90
H. Nuissl and S. Siedentop
minimising land consumption is not only dependent on the theoretical availability of
such instruments, but also on the political will to use them for precisely this purpose.
In this vein, the normative ideas underlying actual development policies and planning
practices are of major importance. Three of the most important normative ideas to
turn policy and planning towards a prudent use of land resources and minimising
urban land use change are (A) the Green Belt and the Urban Growth Boundary, (B)
various leitmotifs of urban development that promote a compact and mixed-use city,
and (C) the prioritisation of urban regeneration.
1. The delineation of Green Belts or Urban Growth Boundaries are among the
most famous “tools” designed by spatial planners to provide a clear orientation
about where to steer new development and where to prevent urbanisation (e.g.
Al-Hathloul and Mughal 2004; Bengston and Youn 2006; Abbott and Margheim
2008; Siedentop 2016). While both involve the idea of defining a ring of open
land that surrounds the urban area, the latter concept usually implies a precisely
defined line beyond which no building activity may take place, whereas the former
is the more general concept which is often used in nonbinding regional plans and
usually needs to be enforced by specific plans that prohibit development in the
Green Belt areas. Urban Growth Boundaries are often difficult to implement in
densely populated regions where it is hardly possible to make a sharp distinction
between urban and rural areas. In addition, there is a broad debate in the US as
well as in the UK on whether the definition of a rigid boundary around a settlement
is indeed the most effective means for curbing urban sprawl and its associated
negative impacts (e.g. Carlson and Dierwechter 2007; Gant et al. 2011). Several
scholars claim to have proven this assumption (e.g. Weitz and Moore 1998),
while others doubt it (e.g. Bae and Jun 2003). Likewise, Green Belt policies or
Urban Growth Boundaries can prove unsuitable in a situation where informal
housing is a frequent phenomenon (Wang and Scott 2008).
2. Since its beginnings, spatial planning has been heavily influenced by the predominant leitmotifs of the time regarding the “optimal” urban environment. Today,
the chief guiding stars in urban planning promote, in one way or another, the
economic use of land—this holds true for the ideal of the mixed use and compact
city (e.g. Williams et al. 2000), which is at the heart of the New Urbanism
campaign in the US (Talen 2005), for instance, as well as the discourse on the
European City which has become influential in particular in Central Europe
(Rietdorf 2001). These guiding stars have developed over the last several decades
as a reaction to the neglect of the particular qualities of “urban” environments
that was characteristic of post-war principles and trends of urban development
(Jacobs 1961) and that have at their heart the idea of the “compact city” (Burgess
2000; Richardson et al. 2000; Dielemann and Wegener 2004).
3. Within the last 50 years or so, urban regeneration in many countries has become
a major paradigm in spatial policies, and a variety of strategies and instruments
have emerged to promote it. These include specific legislative measures that
regulate urban renewal processes (e.g. Couch et al. 2003), urban regeneration
schemes aiming to re-establish the attractiveness of inner urban areas (e.g. Haase
H. Nuissl and S. Siedentop
minimising land consumption is not only dependent on the theoretical availability of
such instruments, but also on the political will to use them for precisely this purpose.
In this vein, the normative ideas underlying actual development policies and planning
practices are of major importance. Three of the most important normative ideas to
turn policy and planning towards a prudent use of land resources and minimising
urban land use change are (A) the Green Belt and the Urban Growth Boundary, (B)
various leitmotifs of urban development that promote a compact and mixed-use city,
and (C) the prioritisation of urban regeneration.
1. The delineation of Green Belts or Urban Growth Boundaries are among the
most famous “tools” designed by spatial planners to provide a clear orientation
about where to steer new development and where to prevent urbanisation (e.g.
Al-Hathloul and Mughal 2004; Bengston and Youn 2006; Abbott and Margheim
2008; Siedentop 2016). While both involve the idea of defining a ring of open
land that surrounds the urban area, the latter concept usually implies a precisely
defined line beyond which no building activity may take place, whereas the former
is the more general concept which is often used in nonbinding regional plans and
usually needs to be enforced by specific plans that prohibit development in the
Green Belt areas. Urban Growth Boundaries are often difficult to implement in
densely populated regions where it is hardly possible to make a sharp distinction
between urban and rural areas. In addition, there is a broad debate in the US as
well as in the UK on whether the definition of a rigid boundary around a settlement
is indeed the most effective means for curbing urban sprawl and its associated
negative impacts (e.g. Carlson and Dierwechter 2007; Gant et al. 2011). Several
scholars claim to have proven this assumption (e.g. Weitz and Moore 1998),
while others doubt it (e.g. Bae and Jun 2003). Likewise, Green Belt policies or
Urban Growth Boundaries can prove unsuitable in a situation where informal
housing is a frequent phenomenon (Wang and Scott 2008).
2. Since its beginnings, spatial planning has been heavily influenced by the predominant leitmotifs of the time regarding the “optimal” urban environment. Today,
the chief guiding stars in urban planning promote, in one way or another, the
economic use of land—this holds true for the ideal of the mixed use and compact
city (e.g. Williams et al. 2000), which is at the heart of the New Urbanism
campaign in the US (Talen 2005), for instance, as well as the discourse on the
European City which has become influential in particular in Central Europe
(Rietdorf 2001). These guiding stars have developed over the last several decades
as a reaction to the neglect of the particular qualities of “urban” environments
that was characteristic of post-war principles and trends of urban development
(Jacobs 1961) and that have at their heart the idea of the “compact city” (Burgess
2000; Richardson et al. 2000; Dielemann and Wegener 2004).
3. Within the last 50 years or so, urban regeneration in many countries has become
a major paradigm in spatial policies, and a variety of strategies and instruments
have emerged to promote it. These include specific legislative measures that
regulate urban renewal processes (e.g. Couch et al. 2003), urban regeneration
schemes aiming to re-establish the attractiveness of inner urban areas (e.g. Haase