The Rapid Expansion of Metropolitan Areas - Case Study Example

A phenomenon of recent years has been the rapid expansion of metropolitan areas, which has been termed “urban sprawl”. It refers to a complicated pattern where the use of land, transportation, and social and economic development, spread the settlement of population to move towards the hinterland from core city areas. The life style of the urbanites differs from that of city dwellers. Suburbanites enjoy larger houses than city dwellers, occupying larger land plots, and are prone to use more gasoline and commute using transportation system more often. Critics of Urban Sprawl therefore are quick to point out that this invasion of asphalt and concrete, however researched and planned it might be results in the loss of wildlife habitats, farmlands, increasing pollution and dangerous health hazards. These hazards being talked about refer not to only to body health issues but a rapid jump in mental health issues, prompting the former vice president of the U.S Al Gore to comment that the urban spread is like “cookie-cutter monster.”(Brooking Inst, 1998). While supporters of urban lifestyles contend “consumers prefer lower density neighborhoods and that sprawl does not necessarily increase traffic.” (Moore, Henderson, 1998). Nevertheless there is evidence that urban sprawl is one of the primary contributing factors to the specter of inner city degeneration. By pulling economic resources out of communities that are already existing and diffusing it into new and unconnected developments away from the current core, older communities get neglected and are led to ruin. These new developments are subsidized heavily to create newer roads, water and sewer infrastructure, new schools and enhanced spending on police and fire protection. While urban spread directly influences new lawns using ever more water and the use of chemical fertilizers as well as pesticides, it displaces native plants, which have not needed constant watering. It could be concluded that Sprawl wastes tax payers’ money With the population of the world exceeding 6 billion already and progressing toward doubling by the 22nd century, it is estimated that 95% of the new inhabitants of the planet earth will be living in urban areas. When compared to the fact that only 15% of the world lived in urban areas as recently as 1990, the task to manage urban sprawl is both vital and urgent. If not the exponential growth in urban dwellers combined with Socio-economical, geopolitical factors, with the certainty of limited land availability and in -efficient planning is certain to create cities that devour land used for other purposes historically directly influencing equally important aspects such as food security. Combating urban sprawl has two major forms of endeavor both, which include detailed planning. “The first, the French/British/European tradition, considers urban planning a matter of public health and focuses on strong land- use regulation, public-sector investment, and civic design. The second tradition, born in North America, focuses on zoning and subdivision regulations within a context of strong private property rights” (Calthorpe, 2001)). Peter Calthorpe a New Urbanism thinker and architect illustrates the differences in these two styles by flavoring the European model a more ecological model and the North American planning model a more mechanically motivated model. The European model appears to be the antecedent to the concept called smart growth, and the other of developing efficiencies through zoning. The search for solutions to urban sprawl has given birth to various special-interest groups that promote a concept termed SMART growth at all levels federal, state, and local government. This might look nostalgic with a promotion of return to the city lifestyles of the last two centuries. Living in smaller apartments or smaller land plots with the emphasis on limiting transportation to bicycles or simply walking. Smart growth can be defined as the prevention of urban sprawl through meticulous planning with associated restriction to prevent sprawl. It attempts to mitigate the chewing up of the indiscriminate use of land and the associated overt and inert costs of pollution, and the wastage of precious water as well as energy resources. The objective is to create neighborhoods, which are more pleasant to live in, with air and water getting cleaned up and the ability to continue enjoying, woodlands, farms and other open areas. Smart growth includes emphasis such as Making significantly larger investments in efficient clean public transportation, including modern metro train systems and clean comfortable buses. Planning developments conducive to pedestrians where people have multiple transportation choices, such as trains and bus service and any other which the land such as boats in lakes facilitates; providing safe walking and bicycling facilities to and from shopping malls and parks, and the consistent research and implementation into traffic calming measures. It also encompasses the promoting of both government as well as private sector regional and statewide planning and investment that combines the transportation, land-use and environmental planning endeavors. Building suitable affordable housing close to transportation transit points and jobs becomes an essential part of Smart development as well as supporting greater public corporation in the transportation and use of land as well as other resources. It could further involve the funding of innovative and attractive reward programs for encouraging the use of alternative transportation. Some examples such incentives are tax credits for public transit, walking or for the use of bicycles. This should be expanded to urging developers to pay impact fees to cover the costs of infra structure development, which spurs urban sprawl such as new roads, schools, water and sewerage. Studies show that Smart growth is further supported when there is a visible and directly related tax on gasoline which funds new rail systems or infra structure which compels people to share resources. The other more mechanical means of stopping or limiting Urban Sprawl is using zoning and urban densification. The logic here is that when zoning laws are passed requiring people to limit land plot sizes it would mean lesser land is used while increasing the density of areas. This would directly impact the devouring of woodlands, wilderness areas, while making significant savings on investments in utilities and infrastructural enhancements. This methodology envisages that residential blocks can be placed on top of retail as well as office complexes. The design foresees more pedestrian activity rather than mobility that would lead to increased consumption of gasoline. The impetus is given to work towards self-contained neighborhoods where carbon fuel is not consumed for commuting. “ Neighborhoods should be diverse in use and population; communities should be designed for the pedestrian and transit as well as the car; cities and towns should be shaped by physically defined and universally accessible public spaces and community institutions; urban places should be framed by architecture and landscape design that celebrate local history, climate, ecology, and building practice”. (Congress of the New Urbanism, 1999). China appears to be experimenting with this on a provincial basis. “ The efficiency approach: land sparing types of settlements with high densification and a balanced functional mixture of city life are important strategies. Thus, cities of short distances need less space and lead to sustainable mobility. Further urbanization of the country should take place along axes so that natural landscape is not too strongly dissected. Besides, these inter-urban connections can be well managed by public transport… This kind of rural economy aims firstly to fulfill the needs of the regional population and secondly to set up sustainable rural urban partnerships. (Liao, 2005). The proponents of these changes are of the belief that the unforeseen consequences of urban sprawl can be reversed before they become tragic. In this process smart use of land as well as the process of densification would also boost the economy and the quality of life in the emerging mega cities of the world. Al Gore speech at the Brookings Institution, 2 September 1998, http://www.brook.edu/es/urban/gore.htm. Electronic. Moore, Adrian; Rick Henderson (June 1998). "Plan Obsolescence", Reason Magazine. June 2008. Retrieved on 2008-02-07. Print Peter Calthorpe, and William Fulton. The Regional City. Washington D.C.: Island Press. 2001. Print Congress of the New Urbanism, Charter of the New Urbanism (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1999). Print Liao, R. Land Management in the Drastically Changing P. R. China, Proceedings of International Symposium on Sustainable Development Strategy for Chinese Rural Communities, China Agricultural University, Beijing. 2005. Electronic Read More