making use of environmentally effective technologies and materials and applying
various controls to a city’s urban morphology and land use patterns. One of those
policies that has attracted strong worldwide interest in the recent years is the
“compact city” (OECD 2012; UN-Habitat 2009; Deuskar et al. 2015; Dempsey
and Jenks 2010).
Discussion has deepened since the 1970s on what is meant by a “compact city.”
Putting the different threads of this discussion into order in 2012, the OECD found
that the compact city concept broadly emphasizes the following three policies:
(1) engaging in urban development that is high density and intensive and drawing
clear boundaries between the city and its surrounding agricultural community;
(2) linking up urban districts within the city with public transport; and (3) allowing
residents to access supermarkets, restaurants, hospitals, and other everyday services
either on foot or by public transport. It is these three policies that people hope will
enable the preservation of the natural environment on the city’s perimeter, the
efficient use of energy resources and infrastructure, and a reduction in car travel,
all of which in turn is hoped will deliver benefits in the form of ongoing ecosystem
services, reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and a smaller fiscal burden for
governments.
Of these three policies, (1) has the strongest connection with a city’s urban
morphology. Under compact city policies, controlling a city’s urban morphology
so that the city achieves an intensive, high-density state is regarded as an important
means for securing the hoped-for benefits.
On the other hand, one often misunderstood point is that despite the term
“compact,” the size of a city’s population has basically no bearing on whether or
not it can become a “compact city”—even a large city can aim to achieve higher
density and more intensive land use. Recent years have seen growing recognition of
the desirability of compact city policies, particularly in regions that are undergoing
rapid urbanization, such as the cities and megacities in developing countries. A
number of different regions around the world have therefore begun to employ
initiatives as part of a compact city policy.
At this point, however, one question arises: Can a form of urban planning,
dominated as it is by the notion of applying such controls to a city’s urban
morphology, be applied anywhere in the world? Are there not drawbacks with any
aim to impose a single urban morphology on the world’s cities?
6.1.3 Urban Morphology influenced by the Ecological
Environment
As I noted in Sect. 6.1.1, “environment” in a broad sense has become one of the
concerns of urban planning, encompassing not just the internal urban environment
but also extending to the global environment. In many cases, however, urban
planners direct their attention to the outcomes that their city can bring to the
6 Generation of Urban Morphologies Through Long-Term Evolution of. . .
107
various controls to a city’s urban morphology and land use patterns. One of those
policies that has attracted strong worldwide interest in the recent years is the
“compact city” (OECD 2012; UN-Habitat 2009; Deuskar et al. 2015; Dempsey
and Jenks 2010).
Discussion has deepened since the 1970s on what is meant by a “compact city.”
Putting the different threads of this discussion into order in 2012, the OECD found
that the compact city concept broadly emphasizes the following three policies:
(1) engaging in urban development that is high density and intensive and drawing
clear boundaries between the city and its surrounding agricultural community;
(2) linking up urban districts within the city with public transport; and (3) allowing
residents to access supermarkets, restaurants, hospitals, and other everyday services
either on foot or by public transport. It is these three policies that people hope will
enable the preservation of the natural environment on the city’s perimeter, the
efficient use of energy resources and infrastructure, and a reduction in car travel,
all of which in turn is hoped will deliver benefits in the form of ongoing ecosystem
services, reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and a smaller fiscal burden for
governments.
Of these three policies, (1) has the strongest connection with a city’s urban
morphology. Under compact city policies, controlling a city’s urban morphology
so that the city achieves an intensive, high-density state is regarded as an important
means for securing the hoped-for benefits.
On the other hand, one often misunderstood point is that despite the term
“compact,” the size of a city’s population has basically no bearing on whether or
not it can become a “compact city”—even a large city can aim to achieve higher
density and more intensive land use. Recent years have seen growing recognition of
the desirability of compact city policies, particularly in regions that are undergoing
rapid urbanization, such as the cities and megacities in developing countries. A
number of different regions around the world have therefore begun to employ
initiatives as part of a compact city policy.
At this point, however, one question arises: Can a form of urban planning,
dominated as it is by the notion of applying such controls to a city’s urban
morphology, be applied anywhere in the world? Are there not drawbacks with any
aim to impose a single urban morphology on the world’s cities?
6.1.3 Urban Morphology influenced by the Ecological
Environment
As I noted in Sect. 6.1.1, “environment” in a broad sense has become one of the
concerns of urban planning, encompassing not just the internal urban environment
but also extending to the global environment. In many cases, however, urban
planners direct their attention to the outcomes that their city can bring to the
6 Generation of Urban Morphologies Through Long-Term Evolution of. . .
107