3.2 The Compact City Approach
3.2.1 History and Background
The European Commission also endorsed the concept in its Green Paper, which was acknowledged and supported as a solution to unsustainable cities throughout United Kingdom, Europe and more recently in the United States of American and Australia. According to Morrison (1998), the debate on urban form intensified after the publication of the document. The report highlighted the vital role that planning and urban form played in promoting sustainable development through the compact city, which promoted density, multiple use, social and cultural diversity. In reaction to the dispersed settlement form and car dependence the Green Paper’s vision stated that; “instead of new forms of dense, diverse, sustainable cities with a renaissance of urban living: the past decades have seen a rediscovery of the value of urban living and a growing appreciation of life in the cities of Europe. In part, this reflects the failure of the periphery: the absence of public life, the paucity of culture, the visual monotony, and the time wasted in commuting. By contrast, the city offers density and variety: the efficient, time and energy saving combination of social and economic functions, the chance to restore the rich architecture from the past”
(CEC 1990:19). As a result, in many European countries, urban compaction became the policy direction that was followed since 1990’s.
Galster (2001, cited in Tsai, 2005) defined compactness as the degree to which development is clustered which minimizes the amount of land used. Although compactness does not have a specific definition, Ewing (1997, cited in Tsai, 2005) described it as high density or monocentric development i.e. with some concentration of employment, housing and mix of land uses. Ewing and Hamidi (2015) viewed the compact development pattern with spatial contiguity, strong centres, mixed land uses, medium to high densities, good accessibility and permanent open spaces. Spatial contiguity meaning to adjoin, abut, to border or be in direct contact with existing development. Anderson (1997, cited in Tsai, 2005) defined both mono-centric and polycentric urban forms as being compact. Burton (2000) noted that there has been an increasing need for sustainable models for towns and cities in the Developed World. He defined the compact city as a high density, mixed use city based on an efficient public transport system and has dimensions that encourage walking and cycling which is in contrast to the car-oriented urban sprawl. The methodology proposed to achieve compactness was through intensification, consolidation, densification, the re-use of brownfield land, more intense use of buildings, subdivisions, conversion of existing buildings and increase in the density of urban population. Furthermore, higher densities promoting social equity, households are in close proximity to facilities hence have access to a wider range of services and the increased densities provide thresholds for social and economic viability.
However, critics have questioned the advantages of the compact city stating that its influence on travel is insignificant and is argued that it leads to poor and unsafe environments for walking and cycling due
to congestion and is detrimental to the physical and mental well-being of the poor who are compelled to live in the most polluted and cramped housing.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD, 2012) report outlined the key characteristics of the compact city as dense and proximate development patterns which consist of intense urban land uses, urban agglomerations that are contiguous, the boundary between urban and rural land is distinct and density and proximity as the two major physical elements. In addition, urban areas are linked by public transport systems that facilitate mobility and efficient functioning of urban areas. In addition, residents have easy access to jobs, local services such as stores, restaurants, workplaces, schools and clinics, land uses are mixed, and most residents commute by foot or public transportation. Jenks & Burgess (2000, cited in de Villiers, 2009) also presented various theoretical views on the Compact City. It strives to achieve a sustainable future by reducing travel distances and combatting global warming. Although increased residential densities of urban dwellers create congestion, they benefit from the low transport costs and reduction in air pollution. Urban dwellers also have the choice between centralised or decentralised urban forms. Centralisation is characterised by places of residence-employment-recreation being in close proximity to each other. Alternately, decentralised suburbs are located far from the concentration of activities. Both choices present advantages and disadvantages. In contrast, Stretton (in Jenks & Burgess, 2000) argued that compaction is unsustainable and has no positive impacts on the social, economic and natural environments. He argues that transportation systems should be transformed instead of reversing cities urban forms.
