Search This Blog

Friday, November 18, 2022

Principles of intelligent urbanism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Principles of intelligent urbanism (PIU) is a theory of urban planning composed of a set of ten axioms intended to guide the formulation of city plans and urban designs. They are intended to reconcile and integrate diverse urban planning and management concerns. These axioms include environmental sustainability, heritage conservation, appropriate technology, infrastructure-efficiency, placemaking, social access, transit-oriented development, regional integration, human scale, and institutional integrity. The term was coined by Prof. Christopher Charles Benninger.

The PIU evolved from the city planning guidelines formulated by the International Congress of Modern Architecture (CIAM), the urban design approaches developed at Harvard's pioneering Urban Design Department under the leadership of Josep Lluis Sert, and the concerns enunciated by Team Ten. It is most prominently seen in plans prepared by Christopher Charles Benninger and his numerous colleagues in the Asian context (Benninger 2001). They form the elements of the planning curriculum at the School of Planning, Ahmedabad, which Benninger founded in 1971. They were the basis for the new capital plan for Thimphu, Bhutan.

Axioms

Principle one: a balance with nature

According to proponents of intelligent urbanism, balance with nature emphasizes the distinction between utilizing resources and exploiting them. It focuses on the thresholds beyond which deforestation, soil erosion, aquifer depletion, siltation and flooding reinforce one another in urban development, saving or destroying life support systems. The principle promotes environmental assessments to identify fragile zones, threatened ecosystems and habitats that can be enhanced through conservation, density control, land use planning and open space design (McCarg: 1975). This principle promotes life cycle building energy consumption and pollutant emission analysis.

This principle states there is a level of human habitation intensity wherein the resources that are consumed will be replaced through the replenishing natural cycles of the seasons, creating environmental equilibrium. Embedded in the principle is contention that so long as nature can resurge each year; so long as the biomass can survive within its own eco-system; so long as the breeding grounds of fauna and avifauna are safe; so long as there is no erosion and the biomass is maintained, nature is only being utilized.

Underlying this principle is the supposition that there is a fragile line that is crossed when the fauna, which cross-fertilizes the flora, which sustains the soil, which supports the hillsides, is no longer there. Erosion, siltation of drainage networks and flooding result. After a point of no return, utilization of natural resources will outpace the natural ability of the eco-system to replenish itself. From there on degradation accelerates and amplifies. Deforestation, desertification, erosion, floods, fires and landslides all increase.

The principle states that blatant "acts against nature" include cutting of hillside trees, quarrying on slopes, dumping sewage and industrial waste into the natural drainage system, paving and plinthing excessively, and construction on steep slopes. This urban theory proposes that the urban ecological balance can be maintained when fragile areas are reserved, conservation of ecosystems is pursued, and low intensity habitation precincts are thoughtfully identified. Thus, the principles operate within the balance of nature, with a goal of protecting and conserving those elements of the ecology that nurture the environment. Therefore, the first principle of intelligent urbanism is that urbanization be in balance with nature.

Principle two: a balance with tradition

Balance with tradition is intended to integrate plan interventions with existing cultural assets, respecting traditional practices and precedents of style (Spreiregen: 1965). This urban planning principle demands respect for the cultural heritage of a place. It seeks out traditional wisdom in the layout of human settlements, in the order of building plans, in the precedents of style, in the symbols and signs that transfer meanings through decoration and motifs. This principle respects the order engendered into building systems through years of adaptation to climate, to social circumstances, to available materials and to technology. It promotes architectural styles and motifs designed to communicate cultural values.

This principle calls for orienting attention toward historic monuments and heritage structures, leaving space at the ends of visual axis to “frame" existing views and vistas. Natural views and vistas demand respect, assuring that buildings do not block major sight lines toward visual assets.

Embedded in the principle is the concern for unique cultural and societal iconography of regions, their signs and symbols. Their incorporation into the spatial order of urban settings is promoted. Adherents promote the orientation and structuring of urban plans using local knowledge and meaning systems, expressed through art, urban space and architecture.

Planning decisions must operate within the balance of tradition, aggressively protecting, promoting and conserving generic components and elements of the urban pattern.

Principle three: appropriate technology

Appropriate technology emphasizes the employment of building materials, construction techniques, infrastructural systems and project management which are consistent with local contexts (situation, setting or circumstances). People's capacities, geo-climatic conditions, locally available resources, and suitable capital investments all temper technology. Where there are abundant craftspeople, labour-intensive methods are appropriate. Where there is surplus savings, capital intensive methods are appropriate. For every problem there is a range of potential technologies, which can be applied, and an appropriate fit between technology and other resources must be established. Proponents argue that accountability and transparency are enhanced by overlaying the physical spread of urban utilities and services upon electoral constituencies, such that people's representatives are interlinked with the urban technical systems needed for a civil society. This principle is in sync with "small is beautiful" concepts and with the use of local resources.

Principle four: conviviality

The fourth principle sponsors social interaction through public domains, in a hierarchy of places, devised for personal solace, companionship, romance, domesticity, "neighborliness," community and civic life (Jacobs:1993). According to proponents of intelligent urbanism, vibrant societies are interactive, socially engaging and offer their members numerous opportunities for gathering and meeting one another. The PIU maintain that this can be achieved through design and that society operates within hierarchies of social relations which are space specific. The hierarchies can be conceptualized as a system of social tiers, with each tier having a corresponding physical place in the settlement structure.

A place for the individual

A goal of intelligent urbanism is to create places of solitude. These may be in urban forests, along urban hills, beside quiet streams, in public gardens and in parks where one can escape to meditate and contemplate. According to proponents, these are the quiet places wherein the individual consciousness dialogues with the rational mind. Idle and random thought sorts out complexities of modern life and allows the obvious to emerge. It is in these natural settings that the wandering mind finds its measure and its balance. Using ceremonial gates, directional walls and other “silent devices" these spaces are denoted and divined. Places of the individual cultivate introspection. These spaces may also be the forecourts and interior courtyards of public buildings, or even the thoughtful reading rooms of libraries. Meditation focuses one's thought. Intelligent urbanism creates a domain for the individual to mature through self-analysis and self-realization.

A place for friendship

The axiom insists that in city plans there must be spaces for “beautiful, intimate friendship" where unfettered dialogue can happen. This principle insists that such places will not exist naturally in a modern urban fabric. They must be a part of the conscientious design of the urban core, of the urban hubs, of urban villages and of neighborhoods, where people can meet with friends and talk out life's issues, sorrows, joys and dilemmas. This second tier is important for the emotional life of the populace. It sponsors strong mental health within the people, creating places where friendship can unfold and grow.

