however, the policies that any one city should take in order to become a compact city
may not be necessarily the same as those for another city.
Megacities, however, have a diverse range of urban morphologies and environmental conditions. This will necessitate a separate examination of the issue of
whether setting an urban morphology for a megacity other than a compact city
morphology, as its target shape will be more likely to lead to the most efficient
reduction in its environmental impact.
One criticism to note regarding the compact city model is that it sometimes also
emphasizes the raising of a city’s population density. This is because the compact
city model has many elements that increase a city’s efficiency and convenience but
which are not restored to population density (Neuman 2005). The same sort of
criticism can be anticipated for complexity also. Compact city policies also emphasize elements with no direct connection to urban morphology. In recent years, a
multiple center configuration has been held up as the ideal urban area morphology
for major metropolitan areas, rather than overconcentration on a single downtown
center. The OECD has also recognized (2012) that aiming for a multiple-center
model and not a super-centralized model is a more realistic approach for megacities.
In addition, Hall and Pfeiffer (2000) have pointed out that with the management of
large metropolises, it is important to make the most of such a multiple-center
configuration. Research by Zhang et al. (2013) on the efficiency of traffic in the
biggest megacities in developing countries such as Jakarta showed that when all the
specific conditions are in place, the multiple-center model is the most efficient, and
the environmental burden from traffic can be constrained the most.
Furthermore, in urban areas in the Asian region, there are many cities that contain
a spatial mix of urban and rural village parts, giving them a complex urban area
shape. While that appears to be simply the inefficient use of land, it does mean that
the spaces where people live are proximate to areas of open space that such
agricultural land constitutes, which is connected to a rise in the quality of people’s
lives. In addition, because that open space has good water retention, it also helps to
mitigate the risk of local environmental issues such as flooding and “heat island”
effects. This approach of drawing on the benefits of an urban area having this sort of
complex shape in which the urban and the agricultural are not neatly demarcated is
known as landscape urbanism and is also attracting attention. It aims to strike a
balance between preserving ecosystems and raising the quality of people’s lives.
6.3.3 Urban Models Dependent on Regional Ecospheres
In this chapter, we highlighted one aspect of the association between ecological
environment and urban morphology, paying attention to ecological environments
that ought to offer a basis for scrutiny of the compact city model. Ecological
122
Y. Uchiyama and K. Hayashi
may not be necessarily the same as those for another city.
Megacities, however, have a diverse range of urban morphologies and environmental conditions. This will necessitate a separate examination of the issue of
whether setting an urban morphology for a megacity other than a compact city
morphology, as its target shape will be more likely to lead to the most efficient
reduction in its environmental impact.
One criticism to note regarding the compact city model is that it sometimes also
emphasizes the raising of a city’s population density. This is because the compact
city model has many elements that increase a city’s efficiency and convenience but
which are not restored to population density (Neuman 2005). The same sort of
criticism can be anticipated for complexity also. Compact city policies also emphasize elements with no direct connection to urban morphology. In recent years, a
multiple center configuration has been held up as the ideal urban area morphology
for major metropolitan areas, rather than overconcentration on a single downtown
center. The OECD has also recognized (2012) that aiming for a multiple-center
model and not a super-centralized model is a more realistic approach for megacities.
In addition, Hall and Pfeiffer (2000) have pointed out that with the management of
large metropolises, it is important to make the most of such a multiple-center
configuration. Research by Zhang et al. (2013) on the efficiency of traffic in the
biggest megacities in developing countries such as Jakarta showed that when all the
specific conditions are in place, the multiple-center model is the most efficient, and
the environmental burden from traffic can be constrained the most.
Furthermore, in urban areas in the Asian region, there are many cities that contain
a spatial mix of urban and rural village parts, giving them a complex urban area
shape. While that appears to be simply the inefficient use of land, it does mean that
the spaces where people live are proximate to areas of open space that such
agricultural land constitutes, which is connected to a rise in the quality of people’s
lives. In addition, because that open space has good water retention, it also helps to
mitigate the risk of local environmental issues such as flooding and “heat island”
effects. This approach of drawing on the benefits of an urban area having this sort of
complex shape in which the urban and the agricultural are not neatly demarcated is
known as landscape urbanism and is also attracting attention. It aims to strike a
balance between preserving ecosystems and raising the quality of people’s lives.
6.3.3 Urban Models Dependent on Regional Ecospheres
In this chapter, we highlighted one aspect of the association between ecological
environment and urban morphology, paying attention to ecological environments
that ought to offer a basis for scrutiny of the compact city model. Ecological
122
Y. Uchiyama and K. Hayashi