Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Module Id UG-11
Pre-requisites
Objectives
Keywords
I .Introduction
Urbanization is increasing in global south but it is alsoevident that effective city planning is here stillmore idea than reality.Urban planning is concerned
with the complexarrangement of change within the built and naturalenvironment.This module will help you to learn about the urban planning which
considered an important area of study in the urban geography . At the end of this module you will be able to understand
Urbanization started thousands year back in the Mesopotamia, Egypt, India and China as a river valley civilization .Here they were dependent largely on
agricultural activity .With the advent of Industrlisation about 200 years back urbanization accelerated dramatically. The employment opportunity in
factories attracted the large number of population .But the last 50 years are known as the years of accelerated urban growth. For the first time in history more
than half the world’s population resides in cities. The world’s urban population now stands at 3.7 billion people, and this number is expected to double by
2050. The trend towards urbanization is only accelerating and 96 per cent of all urbanization by 2030 will occur in the developing world. (Forbs, 2015).
This also shows that geography of urbanization is again shifted at the global south, which was earlier known as the birth place of agricultural based
urbanization but now secondary and tertiary sectors became the base of urbanization. Urbanization presents an opportunity to connect more people to basic
needs, making them healthier and more productive. It also presents the risk of overwhelming various public goods, including power, infrastructure, health,
and education as these systems adjust to increased demand. Urbanization is a positive phenomenon but if it not managed properly it can amplify existing
challenges. The global south is mostly known as agricultural based rural economy. The present wave of urbanization placed strain on developing cities’ land,
resources, infrastructure, and administration, all of which are unaccustomed to such rapid growth. The experiences of developing world attracted the
attention of Harvard economist Edward Glaeser in his latest research, published as a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper in December
2016. He called the recent surge "poor country urbanization." History of urbanization suggests that urban growth and economic development go hand in
hand. But the experience of developing world is mixed. Throughout the developing world, cities have far higher levels of economic productivity when
compared to their nations as a whole. But in many other cases, urbanization has been accompanied by low levels of economic growth. It’s good to see an
urban economist of Glaeser’s stature focus on the pressing questions of the uneven development and inequality. The most important lesson is that
urbanization is a necessary but insufficient part of global development, and must be paired with appropriate policies, institutions, and strategies and planned
urbanization.
Urban planning is not a new requirement for urban growth. The history of urban planning is a complex and on-going history of achievement, failure,
resilience and challenge. It is a history of both continuities quest for health, justice, efficiency, environment, amenities and discontinuity (global
technological, economic and political shift (LeGates and Stout,1998)
In the modern age urban planning developed as a response to the social and economic problems emerged from the industrial revolution. Since then, urban
planning has continuously struggled for its own identity as it has interfaces with different dimensions if society. In US urban planning has evolved from city
planning and social sciences, but in Europe the planning tradition was based more on physical design, whilst in the U K there was mixed approach. Recently
the environment has become a new focus for land use and urban planning. Although the role of planning in society is always remain positive but it has been
also criticized as being of limited relevance to a modern democratic free market society
A phalanstère (or phalanstery) was a type of building designed for a self-contained utopian community, ideally consisting of 500–2000 people working
together for mutual benefit, and developed in the early 19th century by Charles Fourier. Fourier chose the name by combining the French word phalange
(phalanx, the basic military unit in ancient Greece), with the word monastère (monastery)Fourier conceived the phalanstère as an organized building
designed to integrate urban and rural features.
The structure of the phalanstère was composed of three parts: a central part and two lateral wings. The central part was designed for quiet activities. It
included dining rooms, meeting rooms, libraries and studies. A lateral wing was designed for labour and noisy activities, such as carpentry, hammering and
forging. It also hosted children because they were considered noisy while playing. The other wing contained a caravansary, with ballrooms and halls for
meetings with outsiders who had to pay a fee in order to visit and meet the people of the Phalanx community. This income was thought to sustain the
autonomous economy of the phalanstère. The phalanstère also included private apartments and many social halls. A social hall was defined by Fourier as a
seristère.Fourier believed that the traditional house was a place of exile and oppression of women. He believed gender roles could progress by shaping them
within community, more than by pursuits of sexual freedom or other Simonian concepts.[2]In the 20th century, the architect Le Corbusier adapted the
concept of the phalanstère when he designed the Unitéd'Habitation, a self-contained commune, at Marseilles.