Rerat (2012) further concurs that an alternative model that can be used to regulate urban sprawl is the Compact City model, which is compatible with the sustainable development criteria. Densification of the built environment would slow urban sprawl and limit resource and energy consumption. It would reduce the role or motor vehicles and increase non-motorised transportation such as walking, cycling and the use of public transportation. The 2000 transition to a compact-denser city form has become the central theme of urban metropolitan strategy planning and public policy despite opposition, debate and criticism. City planning adopted the compact city concept based on the following methods, which included-
Limiting urban growth boundaries;
Promoting infill, higher densities, wide range of housing typologies and tenures;
Encouraging growth around activity centres,
Concentrating of economic activities in employment areas,
Promoting public transport;
Encouraging growth along high accessibility transport corridors and
Encouraging walking and cycling.
Research also revealed that whilst some progress has been made towards achieving a compact city form there were also some challenges.
Beatly (2000) and Pinho (2011, cited in Naess, 2014) argued that densification in contrast to urban sprawl provides protection of natural areas, arable land and biodiversity. Furthermore, concentrated housing typologies such as apartments and row housing require less energy consumption than single detached family houses. Research findings on appropriately fifteen cities in Greater Oslo revealed that the correlation between urban form and transportation played a major role in promoting sustainable development. In addition, urban densification was clearly preferable to outward urban expansion with the intent to mitigate climate change, protect biodiversity and natural landscapes and accessibility to facilities. Although there were some tensions relating to public health in urban planning such as the exposure to pollution, noise and traffic accidents nonetheless densification policies that were implemented since mid-1980 has proved successful. In addition, several studies undertaken amongst the Swedish and Danish population revealed that medical professionals in the preventive health field agreed that physical exercise i.e. a short distance from home to recreational areas stimulated residents to walk, jog and bike more frequently reduced stress and obesity-related diseases. Frank, Andresen and Schmid (2004, citied in Naess, 2014) indicated that studies in the United States also revealed that patterns of mixed land uses show lower obesity rates whereas Ewing, Brownson and Berrigan (2006, citied in Naess, 2014) found higher levels of obesity among Americans living in sprawling cities and a similar tendency was found in Canadian metropolitan areas.
Westerink, Haase, Bauer, Ravetz, Jarrige & Aalbers (2013) observed that the Compact City paradigm is not only based on efficient land use and urban containment concepts. It incorporates various goals such as urban containment, efficient land use, separation of settlements; lower car use/travel costs and greenhouse gas emissions, health benefits; protection of ecological diversity, agricultural land and countryside; densification of urban neighbourhoods, which facilitate social cohesion/mixing, economic diversity and many more benefits. The compact city was originally based on the idea of proximity where daily needs of residents are within walking or cycling distance however, the focus on proximity has also moved to a focus on accessibility i.e. travelling time has taken precedence over distance. Hence, the emergence of Transit-Oriented-Development (TOD) that promotes the integration of travel with land use planning and concentrating development in accessible locations, which is closely related to mobility.
The emphasis is on public transport to reduce private car use. Furthermore, from an economic perspective, connection and accessibility are key ideas that lead to concepts such as concentration, corridors and metropolitan networks. The Compact City is also linked to density and intensity since it strives towards the concentration of buildings, people and activities.
Westerink, et al (2013) described density as a measure used to define urbanity i.e. the denser the more urban. It can be defined as the number of people per hectare, the number of addresses or dwelling units per hectare, square metres per hectare or urban volume. High densities do not only mean high rise buildings since it may be viewed as inefficient because it limits access to natural light to lower storeys. Whilst density represents a quantitative unit of measurement, intensity addresses the use of space and is therefore a qualitative measure of urbanity however; both are often used as synonyms.
Williams (1996, cited in Westerink, et al, 2013) defined intensity as being related to both built form and activity. Built form intensification includes redevelopment of existing buildings and sites or on undeveloped properties. Intensification of activities is defined as an increase in the existing use of land and buildings. The principle of high intensity implies multilevel and multifunctional use of urban land and buildings. Haccou et al (2007, cited in Westerink, et al, 2013) listed four types of multi-functional land use namely: interweaving, intensifying, layering and timing. Interweaving combines functions on the same land, intensifying increases effectiveness and efficiency of land use. Layering involves the mixing of land uses in a vertical dimension and timing uses the same building or space for different uses and different times.