A place for householders

There must be spaces for householders, which may be in the form of dwellings for families, or homes for intimate companions, and where young workmates can form a common kitchen. Whatever their compositions, there must be a unique domain for social groups, familiar or biological, which have organized themselves into households. These domestic precincts are where families live and carry out their day-to-day functions of life. This third tier of conviviality is where the individual socializes into a personality.

Housing clusters planned according to this axiom create a variety of household possibilities, which respond to a range of household structures and situations. It recognizes that households transform through the years, requiring a variety of dwellings types that respond to a complex matrix of needs and abilities, which are provided for in city plans.

A place for the neighborhood

Smaller household domains must cluster into a higher social domain, the neighborhood social group. Good city planning practice sponsors, through design, such units of social space. It is in this fourth tier of social life that public conduct takes on new dimensions and groups learn to live peacefully among one another. It is through neighborhoods that the “social contract" amongst diverse households and individuals is sponsored. This social contract is the rational basis for social relations and negotiations within larger social groups. Within neighborhoods basic amenities like creches, early learning centers, preventive health care and rudimentary infrastructure are maintained by the community.

A place for communities

The next social tier, or hierarchy, is the community. Historically, communities were tribes who shared social mores and cultural behavioral patterns. In contemporary urban settings communities are formed of diverse people. But these are people who share the common need to negotiate and manage their spatial settings. In plans created through the principles of intelligent urbanism these are called urban villages. Like a rural village, social bonds are found in the community management of security, common resources and social space. Urban villages will have defined social spaces, services and amenities that need to be managed by the community. According to proponents of intelligent urbanism these urban villages optimally become the administrative wards, and therefore the constituencies, of the elected members of municipal bodies. Though there are no physical barriers to these communities, they have their unique spatial social domain. Intelligent urbanism calls for the creation of dense, walkable zones in which the inhabitants recognize each other's faces, share common facilities and resources, and often see each other at the village centre. This fifth tier of social space is where one needs initiative to join into various activities. It is intended to promote initiative and constructive community participation. There are opportunities for one to be involved in the management of services, and amenities and to meet new people. They accommodate primary education and recreation areas. Good planning practice promotes the creation of community places, where community-based organizations can manage common resources and resolve common problems.

A place for the city domain

The principles of intelligent urbanism call for city level domains. These can be plazas, parks, stadia, transport hubs, promenades, "passages" or gallerias. These are social spaces where everyone can go. In many cities one has to pay an entrance fee to access “public spaces" like malls and museums. Unlike the lower tiers of the social hierarchy, this tier is not defined by any biological, familiar, face-to-face or exclusive characteristic. One may find people from all continents, from nearby districts and provinces and from all parts of the city in such places. By nature these are accessible and open spaces, with no physical, social or economic barriers. According to this principle it is the rules of human conduct that order this domain's behavior. It is civility, or civilization, which protects and energizes such spaces. At the lower tiers, one meets people through introductions, through family ties, and through neighborhood circumstances.

These domains would include all freely accessible large spaces. These are places where outdoor exhibits are held, sports matches take place, vegetables are sold and goods are on display. These are places where visitors to the city meander amongst the locals. Such places may stay the same, but the people are always changing. Most significant, these city scale public domains foster public interaction; they sponsor unspoken ground rules for unknown people to meet and to interact. They nurture civic understanding of the strength of diversity, variety, a range of cultural groups and ethnic mixes. It is this higher tier of social space which defines truly urbane environments.

Every social system has its own hierarchy of social relations and interactions. Intelligent urbanism sees cyberspace as a macro tier of conviviality, but does not discount physical places in forging relationships due to the Internet. These are reflected through a system of ‘places’ that respond to them. Good urban planning practice promotes the planning and design of such ‘places’ as elemental components of the urban structure.

Principle five: efficiency

Energy Efficiency of different Transport Modes.png

The principle of efficiency promotes a balance between the consumption of resources such as energy, time and fiscal resources, with planned achievements in comfort, safety, security, access, tenure, productivity and hygiene. It encourages optimum sharing of public land, roads, facilities, services and infrastructural networks, reducing per household costs, while increasing affordability, productivity, access and civic viability.

Intelligent urbanism promotes a balance between performance and consumption. Intelligent urbanism promotes efficiency in carrying out functions in a cost effective manner. It assesses the performance of various systems required by the public and the consumption of energy, funds, administrative time and the maintenance efforts required to perform these functions.

A major concern of this principle is transport. While recognizing the convenience of personal vehicles, it attempts to place costs (such as energy consumption, large paved areas, parking, accidents, negative balance of trade, pollution and related morbidity) on the users of private vehicles.

Good city planning practice promotes alternative modes of transport, as opposed to a dependence on personal vehicles. It promotes affordable public transport. It promotes medium to high-density residential development along with complementary social amenities, convenience shopping, recreation and public services in compact, walkable mixed-use settlements. These compact communities have shorter pipe lengths, wire lengths, cable lengths and road lengths per capita. More people share gardens, shops and transit stops.

These compact urban nodes are spaced along regional urban transport corridors that integrate the region's urban nodes, through public transport, into a rational system of growth. Good planning practice promotes clean, comfortable, safe and speedy, public transport, which operates at dependable intervals along major origin and destination paths. Such a system is cheaper, safer, less polluting and consumes less energy.

The same principle applies to public infrastructure, social facilities and public services. Compact, high-density communities result in more efficient urban systems, delivering services at less cost per unit to each citizen.

There is an appropriate balance to be found somewhere on the line between wasteful low-density individual systems and over-capitalized mega systems. Individual septic tanks and water bores servicing individual households in low-density fragmented layouts, allow the use of filtered greywater for free irrigation of gardens, but, if not maintained, can cause a local pollution of subterranean aquifer systems. The bores can dramatically lower ground water levels especially during droughts. The vantage of septic tanks and bores is to be managed by the very users, at no cost for the community. Alternatively, large-scale, citywide sewerage systems and regional water supply systems are capital intensive and prone to management and maintenance dysfunction, if not corruption or extortion by private companies. Operating costs, user fees and cost recovery expenses are high. There is a balance wherein medium-scale systems, covering compact communities, utilize modern technology, without the pitfalls of large-scale infrastructure systems. This principle of urbanism promotes the middle path with regard to public infrastructure, facilities, services and amenities.

When these appropriate facilities and service systems overlap electoral constituencies, the “imagery" between user performance in the form of payments for services, systems dependability through managed delivery, and official response through effective representation, should all become obvious and transparent.

Good city planning practices promote compact settlements along dense urban corridors, and within populated networks, such that the numbers of users who share costs are adequate to support effective and efficient infrastructure systems. Intelligent urbanism is intended to foster movement on foot, linking pedestrian movement with public transport systems at strategic nodes and hubs. Medium-scale infrastructural systems, whose catchment areas overlap political constituencies and administrative jurisdictions, result in transparent governance and accountable urban management.