Marxist Approach
Marx is known for his criticism of the Utopian socialists. They were criticize by Marx for First, their endless infighting over thedetails of their Utopian
visions helped to split the European left into a number of conflicting camps, preventing it from becoming an effective political force. Second, the Utopian
socialists were, in fact, unable to gain the supportthey sought from bourgeois bankers and politicians and, partly as a result,their demonstration communities
failed and their peaceful challenges tobourgeois society were easily turned aside. Third, their emphasis on equality and justiceled them to design rigid,
authoritarian communities thatwould almost certainly make the problem of alienation worse. Fourth, theirhumanist morality was based on a narrow
conception of human nature,which led them to overlook the importance of autonomous self-developmentand, generally, to champion fixed, static, and rigid
dystopian societies.Finally, their adoption of a humanist approach to morality led them to misunderstand the provisional nature of all theories of the good
and the inherentrevisability of all social institutions and, consequently, to underestimate theimportance of moral debate and democratic institutions. As a
result, theirrevolutionary utopias turned out to be neither revolutionary nor Utopian, butwere, instead, impediments that blocked needed social
change.Unfortunately, Marx did not systematically apply these criticisms to thespatial ideas behind the Utopian socialists's town plans. In his writings on"the
housing question," however, Engels discussed the problems of urbanlife during the last half of the nineteenth century in some detail and thesecomments shed
some light on the nature of these criticisms.
Thus, he faults the Utopian socialists for failing to attack bourgeois societyas a whole. This, of course, is essentially a strategic criticism of these townplans:
a solution to the urban crisis must wait on the larger transformationof society. But Marx also explicitly criticized the Utopian socialists townplans and
conception of urban space on tactical grounds, arguing that,withtheir focus on envisioning ideal communities, the Utopian socialists led theproletariat into
endless competing "doctrinaire experiments [which must] . .. necessarily suffer shipwreck" (Eighteenth Brumaire 601). In addition,Engels criticized these
plans on materialist grounds, arguing that socialistswho develop town plans that seek to realize eternal justice and completeequality through architectural
means are guilty of adopting essentially bourgeois values that are incompatible with a truly ideal society (The HousingQuestion 31).In fact, it is tempting to
apply a line from The Housing Question to Howard's work: the garden city concept failed to achieve its revolutionary goals because it "has been borrowed
directly. . . from the [town plans of the] socialists Owen and Fourier . . . [but] made entirely bourgeois by discarding everything socialist about them" (55). It
should be clear that the same type of criticisms could be levelled against Howard's Garden City. Although Howard was more successful in attracting the
support of bourgeois bankers and politicians and while an association he founded was able to build two garden cities, this success actually seems to support
rather than contradict a strategic criticism of Howard's plans (Roger Paden , 2003).
To create and promote healthy conditions and environments for all the people
To make right use of the land for right purpose
Municipal 1. Water Supply 2.Sewage system and Sewage Disposal 3.Solid Waste
and other Disposal4.Drainage 5.Gas 6. Electricity 7.Recreation Open Space and
Playground 8.Education 9.Public Health 10 Public Safety Elements
Components of Urban
Services
Planning Center Government State Government Planning
City Planning Commision
Planning
Constituionality
Laws and The Legislature of the State
Policies Power and responsibilities of the
Municipalities
Source: Author
III.IV.Urban Planning Models
One of the great contribution of planning to urban policy has been the development and application of models which in turn became institutionalized and
professionalized.(Batty) Models represent valuable pedagogic tools for teaching and learning and have been employed extensively in urban geography to
interpret the complexity of urban environments. The use of models in urban geography pre dates the advent of positivist philosophy and the spatial science
perspective of the 1950 having been introduced in the work of Park, Burgess and others . In practice the legion of urban models comprises cohorts of
paradigms of varying types. These models were based on different perspective like ecological perspective which primarily focuses on the internal social
composition and land use structure of the city ,political economy based models analysed the inter-relationship between state and capital and its effect on
urban form and function and the model based on post modern perspective were emphasised on the importance of human difference in determining the nature
of an urban area.
