The Role Of Urban Functional Space And Combination Of Regional Network Has Facilitated A Completely New Model Of Urban Development

Interestingly enough, the decline of a major American suburban area went unnoticed for several years. Several economists realized that the failure could’ve been caused by the lack of actual “metropolitan-ness” in the area, meaning that the city wasn’t economically associated with the suburban towns that surround them.

There are many who suggest the solution to the decline of the suburbs is to urbanize the area by densifying and overall making the suburbs more similar to a city. Laura Vaughan argues that the development of a spatial layout similar to that of a city would help the suburbs to become more efficient socially and economically. However, this approach directly contrasts the purpose of the suburbs, which was originally meant to provide a private, quiet environment for single family homes away from loud and busy city life. In his book, “Sprawl: A Compact History,” Robert Bruegmann explains that suburbia is not a bad thing but possesses “benefits that urban planners fail to recognize” and is a natural process of the growth of urbanism. While the suburban landscape does possess much potential, those who support the continued existence of the suburbs as they exist are naive and fail to recognize the environmental, social, and economical impact that the suburbs impose. The suburbs possess many social and political issues that need to be addressed. There is no doubt that there is massive potential in the suburban

Residential, commercial and industrial development is the largest contributors to landscape change in the state of New Jersey. When buildout occurs in one region, development pressure begins in another, virtually insuring the Megalopolis concept of one huge urban corridor stretching between Boston and Washington D.C. Year after year, farmland dwindles, roads become congested, and more residents are left to compete for diminishing natural resources. Desperate measures and newer technologies are incorporated to replace poor planning and lack of vision on behalf of decision-makers caught between competing interests. When the long term health and wellbeing of the established population and the short term gain of a

Urban sprawl was a major problem and had many negative effects. "Suburban sprawl, “called urban sprawl was a result of overpopulation. Sprawl occurred when cities spread outward. Forests and farmland were being destroyed to create new housing subdivisions, shopping centers, offices, parking areas, civic institutions and roadways. State governments built highways and roads to serve all the new commuters moving in and out of the city. Developers chose to build on less expensive land farther away from the urban core. Land prices were lower and housing in these developments was more affordable. Some people chose a longer commute in exchange for more comfortable, low-priced housing. The sprawl was a chronological process that devastated the land and life of the American people. This problem described here continues to be a problem. And many people are unaware that urban sprawl continues to be a problem. Friendly neighborhoods, traditional pedestrian have fallen victim to this problem. Environmental activists claimed that urban sprawl, was a substantial environmental threat. But activists concerned about sprawl should concentrate on existing government policies that encourage suburban development and prevent greater redevelopment of urban areas.

Suburbia is a development that has flourished into a dominant feature of American life. Levitt and Sons built giant “Levittown” suburbs in the middle of the twentieth century. These residential communities on the outskirts of cities had many positive impacts on American lifestyles. The homes were cheap and sold fast to families looking for a safe place to live. People also moved to the suburbs because it was effortless to drive from the suburbs into town on the highways.

What comes to mind when you think of terms like: suburbia, urban sprawl, NIMBY, sustainability? We will discuss some of them in further detail, but one thing is for certain, these are all concepts that will effect every single American Citizen in the near future; if they do not already. The documentary Suburban America: Problems & Promises explores some of the intricacies and roles that suburban development has played in the past and gives us insight as to what might be see moving forward in to the future. This fascinating documentary is just shy of one hour, but it covers a surprising amount of ground in that time.

In “Suburbanization: USA” Robert Fishman describes the rise of suburbs in the United States, providing foundational historical information and explaining the ways in which American cultural norms contributed to urban decentralization. Growing up in the suburbs, I primarily thought of Chicago as a cultural center: fancy shops, nice restaurants, and museums. I never viewed it as a residential area. To think that suburbia largely did not exist 100 years ago, as Fishman explains, is astounding to me. My entire life has been spent in suburbs, and I know few people who hail from major cities.

Amid the last years of the 1800s, modern urban areas, with every one of the issues brought on by quick populace development and absence of foundation to bolster the development, involved an extraordinary place in U.S. history. For every one of the issues, and there were numerous, the urban communities advanced an uncommon security amongst individuals and established the framework for the multiethnic, multicultural society that we love today.

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

A great number of Americans living today reside in areas where homes, businesses, and institutions are spread sparsely. These areas are commonly referred to as either urban or suburban sprawl. Sprawl is generally designed for the movement of cars and not the movement of pedestrians; most people simply will not, and often cannot, assume the role of pedestrian while navigating through sprawl. People are isolated from each other by the glass walls of cars and the metal gates of enclosed subdivisions. American culture glorifies the suburban lifestyle, but the drawbacks of this lifestyle affect not only those living within suburban sprawl itself, but also those living in the urban areas left behind as people mass-migrated to these sparsely concentrated areas. Despite the common perception that suburban, sprawling, and sparsely-concentrated urban life is overall better quality than urban life, the perpetual growth of urban and suburban sprawl in the United States has had negative environmental, physiological, and sociological effects on the land and population of the United States. Over the next twenty-five to fifty years, new suburban development and redevelopment should be based in design that is less sparsely-built, less car-dependent, less segregated by socioeconomic status, and less segregated by land use;

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.

From 1890 to 1920, cities in the United States experienced a rapid growth that was unprecedented in years previous. This growth was caused by a number of factors and resulted in both positive and negative consequences. Such factors included, industrialization, technological advances, migration and immigration. Although American cities greatly improved by the expeditious urbanization, these factors also developed numerous challenges including pollution, sanitation problems, a need for environmental reform, political corruption, overcrowding, high crime rates and segregation.

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).

Human Geographer David Ley defines Gentrification as “the transition of inner-city neighborhoods from a status of relative property and limited property investment to a state of commodification and reinvestment.” (Ley Artists 1) In the past 50 years gentrification has swept over cities across the globe and has completely reshaped the way people think about why people live in certain neighborhoods. British sociologist Ruth Glass coined the term gentrification in 1964 to describe what was happening in the London borough of Islington, where Indian immigrants were being forced out in favor of creative young professionals. (Thomson). The term comes from the old english word gentry, which generally means wellborn well-bred and upper class people. For the most part of the last five decades gentrification has made large cities and downtown urban areas safer, more desirable for commercialization, more affluent, greener and more eco-friendly and has played a role in the vast change of demographics of many neighborhoods. This ‘urban renewal’ has been subject to many political debates, academic studies and research to figure out its positive and negative impacts on the socioeconomic nature of the cities it takes place in. Here on the eastern seaboard of the US we see gentrification in every city from Center City Philadelphia, to Chelsea, to Columbia Heights in DC. However this movement to gentrify is not reserved for the

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.