Principle six: human scale

Intelligent urbanism encourages ground level, pedestrian oriented urban patterns, based on anthropometric dimensions. Walkable, mixed use urban villages are encouraged over single-function blocks, linked by motor ways, and surrounded by parking lots.

An abiding axiom of urban planning, urban design and city planning has been the promotion of people friendly places, pedestrian walkways and public domains where people can meet freely. These can be parks, gardens, glass-covered gallerias, arcades, courtyards, street side cafes, river- and hill-side stroll ways, and a variety of semi-covered spaces.

Intelligent urbanism promotes the scale of the pedestrian moving on the pathway, as opposed to the scale of the automobile on the expressway. Intelligent urbanism promotes the ground plan of imaginable precincts, as opposed to the imagery of façades and the monumentality of the section. It promotes the personal visibility of places moving on foot at eye level.

Intelligent urbanism advocates removing artificial barrier and promotes face-to-face contact. Proponents argue that the automobile, single use zoning and the construction of public structures in isolated compounds, all deteriorate the human condition and the human scale of the city.

According to PIU proponents, the trend towards urban sprawl can be overcome by developing pedestrian circulation networks along streets and open spaces that link local destinations. Shops, amenities, day care, vegetable markets and basic social services should be clustered around public transport stops, and at a walkable distance from work places, public institutions, high and medium density residential areas. Public spaces should be integrated into residential, work, entertainment and commercial areas. Social activities and public buildings should orient onto public open spaces. These should be the interchange sites for people on the move, where they can also revert into the realm of “slowness," of community life and of human interaction.

Human scale can be achieved through building masses that “step down" to human scale open spaces; by using arcades and pavilions as buffers to large masses; by intermixing open spaces and built masses sensitively; by using anthropometric proportions and natural materials. Traditional building precedents often carry within them a human scale language, from which a contemporary fabric of build may evolve.

The focus of intelligent urbanism is the ground plane, pedestrian movement and interaction along movement channels, stems, at crossing nodes, at interactive hubs and within vibrant urban cores. The PIU holds many values in common with Transit Oriented Development, but the PIU goal is not merely to replace the automobile, nor to balance it. These are mundane requirements of planning, which the PIU assumes are found in every design and urban configuration. The PIU goal is to enrich the human condition and to enhance the realm of human possibilities.

Intelligent urbanism conceives of urbanity as a process of facilitating human behavior toward more tolerant, more peaceful, more accommodating and more sensitive modalities of interaction and conflict resolution. Intelligent urbanism recognizes that ‘urbanity’ emerges where people mix and interact on a face-to-face basis, on the ground, at high densities and amongst diverse social and economic groups. Intelligent urbanism nurtures ‘urbanity’ through designs and plans that foster human scale interaction.

Principle seven: opportunity matrix

The PIU envisions the city as a vehicle for personal, social, and economic development, through access to a range of organizations, services, facilities and information providing a variety of opportunities for enhanced employment, economic engagement, education, and recreation. This principle aims to increase access to shelter, health care and human resources development. It aims to increase safety and hygienic conditions. The city is a place of economic opportunity. This is generally said with regard to urban annual net product, enriched urban economic base, sustained employment generation and urban balance of trade. More significantly this is true for the individuals who settle in cities. Moreover, cities are places where individuals can increase their knowledge, skills and sensitivities. Cities provide access to health care and preventive medicine. They provide a great umbrella of services under which the individual can leave aside the struggle for survival, and get on with the finer things of life.

The PIU sees cities as catalysts for personal definition and self-discovery. In cities people get inspired, build a drive to achieve, discover aspects of their personalities, skills and intellectual curiosity which they use to craft their identity.

The city provides a range of services and facilities, whose realization in villages are the all-consuming struggle of rural inhabitants. Potable water; sewerage management; energy for cooking, heat and lighting are all piped and wired in; solid waste disposal and storm water drainage are taken for granted. The city offers access through roads, public transit, telephones and the Internet. The peace and security provided by effective policing systems, and the courts of law, are just assumed to be there in the city. Then there are the schools, the recreation facilities, the health services and a myriad of professional services offered in the city market place.

Intelligent urbanism views the city as an opportunity system. Yet these opportunities are not equally distributed. Security, health care, education, shelter, hygiene, and most of all employment, are not equally accessible. Proponents of intelligent urbanism see the city as playing an equalizing role allowing citizens to grow according to their own essential capabilities and efforts. If the city is an institution, which generates opportunities, intelligent urbanism promotes the concept of equal access to opportunities within the urban system.

Intelligent urbanism promotes a guaranteed access to education, health care, police protection, and justice before the law, potable water, and a range of basic services. Perhaps this principle, more than any other, distinguishes intelligent urbanism from other elitist, efficiency oriented urban charters and regimes.

Intelligent urbanism does not say every household will stay in an equivalent house, or travel in the same vehicle, or consume the same amount of electricity.

Intelligent urbanism recognizes the existence of poverty, of ignorance, of ill health, of malnutrition, of low skills, of gender bias and ignorance of the urban system itself. Intelligent urbanism is courageous in confronting these forms of inequality, and backlogs in social and economic development. Intelligent urbanism sees an urban plan, not only as a physical plan, but also as a social plan and as an economic plan.

The ramifications of this understanding are that the people living in intelligent cities should not experience urban development in “standard doses". In short, people may be born equal or unequal, but they grow inequitably. An important role of the city is to provide a variety of paths and channels for each individual to set right their own future, against the inequity of their past, or the special challenges they face. According to proponents of this principle this is the most salient aspect of a free society; than even voting rights access to opportunity is the essence of self-liberation and human development (Sen:2000).

According to proponents of intelligent urbanism, there will be a variety of problems faced by urbanites and they need a variety of opportunity channels for resolution. If there are ten problem areas where people are facing stresses, like economic engagement, health, shelter, food, education, recreation, transport, etc., there must be a variety of opportunities through which individuals and households can resolve each of these stresses. There must be ten channels to resolve each of ten stresses! If this opportunity matrix is understood and responded to, the city is truly functioning as an opportunity matrix. For example, opportunities for shelter could be through the channels of lodges, rented rooms, studio apartments, bedroom apartments and houses. It could be through the channels of ownership, through a variety of tendencies. It could be through opportunities for self-help, or incremental housing. It could be through the up-gradation of slums. Intelligent urbanism promotes a wide range of solutions, where any stress is felt. It therefore promotes a range of problem statements, options, and variable solutions to urban stresses.

