represented, for example, by Newman and Kenworthy, whose
seminal work Cities and Automobile Dependence (1989) looked at the
relationship between modal choice, trip generation, density,
centralization and transport systems.
Unit 5 Urban Form and Locality
5.1 Disposal versus Concentration
The Compact City
The compact city strategy implies a particular vision of neighbourhoods
strongly at odds with the self-sufficiency of the eco-idealists. It implies
the kind of close-knit, mixed use, higher density pattern exemplified within
many European cities (Bologna, Amsterdam, Paris) but also in historic
towns in the UK (York, Bath, Chichester).

Michael Dower (1984) asks rhetorically:

‘Why should we green the cities? Because man needs beauty: he needs
nature, trees, greenery, birds, squirrels, the changing seasons, the links
to the soil. Because we need space for leisure, to recreate mind and
soul, to run, play, fish, cycle, relax and socialize ... Because the green
can be productive of food, of timber; of energy, of pure water; of benign
microclimates.’
Unit 5 Urban Form and Locality
5.1 Disposal versus Concentration
The Feasibility of Urban Intensification

Despite such arguments the dominant mood favours

intensification. The refocusing of development potential into
the towns and cities is seen as promoting economic, social
and physical regeneration while reducing the requirement for
greenfield development @ETR, 1998 a). The central policy
question is no longer whether to intensify but how to intensify
- particularly how to intensify without sacrificing
environmental quality and householder/market freedoms.
Unit 5 Urban Form and Locality
5.1 Disposal versus Concentration
The Feasibility of Urban Intensification

There are distinctions to be drawn between old industrial

cities with ample supply of brownfield sites (though
sometimes they are contaminated) and historic towns and
suburban centres with a very limited stock of brownfield sites.
In the case of the former – e.g. Glasgow, Manchester -
brownfield development and urban renewal provide options
for intensification.
Unit 5 Urban Form and Locality

5.2 Location of Neighborhoods

The conclusions of the concentration versus dispersal debate
so far are

first, that a dispersed pattern of development, except for land-

based activity, is not sustainable because of the high level of
transport emissions and the low level of accessibility;

second, that the compact city and a strategy of urban

rejuvenation have much to commend them but raise
questions about lifestyle choices, policy/market feasibility and
the practicality of the kind of ecosystem approach.
Unit 5 Urban Form and Locality

5.2 Location of Neighborhoods

A number of studies have compared residential areas which,

while socially and physically similar, have very different
locations. Where similar residential developments are located
in-town as opposed to out of town, then transport energy use
can vary by 100 per cent (Birley, 1983). The same pattern is
evident when looking at whole small settlements. Banister
found over 100 per cent variation between commuter
settlements without local facilities and a small town with a
good range of facilities. People in the small town in fact
made more trips, but they were shorter, and much more likely
to be on foot (Banister 1992).
Unit 5 Urban Form and Locality
5.2 Location of Neighborhoods
There are important conclusions for the location of
neighbourhoods. We have seen in relation to a range of
scales from large city down to market town how dispersal,
even into relatively compact (smaller) settlements, leads to
increased emissions and less transport choice. In principle,
therefore, any new neighbourhoods should be located as
close to the town or city that is generating the household
growth as possible.

The link with employment and major service provision is

critical.
Unit 5 Urban Form and Locality
5.3 Mix use development
Local Densities

Urban density is a critical issue because of its relationship to questions of

urban capacity. In discussions about urban intensification the arguments
often turn on the acceptability and practicality of higher net densities.
In other words, how far would people accept flat living, smaller gardens,
less space for cars, and is there the realistic prospect of the market being
able to deliver intensification?
These are key issues, but what the debates tend to ignore is the
significance, in sustainability terms, of the non-residential land uses that
contribute to the gross density and therefore affect urban capacity. Indeed
old industrial areas, underused allotments and surplus hospitals or schools
are often allocated for housing as a matter of priority in order to avoid spilling
over into ‘green fields’, undermining the principle of mixed us.
Unit 5 Urban Form and Locality
5.3 Mix use development
Local Densities
The main functional justification for promoting higher densities is
shorter trip lengths in order to reach a given range of jobs,
facilities and social contacts. The lower the density the less
likely it is people will choose (or be able) to walk to facilities and
the higher the proportion of motorized trips.
The effect on bus viability is significant. White (1995) and
Adden brooke et al (1981) both suggest that contemporary
densities are low for efficient operation of buses, falling below a
desirable threshold of around 100 persons per hectare
(40+dph).
They also suggest density banding within any average figure.
The maximum proportion of people should be living as close as
possible to public transport, so flats and close-knit terraces
cluster around the stops and stations,
Unit 5 Urban Form and Locality
5.3 Mix use development
Local Densities
The main functional justification for promoting higher densities is
shorter trip lengths in order to reach a given range of jobs,
facilities and social contacts. The lower the density the less
likely it is people will choose (or be able) to walk to facilities and
the higher the proportion of motorized trips.
The effect on bus viability is significant. White (1995) and
Adden brooke et al (1981) both suggest that contemporary
densities are low for efficient operation of buses, falling below a
desirable threshold of around 100 persons per hectare
(40+dph).
They also suggest density banding within any average figure.
The maximum proportion of people should be living as close as
possible to public transport, so flats and close-knit terraces
cluster around the stops and stations,
Unit 5 Urban Form and Locality
5.3 Mix use development
Local Densities

There is no simple answer to the question of density. On the

one hand the transport, accessibility, built form and CHP
arguments strongly favour higher densities.

On the other hand the solar power, food, water and urban
wildlife arguments favour lower densities. However, detailed
evaluation of these issues does begin to show a way through.
Unit 5 Urban Form and Locality
CONCLUSION: LINEAR CONCENTRATION
Four key spatial issues were identified: dispersal versus
concentration, high versus low density, segregated versus
integrated land use patterns, and nucleated versus linear form
On the first issue urban dispersal is rejected as a sustainable
solution even though, ironically, many environmentalists
advocate it. Concentration is de rigeur, but comes in two broad
variants: the ‘compact city’ model and the ‘dispersed
concentration’ model which can be equated with a polycentric
city or cluster of linked towns.
The compact city performs well empirically in relation to
transport and accessibility criteria but above a certain size less
well in theoretical tests assuming an energy constrained future.
Dispersed concentrations should not be equated with
neighbourhoods but with towns/ townships large enough and
economically attractive enough to support jobs/services.
Unit 5 Urban Form and Locality
CONCLUSION: LINEAR CONCENTRATION
The mixed use centres of such townships should be locally
accessible by non-motorized modes but also tied into the rest
of the city or urban cluster by high quality public transport to
avoid the necessity for car use while retaining city-wide choice.
Mixed use does not imply a dispersed pattern of activities.
Rather it is highly structured at both the neighbourhood and the
township level.
The linear networks of water and public transport thus give the
frame- works on which diverse urban land uses are hung. Even
where a compact city solution is appropriate it is yet important
both to maintain/enhance green parkways and to maximize
public transport accessibility. This may lead to compact linear
patterns for any necessary greenfield development rather than
simple annular expansion.
Discussion