Purpose of Urban Consolidation - Coursework Example

NAME : XXXXXXXXXX TUTOR : XXXXXXXXXX TITLE : URBAN CONSOLIDATION COURSE : XXXXXXXXXX INSTITUTION : XXXXXXXXXX @2009 Urban Consolidation Introduction Urban consolidation involves varied set guiding principles of planning that are aimed at making better use of the existing urban infrastructure through encouraging growth and expansion within the existing urbanized regions. The non-urbanized land is avoided. As a result, urban sprawl is put under control. The numbers of houses or units are increased so that they can have a higher effective use of the available services and to lower the general impact on the environment. Urban Consolidation is considered as a means to lessen the total sum of land required to house the population. In general, there exist three different types of urban consolidation. There is market led urban consolidation which is the consolidation of on hand residential areas whereby established residential houses are redeveloped. The buildings that have higher densities when compared with metropolitan average are also included together with the land that is not residential. Transit-oriented development is one other type of urban consolidation (Girling, 1994). This deals with elevated density residential and buildings that are meant to be of mixed use and are within boundaries which are walkable around open transport nodes commonly known as activity centers. Purpose of urban consolidation The major objective of urban consolidation is to bring forth a specific city ecologically sustainable. This is due to the fact that through this, incase there is any grave threat to the environment, urban consolidation can be used a means of reducing environment degradation. Therefore, when evaluating the assets or the buildings, environmental aspects need to be seriously put into consideration. Still, urban consolidation aims at giving greater levels of physical amenity to counter current levels of environmental deficiency in some areas (Freidan 2000). This ought to consist of strictly definite green belts within the suburbs; and this means residences where subdivision below a certain size and additional housing/built development are forbidden. This also entails a better environment mainly when it comes to noise as well as air pollution (Girling 1994). The government should also know that in the long run, urban consolidation can lead to reduced spending as far as infrastructure is concerned. Therefore efforts should be dedicated to ensure that the process is successful. Critical aspects to consider Prior to the reinforcement and consideration of the necessity for urban consolidation, critical factors ought fully to be recognized. Life worthiness in all respects and rationales ought to be the eventual gain (Frieden & Sagalyn 1991). Evaluation of this quality should not be bound by presumes, pre-conclusions, or an erratic market value. If not, planning will otherwise deny equity and hence careful target and plan is likely to be subtractive and not representative of community base (Queensland Infrastructure Working Group 1992). Through challenging theoretical discovery, no matter how publicly chipped in, citizens as part of a fair and democratic society need not be used as guinea pigs of tentative transformation. Fundamentally, when it comes to doing away with faults from planning practices like urban consolidation, it is important to note that amplified public transport is solely not an answer singly nor is physical or social planning. In as much by repeatedly enlightening the community, in all features of urban practice, thereby supporting a multifaceted participatory advance, will most likely provide viable solutions that have not been discovered through planning practices that are genuine and can be relied upon. Sensible applications ought to eventually be adequately tested. Urban density should not be mixed up with housing form. One other crucial point to put into consideration is that new buildings could in the long run deny original possibilities of adapting the present environments (Garden Cities and Town Planning Association 1996). The implication of preserving controversial neighborhood character necessities like customary trees, and corner stores, is summit. When greenery and individualism of a place is destroyed, justification for the suburbs, the consent of the masses is obliterated, which in due course means unsuccessful consolidation. Mythology of urban consolidation The comparative successes of realistic solutions to the urban consolidation model are constrained inside the assumptions underpinning them. Estimating the community wish towards a more urban lifestyle overlooks the basic fact that people prefer to live in the suburbs. Thus in my opinion it is of no use to force people to live urbanely yet they are comfortable with the suburb lifestyle. Suburbia as a supreme is a predilection, the basis being continuous stability; be it through neighborhood distinctiveness or the idea of home ownership (Bunker 1983). Conversely, the benefits only favor the private sectors thus the government or rather urban consolidation does not achieve the objective of reducing public spending. The assumption that urban consolidation could reduce traffic congestion due to the higher density is obviously untrue. This is a wrong assumption that is achieved through using the density as an alternate for sociological variables like income, household size, and also through characteristics of people’s standard of living. Apparently, traffic lessening stems chiefly from a decision to drive contributing factor, and this is not easily modifiable by only urban planning. In addition, overemphasizing the contribution inner-city urban renewal towards urban sprawl has permits the persistence of unbridled urban fringe development. Urban consolidation has a very high probability of leading to the rise of detriments like physical encroachments, insensitive housing styles, overcrowding and also raised gentrification of urban areas inexplicably take place (Stewart 2001). Solutions Urban consolidation can be achieved successfully through active public consultations and involvement of the local government heavily. Public consultation should not be just for the sake but because in the long run it will not be significant and also it is not just. The authority should educate the society on the need for the action (Sagalyn, 1991). I wholly think that once the process is started, it should be fast and should not take long time so that the people can fully acclimatize and adapt quickly to the changes. Urban consolidation should really aim at benefiting the city, country and the people inhabiting there at large. The government and the local authority ought to be given much authority in order to be in a position to achieve the continuous goals and motivations that involve urban consolidation. With this, I think the goal will be achieved much faster and still, there should be a clear-cut underrepresented sum of public funding. However, public