Intelligent urbanism sees cities as processes. Proponents argue that good urban plans facilitate those processes and do not place barriers before them. For example, it does not judge a “slum" as a blight on society; it sees the possibility that such a settlement may be an opportunity channel for entry into the city. Such a settlement may be the only affordable shelter, within easy access to employment and education, for a new immigrant household in the city. According to intelligent urbanism, if the plan ignores, or destroys such settlements, it is creating a city of barriers and despair wherein a poor family, offering a good service to the city, is denied a modicum of basic needs for survival. Alternatively, if the urban plan recognizes that the “slum" is a mechanism for self development, a spring-board from which children have access to education, a place which can be up-graded with potable water, basic sanitary facilities, street lights and paving...then it is a plan for opportunity. Intelligent urbanism believes that there are slums of hope and slums of despair. It promotes slums of hope, which contribute, not only to individual opportunities, but also to nation building.

The opportunity matrix must also respond to young professionals, to skilled, well-paid day laborers, to the upper middle class and to affluent entrepreneurs. If a range of needs, of abilities to pay, of locational requirements, and of levels of development of shelter, is addressed, then opportunities are being created.

Intelligent urbanism believes that private enterprise is the logical provider of opportunities, but that alone it will not be just or effective. The regime of land, left to market forces alone, will create an exclusive, dysfunctional society. Intelligent urbanism believes that there is an essential role for the civil society to intervene in the opportunity matrix of the city.

Intelligent urbanism promotes opportunities through access to:

  • Basic and primary education, skill development and knowledge about the urban world;
  • Basic health care, potable water, solid waste disposal and hygiene;
  • Urban facilities like storm drainage, street lights, roads and footpaths;
  • Recreation and entertainment;
  • Transport, energy, communications;
  • Public participation and debate;
  • Finance and investment mechanisms;
  • Land and/or built-up space where goods and services can be produced;
  • Rudimentary economic infrastructure;
  • Intelligent urbanism provides a wide range of zones, districts and precincts where activities and functions can occur without detracting from one another.

Intelligent urbanism proposes that enterprise can only flourish where a public framework provides opportunities for enterprise. This system of opportunities operates through public investments in economic and social infrastructure; through incentives in the form of appropriate finance, tax inducements, subsidized skill development for workers, and: regulations which protect the environment, safety, hygiene and health. To ensure a stable playing field where one can make an investment with predictable returns, a modicum of regulation is necessary. Proponents argue that it is through government regulations that private investment can be protected from fraud. It is through government regulation that the under-pinning conditions for free enterprise can be protected.

Principle eight: regional integration

Intelligent urbanism envisions the city as an organic part of a larger environmental, socio-economic and cultural-geographic system, essential for its sustainability. This zone of influence is the region. Likewise, it sees the region as integrally connected to the city. Intelligent urbanism sees the planning of the city and its hinterland as a single holistic process. Proponents argue if one does not recognize growth as a regional phenomenon, then development will play a hopscotch game of moving just a bit further along an arterial roads, further up valleys above the municipal jurisdiction, staying beyond the path of the city boundary, development regulations and of the urban tax regime.

The region may be defined as the catchment area from which employees and students commute into the city on a daily basis. It is the catchment area from which people choose to visit one city, as opposed to another, for retail shopping and entertainment. Economically the city region may include the hinterland that depends on its wholesale markets, banking facilities, transport hubs and information exchanges. The region needing integration may be seen as the zone from which perishable foods, firewood and building materials supply the city. The economic region can also be defined as the area managed by exchanges in the city. Telephone calls to the region go through the city's telecom exchange; post goes through the city's general post office; money transfers go through the city's financial institutions and internet data passes electronically through the city's servers. The area over which “city exchanges" disperse matter can well be called the city's economic hinterland or region. Usually the region includes dormitory communities, airports, water reservoirs, perishable food farms, hydro facilities, out-of-doors recreation and other infrastructure that serves the city. Intelligent urbanism sees the integrated planning of these services and facilities as part of the city planning process.

Intelligent urbanism understands that the social and economic region linked to a city also has a physical form, or a geographic character. A hierarchy of watersheds, creating valleys and defining edges of neighborhoods, may define the geographic character. Forest ranges, fauna and avifauna habitats are set within such regions and are connected by natural corridors for movement and cross-fertilization. Within this larger, environmental scenario, one must conceptualize urbanism in terms of watersheds, subterranean aquifer systems, and other natural systems that operate across the entire region. Economic infrastructure, such as roads, hydro basins, irrigation channels, water reservoirs and related distribution networks usually follow the terrain of the regional geography. The region's geographic portals, and lines of control, may also define defense and security systems deployment.

Intelligent urbanism recognizes that there is always a spillover of population from the city into the region, and that population in the region moves into the city for work, shopping, entertainment, health care and education. With thoughtful planning the region can take pressure off of the city. Traditional and new settlements within the urban region can be enhanced and densified to accommodate additional urban households. There are many activities within the city, which are growing and are incompatible with urban habitat. Large, noisy and polluting workshops and manufacturing units are amongst these. Large wholesale markets, storage sheds, vehicular maintenance garages, and waste management facilities need to be housed outside of the city's limits in their own satellite enclaves. In larger urban agglomerations a number of towns and cities are clustered around a major urban center forming a metropolitan region.

Intelligent urbanism is not just planning for the present; it is also planning for the distant future. Intelligent urbanism is not Utopian, but futuristic in its need to forecast the scenarios to come, within its own boundaries, and within the boundaries of the distant future.

Principle nine: balanced movement

Intelligent urbanism advocates integrated transport systems comprising walkways, cycle paths, bus lanes, light rail corridors, under-ground metros and automobile channels. A balance between appropriate modes of movement is proposed. More capital intensive transport systems should move between high density nodes and hubs, which interchange with lower technology movement options. These modal split nodes become the public domains around which cluster high density, pedestrian, mixed-use urban villages (Taniguchi:2001).

The PIU accepts that the automobile is here to stay, but that it should not be made essential by design. A well planned metropolis would densify along mass transit corridors and around major urban hubs. Smaller, yet dense, urban nodes are seen as micro-zones of medium level density, public amenities and pedestrian access. At these points lower level nodal split will occur, such as between bus loops and cycle tracts. The PIU views nodal split points as places of urban conviviality and access to services and facilities. Modal split can be between walking, cycling, driving, and mass transit. Bus loops may feed larger rail-based rapid-movement corridors. Social and economic infrastructure becomes more intensive as movement corridors become more intense.

Principle ten: institutional transparency

Intelligent urbanism holds that good practices inherent in considered principles can only be realized through accountable, transparent, competent and participatory local governance, founded on appropriate data bases, due entitlements, civic responsibilities and duties. The PIU promotes a range of facilitative and promotive urban development management tools to achieve appropriate urban practices, systems and forms(Islam:2000). None of the principles or practices the PIU promotes can be implemented unless there is a strong and rational institutional framework to define, channel and legalize urban development, in all of its aspects. Intelligent urbanism envisions the institutional framework as being very clear about the rules and regulations it sponsors and that those using discretion in implementing these measures must do so in a totally open, recorded and transparent manner.

