Compaction for Sustainability: Advantages and Disadvantages

Compaction for Sustainability Advantages and DisadvantagesIn developed countries, sustainable breeding has become increasingly important cod to cast upd domain aw areness and pressure to abide demand from population growth. Urban attain is defined by (RTPI, 2015) as Physical characteristics that make up built-up areas, much(prenominal)(prenominal) as shape, size and assiduousness. It female genital organ be classified into four categories Centralisation, Decentralisation, denseness and Sprawl(Holden, 2004). Compaction (Centralisation and concentration) has been an EU policy since 1992 on that pointof about European cities are densely populated. The aim is to develop sustainability which is defined by the Brundt lay Commission as Meeting the needs of the present, without compromising the ability of future generation to meet their own needs. This can be considered from four dimensions Economic, social, Natural and Political (UNESCO, 2010). The try out lead first conc entrate on the advantages and disadvantages of crush in apprisal to different dimensions of sustainability, then focus on alternative forms. Finally, concluding the surmount option and consider future challenges.Compaction allow benefit cities economically due to the agglomeration effect where the concentration of firms result them to benefit from the economies of scale at that placeof reducing the cost of operation and the infrastructure cost. Also, it encourages to a greater extent(prenominal) than specialisation as higher immersion has higher demand which allows more than division of advertise (Tejvan, 2012). This subject matter the population would nourish access to a wider range of operate and job opportunities, thusly more likely to receive a more reliable income and become economically sustainable. A compact city go out make public transport more attractive as there is a higher demand and usage which allow prices to be more affordable and higher frequency ser vices to be run. This leave improver accessibility which allows access to more job opportunities and essential services (RTPI, 2015).Socially, more multitude living closer to containher performer that there is a higher chance that people are meeting with each new(prenominal) and communicate therefrom the chance of social exclusion is reduced and allow accumulation of social capital (Bramley et al., 2009).However, results from the survey refer that strong suit density (Terraced lodgment) is the best for social interaction. A higher density will project a negative effect. Compact living encourages mixed land uptake hence people would have easier access to services and job opportunities which will adjoin the quality of life and improve social sustainability. Finally, with reduced vocation volume as car ownership reduces, safety for pedestrians has increased specially with pedestrianisation schemes of contracts making them vibrant again. Urban sprawl has been the strategy in most UK cities between the 1970s and 90s with the focus on out of town development (Williams, 2014).As economic and business growth contradicts with environsal sustainability, therefore activities have to be regulated by the government through and through legislation and documents such as intentionning Policy Guidance (PPG). The three main arguments of environmental sustainability are related to land use, energy use and nisus quality. knock down use will reduce by increasing density through building on brownfield sites so the countryside is protected. In 1947, the honey oil Belt is introduced as part of the Town and Country mean Act and PPG2 which allows local government activity to set areas where development is prohibited on the outskirt of towns and cities. By 2010, more or less 13% of land in England is chiliad Belt (Communities and local anaesthetic Government, 2010). a nonher(prenominal) supportive reason is the air quality will improve because of coalescence ma inly due to reduced car ownership as people will travel less with services close to where they conk and work. force cost and consumption are estimated to be reduced as a result of denser living.However, there are a lot of argument and findings which suggest the benefit of compaction is over-emphasised. Because of the park belt, support prices have been unaffordable for many younkerer generation and lower income household. According to Halifax Bank since 1983, UK house prices has risen by 101% and 124% in capital of the United Kingdom after taking into account of lump (The Investor, 2012). The pressure to build more homes can be seen through the increase in approved planning permission to build on the green belt which rises from 2300 in 2009-10 to 12,000 in 2014-15 (Booth, 2017). The increase in house prices means that houses are segregated by income. Gentrification in the city centre can be seen in most UK cities where new houses are targeted for investors or the young afflu ent. People with lower income are forced to live in furnish housing outside of the city which are deprived and highly segregated by ethnic minorities which are both economically and socially unsustainable. The Green Belt also force development to occur outside it hence increasing urban sprawl(Mace et al., 2016). For example, a lot of people commute from areas such as Redhill and Horsham which are just outside the Metropolitan Green Belt. This is not good in terms of reducing land use. Finally, government focus on compaction means that rural areas are left disjunct as investment focus on towns and cities(Frey, 2003). Many villages lack staple fibre services such as post office as more people move into cities, there is not enough demand to reinforcement them operating.Compaction is also associated with an increase in stress level which will lead to poorer social ties in communities. The ease of access to shops and services means that time spent in the community is reduced and poor er safety experience due to distrust of neighbours and presence of more people. Hence (Bramley et al., 2009) found that residential satisfaction is low in compacted areas which is not socially sustainable.As the land value increases in the city centre, this means the availability of green spaces is at a premium hence environmental quality will line of descent as most areas will be concrete. Although congestion is reduced is touch area, traffic volume in the centre actually increases which means air quality in the city centre is worse and increase chances of respiratory disease (Echenique et al., 2012). genus Melia et al (2011) suggest