This paper will examine the core and subsidiary themes concerning city form and structure. The core themes are related to the overall design of the city and if it is geared towards sustainability.
In the discussion regarding the core themes, the proponent of this paper also tackled the issues regarding centralized and decentralized views when it comes to how the city is laid out.
The subsidiary themes of this paper concern the health issues linked to urban sprawl and the layout of the city. These are important themes that must guide city planners not only in thinking about sustainability, energy efficiency but also the overall human impact of city form and structure.
There is general agreement that cities that are poorly planned and poorly managed “…causes unsustainable environmental stress, is socially stratified and functionally suboptimal, and is expensive to run.”
Nevertheless, after hundreds of years of existence, a city is still the best way to maximize productivity and to initiate meaningful changes as the interaction of leaders, talent, and people are working together to create something that is not possible if people are living far away from each other with little means of communication, on.
Considering, that cities are still going to be a permanent fixture of 21st-century society then it is important to determine what kind of city will be built for future generations.
Centrist vs. Decentrist
The centrist and decentralist view of urban forms have long histories. Those who favor the “decentrist” or decentralized urban form are those who are also well aware of the negative impact of industrialization and its most popular by-product which is the industrial city.
A review of Charles Dickens’ classics as well as history of urban development will easily bring up images of polluted, crowded, and crime infested industrial cities that were hastily created not in consideration to the health, well being, and social aspect of those who live in it but simply as a means to provide liveable space for factory workers needed to sustain a newly industrialised society.
Those who favor the “centrist” or centralized urban form are those who are utterly displeased with the way the current urban sprawl is affecting the lives of many people.
They wanted to revert to the proven and tested method of creating high-density cities that may look intimidating and complicated from afar, but upon closer inspection it is more efficient, allow more interaction between people groups and overall provide a lifestyle that is healthy and arguably sustainable considering the savings in time and energy needed to kept it running and the requirements needed by residents when it comes to commuting to work, home, and other social activities.
The decentrist, on the other hand, can easily point to the urban squalor that happened in the Industrial Revolution that swept Europe and in the 21st century the champions for decentralist views can also use the example of emerging economies and their rapidly evolving urban centers that can also be considered as following the urban design of many of the infamous industrial cities made popular in movie, novels and other stories.
The urban decay brought about by congestion is a familiar tale that proponents of decentralized urban planning are always eager to remind their opponents.
The centrist viewpoint on the other hand can easily counter this argument by saying that urban decay and all the evils associated with a compact city structure – where a greater number of people are sharing limited space as compared to the low concentration of people in suburban living – is not the result of compact cities per se but simply the consequence of poor planning and mismanagement of resources.
They are happy to point out examples of cities that adapted centrist views to prove that it can work and it is indeed sustainable as opposed to urban sprawl.
The need to resolve this issue reached a critical point when the Brundtland Report came out in the late latter part of the 20th century.
This was intensified even further when the Green Paper on the Urban Environment was published by the European Commission in Brussels around the same period.
Although there is a need to come to a solution that is mutually beneficial to everyone it was soon discovered that sustainability does not only mean the ability to reduce the use of resources but also to maintain a level of lifestyle that allows for continued growth.
There are others who even say that “social capital” is as important as the need to preserve nature.
For this reason, the debate regarding “centrist” and “decentrist” methodology when it comes to planning and constructing the cities of the future will not end soon. There are so many things to consider. There are so many complications.
Even if the discussion is limited to generalized terms such as transportation technology, communication technology, health, education, and social aspects of living, the discussion can still become so complex that there is a clear need to break down the analysis of urban form and structure further into more manageable subcategories.
This is where subsidiary themes come in.
Land and Space
Those who favor the centrist point of view will support their endeavor by pointing to the need to preserve agricultural land. One of the obvious impacts of “decentralist” planning strategies is the creation of urban sprawl.
This simply means that as city planners accommodate the need to expand suburbia there is the need to reconfigure or transform rural areas to make it into small towns, far from the center of commerce but appropriate to raise-up a family and for employees to commute from home to work.
Opponents to the centrist urban structure are saying that there is no need to fear the significant loss of farmlands.
This argument is specifically used in urban development that is taking place in the United States, but again there are studies that can back-up the counterargument that farmlands will not be severely affected.
According to one report, “America not running out of open space, nor in any danger of having cities encroach on reserves of ‘prime’ agricultural land.”
It was also pointed out that the argument regarding the need to safeguard food production cannot be used to support centrist design because there is enough food; the only problem is distribution and access to it.
Those who support the “decentralist” way of urban planning point to the benefit of urban sprawl which is more land and more space. It is the capability to buy a home and still have enough space to do other things as compared to the frustration of living in a cramped one-bedroom condominium.
