Planning Systems: Comparative Planning of Cities and Regions - Coursework Example

PLANNING SYSTEMS: COMPARATIVE PLANNING OF CITIES AND REGIONS Introduction The process of urban and regional planning is the systematic sequenceof actions that will lead to the achievement of stated goals of development. Inherent in the planning process is the use of “written statements supplemented as appropriate by statistical projections, mathematical representations, quantified evaluations, and diagrams illustrating relationships between different parts of the plan” (Hall, 2002: 3). A planning system for cities and regions includes accurate physical blueprints of the layouts and developmental plans, the planning procedure, the system for enforcement, and the institutional settings governing the planning process. Thesis Statement: The purpose of this essay is to determine the urban and regional planning system of the United Kingdom, and to compared it with that of Australia Discussion Town planning is based on future size and function of the facilities, zoning: land use, density and building height, communications and transport, other utility services, parks and open space, neighbourhood development, civic design and historic structures, housing and residential areas, and implementation of the plan (Thompson, 2007). Nature, Content and Emphasis of Planning and Plans: U.K. and Australia The term urban planning is conventionally refers to a spatial or geographical component, in which the purpose is to provide for a spatial structure of activities or land use. Spatial planning proceeds from very general and diagrammatic maps to precise blueprints (Hall, 2002: 3). Creating more sustainable cities in the United Kingdom is being focused on by professionals from several fields. This would mean crossing further hurdles caused by politics, economics and public attitudes. Over several decades, Australian cities needed to be more environmentally efficient and less car-dependent. Existing services were to be used more extensively, since funds were no longer available for infrastructure development on the fringes of the major cities. Moreover, inadequately controlled suburban expansion in fringe areas was linked to poor servicing and locational disadvantage (Birrell et al, 2005: 01-3). The concept of “Edge Cities” in the United Kingdom has been defined by Garreau (1991) as a newly developed cluster of buildings, having at least 5 million square feet of office space, and 6 lakh square feet of retail space. Edge cities are not governmental units; they are highly controlled units of private development which generate taxes and jobs which benefit the wider region. They may also be detrimental to the central city economy in competition for retail trade, restaurant functioning, and conventions. Moreover, they do not have a civic identity, and lack affordable housing, schools and public parks. Edge Cities can be compared to the Australian concept of mixed use zone (MUZ) which allows the co-existence of residential, commercial, industrial and retail activities. The difference is that the former lacks affordable housing, schools and parks. In Australia, the Melbourne 2030 Planning Template released as a statement of governmental policy in late 2002 prescribed the guidelines for the accommodation of an additional one and a half million residents in Melbourne between 2000 and 2030 “by determining the location of the dwellings needed to accommodate the additional households” (Birrell et al, 2005: p. 01-1). A central concept of Melbourne 2030 relating to urban consolidation was that compact cities would not only be more economically efficient but more just. The compact city movement was strengthened by new international perspectives on urban planning which are highly critical of the cultural and economic limitations of conventional low density suburbia. The new urban and smart growth approaches were popular among urban professionals in the West, including the United Kingdom, particularly from 1993. Dense and diverse inner city settlements could form strong communities. The compact city option would also involve greater concentration of employment in locations close to populations and transport corridors (Birrell et al). Smart growth advocates believe that environmental sustainability is compatible with continued economic growth, through efficient urban form. They promote “mixed land uses, enforced urban growth boundaries, more intensive use of existing infrastructure and land resources, compact commercial districts, denser suburban subdivisions, infill housing, more efficient mass transit, and neighbourhoods with well-defined centres and edges” (Danielson et al, 1999: 513). Planning Since the Beginning of the Twentieth Century: U.K. and Australia The origins of planning as an organized profession started in the late nineteenth century when the extremely rapid growth of cities after the industrial revolution resulted in numerous urban problems such as overcrowding, inadequate sanitation, water supply, transportation and housing (Wheeler, 2004). City planning as a profession became formally established in Britain during the 1910s and 1920s, “when municipalities first created planning commissions, planning staffs and zoning laws” (Wheeler, 2004: 11). To accommodate rapid urban growth and the newly