the idea of paradox of intensification where two-bagger the density does not reduce the number of trips by half. For example, Gordon (1997) cited in Melia et al (2011) found that in England that doubling densities only leads to 7% fall down in miles travel to work. This is mainly due to the population increase in the area.Studies have found that c ompaction might not lead to a reduction in energy use. (Heinonen et al., 2011) found that in Helsinki that degree centigrade dioxide emission is higher in downtown area than suburbs. They conclude that this is due to a higher standard of living in the downtown and the increase in emissions is more than the effect of compaction. These examples suggest the environmental benefits of compaction could be overstated.An alternative urban form which can be considered is polycentric cities which are decentralize but concentrated. This is evolved from Howards idea of the Satellite or Garden City in the early 1900s where a centre city is surrounded by planet cities which carry around 32,000 people each hence a medium density. These satellite cities are self-contained with services and workplace and connected with some other cities by Rail links. It focuses on the symbiotic relationship with nature hence trying to achieve sustainability (Frey, 2003). It is very idealistic and only 2 garden cities were built in the UK which was not very successful as density is too low for self-sufficient economy and services.Another form is the move through Oriented Development (Calthorpe, 1993 cited in Frey, 2003) which based development around a centre with public transport Hub which has rail links with a major(ip) city. The centre is an area for the community with low rise apartments in centre and terraces further absent. Parks will be located further away from the centre. This type of development is also known as corridor growth hence a controlled way to limit urban sprawl and Copenhagens Finger plan is a good example (see Figure 1). People can live in medium densities towns which have shops and services near the hub and have mild access to the countryside hence a sustainable form. However, the high house prices in the centre is still problematic.According to a memorise of 114 European Cities by Zoeteman et al (2016). It found that sustainability score of city improves up to 2 jillion inhabitants mainly due to economic sustainability. In cities that are larger than 250,000 people, ecological and social capital reduce. It concludes the ideal size of 100,000-250,000 inhabitants which is a medium density. Therefore, it seems that future growth strategy should focus on developing polycentric medium density cities which is well connected by Public Transport along with technological innovation to reduce environmental pollution. This is a compromise between a centralised compact city and dispersed development.Current research shows that there is no consensus on whether compaction will benefit socially and environmentally. However, as most governments currently prioritise economic growth, the benefit of agglomeration means that compaction will likely to continue. Ideally, a polycentric network of medium density cities will achieve all forms of sustainability the best.Booth, R. 2017. English green belt set to get 360,000 new homes. The Guardian. Online.15 Jan uary. Accessed 22 touch 2017. uncommitted from https//www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/15/homes-planned-for-green-belt-have-risen-to-360000-in-englandBramley, G., Dempsey, N., Power, S., Brown, C. and Watkins, D. 2009. Social Sustainability and Urban Form Evidence from Five British Cities. Environment and Planning A. 41(9), pp.2125-2142.Brundtland Commission. 1987. Our Common Future Report of the World Commission on environment and Development. Online. No present UN. Accessed 22 March 2017. Available from http//www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdfCommunities and Local Government. 2010. Local Planning Authority Green Belt Statistics England 2009/10. Online. Accessed 22 March 2017. Available from http//webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120919132719/http//www.communities.gov.uk/publications/corporate/statistics/lagreenbelt2009Echenique, M.H., Hargreaves, A.J., Mitchell, G. and Namdeo, A. 2012. Growing cities sustainably does urban form really matter? diary of the Amer ican Planning Association. 78(2), pp.121-137.Frey, H. 2003. Designing the city towards a more sustainable urban form. London Routledge.Heinonen, J., Kyr, R. and Junnila, S. 2011. Dense downtown living more carbon intense due to higher consumption a case study of Helsinki. Environmental Research Letters. 6(3), p034034.Holden, E. 2004. Ecological footprints and sustainable urban form. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment. 19(1), pp.91-109.Knowles, R.D. 2012. Transit Oriented Development in Copenhagen, Denmark from the Finger Plan to restad. Journal of Transport Geography. 22, pp.251-261.Mace, A., Blanc, F., Gordon, I. and Scanlon, K. 2016. A 21st Century Metropolitan Green Belt. Online. No place LSE. Accessed 22 March 2017. Available from http//www.lse.ac.uk/geographyAndEnvironment/research/ greenbelt/Docs/Green%20Belt%20Report.pdfMelia, S., Parkhurst, G. and Barton, H. 2011. The paradox of intensification. Transport Policy. 18(1), pp.46-52.RTPI. 2015. Urban form and Sustainab ility. Online. No Place Royal Town Planning Institute. Accessed 21 March 2017. Available from http//www.rtpi.org.uk/media/1360966/urban%20form%20and%20sustainability%20briefing.pdfTejvan, P. 2012. Agglomeration economies. Online. Accessed 22 March 2017. Available from http//www.economicshelp.org/blog/glossary/agglomeration-economies/The Investor. 2012. Historical UK house prices. Online. Accessed 22 March 2017. Available from http//monevator.com/historical-uk-house-prices/UNESCO. 2010. Four Dimensions of Sustainable Development. Online. Accessed 22 March 2017. Available from http//www.unesco.org/education/tlsf/mods/theme_a/popups/mod04t01s03.htmlWilliams, K. 2014. Urban form and infrstructure a morphological review. Online. London Government Office for Science. Accessed 22 March 2017. Available from https//www.gov.uk/government/uploads/ schema/uploads/attachment_data/file/324161/14-808-urban-form-and-infrastructure-1.pdfZoeteman, K.B., Mulder, R., Smeets, R. and Wentink, C. 2016. To wards Sustainable EU Cities A Quantitative Benchmark choose of 114 European and 31 Dutch Cities. Online. Tilburg Telos. Available from https//pure.uvt.nl/ws/files/13611754/16142_85537_UvT_EU_Study_3_gecorrigeerd_def_RM_1_.pdf