But the centrists have an answer for this one. They contend that there may be more land to build a home but even before construction is finished the homeowner is well aware of the fact that there are only a few neighbors.
Aside from the lack of sustained and meaningful social interaction, opponents of decentralist design also point out to the number of fossil fuels that will be consumed by commuters who had to travel half an hour or even an hour from the city to their suburban homes.
They also made remarks on the fact that since commuters had to spend a long time driving, then they will never find time to exercise and each time they leave home they can no longer survive without using their cars.
Transportation
Another subsidiary theme is with regards to transportation. In a centrist design, there is the image of a compact city. Singapore is a perfect example of this one. In the Singapore urban plan, everyone has easy access to efficient public transportation.
It is possible for well-paid professionals to leave their cars in their garage or not to buy a car at all and simply rely on what the city can offer.
With less time needed to drive and the ability to move from one part of the city to another – with speed and ease – then the residents of the compact city will find time to do other things that are more important than commuting.
A highly efficient public transportation service is the desire of many, but if the urban design is leaning towards urban sprawl, then it can be argued that a world-class public transportation system is not feasible in every city where suburbs is a considerable distance away from the downtown area.
It would be too expensive for the government to subsidize this kind of infrastructure to simply provide service to a few families that are located far away from each other and even more importantly far from the main hub of the said transport system.
This is evident when examining the commuting distance in the three largest cities in Great Britain, London, Manchester, and Birmingham – commuting distance increases with the distance between home and urban center. This is one of the major challenges confronting desiring for a decentralist design.
Health
Another secondary issue when it comes to urban design is health problems associated with very little physical activity. But centrist supporters can argue that a well designed urban center can encourage the use of slow modes of transportation such as walking and cycling because more activities are available even within short distances.
Walking and cycling are not only beneficial when it comes to combating obesity but also in attainment of healthy mental well-being. Obesity is one major issue related to urban form.
It must be made clear that compact cities are not the reason for obesity although many children living in cities are found to be obese. It is poverty that is the main reason.
Resolution
It is not easy to find common ground between the centrist and decentralist view and at the same time each has its strengths and weaknesses. One way to resolve the issue is to create a compromise design that includes the best of both worlds.
One suggestion is to look at compact development from another perspective: “…concentration of employment, some clustering of housing, and some mixing of land use” but to say no to high density or monocentric development.
Compromise can be achieved because some of the reasons why many are forced to choose one side of the debate are no longer applicable. For example, in some cities, population growth is declining.
This means that in places where congestion used to be a problem now the major concern is to attract qualified workers and productive individuals.
Conclusion
In the discussion of city form and structure, there are at least two major themes, and it is the way to develop and design cities of the 21st century. The debate is all about centrist or decentralist models of creating a sustainable city.
The centrist believes in sustainability and efficiency while the “decentralists” believe in the effective use of land and the ability to live comfortably away from the pollution and decongestion of the cities.
However, there can be a way for these two camps to meet halfway and develop or create a design that can sue the best of both worlds in creating future cities that do not only consider land, space, and travel but also the health benefits of being able to increase physical activity but at the same time increase social capital and human interaction that is essential in maintaining a healthy mind and body.
Bibliography
Bannister (no year).
Barton, “Land Use Planning and Health and Well-being.”Land Use Policy. (2009):S115-S123.
Breheny, Michael. “Centrist, Decentrist and Compromisers: Views on the Future of Urban
Curtis, Carey. “The Windscreen World of land Use Transport Integration.” p.423.
Ewing,Reid. “Is Los Angeles-style sprawl desirable?” Journal of the American Planning Association. 63,1(1997) 107-126
Frey, “Compact Decentralised or What? Sustainable City Debate.” p. 23.
Gordon, Peter & Harry Richardson. “Are Compact Cities A Desirable Planning Goal.” Journal of the American Planning Association. 63, no.1(1997):95-106.
Jackson, Laura. “The relationship of Urban Design to Human Health and Condition.”64(2003) p. 191.
Naess, Peter. “Residential Location Affects Travel Behavior – but how and why?” Progress in Planning 63 (2005):167-257
Santana, Paula, Rita Santos, & Helena Nogueira. “The Link Between Local Environment and Obesity: A multilevel Analysis in the Lisbon Metropolitan Area, Portugal.” Social Science and Medicine 68(2009)601-609.
Stanton,R. “Who Will Take Responsibility for Obesity in Australia.” Public Health 123(2009):191-200
Schwanen, T. “Policies for Urban Form and Their Impact on Travel: The Netherlands Experience.” 41,3(2004), 579-603.