Intelligent urbanism facilitates the public in carrying out their honest objectives. It does not regulate and control the public. It attempts to reduce the requirements, steps and documentation required for citizens to process their proposals.

Intelligent urbanism is also promotive in furthering the interests of the public in their genuine utilization of opportunities. It promotes site and services schemes for households who can construct their own houses. It promotes up-gradation of settlements with inadequate basic services. It promotes innovative financing to a range of actors who can contribute to the city's development. Intelligent urbanism promotes a limited role for government, for example in “packaging" large-scale urban development schemes, so that the private sector is promoted to actually build and market urban projects, which were previously built by the government.

Intelligent urbanism does not consider itself naïve. It recognizes that there are developers and promoters who have no long term commitment to their own constructions, and their only concern is to hand over a dwelling, gain their profit and move on. For these players it is essential to have Development Control Regulations, which assure the public that the products they invest in are safe, hygienic, orderly, durable and efficient. For the discerning citizen, such rules also lay out the civil understanding by which a complex society agrees to live together.

The PIU contends that there must be a cadastral System wherein all of the land in the jurisdiction of cities is demarcated, surveyed, characterized and archived, registering its legal owner, its legal uses, and the tax defaults against it.

The institutional framework can only operate where there is a Structure Plan, or other document that defines how the land will be used, serviced, and accessed. The Structure Plan tells landowners and promoters what the parameters of development are, which assures that their immediate investments are secure, and that the returns and use of such efforts are predictable. A Structure Plan is intended to provide owners and investors with predictable future scenarios. Cities require efficient patterns for their main infrastructure systems and utilities. According to PIU proponents, land needs to be used in a judicious manner, organizing complementary functions and activities into compact, mixed use precincts and separating out non-compatible uses into their own precincts. In a similar manner, proponents argue it is only through a plan that heritage sites and the environment can be legally protected. Public assets in the form of nature, religious places, heritage sites and open space systems must be designated in a legal plan.

Intelligent urbanism proposes that the city and its surrounding region be regulated by a Structure Plan, or equivalent mechanism, which acts as a legal instrument to guide the growth, development and enhancement of the city.

According to proponents, there must be a system of participation by the “Stake Holders" in the preparation of plans. Public meetings, hearings of objections and transparent processes of addressing objections, must be institutionalized. Intelligent urbanism promotes Public Participation. Local Area Plans must be prepared which address local issues and take into account local views and sentiments regarding plan objectives, configurations, standards and patterns. Such plans lay out the sites of plots showing the roads, public open spaces, amenities areas and conservation sites. Land Pooling assures the beneficiaries from provision of public infrastructure and amenities proportionally contribute and that a few individuals do not suffer from reservations in the plan.

According to proponents, there must be a system of Floor Area Ratios to assure that the land and the services are not over pressured. No single plot owner should have more than the determined "fair share" of utilization of the access roads, amenities and utilities that service all of the sites. Floor Area Ratios temper this relationship as regulated the manner in which public services are consumed. According to PIU proponents, Transfer of Development Rights benefits land owners whose properties have been reserved under the plan. It also benefits the local authorities that lack the financial resources to purchase lands to implement the Structure Plans. It benefits concentrated, city center project promoters who have to amortize expensive land purchases, by allowing them to purchase the development rights from the owners of reserved lands and to hand over those properties to the plan implementing authority. This allows the local authority to widen roads and to implement the Structure Plan. The local authority then transfers the needed development right to city center promoters.

Intelligent urbanism supports the use of Architectural Guidelines where there is a tradition to preserve and where precedents can be used to specify architectural elements, motifs and language in a manner, which intended to reinforce a cultural tradition. Building designs must respect traditional elements, even though the components may vary greatly to integrate contemporary functions. Even in a greenfield setting Architectural Guidelines are required to assure harmony and continuity of building proportions, scale, color, patterns, motifs, materials and facades.

Intelligent urbanism insists on safety, hygiene, durability and utility in the design and construction of buildings. Where large numbers of people gather in schools, hospitals, and other public facilities that may become emergency shelters in disasters, special care must be exercised. A suitable Building Code is the proposed instrument to achieve these aims.

PIU proponents state that those who design buildings must be professionally qualified architects; those who design the structures (especially of more than ground plus two levels) must be professionally qualified structural engineers; those who build buildings must be qualified civil engineers; and, those who supervise and control construction must be qualified construction managers. Intelligent urbanism promotes the professionalisation of the city making process. While promoting professionalism, intelligent urbanism proposes that this not become a barrier in the development process. Small structures, low-rise structures, and humble structures that do not house many people can be self designed and constructed by the inhabitants themselves. Proponents maintain that there must be recognized Professional Accrediting Boards, or Professional Bodies, to see that urban development employs adequate technical competence.

Finally, there must be legislation creating statutory local authorities, and empowering them to act, manage, invest, service, protect, promote and facilitate urban development and all of the opportunities that a modern city must sponsor.

Intelligent urbanism insists that cities, local authorities, regional development commissions and planning agencies be professionally managed. City Managers can be hired to manage the delivery of services, the planning and management of planned development, the maintenance of utilities and the creation of amenities.

Intelligent urbanism views plans and urban designs and housing configurations as expressions of the people for whom they are planned. The processes of planning must therefore be a participatory involving a range of stakeholders. The process must be a transparent one, which makes those privileged to act as guardians of the people's will accountable for their decisions and choices. Intelligent urbanism sees urban planning and city governance as the most salient expressions of civility. Intelligent urbanism fosters the evolution of institutional systems that enhance transparency, accountability and rational public decision making.

Movements implementing the ten principles

Though not necessarily related to the principles of intelligent urbanism, there are examples representing all or some of them in urban design theory and practice. Concurrently, the recent movements of New Urbanism and New Classical Architecture promote a sustainable approach towards construction, that appreciates and develops smart growth, architectural tradition and classical design. This in contrast to modernist and globally uniform architecture, as well as leaning against solitary housing estates and suburban sprawl. Both trends started in the 1980s. The Driehaus Architecture Prize is an award that recognizes efforts in New Urbanism and New Classical Architecture, and is endowed with a prize money twice as high as that of the modernist Pritzker Prize.

Smart growth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
The Ballston neighborhood of Arlington, Virginia is a transit-oriented development zone, one example of the smart growth concept.

Smart growth is an urban planning and transportation theory that concentrates growth in compact walkable urban centers to avoid sprawl. It also advocates compact, transit-oriented, walkable, bicycle-friendly land use, including neighborhood schools, complete streets, and mixed-use development with a range of housing choices. The term "smart growth" is particularly used in North America. In Europe and particularly the UK, the terms "compact city", "urban densification" or "urban intensification" have often been used to describe similar concepts, which have influenced government planning policies in the UK, the Netherlands and several other European countries.

