Urban Environmental Problems: Urban Growth

Urban growth is a fairly complex topic since it involves a great number of interests, concerns, and solutions at very different levels. In this complex context, contemporary planners have indicated that “compact cities” are urban forms that mostly help city dwellers live better by complying with sustainable practices and values. Planning highly-densely populated areas has the potential to create more effective and closed-loop urban systems; however, psychological, cultural, and equity variables should also be added in the equation of how compact sustainable cities should be developed. In the context of increased economic and urban population growth across the globe “compactness of the built environment is a widely acceptable strategy through which more sustainable urban forms might be achieved” (Jabareen, 2006). However, there is “a lack of agreement about the most desirable landscape design and urban forms” (Jabareen, 2006). Because of this lack of agreement, the answer lies in “the use of right scales of design landscapes that produce different sustainable urban forms that contribute differently to sustainability” (Jabareen, 2006). The landscape designs suggested are: density, mixed land uses -- “the diversity of functional land uses” --, diversity -- “close-grained area”, passive solar design – “specific design measures affecting the orientation of buildings and urban densities” --, and greening – “open landscapes” (Jabareen, 2006). These landscape designs are inserted into the context of the following urban forms: neotraditional development -- “nineteenth-century neighborhoods with diverse building types and land uses with vibrant, attractive, and popular districts” and compact city models – “a high-density, mixed-use city, with clear boundaries, open green areas and passive solar design” (Jabareen, 2006). In this context, new urbanists have argued that zoning “was a major institutional force working against diversity”, and so urban diversity should be attained by enacting urban containment plans – “public policy tools to manipulate “push” and “pull” factors”. It is also claimed that new urbanism “promotes social equity by providing low-income people an equitable access to housing” (Garde, 2004). However, in terms of density, “the eco-city might be conceived as a “formless” city” (Jabareen, 2006). It is argued that the main benefits of compact cities are the protection of rural areas, the promotion of quality of life “through social interactions and ready access to services and facilities”, the reduction of energy consumption “by providing building densities capable of supporting district heating or combined heat and power systems”, and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions “by minimizing the number and length of trips by modes of transport harmful to the environment” (Jabareen, 2006). Also, compact cities require investments in “superior public transport systems and conditions for non-motorized modes, with minimal road capacity increases, and protection of the city’s natural areas and food-producing capacity” (Kenworthy, 2006). The mechanisms to build compact urban forms and manage geographic growth are “public acquisition of land, regulatory approaches, and incentive-based approaches” (Bengston, 2004). The effective use of these mechanisms depend on “empirical evaluations of growth management policies, administrative efficiency and other details of policy implementation, the use of multiple policy instruments that reinforce and complement each other, vertical and horizontal coordination, and meaningful stakeholder participation throughout the planning process and implementation” (Bengston, 2004). In the process of building compact cities, the federal government should play “an important role in the management and coordination of state, regional and local growth management” (Bengston, 2004). “Tax policy has a powerful influence on land use -- development impact taxes, or improvement taxes, and real estate transfer taxes are used in some jurisdictions to help make development pay its own way” (Bengston, 2004). “Revenues collected with these taxes are typically earmarked to provide public facilities and services made necessary by new development, which should “encourage infill and redevelopment to make urban containment policies effective” (Bengston, 2004). Besides this institutional approach to urban forms, psychological and sociological factors such as individual and collective behavior changes also promote the construction of compact sustainable urban forms. “People with green values are more likely than others to be located in communities with high population densities and proximity to city centers and rail transit stations, which are attributes conducive to environmentally friendly travel” (Kahn, 2009). This happens because “greens derive utility from conservation” and “by social interaction they encourage green behavior in their neighborhoods”. Therefore, in addition to top-down public policies, bottom-up “environmental education and persuasion also bring about sustainable behavior” within neighborhoods and end up influencing policy-making (Kahn, 2009) (Garde, 2004). When it comes to neighborhoods, residents should be asked where and how they want to live (Hull, 2007). This process does not only follow democratic principles of participation and deliberation but also ensure that the affected population take ownership and help implement the project presented (Rogers, 1999). If surveys indicate that most of city people want to live in dense, diverse, and