introduced transportation technology of automobiles, increasing construction of roads and bridges were carried out. Quantitative measurement of urban data was used, in place of the earlier design-oriented approach (Wheeler, 2004). In Australia, voluntary town planning associations were formed in every city between 1913 and 1916. Accelerated metropolitan growth through the 1920s shifted priorities towards strategic planning for future needs. In Melbourne between 1922 and 1930, the Metropolitan Town Planning Commission produced a landmark metropolitan plan, with an indicative zoning scheme, informing a detailed programme of public works. From 1928 to 1930, planning schemes in the British mould were promoted (Thompson, 2007). Social concerns in Australia during the Great Depression focused on affordable housing and slum clearance. In the late 1930s housing commissions, trusts and a planning agency were set up, as land development programmes expanded. With political consensus, town and regional planning became part of a wider post-war reconstruction ideology. During the 1940s, new planning laws in Australia were based on ealier British town and country planning legislation. Local planning schemes and overall state coordination were established (Thompson, 2007: 76). By mid century new planning laws on Australia required new trained planners, and a strong British influence was evident. The scale of urban renewal escalated through the 1960s. Cities were being re-arranged with a boom in private apartments, office towers and inner city freeways. Community enthusiasm reduced when the plans became larger, destroying existing neighbourhoods and historic landscapes. By the early 1970s, not only the aspirations and outcomes of postwar planning were being questioned, but also the continued low density suburbanization and narrow focus on land use, at the expense of social concerns (Thompson, 2007). In England during the twentieth century, new planning specialities emerged in response to the specific needs of the growing metropolis such as transportation planning, community development planning and environmental planning. Further, a quantitative, scientifically oriented form of regional economic analysis based on modernism also became widespread in the 1950s and 1960s (Wheeler, 2004: 11). This approach which lacks a holistic perspective of urban conditions, continues to the present day, which is one of the reasons for today’s urban problems. In the 1960s and 1970s the worst excesses of modernist planning such as urban renewal which erazed neighbourhoods of older houses to create sterile new apartment blocks, was countered, and brought to an end by the year 2000 (Wheeler, 2004: 12). In Australia, from 1992, the state government introduced a Residential 2 zone whose main purpose was to encourage medium and higher density residential development in areas where greater use of existing infrastructure and services was considered appropriate. Another zoning innovation was the mixed use zone (MUZ) which allowed the co-existence of residential, commercial, industrial and retail activities. Large sections of the Melbourne inner city were zoned MUZ. By grouping a number of high value land uses, the profitability of projects could be increased (Binning, 1995). The current need in both the United Kingdom and in Australia is to develop a twenty-first century agenda of plans that will effectively meet long-term human and ecological concerns (Wheeler, 2004). Planning of Cities and Regions - Governmental Framework: U.K. and Australia The United Kingdom government is characterized by centralization and multiplication of development agencies. Since the 1980s, there has been a much more visible role for business leaders in city and regional governance. National policy initiatives clearly emphasize localized, especially urban perspectives instead of wider regional thinking (Herschell & Newman, 2002). In earlier times, Melbourne grew by extension of the suburban frontier, rather than by the increased provision of houses within the established urban areas. In Melbourne, the low-density, low-rise suburban style of bungalows, and the green ambience caused by dense tree and shrub canopy, along with local open space for recreation contribute to the unique characteristics of the city and its identity, and was preferred by the residents. However, radical changes are being implemented since the 1980s through the Melbourne 2030 template. The aim is to reshape the city, and change the low-density heritage towards a more consolidated urban form (Birrell et al, 2005: p.01-2). The Australian government considered the further spread of suburbia as not sustainable because of its overconsumption of land, energy and other resources; and also adverse environmental consequences: increased air and water pollution, and degradation of natural resources due to urban encroachment (Birrell et al, 2005). The key policies to achieve the new balance between increasing the housing facilities and respecting the values of the community, were the new guide to residential development, ResCode and Melbourne 2030. ResCode taked into account sensitivity to residential character of neighbourhood, in new housing proposals; and Melbourne 2030 limits the amount of land available to be zoned for development on the frontier. The share