But when we are discussing about urban planning model they falls into four(subjects) general classes-land use, transportation ,population and economic
activity oriented models. The urban planning model developed generally for the purpose of planning these subjects or manipulating them. These model
perform three basic functions projecting the future of the subject, allocating the subject into subsets and transforming the subject by deriving another
subject from it. Most models are composites of these functions .Urban planning models are either theory based or theoretically inspired. It is impossible to
make a theory less model. The underlying theory of an urban planning model is that set of relationships, stated or implied , which is assumed to prevail
between the subject of the model and the larger environment for examples theory based models are those employing the principle of gravity, market theory
or location theory. On the bases of theory urban planning models can be classified into two categories first is the Micro-analytic behaviour or choice models
and Macro-analytic growth forces or index models.Economic models based on concepts of rational choice, market behaviour and equilibrium comprise one
class of behavioural models.Another class of behavioural models is organised around multifactor decision making processes these known as general
preference models these systems use the concept of choice as determined by such factors as household budgets, household activity patterns and taste
norms.Models based on macro-analytic growth forces assume statisticalModels based on macro-analytic growth forces assume statistical stability, rationality
and regularity in describing mass behaviour. The dynamics of human behaviour and urban growth are based on assumptions about social forces rather than
individual decisions.The gravity model is purest in this class. Another class of growth-force model-the trend models-analyzes historical data to determine
past trends of behaviour and growth. With these trends the model builder establishes a set of equations to describe observed behaviour, usually employing
regressionanalysis. The EMPIRIC Land Use Model is an example of a trend model. Growth index models constitute yet another class of growth-force
models. These are systems of equations using both implicit and explicit assumptions. Some are derived using intuition alone because of the lack of theory or
the absence of data; others are calibrated using theory and data to deduce behaviour. These models frequently are systems of equations derived through the
use of pragmatic functionalism. The Econometric Model of Metropolitan Employment and Population Growth is an example of Growth Index Model. A city
planner often needs to know how demand changes in some industries, both nationally and regionally, will affect the level of production and employment-in
hisplan area. Input-output analysis provides a method of answering this question by enabling him to take into account structural inter-relationships among
industries. The classic input-output model assumes that purchases made by each industry are proportional to its output, and that no basic change takes place
in this relationship. Thus industry and aggregate demand are the driving forces of the model. Projection of a Metropolis-New York City uses an input-
output model to predict, for the years 1975 and 1985, employment, output and value added by- industry, as well as a breakdown of these magnitudes by type
of demand. The operational method of a model is the technique(s) employed to project, allocate or convert the input data of the model's subject. A model
may process its input data into output by using, for example, regression equations, mathematical programming, or simulation. Several operational methods
are sometimes used in a single large model; sub models frequently generate supplemental data, which in turn are used as inputs for other stages of the
process. The Pittsburgh Urban Renewal Simulation Model illustrates this technique: one submodel estimates industrial land use, another population, a third
economic activity, and so forth.Three classes of analytic technique are sufficient to describe the operational method of most urban planning models:
econometric forms, mathematical programming, and simulation.
Econometric techniques have been developed by statistical economists engagedin derivation and test of economic theory. These include such well-known
techniquesas regression, input-output, and Markov processes, which are particularly usefulfor processing masses of data. As a group, these are replicative
methods, requiringno human judgment in their operation. Mathematical programming models are generally of three forms, linear, quadraticor dynamic.
Linear programming models are closed analytic systems with a singleobjective function: A solution to the model optimizes the objective function subjectto
given constraints. The use of such models presupposes the existence of criteria ofoptimization, requiring a consensus difficult to achieve in urban planning.
Since themodel focuses on a single goal, it can present a rather simplistic view of the world.
Dynamic and quadratic programming have the potential for handling both discreteand nonlinear objective functions as well as the potential for introducing a
dimensionof time, which linear programming cannot do. To our knowledge, no urban planningmodels now exist in these catego23456ries. However, as the
mathematical and computerprocedures for handling problems of increased complexity by these techniques aredeveloped, we can expect some applications to
urban models.
Simulation,strictly speaking, simulation refers to the way in which a model is used rather thanto the structure of the model itself. However, it is sometimes
possible to distinguishsimulation models from analytic models on the basis of mathematical structure. Simulation models are powerful techniques for
producing conditional forecasts.890-
They allow the planner to act out in the computer laboratory the behaviour of anurban system under varying conditions. By simulation one can observe
directlypotential effects of policy changes, alternative planning strategies, or new developmenttactics. “Other Analytic Forms” catch-all category for
mathematical expressions that do not fit the econometricor mathematical programming categories. They are open systems of exponential,logarithmic or
linear equations, without objective functions, used to represent urbanrelationships.
