Later City News: In today’s Europe, many different kinds of cities coexist: cities that merge two continents like Istanbul, flat or hill cities like Paris or Rome, new three-dimensional skyscraper cities like London, water cities like Venice or Amsterdam, cold-weather cities existing in the Scandinavian peninsula, cities in the mountains like Andorra la Vella (the highest mountain capital city in Europe with 1.023 m), medieval cities like Florence or Prague, and fully enclosed cities like compact cities.
A paper is written by Thomas Saaty from the University of Pittsburg and Pierfrancesco De Paola from the University of Naples Federico II, has compared different possible urban design for a future city and found in a Benefits model, the compact city has the highest benefits, followed by Copenhagen and Amsterdam. The main goal behind the compact circular city is to take advantage of its specific circular design because all points at the circumference are equally distant from the center.
The central part of a circular city would be mainly reserved for residential units (apartment dwellings and community housing). If housing units are at the center, there would be better security for the residents with good mutual social relations. Infrastructures would be placed around the center. The outermost levels should be reserved for industrial structures (minimizing environmental pollution).
On the top of buildings, there would be green parks as roofs, while the city would be surrounded by rural countryside (without suburbs). The major benefits of the circular compact city are less city congestion and efficient public transport systems. However, its main limitation is the poor space for further expansion, even if a network of compact circular cities would be a possible way to resolve the urban expansion problem.
The term “compact city” was coined firstly in 1973 by George Dantzig and Thomas L. Saaty, whose utopian vision was widely driven by a desire to see more efficient use of resources and better survival conditions for people.
In the original vision of Dantzig and Saaty, the Compact City would be an economic city to build and maintain, with many green spaces like public parks or private gardens. The travel time from home to schools or workplaces would be very short, with the possibility to choose the most desirable travel modality (walk, bicycle, or public transport services). Stores, restaurants, delivery services, health facilities, and all routine services would always be fully available. You can click here if you want to use a digital pen and pad for your design.
In the compact city, there would be no urban sprawl, freeways, traffic, smog, pollution, and other urban annoyances. With building construction costs flexible so that it would be easy to remodel, renew, and rearrange parts of the city, avoiding the processes of urban decay.
The compact city would be divided into five circular areas, more precisely from inside to outside: the core (work’s area with offices, shops, schools, public services, etc.), core edge, inner residential area (with particular regard to vertical dimension), mid-plaza (local facilities, elementary schools for children, clinics, neighborhood shops, parks, and play areas), outer residential area. The compact city would be a four-dimensional city: most cities are predominantly two-dimensional cities, but the compact city would have the time as a further dimension, overbuilding upwards (third dimension).
A study by Arifwidodo and Perera has posed a relevant research question: if implementing the policies on a compact city would significantly improve the quality of life of its residents. The mentioned study, applied to the city of Bandung, did not provide a definite answer (Bandung is a city of Indonesia with about 5.9 million people in its metropolitan area, population density is about 14.975 people per kilometer).
Although the results of the study cannot be generalized, the authors argue that the results seem to suggest that the policies of a compact city, applicable in developed countries, may not be easily applicable to cities in developing countries: the cities in developing countries may have more problems in managing the impacts derived from intense urban development.
The Eco-Compact City Network (E.C.C.N.) detects some kinds of “Eco-Compact Cities” (cities developed in balance with the natural environment, with optimum population density, with an extended system of small retails, efficient public transportation systems, pedestrian-friendly cities), many of these cities are located in Spain [41]: Paris (France); Gijon, Salamanca, Burgos, Bilbao, San Sebastian, Vitoria (Spain); Brandevoort (a new town in the Netherlands, designed by Rob Krier and Christoph Kohl, with a population density of 0.05 hab./sqkm).
Many cities have piecemeal forms. Future challenges for European cities will need to include rethinking design and urban planning.
The compact city model is the best solution for the design and urban planning, taking into account urban sprawl, building transformations, and economic effects on the environment. Today, there are only a few alternatives, few cities have greater awareness and attention to energy consumption, environmental sustainability, quality of public services, and social assistance.
The future of cities will always involve more complex situations requiring a holistic approach for policy decisions. In this sense, the modern theories of decision-making can help to make rational choices in building cities.
End/
Comments