of new housing is to be reduced to around 38 percent (DoI, 2002). To avoid pressure on established suburbia, it is required that 40% of the growth in dwelling stock by 2030 should be medium to high density dwellings located in activity centres or in designated precincts. The goal of urban consolidation will be achieved, but not at the expense of Melbourne’s suburban ambience. The contemporary urban planning ideals advocated by Melbourne 2030 include incorporating a communitarian urban village atmosphere in which residents will live, work and shop together. The policy aims at cheaper and more efficient, less resource-intensive urban form. Contrastingly, in the United Kingdom, there is a continued and renewed emphasis on developing a decentralized settlement structure around city networks to complement the existing traditional, central place based system. Cluster, network and decentralized concentration are important concepts which require continued improvement and modification of linkages (Herschel & Newmann, 2002: 136). In the planning system of Australia, the public functions of urban governance and urban management are crucial. Urban governance focuses on long term strategic land management planning, whereas urban management is responsible for location and resource allocation; and both concepts overlap to a certain extent. Government structures and urban management decisions affect urban policy and physical planning outcomes. There is a shift towards implementation of strategic plans. In contemporary urban planning in Australia, the power of stakeholders in influencing government decisions and governance has become prominent (Thompson, 2007). Melbourne 2030 is required, because providing intensive settlement in established areas is less expensive than new infrastructure for outer suburban locations. Further, other than industrial activities, buildings for service and office work can be intermixed with dwelling areas without detriment to the latter. Dwellings catering to a variety of income and family types, institutions, facilities, shops and parks should be within walkable distance of each other (Rees, 2003). Besides reduced demands for fuel energies, there will be increase in residents’ sense of place and civic consciousness. Conclusion This paper has highlighted the planning of cities and regions, taking into account the planning system in the United Kingdom. This has been compared and contrasted with that of Australia. The main focus was on the nature, content and emphasis of planning and plans, the changing emphasis of planning since the beginning of the twentieth century, and the planning of cities and regions under the general framework of planning. Planning was found to be an evolving concept, reflecting its historical response to prevailing environmental, economic and socio-cultural challenges. Planning impacts the everyday life of residents. “Ultmately, planning is about hope for a good future – a future for which today’s planners have responsibility” (Thompson, 2007: 25), and for which the diverse dimensions of contemporary urban and regional life have to be considered. The main difference between the United Kingdom and Australia, is that the former aims at developing a decentralized settlement structure around city networks to complement the existing traditional, central place based system while Australia plans for mixed use zones, urban consolidation and compact cities. The main similarity is that both countries emphasize sustainable solutions to the urban problems of housing, transportation, water, electricity and other resources. References Binning, B. (1995). “What is mixed use development?” Occasional paper delivered at the Better Cities Facilitating Mixed Use Development conference. Canberra: National Capital Planning Authority. Birrell, B., O’ Connor, K, Rapson, V. & Healy, E. (2005). Looking back, looking forward: urban policy for metropolitan Melbourne in Melbourne 2030: planning rhetoric versus urban reality. Australia: Monash University ePress. Danielson, K., Lang, R. & Fulton, W. Retracting suburbia: smart growth and the future of housing. Housing Policy Debate, 10 (3): 513-540. DoI (Department of Infrastructure) Victoria. (2002). Melbourne 2030: planning for sustainable growth. Implementation Plan 3. Housing, Draft. Melbourne. Retrieved on 29th March, 2009 from: http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/melbourne2030online/content/implementation_plans/04_housing.html Garreau, J. (1991). Edge city: life on the new frontier. New York: Doubleday Anchor. Hall, P.G. (2002). Urban and regional planning. Edition 4. London: Routledge. Herrschel, T. & Newman, P. (2002). Governance of Europe’s city regions: planning, policy and politics. London: Routledge. Lewis, M. (1999). Suburban backlash: the battle for the world’s most livable city. The United Kingdom: Bloomings Books. Rees, A. (2003). New urbanism: visionary landscapes in the twenty-first century. In M. Lindstrom and H. Bartling. (Eds.). Suburban sprawl. Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield. Thompson, S. (2007). Planning Australia: an overview of urban and regional planning. New York: Cambridge University Press. Wheeler, S.M. (2004). Planning for sustainability: creating livable, equitable, and ecological communities. London: Routledge. Read More