Aviation Centered Spatial Development And The Regional Development Of The Central Business District

Task #1 : Analyse the impacts of at least two urban dynamics operating in a large city of the developed world.

With reference to examples, assess the degree to which the level of economic development of a country affects planning and management in urban areas.

As a result, real-estate development has become a keystone of a city’s productive economy. The systematized corporate-governmental restructuring of the urban landscape is difficult to oppose since a city’s productive economy is self-justifying. When ‘urban regeneration’ creates more jobs, taxes and tourism for a city, the beneficial socio-economic outcomes are attributed to the productive economy rather than from its regulation, thus perpetuating schematized

This model is centered on major transportation lines. The multiple nuclei model and the sector model are similar because they both focus on importance of accessibility and there are clear-cut boundaries between land- use zones. Our cities models together would make an even cooler city. There would be multiple central core districts throughout the city but they will be broken up by sectors along the transport lines that connect

First off, urban sprawl VS urban expansion. Calgary and Edmonton do this a lot. Instead of adding onto the city slowly, they build on acres of land further away from the city. Sometimes they are rather large so it doesn’t really benefit anyone. I feel this is unnecessary as the city is already quite large and this is extending it even further than it actually is. They are also even closer to reserves.

Our cities offer close proximity to services, entertainment and employment. Building high density housing within reach of the main sectors of the hub

The advent of freeways in the 1950’s changed the face of the urban environment, allowing working class families to move out to the suburbs, creating edge cities not reliant on the city center. Not only is the model congruous to the period of the early twentieth century, but also better suited to a North American urban model. The concentric zone model is not always appropriate to explain urban environments outside of North America, with preindustrial cities (Rodrigue,

Cities have followed different models of social integration since the 19 century: some are now more diverse, and some are more uniform. From this longer perspective, can you describe the differences in their spatial models? can you identify whether space has had structural consequences, and for whom?

In moving into the periphery of the city, there were also basic logistical issues that had to be figured out. These questions involved how to acquire sewage systems, other basic utilities, and school systems (Jackson 138). There were a few basic approaches to solving these issues including creating new municipalities within the new periphery and cities expanding to annex areas in the new periphery (Jackson 138). The latter seemed to be the most prevalent tool to account for basic resources (Jackson 138), which ultimately led to cities’ expansion. Today, the effects of annexation can be seen in New York City, for example, where Brooklyn is considered a part of the greater city, where prior to suburbanization, it was more of a secluded area. Other cities have followed the same patterns where the urban area had expanded to accommodate for suburbs. However, most major American cities, including New York, Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, Boston, and St. Louis reached their maximum point of annexation (Jackson 139), where after that point, suburbs had their own governments and had to begin accounting for their own resources.

Many downtowns first emerged as a distinctive place due to elite residents with homes in the area, which served as meeting places for important business transactions. By the late 19th century downtowns had typically been laid out with designated business blocks (Ford 2003). The growth of the business block as an economic center and booming downtown forced out any competition that were not appropriate with “high rents, social pressure and architectural change” (Ford 2003, pp 45). This was the origin of the spatial structure and land use patterns that are associated with contemporary downtowns. The origin of the town structure is most commonly affiliated with European cities as models of spatial layout. Specialty business and retail districts that characterized American downtowns and what we now image a good downtown to be are directly linked to it European counterpart. The key characteristic that defer from the European model was the tendency for American cities to be street-oriented rather then place-oriented. This contributed to the more linear structure of the city, business pursued locations on the “main street” rather then near major plazas or religious buildings (Robertson 1997).

Burgess’s concentric zone theory was presented in 1924. He presented a descriptive urban land use model that divided cities in a set of concentric circles expanding from downtown to the suburbs. His representation came from Burgess’ observations of various American cities, especially Chicago. Burgess model assumes a relationship between the socio-economic status of households and the distance from the Central Business District. The further from the district, the better the quality of housing, but the longer the commuting time. Making this Accessing better housing is done at the expense of longer commuting times and costs as well. According to Burgess, urban growth is a process of expansion and reconversion of land uses, with a tendency of each inner zone to expand in the outer zone. According to Burgess’ theory, a large city is divided in six concentric zones, Burgess’s model has its cons according to critics. It is said to be a product of its time. That is, it won’t work the same with present cities. The model was developed when American cities were growing very fast and when motorized transportation was still uncommon as most people used public transit. Thus the concept cannot be applied to those from the second half to the twentieth century where highways have enabled urban development to escape the reconversion process and to take place directly in the suburbs. The model in this case was developed for American cities and is limited elsewhere.

Metropolitan areas exhibit an amazing diversity of features, economic structures, amounts of infrastructure, historic roots, patterns of development, and degrees of conventional planning. Yet, lots of the problems that they deal with are strikingly acquainted. For example, as metropolitan areas grow, they grow to be increasingly diverse.

New Urbanism, a burgeoning genre of architecture and city planning, is a movement that has come about only in the past decade. This movement is a response to the proliferation of conventional suburban development (CSD), the most popular form of suburban expansion that has taken place since World War II. Wrote Robert Steuteville, "Lacking a town center or pedestrian scale, CSD spreads out to consume large areas of countryside even as population grows relatively slowly. Automobile use per capita has soared, because a motor vehicle is required for nearly all human transportation"1. New Urbanism, therefore, represents the converse of this planning ideology. It stresses traditional planning, including multi-purpose zoning,

An emerging issue is that of urban sprawl. While some aspects of urban sprawl has been seen since ancient times, this phenomenon has started gaining the most momentum in the past century, aided by the advancement of technology, especially with the rise of mass produced automobiles, houses and highway systems. Many people unknowingly contribute to this environmental problem, as is the nature of it. Urban sprawl deals with the growth of the suburbs, the area between the urban and rural areas of a city. Most of America’s largest cities and states, in terms of population, are prime examples of urban sprawl. Opponents of urban sprawl usually cite the government as a major cause of sprawl. The government may be a major catalyst of

The garden city movement, a method of urban planning that was initiated in 1898 by Sir Ebenezer Howard, had a significant influence on urban planning. The theory of urban planning has envolved over the past hundred years, some have attempted to emulate theories from the garden city movement, while others have been revised based on Howard’s original ideas. The Garden City concept spawned many ideas of urban planning. Among these ideas, the Garden Suburb, Satellite City, the New Towns Movement and the New Urbanism are all significant theories in the history of urban planning and had their influence to this day. The integration of town and country, the separation of conflicting land uses and modes of travel, and the ideas of growth management are all elements of the Garden City concept that have made made their ways into plans of most major Western cities.