Smart growth values long-range, regional considerations of sustainability over a short-term focus. Its sustainable development goals are to achieve a unique sense of community and place; expand the range of transportation, employment, and housing choices; equitably distribute the costs and benefits of development; preserve and enhance natural and cultural resources; and promote public health.

Basic concept

San Diego, California

Smart growth is a theory of land development that accepts that growth and development will continue to occur, and so seeks to direct that growth in an intentional, comprehensive way. Its proponents include urban planners, architects, developers, community activists, and historic preservationists. The term "smart growth" is an attempt to reframe the conversation from "growth" versus "no growth" (or NIMBY) to good/smart growth versus bad/dumb growth. Proponents seek to distinguish smart growth from urban sprawl, which they claim causes most of the problems that fuel opposition to urban growth, such as traffic congestion and environmental degradation. Smart growth principles are directed at developing sustainable communities that provide a greater range of transportation and housing choices and prioritize infill and redevelopment in existing communities rather than development of "greenfield" farmland or natural lands. Some of the fundamental aims for the benefits of residents and the communities are increasing family income and wealth, providing safe walking routes to schools, fostering livable, safe and healthy places, stimulating economic activity (both locally and regionally), and developing, preserving and investing in built and natural resources.

Smart growth "principles" describe the elements of community that are envisioned and smart growth "regulations" describe the various approaches to implementation, that is, how federal, state, and municipal governments choose to fulfill smart growth principles. Some of these regulatory approaches such as urban growth boundaries predate the use of the term "smart growth". One of the earliest efforts to establish smart growth forward as an explicit regulatory framework were put forth by the American Planning Association (APA). In 1997, the APA introduced a project called Growing Smart and published the "Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook: Model Statutes for Planning and the Management of Change." The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines smart growth as “a range of development and conservation strategies that help protect our health and natural environment and make our communities more attractive, economically stronger, and more socially diverse." Smart growth agenda is comprehensive and ambitious, however, its implementation is problematic as control of outward movement means limiting availability of single-family homes and reliance on the automobile, the mainstay of the traditional American lifestyle.

Smart growth is related to, or may be used in combination with, the following concepts:

The smart growth approach to development is multifaceted and can encompass a variety of techniques. For example, in the state of Massachusetts smart growth is enacted by a combination of techniques including increasing housing density along transit nodes, conserving farm land, and mixing residential and commercial use areas. Perhaps the most descriptive term to characterize this concept is Traditional Neighborhood Development, which recognizes that smart growth and related concepts are not necessarily new, but are a response to car culture and sprawl. Many favor the term New Urbanism, which invokes a new, but traditional way of looking at urban planning.

There are a range of best practices associated with smart growth. These include supporting existing communities, redeveloping underutilized sites, enhancing economic competitiveness, providing more transportation choices, developing livability measures and tools, promoting equitable and affordable housing, providing a vision for sustainable growth, enhancing integrated planning and investment, aligning, coordinating, and leveraging government policies, redefining housing affordability and making the development process transparent.

Related, but somewhat different, are the overarching goals of smart growth, and they include: making the community more competitive for new businesses, providing alternative places to shop, work, and play, creating a better "Sense of Place," providing jobs for residents, increasing property values, improving quality of life, expanding the tax base, preserving open space, controlling growth, and improving safety.

Basic principles

There are 10 accepted principles that define smart growth:

  1. Mix land uses.
  2. Take advantage of compact building design.
  3. Create a range of housing opportunities and choices.
  4. Create walkable neighborhoods.
  5. Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place.
  6. Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and critical environmental areas.
  7. Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities.
  8. Provide a variety of transportation choices.
  9. Make development decisions predictable, fair, and cost effective.
  10. Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions.

History

Transportation and community planners began to promote the idea of compact cities and communities and adopt many of the regulatory approaches associated with smart growth in the early 1970s. The cost and difficulty of acquiring land (particularly in historic and/or areas designated as conservancies) to build and widen highways caused some politicians to reconsider basing transportation planning on motor vehicles.

The Congress for the New Urbanism, with architect Peter Calthorpe, promoted and popularized the idea of urban villages that relied on public transportation, bicycling, and walking instead of automobile use. Architect Andrés Duany promoted changing design codes to promote a sense of community, and to discourage driving. Colin Buchanan and Stephen Plowden helped to lead the debate in the United Kingdom.

The Local Government Commission which presents the annual New Partners for Smart Growth conference adopted the original Ahwahnee Principles in 1991 which articulates many of the major principles now generally accepted as part of the smart growth movement such as transit oriented development, a focus on walking distance, greenbelts and wildlife corridors, and infill and redevelopment. The document was co-authored by several of the founders of the New Urbanist movement. The Local Government Commission has been co-sponsoring smart growth-related conferences since 1997. The New Partners for Smart Growth Conference started under that name circa 2002.

Smart Growth America, an organization devoted to promoting smart growth in the United States, was founded in 2002. This organization leads an evolving coalition of national and regional organizations most of which predated its founding such as 1000 Friends of Oregon, founded in 1975, and the Congress for the New Urbanism, founded in 1993. The EPA launched its smart growth program in 1995.

Rationale for smart growth

Smart growth is an alternative to urban sprawl, traffic congestion, disconnected neighborhoods, and urban decay. Its principles challenge old assumptions in urban planning, such as the value of detached houses and automobile use.

Environmental protection

Environmentalists promote smart growth by advocating urban-growth boundaries, or Green belts, as they have been termed in England since the 1930s.

Public health

Transit-oriented development can improve the quality of life and encourage a healthier, pedestrian-based lifestyle with less pollution. EPA suggests that smart growth can help reduce air pollution, improve water quality, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Reaction to existing subsidies

Smart growth advocates claim that much of the urban sprawl of the 20th century was due to government subsidies for infrastructure that redistribute the true costs of sprawl. Examples include subsidies for highway building, fossil fuels, and electricity.

Electrical subsidies

With electricity, there is a cost associated with extending and maintaining the service delivery system, as with water and sewage, but there also is a loss in the commodity being delivered. The farther from the generator, the more power is lost in distribution. According to the Department of Energy's (DOE) Energy Information Administration (EIA), 9 percent of energy is lost in transmission. Current average cost pricing, where customers pay the same price per unit of power regardless of the true cost of their service, subsidizes sprawl development. With electricity deregulation, some states now charge customers/developers fees for extending distribution to new locations rather than rolling such costs into utility rates.