policy should not be overlooked and should be looked into wholly while implementing the plan. Sustainability Sustainability is a necessity in the long term growth of metropolitan Adelaide. In cases where urban consolidation helps achieve sustainability especially ecologically, environmental impacts could be reduced through self sufficiency (Low 2000). Nevertheless, to achieve sustainability, the big responsibility is upon industrially established societies to have fully established local sufficiency and this is because their impact on the environment is supreme. Sociologically, urban consolidation trend should be towards playing, functioning, educating, and compelling locally. This urban consolidation having brought a more participatory restricted lifestyle together with less compliance and spectator forms, it could finally lead to reduced transport demand and also reduced related environmental impacts and thus aiding in attainment of sustainability. Urban consolidation helps attain sustainability through fringe growth (Australia Commonwealth Environment Protection Agency 1992) Apart from the societal problems and deficiency, and steadily increasing infrastructure costs, availing for population growth of the city at its fringe is especially cost-effectively unsound in the view of the soaring fossil fuel cost related with living in external suburbs. Also, sustainability is achieved through the housing demand (Cole 2003). Although it is assumed that increased housing brings problems in terms of housing because there is an increase in the number of people per household, Adelaide area is in some extend due to unsuitable assortment of on hand housing stock. It is then apparent that these less significant living units, roe houses and other multiple forms could meet this requirement. Urban consolidation should aim at getting a city that is ecologically sustainable with both higher physical and social amenities. This means that there would be less traveling within such a city because of establishment of shorter and fewer routes coupled with housing, employment, shopping and also services congested together. In my view, this would lead to reduction of pollution within such a city because traveling is reduced and thus vehicles being a contributory factor to environment pollution would be reduced hence minimized environmental pollution (Nicol 1996). In such a city most people would still travel using the public transport, on foot or still using the bicycles. There would be energy efficient buildings thus sustainability would be easily achieved. Furthermore, urban consolidation should make efforts to ensure that structures and infrastructure are designed to serve several purposes and not one. For example, watercourses should be aimed at providing the wants of animals within the city, plants, provide water for recreation, flood control, protection of marine environment and also for visual amenities (Mith 1998). A sustainable city also ought to have a high degree of local diversity and this means that there could be a mix up of activities and other residential necessities to satisfy and bring closer these needs closer to the homes of the residents Still, factors like restraining of the mixing of various kinds of land use to do away with negative end results like industrial air & noise pollution could lead to a sustainable environment (Pion, 1998). This is because through urban consolidation industrial activities will intrude less through introduction of technologies that are not dirty. Such a city would finally end up having a lot of centers or communities among which most residents will end up having an opportunity get most of their social, physical and cultural needs. These centers would in turn get connected through swift public transport corridors. Conclusion The process of urban consolidation requires adequate planning and resources. For it to be valuable, the stakeholders need to clear define the benefits that are attached to it. What constitutes the desired outcome need to be put into consideration. Appropriation of issues is obviously not a substitute for participatory community association at all. This together with other similar short term time and money conservation systems could finally cost a nation exceedingly if community concern, communication, and faith are discarded for umbrage and protest. Exaggeration and injustice need to be completely avoided as far as dealing with social planning is concerned. Urban consolidation need to take this into consideration. The cost of the entire process together with the value of doing what is crucial should be acknowledged when dealing with promoters of ecologically maintainable development (Ravetz 2000). When effectively managed and carried out in the most appropriate way, urban consolidation can be a way through which urban sprawl can be put under control. Basic changes at different levels need to be put into consideration for the good of the entire society. Bibliography Australia Commonwealth Environment Protection Agency., 1992, urban consolidation: an environment perspective, Australia, Australian Govt. Pub. Service. pp. 40-47. Bunker, C., 1983, Urban consolidation: the experience of Sydney, Melbourne, and Adelaide, Australia, Australian Institute of Urban Studies. pp. 55-56. Burnley, H., Immigration and Australian cities, Australia, Federation Press. pp. 121-122. Cole, R. 2003, Buildings, culture and environment: informing local and global practices Birmingham, Blackwell Publishers. pp. 67-99. Freidan, P., 2000, Environment Conservation, USA, STI publishers. pp. 241-248 Garden Cities and Town Planning Association, 1996, Town and country planning, New York Country Planning Association. pp. 48-53. Girling, C.L, 1994, Yard, Street and Park: the design of suburban open space, New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. pp. 301-311. Haughton, G., 2006, Sustainable Cities: Regional development and public policy, London, Routledge Books. pp. 78-81. Low, N., 2000. Australian Urban development: New challenge, New schedule, Melbourne, Unwin Academic. pp. 99-100 Mith, S., 1998, Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things, India, North Point Press. pp. 41-49. Nicol, T., 1996, The perils of urban consolidation: a discussion of Australian housing and urban development policies. Australia, Federation Press. pp. 29-30. Ravetz, J., 2000 City-region 2020: Integrated planning for a sustainable environment. New Jersey, Earthscan Publishers. pp. 69-79. Sagalyn, L., 1991, Downtown, Inc.: How America rebuilds cities, The MIT Press, Cambridge (Mass). pp. 400-408 Pion, T., pp.1998, Environment and planning, Volume 25, New York, Allen. pp.302-343 Sandercock, L., 1982, Urban consolidation, New York, Centre for Environmental & Urban Studies.pp.423-428. Stewart, S., 2001, Urban consolidation: current development, Australia, Stewart Publishers. pp. 45-88. Queensland Infrastructure Working Group., 1992, urban consolidation: a position paper of the SEQ 2001 project. Chicago, Dept. of Housing. pp.67     Read More