Classification of Some Models
Model Name Author(s) City year Subjects Function Theory Method
Land Use Population Trans Economic P A D Behavioura Growth Econometric and Mathematical Programming Simulation
portation Activity r l e l Forces Stochastic
o l r
j o i
e c v
c a a
t t t
i i i
o o o
n n n
1.How Hansen (Hyp 1859 √ √ √ √
Accessibility othet
shapes land ical)
use
2. Activities Seidman Phila 1964 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Allocation delp
Model hia
3.Chicago C.A.T.S. Chic 1960 √ √ √ √
Area Group ago
Transpotation
Model
4. State 1966 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Connecticut of
Land Use Conn
Model ectic
ut
5. Niederco (Hyp 1963 √ √ √ √ √
Econometric rn othet
Model of ical)
Metro.Emplo
yment and
Population
Growth
6. Empiric Brand,Ba Bost 1966 √ √ √
Land Use rber,Jaco on
Model bs
7. Land Use Schlager S.E. 1965 √ √ √ √
Plan Design Wisc √
Model onsin
8.Models of Lowry Pitts 1964 √ √ √ √
Metropolis burg
h
9.A Model Bavis Chic 1959 √
for Predicting ago
Traffic
Patterns
10.Opporunit Lathrop Buff 1965 √ √ √ √
y alo
Accessibility
Model for
Allocation
and Reginal
Growth
11.Penn Herbert Phila √ √ √
Jersey delp
Regional hia
Growth
Model
12.Pittsburgh Steger Pitts 1964 √ √ √ √
Urban burg
Renewal h
Simulation
Model
13.Polimetric Hill Bost 1965 √ √ √ √
Land Use on
Forecasting
Model
14.Probabilist Donnelly Gree 1964 √ √ √
ic Model for ,Chapin, nsho
Residential Weiss re
Growth
15. Berman, New 1960 √
Projections of Chinnitz, York
a Metropolis- Hoover City
New York
City
16.RAND Rand (Hyp 1962 √ √ √ √ √ √
Model Corp othet
ical)
17.Retail Lakshma Balti 1964 √ √
Market nan,Hans more
Potential en
Model
18. San A.D. San 1965 √ √ √ √
Francisco Little,Inc. Fran
C.R.P.Model cisco
19. Graybeal (Hyp 1966 √ √ √ √ √
Simulation othet
Model for ical)
Residential
Development
20. Urban Doxiadis Detr 1967 √ √ √
Detroit Area s oit
Model Area
Source:Maurice D. Kilbridge, Robert P. O'Block and Paul V. Teplitz,, A Conceptual Framework for Urban Planning Models, Management Science,
Maurice D. Kilbridge, Robert P. O'Block and Paul V. Teplitz believe that urban models have not yet begun to fulfil their potential as planning tools. Mostof
those now available are costly, clumsy and inadequate reflections of reality. Aswith all abstract models of human phenomena, the essential problem is to
make themcomplex enough to reflect the real world, while keeping them simple enough to solve.Urban phenomena are mostly untidy and ill-structured,
containing objective andsubjective elements, distortions and discontinuities. They depend for their solutionson the collection and organization of vast
amounts of empirical data. And the growth of urban models is hampered on a broad scale by non-availability ofspecific theories andbetter organized data.
The need of the hour is the public participation and the development of co creation and co-planning capacity with stakeholders impacted by planned
development.
Inter- disciplinary skills can help in the planning of future cities because looking at the present trend we can assume that shape and scale of the future cities
will be radically different from the cities builta century ago.
Planning curriculum and education need to be revised and updated to ensure that planners have the competency and skill required for the planning
challenges that society face.
Planning practice now demand from planning education is to prepare future practitioners to be able to help shape alternative future this may include closer
concern with technology for planning the smart cities but at the same time we need to consider the environment and the science of ecology so that
sustainability can be maintained.
Planning paradigms are changing but need of the urban planning as an instrument to making places better has remained constant.
V. Summing Up
The study of urban planning and urban land policy becomes more relevant with the increasing urbanization in global south which is known as developing
world too. Urban planners need to examinee old policies and writing new ones to achieve a fairer, more balanced distribution of public resources in the built
environment. Planners should collaborate with city residents as well as colleagues in economic development, transportation, education, housing, social
services, and parks and recreation to plan strategically for greater opportunities and better life for urban residents. Their goal should be to make cities more
inclusive, resilient, and sustainable by providing transportation options, safe street networks, affordable housing, and access to jobs, good schools, health
care, healthy food, and green space.