New Jersey, for example, has implemented a plan that divides the state into five planning areas, some of which are designated for growth, while others are protected. The state is developing a series of incentives to coax local governments into changing zoning laws that will be compatible with the state plan. The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities recently proposed a revised rule that presents a tiered approach to utility financing. In areas not designated for growth, utilities and their ratepayers are forbidden to cover the costs of extending utility lines to new developments—and developers will be required to pay the full cost of public utility infrastructure. In designated growth areas that have local smart plans endorsed by the State Planning Commission, developers will be refunded the cost of extending utility lines to new developments at two times the rate of the revenue received by developers in smart growth areas that do not have approved plans.

Elements

Green tramway track in Belgrade, Serbia
Green tramway track in Belgrade, Serbia

Growth is "smart growth", to the extent that it includes the elements listed below.

Compact neighborhoods

Compact, livable urban neighborhoods attract more people and business. Creating such neighborhoods is a critical element of reducing urban sprawl and protecting the climate. Such a tactic includes adopting redevelopment strategies and zoning policies that channel housing and job growth into urban centers and neighborhood business districts, to create compact, walkable, and bike- and transit-friendly hubs. This sometimes requires local governmental bodies to implement code changes that allow increased height and density downtown and regulations that not only eliminate minimum parking requirements for new development but establish a maximum number of allowed spaces. Other topics fall under this concept:

In sustainable architecture the recent movements of New Urbanism and New Classical Architecture promote a sustainable approach towards construction, that appreciates and develops smart growth, architectural tradition and classical design. This in contrast to modernist and globally uniform architecture, as well as leaning against solitary housing estates and suburban sprawl. Both trends started in the 1980s.

Transit-oriented development

Transit-oriented development (TOD) is a residential or commercial area designed to maximize access to public transport, and mixed-use/compact neighborhoods tend to use transit at all times of the day. Many cities striving to implement better TOD strategies seek to secure funding to create new public transportation infrastructure and improve existing services. Other measures might include regional cooperation to increase efficiency and expand services, and moving buses and trains more frequently through high-use areas. Other topics fall under this concept:

Pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly design

Biking and walking instead of driving can reduce emissions, save money on fuel and maintenance, and foster a healthier population. Pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly improvements include bike lanes on main streets, an urban bike-trail system, bike parking, pedestrian crossings, and associated master plans. The most pedestrian- and bike-friendly variant of smart growth and New Urbanism is New Pedestrianism because motor vehicles are on a separate grid.

Others

  • preserving open space and critical habitat, reusing land, and protecting water supplies and air quality
  • transparent, predictable, fair and cost-effective rules for development
  • historic preservation
  • Setting aside large areas where development is prohibited, nature is able to run its course, providing fresh air and clean water.
  • Expansion around already existing areas allows public services to be located where people are living without taking away from the core city neighborhoods in large urban areas.
  • Developing around preexisting areas decreases the socioeconomic segregation allowing society to function more equitably, generating a tax base for housing, educational and employment programs.

Policy tools

Zoning ordinances

The most widely used tool for achieving smart growth is modification of local zoning laws. Zoning laws are applicable to most cities and counties in the United States. Smart growth advocates often seek to modify zoning ordinances to increase the density of development and redevelopment allowed in or near existing towns and neighborhoods and/or restrict new development in outlying or environmentally sensitive areas. Additional density incentives can be offered for development of brownfield and greyfield land or for providing amenities such as parks and open space. Zoning ordinances typically include minimum parking requirements. Reductions in or elimination of parking minimums or imposition of parking maximums can also reduce the amount of parking built with new development increasing land available for parks and other community amenities.

Urban growth boundaries

Related to zoning ordinances, an urban growth boundary (UGB) is a tool used in some U.S. cities to contain high density development to certain areas. The first urban growth boundary in the United States was established in 1958 in Kentucky. Subsequently, urban growth boundaries were established in Oregon in the 1970s and Florida in the 1980s. Some believe that UGBs contributed to the escalation of housing prices from 2000 to 2006, as they limited the supply of developable land. However, this is not completely substantiated because prices continued to rise even after municipalities expanded their growth boundaries.

Transfer of development rights

Transfer of development rights (TDR) systems are intended to allow property owners in areas deemed desirable for growth (such as infill and brownfield sites) to purchase the right to build at higher densities from owners of properties in areas deemed undesirable for growth such as environmental lands, farmlands or lands outside of an urban growth boundary. TDR programs have been implemented in over 200 U.S. communities.

Provision of social infrastructure

Systematic provision of infrastructure such as schools, libraries, sporting facilities and community facilities is an integral component of smart growth communities. This is commonly known as 'social infrastructure' or 'community infrastructure'. In Australia, for example, most new suburban developments are master planned, and key social infrastructure is planned at the outset.

Environmental impact assessments

One popular approach to assist in smart growth in democratic countries is for lawmakers to require prospective developers to prepare environmental impact assessments of their plans as a condition for state and/or local governments to give them permission to build their buildings. These reports often indicate how significant impacts generated by the development will be mitigated, the cost of which is usually paid by the developer. These assessments are frequently controversial. Conservationists, neighborhood advocacy groups and NIMBYs are often skeptical about such impact reports, even when they are prepared by independent agencies and subsequently approved by the decision makers rather than the promoters. Conversely, developers will sometimes strongly resist being required to implement the mitigation measures required by the local government as they may be quite costly.

In communities practicing these smart growth policies, developers comply with local codes and requirements. Consequently, developer compliance builds communal trust because it demonstrates a genuine interest in the environmental quality of the community.

Communities implementing smart growth

EPA presented awards for smart growth achievement between 2002 and 2015. The awardees comprised 64 projects in 28 states. Among the localities receiving awards were:

The smart growth network has recognized these U.S. communities for implementing smart growth principles:

The European Union has recognized these cities and regions for implementing "smart specialization" which originated from smart growth principles:

  • Navarre, Spain (Improving education and developing projects for medical tourism and green vehicles)
  • Flanders, Belgium (Spending funds on transportation, healthcare services, and technological innovation)
  • Lower Austria ( Cooperating with neighboring regions to develop new markets for local companies)

In May 2011, The European Union released a Regional Policy report for smart growth policy for 2020. The Regional Policy report stated smart specialization was the strategy to focus Europe's resources and administer smart growth principles.

In July 2011, The Atlantic magazine called the BeltLine, a series of housing, trail, and transit projects along a 22-mile (35-km) long disused rail corridor surrounding the core of Atlanta, the United States' "most ambitious smart growth project".

In Savannah, Georgia (US) the historic Oglethorpe Plan has been shown to contain most of the elements of smart growth in its network of wards, each of which has a central civic square. The plan has demonstrated its resilience to changing conditions, and the city is using the plan as a model for growth in newer areas.

In Melbourne, Australia, almost all new outer-suburban developments are master planned, guided by the principles of smart growth.