The government should also know that in the long run, urban consolidation can lead to reduced spending as far as infrastructure is concerned. Therefore efforts should be dedicated to ensure that the process is successful. Critical aspects to consider Prior to the reinforcement and consideration of the necessity for urban consolidation, critical factors ought fully to be recognized. Life worthiness in all respects and rationales ought to be the eventual gain (Frieden & Sagalyn 1991). Evaluation of this quality should not be bound by presumes, pre-conclusions, or an erratic market value.

If not, planning will otherwise deny equity and hence careful target and plan is likely to be subtractive and not representative of community base (Queensland Infrastructure Working Group 1992). Through challenging theoretical discovery, no matter how publicly chipped in, citizens as part of a fair and democratic society need not be used as guinea pigs of tentative transformation. Fundamentally, when it comes to doing away with faults from planning practices like urban consolidation, it is important to note that amplified public transport is solely not an answer singly nor is physical or social planning.

In as much by repeatedly enlightening the community, in all features of urban practice, thereby supporting a multifaceted participatory advance, will most likely provide viable solutions that have not been discovered through planning practices that are genuine and can be relied upon. Sensible applications ought to eventually be adequately tested. Urban density should not be mixed up with housing form. One other crucial point to put into consideration is that new buildings could in the long run deny original possibilities of adapting the present environments (Garden Cities and Town Planning Association 1996).

The implication of preserving controversial neighborhood character necessities like customary trees, and corner stores, is summit. When greenery and individualism of a place is destroyed, justification for the suburbs, the consent of the masses is obliterated, which in due course means unsuccessful consolidation. Mythology of urban consolidation The comparative successes of realistic solutions to the urban consolidation model are constrained inside the assumptions underpinning them. Estimating the community wish towards a more urban lifestyle overlooks the basic fact that people prefer to live in the suburbs.

Thus in my opinion it is of no use to force people to live urbanely yet they are comfortable with the suburb lifestyle. Suburbia as a supreme is a predilection, the basis being continuous stability; be it through neighborhood distinctiveness or the idea of home ownership (Bunker 1983). Conversely, the benefits only favor the private sectors thus the government or rather urban consolidation does not achieve the objective of reducing public spending. The assumption that urban consolidation could reduce traffic congestion due to the higher density is obviously untrue.

This is a wrong assumption that is achieved through using the density as an alternate for sociological variables like income, household size, and also through characteristics of people’s standard of living. Apparently, traffic lessening stems chiefly from a decision to drive contributing factor, and this is not easily modifiable by only urban planning. In addition, overemphasizing the contribution inner-city urban renewal towards urban sprawl has permits the persistence of unbridled urban fringe development.

Urban consolidation has a very high probability of leading to the rise of detriments like physical encroachments, insensitive housing styles, overcrowding and also raised gentrification of urban areas inexplicably take place (Stewart 2001). Solutions Urban consolidation can be achieved successfully through active public consultations and involvement of the local government heavily. Public consultation should not be just for the sake but because in the long run it will not be significant and also it is not just.

Read More