greening areas, “neotraditional” planners only concern is over the implementation of environmental designs (Rogers, 1999). However, if a planner receives negative feedbacks from the local community while presenting the vision and concepts of a compact city, it becomes necessary to reassess what are the explicit and implicit reasons for and against living in dense neighborhoods (Rogers, 1999). Once planners and city officials understand what are the dreams and desires of the people who are daily affected by the tangible and intangible externalities of living in and out of a populated green area, they will be able to design and tailor speeches and policies that benefit the collectivity regardless of designs and urban forms (Gunder, 2007). Another aspect that planners have to take into account while promoting green zoning or “formless” development is the cultural differences ingrained in urban forms and designs. It is not correct to assume that every city dweller would rather live in compact zones or that city people would never move out to a homogeneous suburb (Qadeer, 1997). Young Western European professionals, for example, generally accept the idea of paying more to live in an ancient stylish apartment or studio downtown since this is where they find work, leisure, and access to other parts of city (Schwanen, 2002). However, other age groups in Western Europe, where high income families do not care about driving to work and parks even if they have to pay more for it, frequently seek for large residential lots to build their homes (Schwanen, 2002). By understanding the cultural differences and expectations attached to income, household size, and age difference among city dwellers, planners are able to design urban forms that people enjoy living in after gathering local support to implement a model that is arguably cheaper, safer, and increasingly more sustainable and pleasant for residents (Tratalos, 2007). Finally, the discussion over the correlation between sustainability and urban growth has to consider the balance between inputs and outputs in an interconnected world (Fujita, 2001). Inputs are the minimal production factors required to maintain urban services (Vesely, 2006). Outputs are the result of what comes out of social interactions from a global market perspective (Vesely, 2006). It seems that most of the discussion over “compact cities” is based on the assumption that cities should be self-reliant and the process to achieve so is by controlling how people and goods move around. In addition, the forces of a global commerce and how they can positively affect the creation of sustainable localities are not thoroughly considered in local decision-making processes (Tykkylainen, 1995). This local, regional, and global balance between inputs and outputs and the maximization of how production factors are utilized through economic chains should be a constant concern in every comprehensive & incremental, physical & community planning processes (Machimura, 1998). The challenge for planners, though, is how to design urban forms that offset local imbalances resulting from regional and global market exchanges (Hallegatte, 2011). Compact cities contribute to environmental urban issues if they provide the means to reduce the distances between social and cultural differences at the local, regional, and global levels (Hallegatte, 2011). References Bengston, D. et al. “Public policies for managing urban growth and protecting open space: policy instruments and lessons learned in the United States”, Landscape and Urban Planning, v. 69, pp. 271-286, 2004. Fujita, M. et al. “The Spatial Economy: Cities, Regions and International Trade”, Journal of Economic Geography, v. 1, pp. 131-152, 2001. Garde, A. “New Urbanism as Sustainable Growth?: A Supply Side Story and Its Implications for Public Policy”, Journal of Planning Education and research, v. 24, n. 154, 2004. Gunder, M. “Planning as urban therapeutic”, Environment and Planning, v. 39, n. 2, pp. 467-486, 2007. Hallegatte, S. et al. “From Growth to Green Growth”, The World Bank, 2011. Hull, A. “Restructuring the debate on allocating land for housing growth”, Housing Studies, v. 12, i. 3, 1997. Jabareen, Y. “Sustainable Urban Forms: their Typologies, Models, and Concepts”, Journal of Planning Education and Research, v. 26, n. 38, 2006. Kahn, M.; Morris, E. “Walking the Walk”, Journal of American Planning Association, v. 75, n. 4, 2009. Kenworthy, J. “The eco-city: ten key transport and planning dimensions for sustainable city development”, Environment & Urbanization, v. 18, n. 1, pp. 67-85, 2006. Machimura, T. “Symbolic Use of Globalization in Urban Politics in Tokyo”, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, v. 22, i. 2, pp. 183-194, 1998. Qadeer, M. “Pluralistic Planning for Multicultural Cities: The Canadian Practice”, Journal of the American Planning Association, v. 63, i. 4, 1997. Rogers, R. “Towards an urban renaissance”, Urban Task Force, London, 1999. Schwanen, T. “Urban form and commuting behavior: a cross-European perspective”, Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, v. 93, i. 3, pp. 336–343, 2002. Tratalos, J. et al. “Urban form, biodiversity potential and ecosystem services”, Landscape and Urban Planning, v. 83, i. 4, pp. 308-317, 2007. Tykkylainen, M. “Socio-Economic Restructuring in Resource Communities: Evolving a Comparative Approach”, Community Development Journal, v. 30, i. 1, pp. 31-47, 1995. Vesely, E. “Platform for Integrating Economic Analysis with Urban Form Assessment”, OPUS International Consultants Limited, Auckland, 2006.