Compact city

It is based on an efficient public transport system and has an urban layout which – according to its advocates – encourages walking and cycling, low energy consumption and reduced pollution.

[1] A large resident population provides opportunities for social interaction as well as a feeling of safety in numbers and "eyes on the street".

To make matters worse, the design of the cities is limiting residents' access to green space and reasonable views.

The term compact city was first coined in 1973 by George Dantzig and Thomas L. Saaty,[9] two mathematicians whose utopian vision was largely driven by a desire to see more efficient use of resources.

Four conditions were necessary to enable the diversity essential for urban renewal: mixed uses, small walkable blocks, mingling of building ages and types, and "a sufficiently dense concentration of people".

The 'sufficient' density would vary according to local circumstances but, in general, a hundred dwellings per acre (247 per hectare – high by American standards, but quite common in European and Asian cities) could be considered a minimum.

Since the objective of the compact city is to make the community as accessible as possible to residents, the term pedestrian design also needs to be defined.

While a pedestrian design will primarily focus on hardscape elements, such as pathways and sidewalks, green space also is important to consider.

Green space, defined as the areas of nature found in the landscaping of a community, includes grassy patches, flowerbeds, trees, rock gardens, and water features.

His work presents a series of international case studies and outlines 15 core principles for the design of compact, sustainable cities.

Consequently, integrating desirable traits into compact cities makes the living spaces expensive, pricing out lower-income families and pushing them to the outskirts of town.

[23] This stimulates urban sprawl and places the burden of longer commutes on low-income workers, further expanding disparities in wealth and quality of life.

Whether the compact city (or 'smart growth') does or can reduce problems of automobile dependency associated with urban sprawl has been fiercely contested over several decades.

An influential study in 1989 by Peter Newman and Jeff Kenworthy compared 32 cities across North America, Australia, Europe and Asia.

One confounding factor, which has been the subject of many studies, is residential self-selection:[28] 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.

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.

Building on self-reports of a sample of 336 residents who have often experienced a shift from low to high density living in Tehran, Ziafati Bafarasat (2017)[34] tests a hypothesis suggesting that, in the context of attempts to escape and restore from chronic noise, contact load, and the sense of encapsulation, a compact city might increase discretionary car travel.

Findings support the hypothesis as these density stressors increased the car travel time of 30–48% of respondents by at least 7–24% for escape and restoration.

Planners adopted this development philosophy because projections showed that the growth in Australia's largest cities was expected to be high over the next decade.

[35] In adopting the compact city model, Australian planners set their development objectives to limit urban sprawl; to promote infill, renewal, and redevelopment; to increase dwelling type diversity; to diversify economic activity in communities; to motivate development to remain close to the economic diversity; to encourage residents to use public transportation; and to inspire residents to walk or cycle instead of driving cars (13).

Not only are fossil fuel reduction objectives being met, but compact community members are adopting more active lifestyles, enhancing public health.

Both models promote dense populations with lots of open green spaces and proximity to shopping and work options.

Sustainable systems create the infrastructure to naturally process sewage waste, grey water, and storm runoff on-site.

Based on the preparatory work of its Committee on Transport and Tourism,[42] the European Parliament in its Resolution of 9 July 2008[43] called among other things for “drawing up customised sustainable mobility plans and supporting measures for regional and urban planning ('city of short distances'), a process in which all parties concerned should be involved from an early stage”.

As a result, all neighbourhoods in Dutch towns are close to city centres, enabling inhabitants to get around quickly and cheaply by bike.

Getting out of town doesn't involve driving through ever-ongoing sprawled suburbs, making it easy and popular to visit rural areas.

Influenced by this report, the UK Government issued PPG 3 Planning Policy Guidance on Housing which introduced a 60% brownfield target, a minimum net residential density guideline of 30 dwellings per hectare, a sequential hierarchy beginning with urban brownfield land, maximum parking guidelines replacing the previous minima, and a policy of intensification around public transport nodes.

Over the succeeding years, these targets were substantially exceeded, with the brownfield proportion reaching 80% by 2009, and average densities 43 dwellings per hectare.

Compact cities are designed to keep residents in close proximity to everything they need for daily living, including shopping, education, housing, and work.

The problems preventing the desired outcomes include failure to consider the concentrated impact of dense populations on the environment and lack of planning for green space and pollution control.