Smart growth, urban sprawl and automobile dependency

Whether smart growth (or the "compact City") does or can reduce problems of automobile dependency associated with urban sprawl have been fiercely contested issues over several decades. A 2007 meta-study by Keith Barthomomew of the University of Utah found that reductions in driving associated with compact development scenarios averaged 8 percent ranging up to 31.7 percent with the variation being explained by degree of land use mixing and density. An influential study in 1989 by Peter Newman and Jeff Kenworthy compared 32 cities across North America, Australia, Europe and Asia. The study has been criticised for its methodology  but the main finding that denser cities, particularly in Asia, have lower car use than sprawling cities, particularly in North America, has been largely accepted — although the relationship is clearer at the extremes across continents than it is within countries where conditions are more similar.

Within cities studies from across many countries (mainly in the developed world) have shown that denser urban areas with greater mixture of land use and better public transport tend to have lower car use than less dense suburban and ex-urban residential areas. This usually holds true even after controlling for socio-economic factors such as differences in household composition and income. This does not necessarily imply that suburban sprawl causes high car use, however. One confounding factor, which has been the subject of many studies, is residential self-selection: people who prefer to drive tend to move towards low density suburbs, whereas people who prefer to walk, cycle or use transit tend to move towards higher density urban areas, better served by public transport. Some studies have found that, when self-selection is controlled for, the built environment has no significant effect on travel behaviour. More recent studies using more sophisticated methodologies have generally refuted these findings: density, land use and public transport accessibility can influence travel behaviour, although social and economic factors, particularly household income, usually exert a stronger influence.

Paradox of intensification

Reviewing the evidence on urban intensification, smart growth and their effects on travel behaviour Melia et al. (2011) found support for the arguments of both supporters and opponents of smart growth. Planning policies which increase population densities in urban areas do tend to reduce car use, but the effect is a weak one, so doubling the population density of a particular area will not halve the frequency or distance of car use.

For example, Portland, Oregon a U.S. city which has pursued smart growth policies, substantially increased its population density between 1990 and 2000 when other US cities of a similar size were reducing in density. As predicted by the paradox, traffic volumes and congestion both increased more rapidly than in the other cities, despite a substantial increase in transit use.

These findings led them to propose the paradox of intensification, which states "Ceteris paribus, urban intensification which increases population density will reduce per capita car use, with benefits to the global environment, but will also increase concentrations of motor traffic, worsening the local environment in those locations where it occurs".

At the citywide level it may be possible, through a range of positive measures to counteract the increases in traffic and congestion which would otherwise result from increasing population densities: Freiburg im Breisgau in Germany is one example of a city which has been more successful in this respect.

This study also reviewed evidence on the local effects of building at higher densities. At the level of the neighbourhood or individual development positive measures (e.g. improvements to public transport) will usually be insufficient to counteract the traffic effect of increasing population density. This leaves policy-makers with four choices: intensify and accept the local consequences, sprawl and accept the wider consequences, a compromise with some element of both, or intensify accompanied by more radical measures such as parking restrictions, closing roads to traffic and carfree zones.

In contrast, the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts reported that its Kendall Square neighborhood saw a 40% increase in commercial space attended by a traffic decrease of 14%.

A report by CEOs for Cities, "Driven Apart," showed that while denser cities in the United States may have more congested commutes they are also shorter on average in both time and distance. This is in contrast to cities where commuters face less congestion but drive longer distances resulting in commutes that take as long or longer.

Proponents

Criticism

Robert Bruegmann, professor of art history, architecture, and urban planning at the University of Illinois at Chicago and author of Sprawl: A Compact History, stated that historical attempts to combat urban sprawl have failed, and that the high population density of Los Angeles, currently the most dense urban area in the United States, "lies at the root of many of the woes experienced by L.A. today."

Wendell Cox is a vocal opponent of smart growth policies. He argued before the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works that, "smart growth strategies tend to intensify the very problems they are purported to solve." Cox and Joshua Utt analyzed smart growth and sprawl, and argued that:

Our analysis indicates that the Current Urban Planning Assumptions are of virtually no value in predicting local government expenditures per capita. The lowest local government expenditures per capita are not in the higher density, slower growing, and older municipalities.

On the contrary, the actual data indicate that the lowest expenditures per capita tend to be in medium- and lower-density municipalities (though not the lowest density); medium- and faster-growing municipalities; and newer municipalities. This is after 50 years of unprecedented urban decentralization, which seems to be more than enough time to have developed the purported urban sprawl-related higher local government expenditures. It seems unlikely that the higher expenditures that did not develop due to sprawl in the last 50 years will evolve in the next 20 - despite predictions to the contrary in The Costs of Sprawl 2000 research.

It seems much more likely that the differences in municipal expenditures per capita are the result of political, rather than economic factors, especially the influence of special interests.

The phrase "smart growth" implies that other growth and development theories are not "smart". There is debate about whether transit-proximate development constitutes smart growth when it is not transit-oriented. The National Motorists Association does not object to smart growth as a whole, but strongly objects to traffic calming, which is intended to reduce automobile accidents and fatalities, but may also reduce automobile usage and increase alternate forms of public transportation.

In 2002 the National Center for Public Policy Research, a self-described conservative think tank, published an economic study entitled "Smart Growth and Its Effects on Housing Markets: The New Segregation" which termed smart growth "restricted growth" and suggested that smart growth policies disfavor minorities and the poor by driving up housing prices.

Some libertarian groups, such as the Cato Institute, criticize smart growth on the grounds that it leads to greatly increased land values, and people with average incomes can no longer afford to buy detached houses.

A number of ecological economists claim that industrial civilization has already "overshot" the carrying capacity of the Earth, and "smart growth" is mostly an illusion. Instead, a steady state economy would be needed to bring human societies back into a necessary balance with the ability of the ecosystem to sustain humans (and other species).

A study released in November 2009 characterized the smart-growth policies in the U.S. state of Maryland as a failure, concluding that "[t]here is no evidence after ten years that [smart-growth laws] have had any effect on development patterns." Factors include a lack of incentives for builders to redevelop older neighborhoods and limits on the ability of state planners to force local jurisdictions to approve high-density developments in "smart-growth" areas. Buyers demand low-density development and voters tend to oppose high density developments near them.

Beginning in 2010, groups generally associated with the Tea Party movement began to identify Smart Growth as an outgrowth of the United Nations Agenda 21 which they viewed as an attempt by international interests to force a "sustainable" lifestyle on the United States. However planning groups and even some smart growth opponents counter that Smart Growth concepts and groups predate the 1992 Agenda 21 conference. In addition the word "sustainable development" as used in the Agenda 21 report is often misread to mean real estate development when it typically refers to the much broader concept of human development in the United Nations and foreign aid context which addresses a broader slate of economic, health, poverty, and education issues.

Inequality (mathematics)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequality...